Speaker 1: Well, let me first off say Mary Christmas to you
Speaker 1: and your family. Senator Ted Cruz and I Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: want to make sure that we wish you and your
Speaker 1: family again a very merry Charristmas. And we also know
Speaker 1: that many of you are on the road going to
Speaker 1: see family and friends and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ,
Speaker 1: and you're probably looking for a little bit of entertainment
Speaker 1: and what to keep you awake on these drives, and
Speaker 1: we love that you're listening to this show right now.
Speaker 2: We decided what.
Speaker 1: We were going to do is put unedited the entire three
Speaker 1: part series with James Comber together. This is going to
Speaker 1: be very big in when Congress comes back into session,
Speaker 1: it's going to have an awful lot to deal with
Speaker 1: the investigations into the Biden crime family. If there's any
Speaker 1: story from twenty twenty three that's going to move into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, it's going to be this story. And
Speaker 1: that's why we want to make sure that if you
Speaker 1: did miss any of those three part series with James Comber,
Speaker 1: that you were able to hear it here today. So
Speaker 1: we're going to play that for you. Like I said,
Speaker 1: unedited in its entirety right now, and again we want
Speaker 1: to also make sure we take a moment remember the
Speaker 1: reason for the season. This is about the birth of
Speaker 1: Jesus and the celebration of what he did for this
Speaker 1: for not only us, but the entire world.
Speaker 2: It is incredible.
Speaker 1: And I hope that you will take that time with
Speaker 1: your family to talk to your kids, your grandkids about
Speaker 1: the true meaning of Christmas. It has become obviously so commercialized,
Speaker 1: and I just want to say, please take that moment
Speaker 1: remind them what this season is all about. So again
Speaker 1: to you and your family, Merry Christmas. And here is
Speaker 1: our unedited three part series all together with James Comer Center.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a really fun multi part
Speaker 1: series and for everyone that's watching or listening, if you're
Speaker 1: listening to this episode, we ask you to please share
Speaker 1: it everywhere. We're going to say that on the very
Speaker 1: beginning front of this on social media. This is going
Speaker 1: to be multi part series with a dear friend of yours,
Speaker 1: Congress and James Comer, who's doing unbelievable work in the
Speaker 1: house going after the Biden crime family.
Speaker 3: And I want you to introduce your good friend, well, James,
Speaker 3: welcome back to verdict. This is this is your second
Speaker 3: time that you've been with us. We had you earlier
Speaker 3: this year for a two part series in which we
Speaker 3: broke down and you went through the details of the
Speaker 3: very systematic investigation you're leading in the House. We're now
Speaker 3: at the end of the year, and so we're coming
Speaker 3: back for yet another multi part series, UH to really
Speaker 3: get into the substance. And and a lot has been
Speaker 3: happening lately. We just had Hunter Biden defy a congressional subpoena.
Speaker 3: We just had the full House of Representatives vote to
Speaker 3: authorize formally the impeachment inquiry. And this week there's some
Speaker 3: breaking news. You're you're you're sending your investigative team on
Speaker 3: the road. Why don't we start by tell us about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, obviously a lot of these people that we've
Speaker 4: asked for interviews and depositions, they're trying to use the
Speaker 4: holiday as an excuse why they can't come in and
Speaker 4: do it. So we decided we would make it more
Speaker 4: convenient on them and send our staff to depose them
Speaker 4: or interview them in their home area. So the first
Speaker 4: one we're doing is with the owner of Americoor Health
Speaker 4: and America War Health was the healthcare company where James Biden,
Speaker 4: the President's brother, approached them because he heard they were
Speaker 4: financially distressed and said that because he's a Biden and
Speaker 4: because of his brother's contacts in the Middle East, that
Speaker 4: he could help them acquire all the capital they needed
Speaker 4: to get back on their feet from the Middle East.
Speaker 5: But they were going to have to.
Speaker 4: Pay Jim Biden first, and they gave him six hundred
Speaker 4: thousand dollars. And by all accounts, Jim Biden completely defrauded
Speaker 4: America War Health. He never provided any funding or anything else.
