Speaker 1: Welcome to Washington, d C. Senator, nice to be here
Speaker 1: with you. Congressman Jim Jordan are special guest. And I
Speaker 1: got to say, I know you and I have talked
Speaker 1: about this on the plane. Right up. This is going
Speaker 1: to be a really important podcast. It's going to be
Speaker 1: a two part series that we're going to do, and
Speaker 1: we're going to take a big deep breath, start back
Speaker 1: at the beginning and so everyone can know where we
Speaker 1: are in this Biden crime family investigation. But before we
Speaker 1: even get to that, there is breaking news that we've
Speaker 1: got to talk about.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right, and I'm going to let Jim
Speaker 2: describe it. Listen, everyone knows who Jim Jordan is. If
Speaker 2: you own a television, you know who Jim is. He
Speaker 2: represents Ohio's fourth congressional district. He is the chairman of
Speaker 2: the House Judiciary Committee. He's also the chairman of the
Speaker 2: Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. He is
Speaker 2: a founder of the House Freedom Caucus. And he's just
Speaker 2: a badass concern and Jim and I have been in
Speaker 2: many a foxhold together, and in fact, I don't know
Speaker 2: what to do if they're not shooting at it, if
Speaker 2: you're not. If the President saying something bad about it,
Speaker 2: you ain't doing anything any good. And you've certainly had
Speaker 2: the press say bad things about you because you've done
Speaker 2: a lot of good work. And you know what, I
Speaker 2: feel safe that the New York Times is not going
Speaker 2: to do any glowing profiles on either of us anytime soon.
Speaker 2: They'll do hit pieces on us. But I appreciate your
Speaker 2: leaderships and and her cruise and good to be with you.
Speaker 2: But you're right. We now know that the famous letter
Speaker 2: by the fifty one former Intel officials. We now know
Speaker 2: that the CIA reviewed and approved the letter that mister
Speaker 2: Morel put together, and fifty one of these folks, fifty
Speaker 2: other of these folks signed. We also now have evidence
Speaker 2: that suggest that one of the individuals who signed it
Speaker 2: got a call from the Publication Review Board. He had
Speaker 2: something pending in front of this board, a different book
Speaker 2: that he was writing, and they called to tell him, hey,
Speaker 2: we've approved your book. You can because they're looking for
Speaker 2: any classified concerns and classify issue concerns. They called to
Speaker 2: say you can go. You can move forward with with
Speaker 2: your book. But while we got you, would you be
Speaker 2: interested in signing this letter that mister Morrell put together
Speaker 2: talking about how the Biden laptop story was Russian you know,
Speaker 2: information operation. So you now have what looks like the
Speaker 2: CIA actively recruiting and shopping this letter to people. This
Speaker 2: is the CIA that worked for President Trump. President Trump's
Speaker 2: on the ballot. And when we depposed Mike Morell, of
Speaker 2: course he told us that the reason he put the
Speaker 2: letter together was he wanted Biden to have a talking
Speaker 2: point in the debate that was coming up a few
Speaker 2: days later, and he wanted Biden to win the election.
Speaker 2: And of course they put that all together. Joe Biden
Speaker 2: used it, and so much so that when the debate
Speaker 2: was over, the campaign called up Mike Morrell. Steve Roschetti,
Speaker 2: the chair of the Biden campaign, called him up to
Speaker 2: thank him for putting it all together. And so you
Speaker 2: have this kind of coordination going on. It's wrong, it's scary,
Speaker 2: and it's why we have the committees doing the oversight
Speaker 2: work we're doing. So this is big new breaking news
Speaker 2: that your committee broke late last night that number one
Speaker 2: before this letter with fifty one intelligence officials, came out
Speaker 2: that the CIA signed off on it with their review committee.
Speaker 2: Number one, but number two that an active employee of
Speaker 2: the CIA pitched the letter to one of the signers uninvited,
Speaker 2: said hey, have you signed this letter yet? And in
Speaker 2: fact you sent you reached out to each of the
Speaker 2: fifty one signers and you asked him about Okay, how
Speaker 2: did this come to pass? And actually, what this individual
Speaker 2: says is he comes back and says that he was
Speaker 2: he had a book that he board that he was
Speaker 2: submitting to the board for review, and when the person
Speaker 2: in charge of reviewing the book called to say it
Speaker 2: was approved with no changes. I was told about the
Speaker 2: draft letter.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: The person asked me if I would be willing to sign.
