Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you on this Monday. It's really nice to have you
Speaker 2: with a senator. You and I had a very fun weekend,
Speaker 2: which we're going to talk about a little bit later
Speaker 2: hopefully this week and get people behind the curtains on that.
Speaker 2: That's the teas for everybody, So you're going to want
Speaker 2: to stick around for late this week. But we've got
Speaker 2: some breaking news that deals with two different articles that
Speaker 2: have come out, one of them in Politico and the
Speaker 2: other with the New York Times that have come out
Speaker 2: to talk about Hunter Biden's legal team and the handling
Speaker 2: of not only their emails but also the handling by
Speaker 2: the DOJ basically saying we don't want to touch this,
Speaker 2: we don't want to prosecute, and only because whistleblowers have
Speaker 2: come out is their narrative change break all this down
Speaker 2: for people because it's shocking.
Speaker 3: Well, these two news stories are both astonishing, and they're
Speaker 3: based on the leak of two hundred pages of emails
Speaker 3: and communications between the Department of Justice and Hunter Biden's
Speaker 3: legal team, and it turns out that the sweetheart deal
Speaker 3: we all know about where DOJ went in and tried
Speaker 3: to give Hunter Biden a slap on the wrist where
Speaker 3: he pleads guilty to two misdemeanors and gets no jail
Speaker 3: time and magically gets off with everything. That wasn't actually
Speaker 3: where DOJ started. And I don't know who leaked these correspondences,
Speaker 3: and they leaked them. One story is in Politico, the
Speaker 3: others in New York Times, and they're both based on
Speaker 3: the on the same set of correspondents. DOJ initially planned
Speaker 3: to charge Hunter Biden with nothing, not bring a single charge,
Speaker 3: not a tax charge, not a gun charge. By the way,
Speaker 3: it was Hunter Biden was unquestionably guilty. Nobody disputed it was.
Speaker 3: He was guilty that he hadn't paid millions of dollars
Speaker 3: in taxes. There was no dispute about that. That he
Speaker 3: owned a gun illegally, it is illegal for a crack
Speaker 3: user to own a gun. There was no dispute about that.
Speaker 3: That he lied on the form, and he said he
Speaker 3: didn't do illegal drugs when in fact he was regularly
Speaker 3: smoking crack cocaine. There's no dispute about that. So it
Speaker 3: was he was indisputably guilty. And yet DOJ's initial position was,
Speaker 3: we're going to charge you with nothing. Instead, what they
Speaker 3: were going to bring was a deferred prosecution agreement where
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden would plead guilty to nothing. He would not
Speaker 3: have to plead guilty to any criminal offense whatsoever, but
Speaker 3: DOJ would file a document with the court that granted
Speaker 3: him essentially immunity, granted him a promise that the federal
Speaker 3: government would not prosecute him for the tax claims, for
Speaker 3: the gun crimes, for his illegal dealings, and his shady
Speaker 3: dealings with Ukraine with China. That would essentially give him
Speaker 3: a get out of jail free card on all of
Speaker 3: his criminal conduct. That's stunning and what happened. So we
Speaker 3: also have now a one hundred page PowerPoint that Hunter
Speaker 3: Biden's lawyer got named Chris Clark, had taken to the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice, where they argued that if DOJ prosecuted Hunter,
Speaker 3: it would be seen as political because Donald Trump called
Speaker 3: for Hunter to be prosecuted. Hunter's lawyer said, you can't
Speaker 3: prosecute him. If you do what Trump wants, then you're
Speaker 3: just being political. That argument is astonishing, and in fact,
Speaker 3: they ratcheted up even more. Hunter Biden's lawyer said if
Speaker 3: you indict Hunter Biden, we will put Joe Biden, the
Speaker 3: President of the United States, on the stand to testify
Speaker 3: as a fact witness. In fact, let me read from
Speaker 3: a thirty two page letter that Clark wrote to the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice. Quote President Biden now unquestionably would be
Speaker 3: a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial.
Speaker 3: And all of these threats worked. Doj was fine with
Speaker 3: not even a slap on the wrist, just a magic
Speaker 3: wand all the criminal charges go away because Daddy says so.
Speaker 3: And then what happened is two irs whistleblowers came forward
Speaker 3: and they blew the whistle.
Speaker 1: And how brave are they now?
Speaker 2: At this point, I mean, Senator, I think we need
Speaker 2: to just take a moment to say thank you and
Speaker 2: to say God bless these patriots were coming forward and
Speaker 2: just telling the truth. They're not pushing in political agenda.
Speaker 2: They're just telling the truth about what they saw and
Speaker 2: how corrupt it was and how they were not allowed
Speaker 2: to do their jobs.
Speaker 3: Well, no, that's exactly right. And the instant they came
Speaker 3: forward and blew the whistle, what did the Biden administration do?
Speaker 1: Pulled them off?
Speaker 3: The investigation retally created instantaneously. It is illegal to retaliate
Speaker 3: against a whistleblower. But Merrick Garland, this administration doesn't doesn't
Speaker 3: seem to care about the law. And if those IRS
Speaker 3: whistleblowers had not come forward, what these internal communications show
Speaker 3: is the Biden DOJ was perfectly prepared to let Hunter
Speaker 3: Biden off scott free. And then suddenly you had the
Speaker 3: IRS whistleblowers testifying before Congress, and presumably DOJ said, oh crap,
Speaker 3: we can't like. This is too ridiculous even for us
Speaker 3: to say. And so then they revise the deal and
Speaker 3: they said, okay, we have a revised deal. Hunter has
Speaker 3: to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges. Now he
Speaker 3: still gets zero jail time, not a year, not a month,
Speaker 3: not a week, not a day, not an hour in jail,
Speaker 3: zero jail time, and he still gets the magic immunity
Speaker 3: from everything. But we at least have a guilty, please too,
Speaker 3: guilty pleae to the misdemeanor tax charges. And I guess
Speaker 3: they felt that would give them the political cover to say, look,
Speaker 3: how tough we are. If it weren't for the whistleblowers,
Speaker 3: even that sweetheart deal, it wouldn't have been that tough.