Speaker 4: But what ironic about this for Joe Biden. Not only
Speaker 4: was that a pure example of influence pedaling, Joe Biden
Speaker 4: received the last payment from Americal Health, they sent a
Speaker 4: check to Jim Biden for two hundred thousand dollars. The
Speaker 4: exact same day that Jim Biden received that two hundred
Speaker 4: thousand dollars check from Americal Health, they wrote Joe Biden
Speaker 4: a check for the exact same amount two hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: So that was the first example of evidence that we
Speaker 4: found where Joe Biden directly benefited from the Biden family
Speaker 4: influenced peddling scheme. So we're gonna have our deposers down
Speaker 4: there talking to them about how this started and what
Speaker 4: role Joe Biden may have played, and if they ever
Speaker 4: met Joe Biden and all of that.
Speaker 5: So that should be very interesting.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you didn't mention the name Hunter Biden in
Speaker 1: that story of influence pedaling. That is the part that
Speaker 1: I think many Americans have maybe not understood, which is this,
Speaker 1: this is the entire family that's been involved in getting paid.
Speaker 1: Can you go into that a little bit more about
Speaker 1: about James Biden, not just Hunter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think James Biden probably committed just as many
Speaker 4: crimes as Hunter Biden. The only reason we don't know
Speaker 4: about James Biden is he didn't leave a laptop linery.
Speaker 4: We've been able to subpoena his bank records, and I
Speaker 4: can tell you there's a lot of questions we have
Speaker 4: for Jameis Biden. That's why he received the subpoena. We're
Speaker 4: working with his attorney and we hope to have him
Speaker 4: in in January. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 4: this example with AmeriCorps help sure looks like securities fraud.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know how else would you would
Speaker 4: describe it. But obviously they deserve due process, and they're
Speaker 4: gonna have due process. But we know from court records
Speaker 4: this Americ warp Help is in federal bankruptcy court. They
Speaker 4: obviously have accused Jim Biden of a lot of things.
Speaker 4: So this is all public record, and you know, it
Speaker 4: shows that it was just under Biden. This was the
Speaker 4: whole Biden family. America Jim Biden Hunterman.
Speaker 3: So Americal Health paid Jim Biden six hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: As best you can tell, did Jim Biden perform any
Speaker 3: any service for them, do anything of value for them?
Speaker 4: According to the court records, America or Health says no
Speaker 4: other than he went there and you know, made all
Speaker 4: these promises that you know, Joe Biden's contacts they would
Speaker 4: work together and help them get all the money from
Speaker 4: the Middle East.
Speaker 3: But they never got any This is.
Speaker 4: They never got a penny. They never got one penny.
Speaker 4: And it looks like Senator on Jim Biden's bank statements
Speaker 4: they tried to say that six hundred thousand dollars payment
Speaker 4: was alone. And I think that's a very important aspect
Speaker 4: of our investigation because from the notes that the whistleblowers
Speaker 4: have turned over.
Speaker 5: We know that.
Speaker 4: You know, sometime in twenty eighteen, the Bidens figured out
Speaker 4: that the IRS was breathing down their necks. They knew
Speaker 4: that they had all these suspicious activity reports from the
Speaker 4: banks that were accusing them money laundering and having shell
Speaker 4: companies and potentially taking bribes, and they changed the way
Speaker 4: they were operating, and they went from receiving wires directly
Speaker 4: through the shells to receiving payments and calling them loans.
Speaker 3: So you would do that. I want to stop and
Speaker 3: unpack a lot of that. So we hear from the Democrats,
Speaker 3: we hear from the corrupt corporate media. There's no evidence,
Speaker 3: no evidence, no evidence, especially no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement.
Speaker 3: So I want to break down because you had a
Speaker 3: lot of substance there on the shell companies. How many
Speaker 3: Biden shell companies did y'all uncover?