Speaker 2: I did not recall the person's name or the exact
Speaker 2: date of the phone call. Upon hearing the letter's contents
Speaker 2: and the qualifiers in it, such as we want to
Speaker 2: emphasize we do not know if the emails provided to
Speaker 2: the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy
Speaker 2: Giuliani are genuine or not, and that we do not
Speaker 2: have evidence of Russian involvement. I agreed to sign a
Speaker 2: sign and not only that, he said his wife, who's
Speaker 2: also former CIA, she agreed to sign as well. So
Speaker 2: at least two of the fifty one the CIA effectively
Speaker 2: recruited to sign, right, that's what he This is an
Speaker 2: email he sent to the committee. Now I think it's
Speaker 2: also important is they called him. So he didn't call
Speaker 2: up say hey, if you approved the book I got
Speaker 2: penning in front of the other book I want to write.
Speaker 2: They called him. And when they called him to say, hey,
Speaker 2: your book's been approved, by the way, would you be
Speaker 2: interested in signing this letter that's been put together? And
Speaker 2: they read the letter to him. In some ways you
Speaker 2: could say, I don't know if this is the case,
Speaker 2: but it's sort of interesting because there a quid pro
Speaker 2: quode going on here. We approved your book, no classified
Speaker 2: concerns there. Would you be willing to sign this letter?
Speaker 2: And of course he and his wife did sign it.
Speaker 2: They were part of the fifty one people who were
Speaker 2: on the letter. And the other thing about this letter
Speaker 2: I thinks so important. It wasn't just Mike Morell, Leon Panetta,
Speaker 2: David Carrion's the guy we're talking about here. It wasn't
Speaker 2: just their name. It was also their title. And it
Speaker 2: was presented in that debate, if you remember, Joe Biden
Speaker 2: presented it as if this was organic. Yeah, just sprang out.
Speaker 2: Just out of the goodness of their heart. They put
Speaker 2: this together. That wasn't the case. Now, remind our listeners
Speaker 2: and our viewers who was Mike Morrell. Mike Morrell was
Speaker 2: forming active director of the CIA. I think the reason
Speaker 2: he was so gung ho on putting this together is
Speaker 2: one he gets a call from Tony Blinkin, So let's
Speaker 2: do the timeline. The October fourteenth, twenty twenty, the New
Speaker 2: York Post comes out with a story about the Biden laptop.
Speaker 2: Three days later, on the seventh, that's a couple of
Speaker 2: weeks before the election, so there is big news, big news.
Speaker 2: They come out with a story. Of course it's being
Speaker 2: talked about. President Trump is going to talk about it.
Speaker 2: On the seventeenth, Tony Blinken, then working for the Biden campaign. Now,
Speaker 2: of course, Secretary of State Tony Blincoln, contacts Mike Morrell
Speaker 2: and says, hey, what do you think about this Biden
Speaker 2: laptop story? Is it Russian information operations? Russian misinform disinformation?
Speaker 2: He gets him thinking about it Morell digs into it.
Speaker 2: I think largely because Mike Morrell was hoping to be
Speaker 2: the CIA director in a Biden administration, He digs into
Speaker 2: it and Tony Blinkoln sends him as a copy from
Speaker 2: an article from USA Today later that same day, next
Speaker 2: two days, Mike Morrell puts it all together, gets fifty people,
Speaker 2: fifty other people to sign it, fifty one total, and
Speaker 2: they do the letter, and then of course the letter
Speaker 2: goes public on the nineteenth after it's approved by the
Speaker 2: board early that morning, goes on the nineteenth, and Joe
Speaker 2: Biden of course uses it. During the campaign.
Speaker 1: You mentioned quid pro quo, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people that had incentive to make sure that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: became president. Anthony Blinkern obviously got the biggest job of
Speaker 1: his career. When you look at this letter now, knowing
Speaker 1: how people were jocking for position, how much do you
Speaker 1: think that played into their decision making and how much
Speaker 1: corruption is that? And before you answer that, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about our friends Augusta Precious Medals. You
Speaker 1: can protect your retirement in this crazy economy by diversification,
Speaker 1: and one way you can do that is by protecting
Speaker 1: your hard earned dollars through gold and silver. That's exactly
Speaker 1: what Augusta Precious Metals does with your IRA or your
Speaker 1: four oh one K. If you have saved one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars or more, Augusta Precious Medals wants to talk
Speaker 1: to you about how you can protect your hard earned assets,
Speaker 1: especially if you're in retirement or close to retirement. There
Speaker 1: is no time to make up losses, and that is
Speaker 1: where gold and a gold diarra can help protect your dollars.
Speaker 1: So call them, and in fact, you'll also get a
Speaker 1: free gold coin when you open up a new account
Speaker 1: with Augusta eight seven seven four the number four gold Ira.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven to seven the number four gold Ira.