Speaker 3: This exchange is astonishing. But then what happened, As you'll recall,
Speaker 3: when they went into court and they assumed that the
Speaker 3: federal judge would just rubber stamp the deal, the judge
Speaker 3: asked a few simple questions about its details, and in particular,
Speaker 3: is the investigation ongoing? And the Department of Justice, no doubt,
Speaker 3: embarrassed by the mountain of evidence that had come up
Speaker 3: that DOJ had engaged in obstruction of justice, had blocked
Speaker 3: the investigation, had tipped off Hunter Biden's lawyers before they
Speaker 3: were going to interview Hunter Biden. Had blocked searching the
Speaker 3: where house where Hunter's records were kept, had blocked any
Speaker 3: investigation into Joe Biden, had blocked any questions into the
Speaker 3: Big Guy, had blocked any effort to get the GPS
Speaker 3: location of Joe Biden in terms of whether he was
Speaker 3: actually sitting next to Hunter Biden. When Hunter Biden text
Speaker 3: texted a senior Chinese Communist official that he was sitting
Speaker 3: next to his father, the investigators wanted to use GPS
Speaker 3: data to confirm that, and DOJ blocked it. Said nope, nope,
Speaker 3: we don't want to know. We don't want to know.
Speaker 3: We don't want to know all of that had come out,
Speaker 3: and so DOOJ presumably was feeling a tiny tiny bit embarrassed.
Speaker 3: And so what did they do when the judge asked,
Speaker 3: is the investigation ongoing? Well, if they'd said no, they
Speaker 3: would have looked like complete clowns given the massive evidence
Speaker 3: that came out. So they said, oh, yes, yes, the
Speaker 3: investigations ongoing, at which point Hunter Biden's lawyers began jumping
Speaker 3: up and down because they believed that they had a
Speaker 3: magic get out of jail free car.
Speaker 2: A magic get out a jail free card that no
Speaker 2: one else in this country I think would be able
Speaker 2: to get, especially now knowing what they were doing. This
Speaker 2: is the other part that I think American Center are
Speaker 2: so concerned about, is the lawlessness. Now, every time you
Speaker 2: think it's the worst it could be with the Biden
Speaker 2: crime family, we get more emails, we get more evidence,
Speaker 2: we get new leaks, we get new whistleblowers, and yet
Speaker 2: still that you know, David Weiss is in charge, the
Speaker 2: guy who set up all the deals, who let the
Speaker 2: statute of limitations run out, And so they say, Okay,
Speaker 2: yes it's new, but is this really going to have
Speaker 2: an impact? Now I'm going to ask you, does this
Speaker 2: really change anything? Can it change the dynamic that this
Speaker 2: is now the guy who's supposed to be investigating and
Speaker 2: you can clearly point to you guys were screwing over
Speaker 2: American justices in the entire time.
Speaker 3: Look, the idea that David Weiss is now the special
Speaker 3: prosecutor is utterly absurd. David Weiss, when he was leading
Speaker 3: this investigation, was prepared to sign off on zero charges
Speaker 3: whatsoever for criminal conduct that Hunter Biden unquestionably had committed.
Speaker 3: David Weiss was perfectly prepared to give not just the
Speaker 3: sweetheart deal, but the super super sweetheart deal, the sweetheart
Speaker 3: deal where Hunter Biden pleads guilty to nothing. That's what
Speaker 3: Weiss was prepared to do. And it was under Weiss's
Speaker 3: leadership that the obstruction of justice occurred. That they gave
Speaker 3: repeatedly heads up to Hunter Biden to enable him to
Speaker 3: frustrate the investigation. It was under David Weiss that that
Speaker 3: DOJ officials inserted themselves into the investigation to make sure
Speaker 3: that zero questions were asked about Joe Biden. That's the
Speaker 3: most important thing to understand the objective of the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice from day one was protect President Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: It was a political objective. And by the way, that
Speaker 3: political objective is precisely the reason the special council law exists,
Speaker 3: because when you have a political Attorney General like Merrick Garland,
Speaker 3: they have political incentives, and so you're supposed to appoint
Speaker 3: a special council when there's a conflict of interest like
Speaker 3: that from outside the Department of Justice. As we discussed
Speaker 3: in last week's pod, appointing David David Weiss is on
Speaker 3: its face, objectively illegal because he is a sitting US
Speaker 3: attorney so he doesn't meet the DOJ guidelines of being
Speaker 3: from outside DOJ. But Merrick Garland wants him. He knows
Speaker 3: he has his Patsy here. He knows he has a
Speaker 3: guy that will protect Joe Biden no matter what, and
Speaker 3: and and sadly, and by the way, uh, if you
Speaker 3: look at the draft wording of the agreement, let's let
Speaker 3: me reduce some of it. The Department of Justice agrees
Speaker 3: not to criminally prosecute Robert Hunter, Biden and the affiliated
Speaker 3: businesses namely a Wassco, pc Osco LLC, and Scanitise LLC,
Speaker 3: for any federal crimes arising from the conduct generally described
Speaker 3: in the attached statement of facts, or for any other
Speaker 3: federal crimes relating to matters investigated by the United States.