Speaker 4: Twenty And let me make sure everyone understands this. A
Speaker 4: shell company is a company with no assets and no
Speaker 4: known purpose. So the bank email that we released two
Speaker 4: weeks ago showed the bank examiners saying, you know, they
Speaker 4: got this wire from China, and he says it's an
Speaker 4: investment company, but it's an investment company with no investments,
Speaker 4: and then the account that it went through was essentially
Speaker 4: a dormant account. So there's evidence that the bank examiners,
Speaker 4: and if you look at and also the suspicious activity reports,
Speaker 4: the banks knew these were shell companies, and the banks
Speaker 4: did everything they were supposed to do by notifying Treasury
Speaker 4: that wait a bitte this politically exposed family. They're getting
Speaker 4: wires from our enemies around the world. We don't know
Speaker 4: what these wires are for, and they're going through companies
Speaker 4: that have no known purpose or no acres.
Speaker 3: So shell companies. They're not real businesses. This is not
Speaker 3: a dry cleaner, this is not a gas station. They're
Speaker 3: no employees, there are no paychecks. They're not a business
Speaker 3: in any sense. This is a legal entity, and it's
Speaker 3: a legal entity created to send money to and it's
Speaker 3: what is often used for money laundering. It's what's often
Speaker 3: used to hide the source of the money. And you
Speaker 3: mentioned the suspicious activity reports, So let me ask for
Speaker 3: our listeners what is a suspicious activity report and how
Speaker 3: many of them were filed on the bidens.
Speaker 4: A suspicious activity report is when the bank notifies the
Speaker 4: Treasury Cabinet that they believe their client may have committed
Speaker 4: a crime.
Speaker 5: Now, I want everyone to understand this.
Speaker 4: Banks don't just do this nonchalantly, like the Washington Post
Speaker 4: tried to say, No bank wants to file a suspicious
Speaker 4: activity report center, because when you do, that invites the
Speaker 4: bank examiners to come in and investigate you. And the
Speaker 4: last thing a bank wants to do is the bank
Speaker 4: examiners walked through the front door. The Bidens had one
Speaker 4: hundred and seventy suspicious activity reports filed against them, which
Speaker 4: is unprecedented.
Speaker 5: I was a director of a bank for over a decade.
Speaker 4: Never has anyone received more than one or two that
Speaker 4: was affiliated with my bank. And the fact that this
Speaker 4: family got one hundred and seventy from six different banks
Speaker 4: on dozens of different accounts showed that there's something bad
Speaker 4: going on here. Because the banks are notifying the Treasury.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Treasury, we believe the Vice president's family are
Speaker 4: involved in some top of fraud.
Speaker 3: Well, and James, let me make sure. Let me make
Speaker 3: sure I understand this. Suspicious activity reports are relatively rare.
Speaker 3: There's something that the bank files with the Treasury Department
Speaker 3: when they believe there may be evidence of criminal conduct.
Speaker 3: And if you or I or Ben went and created
Speaker 3: a shell company, a company that did nothing, that had
Speaker 3: no employees, that was not a going business, and that
Speaker 3: shell company began getting multimillion dollar wires from China, from Russia,
Speaker 3: from Ukraine, that would be the sort of conduct that
Speaker 3: would trigger a suspicious activity report if any of us
Speaker 3: did that. Is that right?
Speaker 4: That's exactly right. And we released an email last week
Speaker 4: that kind of showed the thought process by a bank
Speaker 4: examiner was he was communicating with his super barrier and
Speaker 4: in the end they filed a suspicious activity report, and
Speaker 4: this email kind of outlines it. The Banker's Center said,
Speaker 4: wait a minute. You know this account is pretty much dormant.
Speaker 4: We don't know what this company is. All we know
Speaker 4: is that the president's son owns it. He got a
Speaker 4: five million dollar wire from China. We had to contact
Speaker 4: him to prevent a thar. We said, I'm sorry, mister Biden,
Speaker 4: we need to know what this wire was. And he
Speaker 4: said it was a loan. And there's like, oh, a
Speaker 4: loan from China. Well, we need the loan documentation and
Speaker 4: he said I don't have.