Speaker 1: Or visit them in Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. Congressman. I understand people when
Speaker 1: when campaigns happen, everybody's looking at angle. This was on
Speaker 1: a whole other level. It's like, hey, you helped me
Speaker 1: get to be president. You get this letter. Hey you've
Speaker 1: become secretary of state. Hey you signed your name to
Speaker 1: this letter. You might be able to SEEIA director because
Speaker 1: of this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't know. I mean, we don't know if
Speaker 2: there's any quid pro quote. We just know that I
Speaker 2: think Mike Morrell was interested in now he said as much. Obviously,
Speaker 2: Tony Blincoln was interested in secretary of State, he's working
Speaker 2: on the Biden campaign. We know how campaigns work, and
Speaker 2: everyone has a First Amendment right to weigh in on
Speaker 2: a campaign in politics and speak your mind and say
Speaker 2: what you believe. But this was done with the added
Speaker 2: weight of that the title associated with their name. It
Speaker 2: was presented to the country to we the people, as
Speaker 2: if it was an organic thing that just happened, when
Speaker 2: we know it was done at the prompting of Blincoln
Speaker 2: calling Mike Morell, and Mike Morell ran with it. We
Speaker 2: even know that the Biden campaign was telling Mike Morell,
Speaker 2: here's the journalist, here's the newspaper, here's the outlet, the
Speaker 2: media outlet, we want you to first take this letter too.
Speaker 2: So they were getting that kind of coordination with the
Speaker 2: Biden campag pain. So all that factored into this, and
Speaker 2: then of course it's it's part of this, this this
Speaker 2: bigger thing where we see the Biden's involved in so
Speaker 2: many things that cost concerns. Well, I mean, that was
Speaker 2: the big issue, Jim. One of the things I think
Speaker 2: to emphasize on this. You're right that everyone has a
Speaker 2: First Amendment. Right, And if you had fifty one former
Speaker 2: intelligence officials that wanted to say, hey, we really like
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, we think he'd make a great president, that'd
Speaker 2: be fine. That's the politics, that's right. But that wasn't
Speaker 2: this letter. This letter was a lie. This letter was
Speaker 2: a lie to cover up smoking gun evidence of corruption
Speaker 2: because Hunter Biden, who I mean, the poor guy's screw up,
Speaker 2: but he leaves his laptop. I actually kind of feel
Speaker 2: for Joe Biden to sense he's like looking at his son, going,
Speaker 2: are you freaking kidding me? Like you just abandoned your
Speaker 2: laptop at a repair shop with all the evidence of
Speaker 2: the crap were doing.
Speaker 1: I mean, kept calling you to come get it.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, this is not the Sopranos. This is
Speaker 2: like the Three Stooges and engaged in crime. So they're
Speaker 2: sitting there with a real crisis three weeks out and
Speaker 2: so they engage in a lie and this letter. You know,
Speaker 2: one of the people who helped edit it was James Clapper,
Speaker 2: who was the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, who
Speaker 2: made an editorial suggestion. Ye, and he said, quote, I
Speaker 2: have one editorial suggestion for the letter. I think it
Speaker 2: would strengthen the verbiage if you say this has all
Speaker 2: of the classic ear marks of a Soviet Russian information
Speaker 2: operation rather than the quote feel of a Russian observation operation.
Speaker 2: Rather so it just initially was just a feel. But
Speaker 2: then no, no, no ear marks. And here's the amazing thing.
Speaker 2: The federal government knew this was a lie, and in fact,
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice had taken physical possession of the
Speaker 2: laptop almost a year earlier December ninth, twenty nineteen. December
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen. Yeah, they had it. They had it. And
Speaker 2: in addition to doing this, they were what we've talked
Speaker 2: about before, pre bunking the whole the whole leak that
Speaker 2: was going to that they assumed was going to happen.
Speaker 2: So they had been leading up to this this October timeframe.