Speaker 3: So understand this immunity that they were negotiating was it
Speaker 3: was designed, and what these emails going back and forth
Speaker 3: reveal it is that Hunter's lawyers were terrified that in
Speaker 3: a couple of years there would be a Republican president
Speaker 3: and you would have an Attorney General who was not
Speaker 3: a Democrat partisan in a and that Hunter would actually
Speaker 3: be prosecuted for what now was indisputably a repeat pattern
Speaker 3: of felonies. And so their objective was give us an
Speaker 3: agreement that we can use in two years to prevent
Speaker 3: a subsequent attorney general from prosecuting us, and Merrick Garland
Speaker 3: and David Weiss were more than happy to go along
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 2: I want to tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
Speaker 2: If you're a guy and you feel like you're getting
Speaker 2: a little bit older and you've lost some of that edge,
Speaker 2: you feel like complacency and just tired and maybe even
Speaker 2: feel like you're laziest kind of set in and it
Speaker 2: doesn't feel like it's you, Well, then you need to
Speaker 2: check out Chalk choq dot com. Why because they can
Speaker 2: help you boost your testothrom levels up to twenty percent
Speaker 2: over ninety days. I have been taking the Male Vitality
Speaker 2: Stack and I can tell you it works. You can
Speaker 2: get rid of that weakness and complacency and you can
Speaker 2: get back to feeling like you used to. You can
Speaker 2: get your energy, your focus, and you can do it
Speaker 2: with Chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 1: Now here's the cool part.
Speaker 2: You can try Chalk and get thirty five percent off
Speaker 2: any Chuck subscription for life. All you have to do
Speaker 2: is use the promo code Ben and you'll get thirty
Speaker 2: five percent off. Use that promo code and check out
Speaker 2: the Mail Vitality Stack and boost your testosterum levels up
Speaker 2: to twenty percent over ninety days. Cchoq dot com. Make
Speaker 2: sure use that promo code Ben for that thirty five
Speaker 2: percent off. That's choq dot com and boost your testastrom
Speaker 2: levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Naturally, I
Speaker 2: want to also cent or ask you about this. They
Speaker 2: say that in these articles you'll get it says basically,
Speaker 2: after Gary Shapley went public, everything changed. He comes out
Speaker 2: goes public. We find out that that basically they gave
Speaker 2: him the sweetheart deal. He was avoiding jail time. He
Speaker 2: was going to get this quote global immunity deal in place.
Speaker 2: That didn't happen. Then you've got a chance for the
Speaker 2: judge to look at it. That blew everything up. And
Speaker 2: now some people are saying it's still a sham because,
Speaker 2: as it's been described by several they've said, look, everything
Speaker 2: on the surface screams that this is corruption. Yet everybody
Speaker 2: that's still in charge of the case is part of
Speaker 2: the crime, cover up and protecting the Biden. So how
Speaker 2: is there a way to change that? Well, it is
Speaker 2: absolutely a sham. The person put in charge of investigating
Speaker 2: it is the person who is alleged to have been
Speaker 2: engaged in obstruction of justice. And look at the timeline.
Speaker 2: So May twenty fourth, Gary Shapley, who was the IRS
Speaker 2: investigator supervising the Biden probe, he went public in an
Speaker 2: interview with CBS News and said that the Justice Department
Speaker 2: had slow walked the investigation. Just days later, the DOJ
Speaker 2: lawyers changed the deal and they said the deal would
Speaker 2: have to change and Biden would now need to plead
Speaker 2: guilty to tax chargers. It was obvious the only reason
Speaker 2: they were doing.
Speaker 3: It is Shapley had now blown the whistle on that,
Speaker 3: and Biden's team agreed. But let me read from the
Speaker 3: Politico art article because the timeline is really stunning. So
Speaker 3: it was May twenty fourth that Shapley goes public on
Speaker 3: CBS on the evening of June second, So just a
Speaker 3: few days later, Clark, who's Hunter's lawyer, emailed Wolf. Leslie
Speaker 3: Wolf was the senior lawyer working for David Wise, who
Speaker 3: was also a Democrat donor, who was also the one
Speaker 3: that was actively tipping off Hunter. Biden's team allegedly accorded
Speaker 3: the IRS whistleblowers as to the investigation that was happening.
Speaker 3: Who was also the one who directly blocked investigating Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: It was Leslie Wolf was really the point of the
Speaker 3: spear on the obstruction that is alleged by the IRS whistleblowers.
Speaker 3: But here's what Politico says. On the evening of June second,
Speaker 3: Clark emailed Wolf to tell her protection from prosecution was
Speaker 3: vital to the deal. He sent along sample language saying
Speaker 3: the United States would not prosecute Biden for quote, any
Speaker 3: federal crimes arising from the conduct generally described in two
Speaker 3: documents that be part of the final deal. Quote this
Speaker 3: language or its functional equivalent is very critical to us,
Speaker 3: Clark added, Politico continues left unstated was a key implication
Speaker 3: of a broad immunity provision. It would give Hunter Biden
Speaker 3: a level of protection, a layer of protection if Trump
Speaker 3: or another Republican won the twenty twenty four election and
Speaker 3: ordered a wide ranging criminal investigation into the Biden family,
Speaker 3: something Trump has repeatedly promised to do. Over the course
Speaker 3: of a few more emails, lawyers on both sides kept
Speaker 3: line editing the deal, and on June seventh, wolf this
Speaker 3: is the DOJ lawyer who blocks investigations into Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Wolfe sent Clark a version that included the final language
Speaker 3: shielding Biden from future charges. That that language, that agreement
Speaker 3: is fundamentally corrupt it There is no innocuous explanation for
Speaker 3: why before the whistleblowers come public, they're happy to bring
Speaker 3: no charges at all and have no guilty please. After
Speaker 3: the whistleblowers become public, they realize, oh, crap, that makes
Speaker 3: us look like complete partisan hacks. So let's come up
Speaker 3: with a way to even have the slap on the wrist.