Speaker 5: Any, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: No one would loan anyone five million dollars without having
Speaker 4: some type of loan documentation. So then he said, we
Speaker 4: feared this could be a bribe, because we know China
Speaker 4: influences politicians through vulnerable family members, and we've seen in
Speaker 4: the mews where his ex wife said he was on drugs,
Speaker 4: he was in financial trouble. We believe this could be
Speaker 4: a real national security threat. That the serious of an
Speaker 4: email as I've ever seen from a major bank examiner.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, that is very serious. And of course CNN
Speaker 3: doesn't cover that, MSNBC doesn't cover that, ABC, CBS, NBC,
Speaker 3: the corporate media, that email doesn't exist. Now. Now, one
Speaker 3: of the things as far as the corporate media is concerned,
Speaker 3: one of the things that you mentioned a minute ago
Speaker 3: that I want to stop and drill down on a
Speaker 3: little bit. You said, early on the Biden family business,
Speaker 3: they would just get wires from overseas that were payments
Speaker 3: through these shell companies. But then there came a time
Speaker 3: when the irs started coming after them, when they changed
Speaker 3: how they did business and they began instead of getting
Speaker 3: wires that were straight out payments, they began calling them loans.
Speaker 3: Explain that a little bit more about when they did
Speaker 3: that and why they would have done that.
Speaker 4: That change started happening somewhere mid twenty eighteen, and from
Speaker 4: twenty fourteen to twenty eighteen they were pretty consistent. They would,
Speaker 4: you know, after Joe Biden would meet with these people,
Speaker 4: or a hunter would fly on Air Force two, or
Speaker 4: Joe would talk to them on the phone or have
Speaker 4: lunch with them. Then money would flow through the shell companies,
Speaker 4: and then they would disperse the money through the shell
Speaker 4: companies to ten different Biden family members. Once twenty eighteen
Speaker 4: rolled in and they realized the IRS was rolling in
Speaker 4: on them, and they knew this because the Irish was
Speaker 4: talking to them and the Irish was the Lower notes
Speaker 4: confirmed this, they changed the way they were doing business.
Speaker 4: Then they started taking money in, some of it directly
Speaker 4: through their personal account, some of it still through shell companies,
Speaker 4: but they were calling them loans. And the reason you
Speaker 4: do this is twofold number one. You don't report a
Speaker 4: loan on your taxes. So theoretically, if you got five
Speaker 4: million dollar wire from China and you said it was
Speaker 4: a loan, you didn't have to put that on your taxes,
Speaker 4: and the IRS would never know about it.
Speaker 5: And secondly, and this.
Speaker 4: Is the most obvious, you don't have to pay taxes
Speaker 4: on if it's a loan. And that's why I always said,
Speaker 4: we're going to follow the bank records. We're going to
Speaker 4: go with the bank statements in lieu of the tax returns,
Speaker 4: because there's nowhere on your tax return does it show
Speaker 4: you have a loan. There's a place on your tax
Speaker 4: return to show where you pay loan interest, mortgage interest,
Speaker 4: or if you loan someone money, you receive interest, but
Speaker 4: there's nowhere on your tax returns would it say alone.
Speaker 4: So if you just got the Biden's tax return, you
Speaker 4: would never know about fourteen million dollars that we found
Speaker 4: because they didn't report it to the RS.
Speaker 5: They called it loan.
Speaker 3: So fourteen million was the amount of loans you found so.
Speaker 4: Far, Yes, for Jim and Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3: And look, just to underscore what you said, because it's important.
Speaker 3: By calling it a loan. Number one, you don't have
Speaker 3: to report it to the IRS. Number two, you don't
Speaker 3: have to pay taxes to the IRS. But but of
Speaker 3: course it's got to be a real loan. It can't
Speaker 3: be just fraud. And all right, I've gotten loans over
Speaker 3: the course of my life. I've got a mortgage on
Speaker 3: my house. Now, the mortgage on my house, the collateral
Speaker 3: is my house. I've gotten car notes. I borrow money
Speaker 3: to buy a car. The collateral on the car note
Speaker 3: is the car. If I don't pay the payments, they
Speaker 3: take the car back. Is there any indication that Hunter
Speaker 3: or or Jim Biden had any collateral fourteen million dollars
Speaker 3: of loans? Did they own fourteen million dollars of collateral
Speaker 3: that would serve as the basis for those loans?