Speaker 2: They had been telling Elvis Chan with the FBI, had
Speaker 2: been telling the big tech companies, Hey, be on the
Speaker 2: lookout for a hacken leak operation. Like we said, it's
Speaker 2: going to happen. So they've been This is all part
Speaker 2: of the all part of this kind of choreographed deal
Speaker 2: that they put together. And I think Center your point
Speaker 2: is so big. What they said in the letter wasn't accurate.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a Russian information operation. We now know that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and even all the major presses indicated now that, oh yeah,
Speaker 2: you know what, it was actually legit. The emails were legit,
Speaker 2: what was on the laptop visit all legit. So that's
Speaker 2: the big thing. Some may have known it, some may
Speaker 2: not have. Like this guy who the CIA suggested, Hey,
Speaker 2: you want to sign this letter, He's like, yeah, okay, sure,
Speaker 2: you know, I hate the guy great, Like some of
Speaker 2: them may just have been half asked and willing to
Speaker 2: be political hacks. Every person who put their name on
Speaker 2: this should be embarrassed, but others deliberately it deliberately lied
Speaker 2: and by the way, interestingly enough, Mike Morrell testified. You know,
Speaker 2: he was asked about, well, what do you think about
Speaker 2: a CIA official soliciting people to sign this? And he
Speaker 2: says it's inappropriate for currently serving staff officer or contractor
Speaker 2: to be involved in the political process. Yeah, well, no, kidding, no.
Speaker 1: I would say, what is the rule? I mean it is,
Speaker 1: did the American people expect more from a human being
Speaker 1: working at the CIA than to be working basically on
Speaker 1: behalf of a political campaign?
Speaker 2: Of course?
Speaker 1: And is there any repercussions for this individual now that
Speaker 1: we know what happened.
Speaker 2: Well, of course it's inappropriate. And as the Senator said,
Speaker 2: when we actually had Mike Morrell in for his interview,
Speaker 2: he said that this is entirely inappropriate. I think he
Speaker 2: even said, I have to go back and look at
Speaker 2: the transcript and look at our report, but I think
Speaker 2: he even said that might have changed my whole decision
Speaker 2: whether this letter ever happened or not, because it's so
Speaker 2: wrong for someone to be trying to to shop and
Speaker 2: recruit people to sign onto something like this. The other
Speaker 2: fact that that that's in our report is we asked
Speaker 2: this to mister Morrell because on the nineteenth October nineteen
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, when the letter comes out in that afternoon,
Speaker 2: earlier that morning, John Ratcliffe, director of National Intelligence and
Speaker 2: the Trump administration, is doing an interview and he's asked
Speaker 2: about it, and he says on on the interview says
Speaker 2: it wasn't Russian disinformation. He's clear about it. I asked
Speaker 2: mister Morrell, I said, you know the day you put
Speaker 2: this out earlier that morning the head of OD and
Speaker 2: I mister Ratcliffe said, wasn't Russian misinformation operation disinformation at all,
Speaker 2: and I said, you know what he had to say.
Speaker 2: He basically said, we thought he was wrong, which to
Speaker 2: me is amazing, Like so with no evidence, yeah, we
Speaker 2: just we thought it had to be because it because
Speaker 2: we'd seen it before, the or not, had all the
Speaker 2: you know, the RK, the claar marks. They actually believed it,
Speaker 2: I think in many ways. But it's funny that the
Speaker 2: arrogance that you know, the guy in the government getting
Speaker 2: the information in real time, assessing the intelligence that they're gathering,
Speaker 2: says one thing. But the guys on the outside so
Speaker 2: much smarter than you think, there's so much better they
Speaker 2: reach a completely different conclusion and write the letter. It's like,
Speaker 2: go figure. But that's I think it kind of kind
Speaker 2: of shows, you know, how they view Republicans or the
Speaker 2: Trump administration. But you know who didn't believe it, Number one,
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden didn't believe it. He knew, damn well it
Speaker 2: was his laptop. But number two, you know who didn't
Speaker 2: believe it, Joe Biden. And look, they're one of two scenarios.
Speaker 2: Either Joe Biden knew for a fact this was his
Speaker 2: son's laptop because look, in any sane world, this story
Speaker 2: breaks your son's laptop with all this evidence, the first
Speaker 2: call you make is to your son, going, what the
Speaker 2: hell's going on? Tell me you're not so damn stupid
Speaker 2: as to leave the evidence. So in a normal world,
Speaker 2: that would be Joe's first call. Or alternatively, if he
Speaker 2: didn't make that call, it means he didn't want to know. Yeah,
Speaker 2: then it means oh, no, no, I don't want it
Speaker 2: to be true. Don't tell me, don't tell me, don't
Speaker 2: tell me. But look, this letter manifested directly in the debate,
Speaker 2: and in fact.
Speaker 1: Here I think it's saved this campaign.
Speaker 2: It did. Watch again Joe Biden happily repeating the lie
Speaker 2: to the American people.
Speaker 3: I remember going over convincing our team or brothers to
Speaker 3: convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And
Speaker 3: I went over, I guess the twelve thirteenth time to Kiev,
Speaker 3: and I was supposed to announce that there was another
Speaker 3: billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment
Speaker 3: from Porshenko and from Yachtsan Yuk that they would take
Speaker 3: action against the state prosecutor, and they didn't. So they
Speaker 3: said they had they were walking out to press comt.