Speaker 3: They initially wanted no slap on the wrist at all.
Speaker 3: They just wanted to kiss on the forehead. And now
Speaker 3: the people Merrick Garland is put in charge of this
Speaker 3: are the people who were the ones blocking the investigation
Speaker 3: in the first place.
Speaker 2: You combine this center with some new intel that's coming
Speaker 2: out of Parently this week. It was teased by your
Speaker 2: good friend someone we had on the show for a
Speaker 2: two part series. If you missed it, go back and
Speaker 2: listen to it with Representative James Comer. But he came
Speaker 2: out and talked about the Vice President, Joe Biden, in essence,
Speaker 2: had not just a burner phone that we learned about
Speaker 2: recently and a journalist that call that phone and the
Speaker 2: president actually picked up.
Speaker 1: But there's also these.
Speaker 2: Apparently burner email addresses and a burner account for people
Speaker 2: that may not understand that analogy is a phone that
Speaker 2: you don't want anybody else to know that you have
Speaker 2: that would be somewhat untraceable. Burner email accounts are email
Speaker 2: accounts that you set up specifically so they will not
Speaker 2: be connected to you, to send or receive messages to
Speaker 2: those aliases, to those email accounts that are not officially
Speaker 2: connected you, so no one even know to look there
Speaker 2: if they ever found them. Now, how do we know
Speaker 2: about these when we know about them now from Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden's laptop and we know some of these aliases were
Speaker 2: the president and the Vice President went by, was Robin Ware,
Speaker 2: Robert L.
Speaker 1: Peters, and j. RB Ware.
Speaker 2: Now the point that matters is these email addresses weren't
Speaker 2: just set up, but they were used to keep his son,
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden informed on his communications as the official vice
Speaker 2: president and the point man on Ukraine, to keep his
Speaker 2: son informed the communications that he as the vice president,
Speaker 2: which would be official government relations representing the United States
Speaker 2: of America with Ukraine. Your initial reaction to that bomb
Speaker 2: show as well.
Speaker 3: Look, look, it's stunning. I've never seen anything remotely like that.
Speaker 3: The President of the United States having a burner phone
Speaker 3: so that he can he can hide and communicate. What
Speaker 3: that suggests is that he knows he's committing criminal conduct.
Speaker 3: The President of the United States having burner emails, false emails,
Speaker 3: fake emails, Holy cow, have you ever heard anything remotely
Speaker 3: like that? And to be clear, these fake emails are
Speaker 3: not to sign up for magazine subscriptions. These fake emails
Speaker 3: were used to email Hunter Biden about Ukraine. And by
Speaker 3: the way, it was the same Ukraine where Bisma was
Speaker 3: paying Hunter eighty three thousand dollars a month in order
Speaker 3: to get favors from Joe Biden. And so look, when
Speaker 3: someone attempts to hide their conduct, when someone creates a
Speaker 3: fake name, when someone uses a burner phone, particularly in
Speaker 3: a high government office, that is indicative of an awareness
Speaker 3: that what you're doing is at a minimum shady as
Speaker 3: hell and an all likelihood illegal and criminal. It is
Speaker 3: I am not aware of any precedent for any president
Speaker 3: doing what we now know Joe Biden has done in
Speaker 3: order to communicate with Hunter Biden about Ukraine. It also
Speaker 3: demonstrates that Joe Biden's repeated statements that he never talked
Speaker 3: about Hunter's business in Ukraine is just a flat out lie.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's now not even the tiniest fig leaf
Speaker 3: to pretend to defend those false statements Joe Biden made
Speaker 3: over and over and over again to the American people.
Speaker 2: I want to play part of what James Comer had
Speaker 2: to say when he was talking to Maria Bartromo on
Speaker 2: Fox this morning and also telegraphing that there is more
Speaker 2: money and more bank account information that they're going to
Speaker 2: be releasing soon.
Speaker 1: But first listen to that part about the emails.
Speaker 4: I want to get the state of affairs of your investigation,
Speaker 4: given we have a new special Council now in the
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden investigation. But first let's discuss these pseudonyms or
Speaker 4: alias names.
Speaker 1: What exactly have you learned.
Speaker 5: Well, we've learned that Joe Biden used at least three
Speaker 5: pseudonyms or fake names in emails that he was receiving
Speaker 5: from people within the federal government, people that worked for him.
Speaker 5: And even more troubling than that, Maria, we've learned that
Speaker 5: when he was receiving emails pertaining to Ukraine, his son
Speaker 5: Hunter was copied on them, which we've always heard that
Speaker 5: The White House has said that Hunter Biden wasn't an
Speaker 5: employee of the government. He wasn't any part of the government.
Speaker 5: They couldn't understand why House Republicans on the Oversight Committee
Speaker 5: were investigating Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, because
Speaker 5: Hunter wasn't a part of the government. If that were true,
Speaker 5: then why was he receiving emails from the government.