Speaker 4: Well, and I understand loans. Thank god, there's no loan documentation.
Speaker 4: We've asked for loan documentation. They won't produce loan documentation.
Speaker 4: It doesn't appear they had anywhere near fourteen million dollars
Speaker 4: in asset.
Speaker 5: So if you get fourteen million.
Speaker 4: Dollars in loans, you really need to have about eighteen
Speaker 4: or nineteen million dollars in assets, because that's the way
Speaker 4: that the banking rules are. You've got to have more
Speaker 4: than enough or you would be underwater. So but here's
Speaker 4: the most concerning thing. Going through their bank records, they've
Speaker 4: received all this money that they call loans. There are
Speaker 4: hardly any loan repayments, any principal payments, and no interest payment.
Speaker 3: All right, so this goes back.
Speaker 5: To twenty eighteen principal payment.
Speaker 3: Twenty eighteen, they start getting loans, they get fourteen million
Speaker 3: dollars of loans. You're saying from twenty eighteen to twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three, that's five years. There are very very few
Speaker 3: loan repayments at all, either principal or interest. In other words,
Speaker 3: this is some sort of magic loan that you don't
Speaker 3: need collateral for, you don't have to pay back, and
Speaker 3: it sure is helpful if you want to, say, buy
Speaker 3: a lot of crack and prostitutes, if you don't have
Speaker 3: to pay the loan back. Is that? Am I being
Speaker 3: fair and characterizing that?
Speaker 4: That's exactly right? It looked like one loan for half
Speaker 4: a million dollars to one of the bidens. They may
Speaker 4: have paid one hundred and ten thousand dollars back with
Speaker 4: no interest. The rest of the fourteen million dollars we
Speaker 4: can't find where they've made a single payment and not
Speaker 4: a kenny of it.
Speaker 3: But by the way, do they dispute this? Does Hunter
Speaker 3: claim no, no, I pay that back? Does Jim Biden
Speaker 3: claim no, I pay that back or do they dispute
Speaker 3: what you're saying.
Speaker 5: Well, we we're going to bring them in.
Speaker 4: You know, that's one reason we wanted to pose them.
Speaker 4: But you know, you can look at the bank records
Speaker 4: and there's no there's no payments back.
Speaker 1: Best case scenario, how much of the millions in loans
Speaker 1: eighteen million do you think they paid back?
Speaker 2: If you're being generous, fourteen million, fourteen.
Speaker 4: Million, I mean one hundred and ten thousand.
Speaker 3: Wow, it's you know, good to be a Biden.
Speaker 4: So and look at what point does the loan become income?
Speaker 5: You know, I don't know, that's a question.
Speaker 3: What does the law look if the intent is to
Speaker 3: defraud the IRS? If if it is a fraudulent vehicle,
Speaker 3: the IRS can bring it for tax fraud. You can't
Speaker 3: characterize something as a loan that is not in fact
Speaker 3: a loan that doesn't intend to be paid back. And
Speaker 3: I mean that on the face of I got to
Speaker 3: tell you I'd be ready to prosecute right now. Of course,
Speaker 3: you know I don't work at the Biden Justice Department,
Speaker 3: and so my marching orders aren't protect the big guy.
Speaker 3: And the statute of limitations is not far from running
Speaker 3: on these too. They've already let the statute of limitations
Speaker 3: run on what Hunter did with China back in seventeen.
Speaker 3: And the clock is ticking now. Now we started with
Speaker 3: with your telling us your investigators are going to talk
Speaker 3: with AmeriCorps Health Company about the six hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 3: that was paid to Jim Biden, And you said two
Speaker 3: hundred thousand went straight to Joe Biden. Did that come
Speaker 3: from AmeriCorps or did that come from AmeriCorps to Jim
Speaker 3: and then Jim to Joe. What was the path of the.
Speaker 5: Money AMERICRPS to Jim, and Jim to Joe.
Speaker 2: So the big guys getting cot day.