Speaker 3: I said, no, I said, I'm not going to go
Speaker 3: or we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
Speaker 3: They said, you have no authority, you're not the president.
Speaker 3: The president said, I said call. I said, I'm telling
Speaker 3: you're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not
Speaker 3: getting a billion. I'm gonna be leaving here. And I
Speaker 3: think it was what six hours. I look at I
Speaker 3: said'm leaving the six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired,
Speaker 3: you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch
Speaker 3: got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid.
Speaker 1: That's a moment that I think everybody's going to remember
Speaker 1: where the Biden crime family, to me, basically was created
Speaker 1: as an American issue in this campaign and his presidency
Speaker 1: moving forward. I want to go back in time and
Speaker 1: ask you you saw that debate, you saw him lie,
Speaker 1: but you were watching as a spectator in a sense.
Speaker 1: When did this hit your desk from an investigative standpoint
Speaker 1: and when did you realize there was something here with
Speaker 1: a Biden crime family. Before you answer that, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about our friends at Chalk. If you're
Speaker 1: a guy and you feel like you're losing your edge.
Speaker 1: You feel like you're losing that strength and vitality, then
Speaker 1: you need to check out chalk choq dot com. They
Speaker 1: are here to help real men just like you, get
Speaker 1: back your testosterrum levels. They can help your testoster Frum
Speaker 1: levels go by twenty percent over ninety days. The Chalk
Speaker 1: Mail Vitality Stack. You can check it out right now
Speaker 1: and you can use a promo code Ben. You'll get
Speaker 1: thirty five percent off any chalk subscription for life. Go
Speaker 1: online chalk choq dot com. You'll use the promo code
Speaker 1: Ben thirty five percent off. I've been using Chalk now
Speaker 1: for several months.
Speaker 2: It works.
Speaker 1: Check out the Chalkmail Vitality Stack at chalk choq dot com. Congressman,
Speaker 1: you watch this, you see it unravel, Yeah, but then
Speaker 1: it changed from your perspective when it was like, there's
Speaker 1: something really here that needs to be looked at and
Speaker 1: people are lying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And how it fits in with the what we've
Speaker 2: called the weaponization of government and how government has been
Speaker 2: turned on the American people, particularly this this censorship issue,
Speaker 2: as mister Tabe, mister Sellenberger called it sinsor the a
Speaker 2: censorship industrial complex big government in cahoots with big tech,
Speaker 2: big media to keep information from we the people, and
Speaker 2: in the context of a presidential election. So if you
Speaker 2: go back and read We've kind of touched on it,
Speaker 2: but you read Schellenberger's Twitter files, I believe it's number
Speaker 2: seven where he walks us through this whole Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: laptop and them prepping big Tech that, oh, there may
Speaker 2: be this hacking league in October. It'll evolve Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: and prepping this, getting him ready for what was coming.
Speaker 2: And then how I viewed the letter from the fifty
Speaker 2: one Intel officials was that was the last straw. That
Speaker 2: was what sealed the deal because big Tech was already
Speaker 2: sort of prep for it. The story breaks on October fourteenth,
Speaker 2: they start to suppress it, limit who we can share
Speaker 2: it with, who we can like it, who we can
Speaker 2: send it to. That's all happening. And then here comes
Speaker 2: the letter. Fifty one former Intel officials, former directors of
Speaker 2: the CIA, acting directors of the CI, head of OD
Speaker 2: and I they're all signing this. Republicans, Democrats, they're all
Speaker 2: signing this. It's all garbage, but they're all signing it.
Speaker 2: That was the final straw, and that's what kept the
Speaker 2: story suppressed, and I think impacted the presidential election. Well,
Speaker 2: and gentle, let me play devil's advocate. Why did it
Speaker 2: matter that the story was suppressed? What what's so damning
Speaker 2: on the laptop that they had to go to these
Speaker 2: extraordinary measures to keep it out of the public eye
Speaker 2: right before the election. Well, remember we had an eyewitness.
Speaker 2: We had mister Bobolinski come forward and say the emails
Speaker 2: are legit. The big guy is in fact the big guy.
Speaker 2: I mean remember that she had an eyewitness, You had
Speaker 2: real emails, and the press was trying to say, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: this is a hacking league that they focused on something
Speaker 2: that wasn't true to take take it off of the
Speaker 2: actual evidence we had. And the eyewitness was a business
Speaker 2: partner these guys, And was.
Speaker 1: He wassess partner?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was in partner.