Speaker 4: Well, this also pertains to the firing of the special
Speaker 4: prosecutor in Ukraine, Victor Choken, was that what these emails
Speaker 4: were about, because you have told us in the past
Speaker 4: that that was one decision you were looking at as
Speaker 4: far as a decision that Joe Biden may have been
Speaker 4: paid for to get involved in getting that prosecutor off
Speaker 4: the back of Barisma.
Speaker 5: I think the evidence is mounting every day to proof
Speaker 5: that Joe Biden went to Ukraine for the sole purpose
Speaker 5: of firing Shokun, who was the Ukrainian prosecutor who was
Speaker 5: investigating his son for corruption. What we heard in the
Speaker 5: transcribed interview with Devin Archer was that he said that
Speaker 5: the owners of Barisma were squeezing Hunter, saying we need
Speaker 5: help in Washington. You need to call Washington for help.
Speaker 5: Of course, the Democrats tried to say that, well, that
Speaker 5: could have been anybody in Washington. Well, what we've now
Speaker 5: learned is Joe Biden was using a fake email name
Speaker 5: to receive correspondence from his staff that he was copying
Speaker 5: Hunter Biden on and I believe Maria that Hunter had
Speaker 5: to prove value to the Barisma owners that they were
Speaker 5: working on this, so he was forwarding those to the
Speaker 5: owners of Barisma.
Speaker 1: Look, this is obvious that Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: Abused his power as Vice president for the sole purpose
Speaker 5: to protect his son who was receiving millions and millions
Speaker 5: of dollars from this corrupt Ukrainian energy company. And this
Speaker 5: email ties Joe Biden and Hunter Biden into this corruption
Speaker 5: scheme without a shadow of a doubt.
Speaker 4: Well, it also is quite interesting that Hunter Biden is
Speaker 4: even c seed on any of these emails. This was
Speaker 4: government business, right, This was.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent government business.
Speaker 5: Again, the Democrats in the White House have claimed that
Speaker 5: Hunter Biden and Joe Biden had a wall, a firewall
Speaker 5: between their business affairs. And again, Maria, as you know,
Speaker 5: there are no legitimate businesses here. The Biden family were
Speaker 5: receiving payments from bad people in bad countries.
Speaker 1: Around the world.
Speaker 5: And what we've been trying to do is figure out why,
Speaker 5: why in the world would the Biden family receive over
Speaker 5: twenty million dollars from foreign nationals around the world. And
Speaker 5: this is evidence to show that Joe Biden was communicating
Speaker 5: with his son. He was making sure that his son,
Speaker 5: you he was on his way to Ukraine. Remember, the
Speaker 5: timeline of these emails show that Joe Biden was in
Speaker 5: root from Washington to Ukraine for the sole purpose of
Speaker 5: withholding foreign a to Ukraine in exchange for firing the prosecutor.
Speaker 5: And we know that happened, and we know Joe Biden
Speaker 5: accepted credit for it. He did an interview where he said, well,
Speaker 5: son of a Bee, they fired the prosecutor before I
Speaker 5: got on the plane and left Ukraine. Joe Biden, in
Speaker 5: his own words, said that, So now we have evidence
Speaker 5: that Joe Biden and his administration was communicating with Hunter Biden.
Speaker 5: They knew Hunter Biden was affiliated with Ukraine. That's another line, Maria.
Speaker 5: Joe Biden said he didn't even know Hunter was on
Speaker 5: the BARISHMA board for a long time. This is another line.
Speaker 5: They were copying Hunter and the only emails we've seen
Speaker 5: were they were copying Hunter were pertaining the Ukraine at
Speaker 5: a critical time when Joe Biden was going there to
Speaker 5: fire the prosecutor in Chachel four and eight.
Speaker 1: That's called a quid pro quote.
Speaker 2: That's called a quid pro quote. That's something we've said
Speaker 2: a lot, but this is on a different level. Is
Speaker 2: it not illegal if you're sharing information that is going
Speaker 2: to profit your family member or even a friend, if
Speaker 2: you are in charge of before policy and sitting in
Speaker 2: the Oval office on a daily basis as a vice
Speaker 2: president and you're seeing your son from a burner email account. Hey,
Speaker 2: here's where we are. Let your buddies know at Barisma. Hey,
Speaker 2: here's where we are with the fire and the prosecutor.
Speaker 2: Let your employer know at Barisma, and don't forget get
Speaker 2: them to send me the money.
Speaker 1: I'm the big guy.
Speaker 3: It is absolutely illegal to personally profit to sell favors
Speaker 3: when you were in office, and the evidence is mounting
Speaker 3: every day that that's what Joe Biden was in the
Speaker 3: business of doing. There is no legitimate explanation for why
Speaker 3: government employees would be CEE seeing Hunter Biden and emailing
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden about Ukraine and doing so over and over
Speaker 3: and over again. Hunter Biden did not have a legitimate
Speaker 3: government reason to be looped in on the Ukrainian discussions.
Speaker 3: But you know what he did have. He did have
Speaker 3: a business reason because Barisma was paying him for that
Speaker 3: kind of access. And you know, when daddy's vice president,
Speaker 3: you can get looped in on exactly what the administration
Speaker 3: plans to do. And it is astonishing. There is no
Speaker 3: innocent explanation for why Joe Biden was using fake email
Speaker 3: names on these emails. If this were above board, presumably
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's actual name would be on there. This is
Speaker 3: the government. I've never heard of within the government government
Speaker 3: emails going to an officeholder and using a fake alias.