Speaker 4: The same day, the same day. So in Jim Biden's
Speaker 4: bank account the day he deposited that two hundred thousand
Speaker 4: dollars check, I think he had like four thousand dollars ballots,
Speaker 4: So he went from four thousand to two hundred and
Speaker 4: four thousand. Then he writes a check for two hundred
Speaker 4: thousand Joe Biden, so he goes back down to four thousand.
Speaker 4: That wasn't real hard to trace. I would challenge anyone
Speaker 4: to uh debate me on tracing that check.
Speaker 1: I have one other question on this money in general.
Speaker 1: We talk about the loan payments, but can we talk
Speaker 1: about the total sub of money that was coming into
Speaker 1: the the the Biden affiliated businesses. There were much bigger
Speaker 1: business deals that were done. And how hard is it
Speaker 1: to trace me.
Speaker 3: They're not businesses, call them shell corporate corporate businesses do something.
Speaker 3: Yeah that these these are just bank accounts to park money.
Speaker 4: Right and and a lot of these shelves had multiple
Speaker 4: bank accounts. That's what's taken so long to get the
Speaker 4: bank records in.
Speaker 5: We find more bank accounts.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're always finding more bank accounts and more accounts.
Speaker 4: But you know, we've identified twenty four million dollars that
Speaker 4: we don't think they can explain what they did.
Speaker 5: There's more, we know where it is, but you know,
Speaker 5: for for.
Speaker 4: Times sake, I mean, this is this is just the
Speaker 4: House Oversight Committee. I mean, no one in the government
Speaker 4: has investigated this. Anytime someone got close, like the Irish
Speaker 4: Witch of Blowers, they were told to stand down, usually
Speaker 4: by Leslie Wolfe.
Speaker 2: And can you explain when they get close?
Speaker 1: You just said every time they got close they were
Speaker 1: told to stand down. Lesuaf remind people of the pattern
Speaker 1: of how close they got to the Bidens and then
Speaker 1: how they were cut off.
Speaker 4: According to the irishwitch of blowers in their notes and
Speaker 4: everything Shapley and Ziegler have said has turned out to
Speaker 4: be true. We're seeing some of that in this recent
Speaker 4: indictment in California.
Speaker 3: And Chafflee and Ziegler are the two IRS whistleblowers, their
Speaker 3: career employees. They're not partisan Republicans indeed, you know, indeed
Speaker 3: they're Democrats, the Democrats. But they came forward because they
Speaker 3: were horrified by what they saw and and tell us
Speaker 3: what they told.
Speaker 4: Us, Well, they knew that there was money laundering, they
Speaker 4: knew there was tax evasion, they knew there was tax fraud,
Speaker 4: and they had accumulated all this evidence. Now they wanted
Speaker 4: to go in and raid a storage unit. They were
Speaker 4: told that there were documentation, you know, there were documents
Speaker 4: in the storage unit. And they said they also wanted
Speaker 4: to talk to Joe Biden. Well, that is the worst
Speaker 4: thing they ever said, because when they mentioned Joe Biden,
Speaker 4: that's when they were told to stand out and they
Speaker 4: were taking off the case.
Speaker 5: So the Irish rolled in on them.
Speaker 4: We know from talking to people and Jim Jordan talking
Speaker 4: to people at the Department of Justice that there were
Speaker 4: different jurisdictions looking into different things the Bidens had because
Speaker 4: when you get a suspicious activity report, the law is
Speaker 4: the Treasury notifies the appropriate investigators, you know, whether it
Speaker 4: be the IRS or whether it be the Department Justice.
Speaker 4: So they had to beget notification of all this stuff
Speaker 4: going on and they were told to stand down. We
Speaker 4: know from the from the FBI sources that Charles grass
Speaker 4: League failed that they got these credible document, this ten
Speaker 4: twenty three form that said Joe Biden had been involved
Speaker 4: in a bribery scheme, and yet no one with the
Speaker 4: FBI would allow them to investigate this any further.
Speaker 1: So let's turn to the president now, because and I
Speaker 1: want to go through some of the lies. You go back,
Speaker 1: and I think we should play that montage of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden when he was running for president and saying I
Speaker 1: made no money, I was never connected to my son
Speaker 1: or family businesses. There's no connections to China. This you know,
Speaker 1: this is a lie. Everybody's looked at it. It's a lie.