Speaker 1: Tell people a little bit about Tony Bobilinsky, how involved
Speaker 1: he was with the Biden fame.
Speaker 2: He met with Joe Biden, right, Remember he testified it
Speaker 2: or he didn't testify this, but he said this one.
Speaker 2: I believe it was a Tucker Carlson interview, if I
Speaker 2: remember correctly, He talked about that he was a business
Speaker 2: partner to form this fund, and he said those emails
Speaker 2: are legit. Ten percent for the Big Guy was legit,
Speaker 2: and of course everyone's like, no, no, you can't talk
Speaker 2: about that. The letter from the Polsky signatures on the document. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the letter from the fifty one was that final straw
Speaker 2: that they were, the press, big Tech were all money
Speaker 2: this up and the Biden campaign of course, and then
Speaker 2: then that letter comes in and it's like fifty one.
Speaker 2: I remember Joe Biden didn't hold it up, but necessarily
Speaker 2: basically holding it up. He was saying fifty as if
Speaker 2: as if they did it on their own, but they
Speaker 2: were coordinated this whole thing, and you know, the ten
Speaker 2: percent for the Big Guy. We've talked a lot on
Speaker 2: Verdict about how the Biden DOJ desperately wants to hang
Speaker 2: Hunter out to draw but make everything personal, make it
Speaker 2: about a drug use, or make it about tax crimes
Speaker 2: that are unique to him. What they want to do,
Speaker 2: I believe is instantly Guy and the laptop is a
Speaker 2: huge problem for that because it connects Joe Biden, then
Speaker 2: the sitting vice president, into the sale of influence, that
Speaker 2: that that Hunter was in the business of selling influence
Speaker 2: to the Chinese Communist Party. And what's amazing is is
Speaker 2: more and more evidence is coming out that this is
Speaker 2: not just selling influence. It's actually, I guess in a
Speaker 2: way it ought to be encouraging that buying a vice
Speaker 2: president isn't cheap. It's apparently millions.
Speaker 1: Of dollars and billions of loans.
Speaker 2: Well, we do know that there are one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy plus suspicious activity reports, and I always tell folks,
Speaker 2: you know that the word is suspicious for a reason.
Speaker 2: Our Treasury Department identifies these transactions, these banking tracks actions
Speaker 2: as suspicious and so there's one hundred and seventy of them,
Speaker 2: mister Comer, and the Oversight Committee in the House has
Speaker 2: reviewed thousands of pages of bank records, and then we
Speaker 2: now know that there's over twenty LLCs that the Biden
Speaker 2: family formed receiving millions of dollars from foreign entities. That
Speaker 2: money is being paid out to multiple members of the
Speaker 2: Biden family, Joe Hunter or not Joe, but Joe's brother,
Speaker 2: Joe's son Hunter, sister in law, daughter in law. I
Speaker 2: believe all received money based on what we've seen in
Speaker 2: the specious activity point bank account is up to twelve members.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe it's high as twelve. I think is I
Speaker 2: think nine is is what the chairman has said. And
Speaker 2: of course the fundamental question is what did they do
Speaker 2: to warrant the money? What service did they provide? What
Speaker 2: an expertise did they give? What did they do to
Speaker 2: get to get the funds? Let's stop how weird this is?
Speaker 2: So both you and I have been in Congress for
Speaker 2: a number of years. Do you know anyone else who's
Speaker 2: making millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party? Do
Speaker 2: you know anyone else whose entire family is on the payroll?
Speaker 2: I mean, this is weird. It sure seems strange. And
Speaker 2: then again when you think were they managing a fund?
Speaker 2: Were they were they creating a business? Were they speak
Speaker 2: the language the people they were doing business with? That's
Speaker 2: what you can't figure out. You're like, it just it
Speaker 2: just seems it just seems strange. And then now Senator Grassley,
Speaker 2: you know there's a whistleblowers come to center. Grassley, we'll
Speaker 2: see what that brings. But the whistleblower is alleging some
Speaker 2: pretty serious stuff as well, So tell us about what
Speaker 2: the wish whistleblowers all minunderstanding is whistleler went to Senator Grassley,
Speaker 2: Center Grassley and Chairman Comer sent a letter to the
Speaker 2: FBI saying a whistleblower has alleged that there's a document
Speaker 2: that is from a paid informant. The FBI has had
Speaker 2: some foreign national paid informant who gave information to someone
Speaker 2: in the FBI that this whistleblower different individual. So he
Speaker 2: got some levels of hearsay. I get it. But this
Speaker 2: whistleblower has actually, I guess, believes there is this document
Speaker 2: conveying that that the Biden family was doing certain policy
Speaker 2: pushing certain policies, uh and getting getting paid to do that.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if it's true, but the whistleblower
Speaker 2: has come forward and believes it is, and we'll just
Speaker 2: have to wait and see. They they wrote the FBI.