Speaker 1: The lies that.
Speaker 3: Keep going out are over and over and over again.
Speaker 3: I'll give you another one. March twenty twenty two, David
Speaker 3: Weiss took the case to the US attorney for DC,
Speaker 3: Matt Graves. Now Matt Graves. It was and is a
Speaker 3: Biden appointee. He had been a political donor to Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: so he was a partisan Democrat. And Matt Graves, the
Speaker 3: US attorney said, no, we will not bring a case
Speaker 3: in d which is where you could have gotten stricter
Speaker 3: punishment because the more serious criminal tax offenses occurred in DC.
Speaker 3: Matt Graves said no. The very same day that Hunter's
Speaker 3: team of lawyers was meeting with the prosecutors. And this
Speaker 3: was April twenty six, twenty twenty two. Merrick Garland was
Speaker 3: testifying before a Senate Appropriation subcommittee that quote, there will
Speaker 3: not be interference of any political or improper kind. That's
Speaker 3: a flat out lie. It was a political appointee, Matt Graves,
Speaker 3: a donor to Joe Biden, who blocked charges against Hunter
Speaker 3: in d C. It was another political appointee, the US
Speaker 3: Attorney for the Central District of California, who blocked charges there,
Speaker 3: and that US attorney had been a donor to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: And so what Merrick Garland said that there was no
Speaker 3: political interference is objectively false. And yet this administration doesn't
Speaker 3: acknowledge the lies they keep getting caught in. They just
Speaker 3: keep making them over and over and over again.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile. If you are
Speaker 2: a conservative like I am, and you are sick and
Speaker 2: tired of giving your money to woke companies, there is
Speaker 2: an option out with your cell phone provider. And for years,
Speaker 2: big mobile companiess have been dumping millions in the leftist causes,
Speaker 2: and we had to deal with it because there was
Speaker 2: no other option.
Speaker 1: Now there is.
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider that
Speaker 2: offers you dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks.
Speaker 1: What does that mean. It means you get the.
Speaker 2: Best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda
Speaker 2: pushed by leftists. Working hard to destroy this country. Now,
Speaker 2: when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you support free speech
Speaker 2: and really just freedom. You were supporting the samety of life.
Speaker 2: You're supporting the Second Amendment. You're supporting our military, our veterans,
Speaker 2: and our first responders. Every time you pay your bill,
Speaker 2: they're taking a percentage and giving it back at no
Speaker 2: extra cost to you. Plus, you can keep your same
Speaker 2: cell phone number. You can keep your same cell phone.
Speaker 2: They make switching easy with a one hundred percent US
Speaker 2: based customer service team. So whether it's for you or
Speaker 2: your family, or a business or a small business, call
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile and get away from the woke companies.
Speaker 1: Eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 2: That's eight seven eight Patriot, Or you can go online
Speaker 2: to Patriotmobile dot com, slash verdict, Patriot Mobile dot com
Speaker 2: slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 1: Senator.
Speaker 2: I also want to ask you about the financial aspects
Speaker 2: of what we're now learning. James Comer, he telegraphed to
Speaker 2: us when we interviewed him that they were expecting it
Speaker 2: to be I think he said at that point at
Speaker 2: least thirty million that they are going to be able
Speaker 2: to trace directly going into the shell companies of the
Speaker 2: Biden family. That number in the last week has jumped
Speaker 2: to it looks like fifty to sixty million. And he
Speaker 2: even said coming up this week and it may happen.
Speaker 2: He said, this week, we're going to release more bank
Speaker 2: records with more money that came in to the Biden family.
Speaker 2: We don't know what countries. We don't know if it's
Speaker 2: the same countries, more from Russia, are Ukraine or Romania,
Speaker 2: We don't know that. But there's more money coming in.
Speaker 2: Is there a certain point here where the financial gains
Speaker 2: of the Bidens could be so great that the media
Speaker 2: and Washington cannot look the other way any longer.
Speaker 3: Well, it does say something that both the New York
Speaker 3: Times and Politico we're willing to report on this, that
Speaker 3: they're finally acknowledging that this evidence stinks and look just like,
Speaker 3: there's no legitimate reason for Joe Biden have a burner phone.
Speaker 3: There's no legitimate reason for him to have fake emails.
Speaker 3: There's no legitimate reason for government employees to eb emailing
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden about Ukraine about confidential disc ushs about Ukraine.
Speaker 3: There's no legitimate reason for Joe Biden to use his
Speaker 3: fake emails on those emails to Hunter about Ukraine. There's
Speaker 3: also no legitimate reason for them to have over twenty
Speaker 3: shell companies, companies that don't make anything, company that don't
Speaker 3: have employees, companies that are not real companies. They're simply
Speaker 3: that they're simply vehicles for money laundering. And it's worth
Speaker 3: noting that the defense that that the Bidens are making
Speaker 3: so one of the things the IRS whistleblower said is
Speaker 3: that Chris Clark, Hunter Biden's defense lawyer told the DOJ
Speaker 3: lawyers quote that if they charge Hunter Biden, they would
Speaker 3: be committing quote, career suicide. That's not subtle, that is
Speaker 3: very explicit. We have political power, and that political power
Speaker 3: is going to protect Joe Biden. It doesn't matter if
Speaker 3: he's taken bribes. It doesn't matter if he's solicited bribes.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter if he had his son or engage
Speaker 3: in illegal money laundering. It doesn't matter if they are
Speaker 3: selling favors from the vice president of the United States
Speaker 3: and perhaps now at the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: That is.