Speaker 2: Take a listen to this.
Speaker 4: How many times have you ever spoken to your son
Speaker 4: about his overseas business dealings.
Speaker 6: I've never spoken my son about his overseas pretty sums.
Speaker 6: I have never discussed with my son, or my brother
Speaker 6: or anyone else him to do.
Speaker 4: With their business period.
Speaker 6: And what I will do is the same thing we
Speaker 6: did in our administration, will be an absolute wall between
Speaker 6: personal and private and the government.
Speaker 4: Do you stand by your statement that you did not
Speaker 4: discuss any of your son's overseas business charge stand.
Speaker 1: By this Congressman. You know that's a lie. I know
Speaker 1: that's a lie. The Center knows that's a lie. But
Speaker 1: explain methodically for everyone watching and listening, how we now
Speaker 1: have the facts to back up that he was lying
Speaker 1: to the American people every time he said that, every
Speaker 1: time the White House said it, every time every Democrat
Speaker 1: said it on his behalf, every sarrogate on his campaign.
Speaker 4: Well, when we began the investigation, the political narrative and
Speaker 4: the media narrative was that Joe Biden never met with
Speaker 4: or spoke to any of these mysterious people who were
Speaker 4: sending his family millions and millions of dollars. Now we
Speaker 4: know through pictures, text messages, emails, what tap messages and
Speaker 4: depositions from Devin Archer that Joe Biden talked to all
Speaker 4: of them. We also discovered the pseudonym emails where Joe
Speaker 4: Biden was using a pseudonym of fake name, sending emails
Speaker 4: back and forth to Eric Sherwin, who was one of
Speaker 4: the main figures in this influence peddling scheme. In fact,
Speaker 4: he was like, for all practical purposes, the bookkeeper or
Speaker 4: the chief financial officer. Joe Biden also said he had
Speaker 4: a wall between the government and his.
Speaker 5: Son's family business elings.
Speaker 4: There was no while he was communicating back and forth.
Speaker 4: For there are hundreds of pseudonym emails between Joe Biden
Speaker 4: and Eric Sherwin. We believed there were, and the White
Speaker 4: House said there was it, the media said there was it,
Speaker 4: the National Archives wouldn't turn them over, and then lo
Speaker 4: and behold, some of them pop up in this recent
Speaker 4: indictment in California. Some of these pseudonym emails between Joe
Speaker 4: Biden and Sherwan we're brought out as evidence.
Speaker 3: So how many fake email accounts and how many burner
Speaker 3: phones have you all found for Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: Well, I can't comment on the burner phone yet because
Speaker 4: we're still looking into that and triple checking some things.
Speaker 4: But with respect to the email, he's had at least
Speaker 4: three that he communicated, three pseudonym emails that he used
Speaker 4: the government email for, and then he had some other pseudonyms,
Speaker 4: we believe, with some personal emails and some personal communication
Speaker 4: where he was he was they used code names like
Speaker 4: the Big Guy and Celtic and things like that. But
Speaker 4: clearly they were trying to hide something or they wouldn't
Speaker 4: have been using the pseudonyms. But the fact that, you know,
Speaker 4: I didn't think we would find government emails from Joe
Speaker 4: Biden to these people involved in the influence pelling scheme,
Speaker 4: but oh, there are hundreds of them. They just used
Speaker 4: a pseudonym and one reason the House voted.
Speaker 3: So now, and let me ask you, James On on
Speaker 3: the fake emails. Is it just a name if you
Speaker 3: had an email Kentucky Man Kentuckyman at gmail dot com,
Speaker 3: you know someone might pick a name of something, you know,
Speaker 3: Ben Ferguson Ole Miss Tennis Star, like you know, maybe
Speaker 3: you picked that as an email. Are they signed using
Speaker 3: fake names or are they signed Ben or James or Dad?
Speaker 3: How are they signed? And how much on the face
Speaker 3: of it are the emails trying to obscure the identity
Speaker 3: of the sender.