Speaker 2: The FBI is due to give an answer today and
Speaker 2: we'll see what comes back from the FBI.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about you know, we now
Speaker 1: have real questions about what was going on with the CIA,
Speaker 1: clearly from this breaking news that you brought to us.
Speaker 1: But the second part of this is there's a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans that have zero faith in the FBI now
Speaker 1: and the reason why is they had the laptop. We
Speaker 1: know for a very long time before this story even
Speaker 1: broke Tony Bobolenski. It took him going public to finally
Speaker 1: get a meeting with them. He gets a meeting with
Speaker 1: a guy at the FBI tells him everything. No one
Speaker 1: ever follows up with him. When you start investing this,
Speaker 1: investigating this, how worried were you that the FBI didn't
Speaker 1: do their job in investigating this. Instead, actually we were
Speaker 1: told try to labor is label as disinformation, so no
Speaker 1: one could even see the end until they have the FBI.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're very concerned about a number of federal agencies,
Speaker 2: but I will tell you relative to the Justice Department,
Speaker 2: the FBI, we have had a well, I think up
Speaker 2: to twenty two dozen whistleblowers have come talk to us.
Speaker 2: We've interviewed six and we're gonna have some of them testify.
Speaker 2: And they talk about a number of things, but largely
Speaker 2: it's the double standard. One set of rules for the
Speaker 2: politically connected, a different set if you're conservative. They talk
Speaker 2: about the pressure to categorize cases as as domestic violent
Speaker 2: extremism cases, and how they dealt with the January sixth issue,
Speaker 2: So we we I think it could be as early
Speaker 2: as next week, but we're looking to have several of
Speaker 2: those that we've that we've had interviews with, those those
Speaker 2: whistleblowers from the FBI testify and tell their story, and
Speaker 2: they're gonna they're gonna talk about some of the things
Speaker 2: you rais been. I think that could be a good
Speaker 2: hearing now that the Democrats are gonna go after them.
Speaker 2: They've tried to leak information, They've had to pull back
Speaker 2: on some of the information they gave the press. Some
Speaker 2: of these presses had to correct their stories because Democrats
Speaker 2: gave impulse. But we think these whistleblowers have been retaliated
Speaker 2: against because they were willing to come for minim lost
Speaker 2: their security clearance, which as you know, is the first
Speaker 2: thing at first thing they do to you if they're
Speaker 2: if retaliated, they take your security clearance, we think. But
Speaker 2: we think they're gonna be good witnesses when we have
Speaker 2: them come in next well, and let's do a deeper
Speaker 2: dive on that topic in Part two, which will be
Speaker 2: coming out on Friday. Explain to me what you're focused
Speaker 2: on versus what Chairman Comber's focused on, and how you
Speaker 2: two are working together because you're both driving different aspects
Speaker 2: of this event. Yeah, he has focused on the Biden
Speaker 2: family business operation, the suspicious activity reports. That is totally
Speaker 2: Chairman Comber and the Oversight Committee. What we're doing in
Speaker 2: the Judiciary Committee is looking at this attack on the
Speaker 2: First Amendment, the Twitter files, the censorship industrial complex that
Speaker 2: mister Tabe, mister Schellenberger, and then a host of other
Speaker 2: agencies that we think have been turned on the American people.
Speaker 2: You and I are working on the FTC. You know
Speaker 2: what the FTC did to Twitter? Yep, thirteen letters. We
Speaker 2: must buy his Twitter thirteen letters harassing them. First letter
Speaker 2: after the first Twitter file comes out. First question in
Speaker 2: that letter is who are the journalists you're talking to?
Speaker 2: They named four personally. Two of them Matt Tyabe and
Speaker 2: Michael Schellenberger. Just happened to be testifying the day after
Speaker 2: we learned that that's what was going on to Twitter,
Speaker 2: and Tybee gets rated by the Irs the day of
Speaker 2: his testimony. The day they're testifying in the committee, Democrats
Speaker 2: are asking them who are your sources? Someone needs to
Speaker 2: get the Democrats a lesson on a lecture on you
Speaker 2: know how the first Amendment works in this great country.
Speaker 2: While they're asking him those kinds of questions, trying to
Speaker 2: get them to divulge their sources. As you point out,
Speaker 2: Senator the Irs was knocking on Matt Tyabe's door in
Speaker 2: his home in New Jersey. Have you ever seen that before?