Speaker 3: Utterly transparent. But you know what it isn't. It isn't justice,
Speaker 3: it isn't law enforcement, It isn't faithfully applying the law.
Speaker 3: It is instead corruption.
Speaker 2: It's corruption at a level that I'm not sure we've
Speaker 2: ever seen. I was flying today and I was watching
Speaker 2: this new show that's out about Watergate, and it was
Speaker 2: very interesting to watch. And they were depicting how Watergate
Speaker 2: kind of went down and behind the scenes in the
Speaker 2: White House and Gi Gordon, LYDDI, etc. And how they
Speaker 2: were trying to pull it off, and then what happened
Speaker 2: obviously when they got caught and to cover up with it.
Speaker 2: And if you compare Watergate and I was watching HBO show,
Speaker 2: go check it out, it's very entertaining. If you compare
Speaker 2: what they were doing and Watergate and you put it
Speaker 2: next to on a spreadsheet what we're talking about right now,
Speaker 2: I think it's fair to say there's absolutely no comparison
Speaker 2: between the two. Like what we're talking about now is
Speaker 2: nothing compared to Watergate. And Watergate was the worst political scandal,
Speaker 2: quote in American political modern history, and the whole world
Speaker 2: stop to watch it and people went to jail.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, you look at what we have right now.
Speaker 2: No one's going to jail, and the people that are
Speaker 2: supposed to be the protectors of this country are protecting
Speaker 2: the Bidens instead of this country. Does that shock you
Speaker 2: in a way that we've gone so far from one
Speaker 2: way to the other.
Speaker 3: Well, we've seen too many of our institutions become fundamentally corrupt.
Speaker 3: With Watergate, there was criminality. There was criminality that extended
Speaker 3: all the way up to the Attorney General of the
Speaker 3: United States, to the President of the United States, the
Speaker 3: Chief of Staff of the United States, to senior White
Speaker 3: House officials. But the system worked, and you had Number
Speaker 3: One Congress that began investigations. And critically, the reason the
Speaker 3: system worked is because there were Republicans who turned on
Speaker 3: Richard Nixon, who looked at his criminal conduct and said,
Speaker 3: this is too much, we can't support this. There has
Speaker 3: not been a single Democrat member of Congress express even
Speaker 3: the tiniest bit of interest in knowing whether or not
Speaker 3: the President of the United States has solicited and received
Speaker 3: millions of dollars of bribes from foreign nationals in exchange
Speaker 3: for official government favors. In other words, is the president
Speaker 3: such a crook that he's getting bribes and bribes from
Speaker 3: corrupt foreign oligarchs. I mean, those are incredibly serious allegations.
Speaker 3: And to be clear, these allegations are made with significant
Speaker 3: evidence a confidential human source who called the FBI and
Speaker 3: and who is the source for the ft ten twenty three.
Speaker 3: Unlike Watergate, no one of the president's own party cares
Speaker 3: to even know the answer. Also, in Watergate, you had
Speaker 3: journalists who actually would do their jobs. Woodward and Bernstein
Speaker 3: at the Washington Post. They pursued this like a dogged bone. Today,
Speaker 3: the Washington Post, the New York Times, their investigative journalists,
Speaker 3: by and large, ignore all of this. Now, they just
Speaker 3: were handed two hundred pages of confidential emails and given that,
Speaker 3: given that leak, that they finally decided to write a
Speaker 3: story in the New York Times in Politico. But that
Speaker 3: exception proves the rule. And let's be clear, in Watergate,
Speaker 3: the Attorney General John Mitchell was sentenced to and serve
Speaker 3: twenty two months in jail. I think Merrick Garland has
Speaker 3: real criminal exposure. I believe there should be a special
Speaker 3: counsel investigating Merrick Garland, and I believe the House should
Speaker 3: be pursuing impeachment of Merrick Garland. But right now, the
Speaker 3: media has been corrupted and the Democrat Party, there is
Speaker 3: not even a single Democrat who has shown the integrity
Speaker 3: to care whether the president is soliciting or has solicited
Speaker 3: and received millions of dollars of bribes.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about your retirement for a moment. If you
Speaker 2: are like me and you've been watching what's going on
Speaker 2: in the markets, you've been watching interest rates that just
Speaker 2: hit a twenty one year high, and you're thinking about
Speaker 2: your retirement account. You may be close to retirement, you
Speaker 2: may be planning for retirement. You actually may be in
Speaker 2: the middle of retirement, and your number one goal is
Speaker 2: to protect what you've earned and what you've saved, because
Speaker 2: you know there's no time to make up losses, especially
Speaker 2: if you're in retirement or coost retirement. Well, that is
Speaker 2: where many are turning to gold, and my friends at
Speaker 2: Augusta Precious Metals want you to understand how gold can
Speaker 2: help you protect your hard earned dollars, especially in this
Speaker 2: crazy economy and this recession that people are talking about
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Gusta Precious Metals is a little bit different, no pressure,
Speaker 2: just the facts. Not only will they send you the
Speaker 2: Investor's Guide on gold, but they actually do a one
Speaker 2: on one web conference just for you where you can
Speaker 2: ask them questions. Now, if you are in retirement planning
Speaker 2: or are getting close. Gold can help you protect your
Speaker 2: hard earned dollars. Call them and get their free information
Speaker 2: guide on Gold iras and see what it can do
Speaker 2: for you. Do the web conference, it's free and ask
Speaker 2: questions age seven to seven, the number four Gold ir
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: Metals dot Com.
Speaker 1: Center. Last question for you.