Speaker 2: Have you ever seen the IRS go after a witness
Speaker 2: simultaneously with their testifying about wrongdoing from the federal government?
Speaker 2: Never seen it? And everyone is funny. I'm sure the
Speaker 2: same things happen to you anyone. I tell that story too.
Speaker 2: No one thinks it's chance. No one thinks it's a coincidence.
Speaker 2: Everybody says that's intimidation. So that's what they were doing.
Speaker 2: Are these guys dumb or are they that arrogant? Like
Speaker 2: it actually would have been easy to wait a week
Speaker 2: and then rate it, but like to do it the
Speaker 2: day he's testifying. It shows you don't care, you don't
Speaker 2: care if you're caught. You're not trying to hide expecting
Speaker 2: Russia or China. Yeah, it seems like it's just we can.
Speaker 2: We're doing it because we can. That's what it seems like. Now,
Speaker 2: I guess there's a chance, it's it's it's chance it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's just coincidence, but it sure doesn't seem
Speaker 2: that way. And it seems to me like we're doing
Speaker 2: it because we can, which is particularly frightening.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You think about the power of the federal government, the
Speaker 2: power that agency. I mean, everyone fears the irs, the irs.
Speaker 2: You think what they can do like and now they
Speaker 2: got eighty seven thousand more agents that we're trying to
Speaker 2: get rid of. So yeah, that's that's a big concern.
Speaker 1: As we wrap up Part one, I do want to
Speaker 1: ask you one question, and it goes back to the
Speaker 1: big lie where I think all this started. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has said over and over again, and Senator and I
Speaker 1: have talked about this a lot on Verdict. He says,
Speaker 1: I never talked to my son about any of his
Speaker 1: business dealings, and that was kind of the principle of
Speaker 1: the campaign into the presidency, into the White House, and
Speaker 1: it was I don't have to talk about this because
Speaker 1: we never talked about it. Have you seen from your
Speaker 1: investigation anything that you could say. I can tell you
Speaker 1: that you had to talk to your son about this
Speaker 1: based on the evidence that we've seen before you answered that.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you abou our friends at Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is the only conservative cell phone company in
Speaker 1: the US, and they are a company that is phenomenal
Speaker 1: because when you pay your bill every month, you're actually
Speaker 1: giving back to defend the causes that you want to
Speaker 1: stand for. Talking about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: rights of unborn children in this country, protecting parent rights
Speaker 1: at school board meetings. This is what Patriot Mobile does. Now.
Speaker 1: You can have a cell phone with big tech. That's fine,
Speaker 1: but most of them are working against what we believe in.
Speaker 1: Now you have an alternative. Put your money where your
Speaker 1: values are and stand with other conservatives. With the same
Speaker 1: coverage you have right now, you can keep your same
Speaker 1: cell phone number. You can even upgrade a new cell
Speaker 1: phone or keep the one you have in your hand.
Speaker 1: You don't have to worry about losing coverage. In fact,
Speaker 1: they have guarantees for that. So if you're worried about switching,
Speaker 1: call them eight seven eight Patriot I use them, They're amazing.
Speaker 1: Eight seven eight Patriot or online at Patriotmobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict. You'll get free activation other great deals. Eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict Congressman.
Speaker 1: I go back to him saying that I never talked
Speaker 1: to my son, never talked about his business dealings. He
Speaker 1: flew a lot on Air Force two with him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he did a lot of deals with him.
Speaker 2: I think there's there are some concerns there. I think
Speaker 2: also that the President said that his son had no
Speaker 2: business dealings with China, I think I think I think
Speaker 2: that's not accurate. I think that's the case this company
Speaker 2: c EFC, So I do think the President said made
Speaker 2: that statement. That does not look like it's accurate in
Speaker 2: my estimation. And I think Cheer mccomber would would would
Speaker 2: say that as well. And I think Cheermcomer's gon actually
Speaker 2: talk about that at the press conference later today. So yeah,
Speaker 2: they said one thing and a turn. It looks to
Speaker 2: me like it's not exactly not exactly accurate.
Speaker 1: Part two of this is gonna come out on Friday,
Speaker 1: so make sure that you download Verdict, make sure you
Speaker 1: take this episode, share it wherever you are on social media,
Speaker 1: as this is gonna we hope this is a blueprint
Speaker 1: for you, a guy, the cliff notes of how we
Speaker 1: got to where we are now. So please share it
Speaker 1: with your family and friends, and Friday. Part two will
Speaker 1: come out Friday morning, so make sure you join us
Speaker 1: then on Verdict as well, and we'll see you back
Speaker 1: here in a couple of days