Speaker 2: We've got a presidential of debate this week, which obviously
Speaker 2: we're going to cover when it happens.
Speaker 1: It's the first one.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's not going to be there, but all those
Speaker 2: Republicans on the stage, they're going to be focusing on
Speaker 2: the guy in the middle of the stage, and that's
Speaker 2: going to be Ronda Santis.
Speaker 1: That's normal.
Speaker 2: My question for you because you have done these debates
Speaker 2: and you know how important they are and how they
Speaker 2: can separate you from the crowd, and you had some
Speaker 2: incredible debates that really helped your campaign. What is the
Speaker 2: strategy going to be and what would your strategy be
Speaker 2: on stage this week with dealing with this Hunter Biden information.
Speaker 2: Do you make this election about this and say if
Speaker 2: I am elected, this is what I'm going to do,
Speaker 2: and how hard would you play that or would you
Speaker 2: what would this strategy be for if you were on
Speaker 2: this stage this week.
Speaker 3: Well, debates are frequently pivotal moments in presidential campaigns, and
Speaker 3: one of the reasons they are is there one of
Speaker 3: the very few events that that you get so many
Speaker 3: eyeballs while that you have the ability a candidate has
Speaker 3: the ability to communicate with the voters, going over the
Speaker 3: heads of the media gatekeepers. When you're running for president
Speaker 3: as a Republican, it is incredibly frustrating that you'll go
Speaker 3: and give a speech on the stump and the news
Speaker 3: stations won't cover it, the newspapers won't write about it.
Speaker 3: If you roll out a policy proposals over and over again,
Speaker 3: they'll ignore it. And the advantage of a debate is
Speaker 3: you have a chance to talk directly to the voters. Look,
Speaker 3: you and I and many of the listeners a verdict
Speaker 3: are following what's happening in the presidential campaign. We know
Speaker 3: who the candidates are. Most Americans don't. Most Americans are
Speaker 3: not following this day to day closely, and so this
Speaker 3: debate will be the first opportunity for millions of Americans
Speaker 3: and millions of Republican primary voters to see these candidates,
Speaker 3: to hear them and to hear how they exchange. Now,
Speaker 3: every candidate's going to go in with a different objective.
Speaker 3: You're right, Ron DeSantis has a target on him. He
Speaker 3: is universally seen as as as the number two candidates,
Speaker 3: as Trump's strongest opposition, which means everyone else on that stage,
Speaker 3: if they want to have a chance at winning, they
Speaker 3: got to take out DeSantis. I expect a lot of
Speaker 3: shots directed at de Santas. We'll see how how Ron
Speaker 3: does defending himself from defending himself from from those shots.
Speaker 3: It will be very interesting to see how each of
Speaker 3: the candidates responds to Donald Trump. Some of them I
Speaker 3: expect to defend Trump vigorously. All of them are virtually
Speaker 3: all of them are going to say that the investigations
Speaker 3: from the Biden DOJ represent a double standard of justice
Speaker 3: and a politicization of justice. You will see some like
Speaker 3: Chris Christy, who I expect will blast Trump full throatedly,
Speaker 3: and each candidate they're looking for a moment debate. Often
Speaker 3: it's a small thing that that people remember. It's it's
Speaker 3: a comment you know, Ronald Reagan. You know, there you
Speaker 3: go again. It's their small moments in debates that that
Speaker 3: that are zingers. You know, if you look at the
Speaker 3: debate the vice presidential debate between Lloyd Benson and Dan Quayle,
Speaker 3: oh yeah, you know. Dan Quayle was was comparing himself
Speaker 3: to to to John F. Kennedy and saying he was
Speaker 3: the same age as John F. Kennedy and and Lloyd
Speaker 3: Benson turned to him and and and and said, Dan,
Speaker 3: I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was my friend. And Dan,
Speaker 3: You're no John Kennedy. That that was devastating moments like that.
Speaker 3: Each of the candidates, presumably is working with a debate
Speaker 3: prep team. Different candidates do it different ways. Most of
Speaker 3: them do some form of a mock where they get
Speaker 3: people to pretend to be the other candidates and they
Speaker 3: go through and practice.
Speaker 1: Is it, but.
Speaker 3: We will see. I think there there will be opportunities.
Speaker 3: One of the big questions is going to be how
Speaker 3: does desantistu because because he is the number two right now,
Speaker 3: and so if he does really well, he could get stronger.
Speaker 3: If he stumbles, that presents an opening for for other candidates.
Speaker 3: A second question a lot of people are going to
Speaker 3: be looking to is is who shines, Who has a
Speaker 3: a moment that that sparkles You know, Tim Scott can
Speaker 3: be a wonderful orator. He may have a moment that
Speaker 3: that that that that catches some sizzle. Uh. Vivek Ramaswami
Speaker 3: is is very smart, has been having some strong moments
Speaker 3: out on the stump. I could easily see Vivek having
Speaker 3: a moment in the debate that that that that goes viral,
Speaker 3: and and and so all of them are going to
Speaker 3: be looking for those moments.
Speaker 1: It's going to be very interesting.
Speaker 2: We're going to have one hell of a week here
Speaker 2: on Verdict, and we're working on things also, very specially
Speaker 2: this week. So you don't want to miss in the episodes.
Speaker 2: Make sure you hit that follow button if you're listening
Speaker 2: on Apple, you'll get every episode. Hit that subscribe or
Speaker 2: download button wherever you're listening, so you don't miss an episode.
Speaker 2: We will see you back here in just a couple
Speaker 2: of days.