Speaker 5: Well, they're all trying to obscure the identity of the sender.
Speaker 4: He signed different things, but you know a lot of
Speaker 4: times the emails aren't aren't signed, but he's communicating back
Speaker 4: and forth. And the most disturbing thing to everyone should
Speaker 4: be that Hunter was being copied, blind copied on some
Speaker 4: of these emails that where he was using pseudonyms pertaining
Speaker 4: to Ukraine at the same time he was gonna Joe
Speaker 4: Biden was gonna go over there and fire Victor Choken,
Speaker 4: the prosecutor who was investigating Barisma.
Speaker 1: I want to that is new news to me. You
Speaker 1: just said that you had a burner email account. The
Speaker 1: president is communicating with someone without their knowledge. That Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's being blind copied, right, because you wouldn't know that email,
Speaker 1: which also goes back to a bigger lie.
Speaker 2: They said that if he ever.
Speaker 1: Talked with his son about people around his business, fear
Speaker 1: it was about the weather, right things It was it
Speaker 1: was not about business, it was you know, oh we're
Speaker 1: just friendly.
Speaker 2: These are direct communication.
Speaker 3: Where the Ukraine emails talking about the weather, was it
Speaker 3: like it's gonna be Sonny on Tuesday.
Speaker 5: No, and the emails weren't to Hunter.
Speaker 4: It was discussing with various UH members of the staff
Speaker 4: about his speech logistics to things like that, and they
Speaker 4: were copying Hunters. So this wasn't from a burner account.
Speaker 4: This was the government account. Joe Biden was just using
Speaker 4: a pseudonym. And the reason we know Hunter was copied
Speaker 4: on it.
Speaker 3: Say that again, so this is a government account. But
Speaker 3: Joe Biden is using just a fake name on a
Speaker 3: government account and is using that fake name to conduct
Speaker 3: government business and is secretly blind ceaseeing Hunter.
Speaker 2: He's sitting on the bard of Barsma, who's.
Speaker 3: Sitting on the border Barismos with being paid eighty three
Speaker 3: thousand dollars a month, who has no skills, who doesn't
Speaker 3: speak Ukrainian, who knows nothing about oil and gas, but
Speaker 3: has access to Daddy. Is that all of that accurate?
Speaker 4: That that tried, And the reason we know we found
Speaker 4: that email it was on the laptop.
Speaker 5: Now, remember when.
Speaker 4: We started this investigation, the laptop was Russian disinformation. But
Speaker 4: in Hunter, Biden's last speech he gave when he defied
Speaker 4: the congressionals, he referenced the laptop a lot, So you
Speaker 4: know it's there's a lot of pieces you have to
Speaker 4: put together, and it's very complicated, very hard to explain.
Speaker 4: This was by design. This is an organized criminal entity.
Speaker 4: There's no question about it. They knew what they were doing.
Speaker 4: The President's son is smarter than people think, and just
Speaker 4: we see all the stuff about him on drugs and stuff.
Speaker 4: This was very organized and the communications were many between
Speaker 4: Joe Biden and these various characters in these schemes, but
Speaker 4: they tried to hide it through the pseudonym.
Speaker 3: All right, So how many phone calls do we know
Speaker 3: about between Joe Biden and various international business associates of Hunter?
Speaker 3: And how many meetings do we know about between Joe
Speaker 3: Biden and various international associates of Hunter.
Speaker 4: Well, Devin Archer, in his transcribed interview testified that there
Speaker 4: were at least now at least twenty, could be anywhere
Speaker 4: from twenty to one hundred, but he said at least twenty.
Speaker 4: And now we know that Joe had lunch with some
Speaker 4: of these people.
Speaker 5: We didn't know. We had lunch with the.
Speaker 4: Russian oligarch who had sent Hunter Biden three and a
Speaker 4: half million dollars while Joe Biden was Vice president the
Speaker 4: same Russian oligarch who, when Joe Biden became president, was
Speaker 4: the one oligarch he left off the sanctions list when
Speaker 4: Russia invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 3: So, okay, just a lot of me say that again
Speaker 3: because I think it's important for our listeners and our viewers.
Speaker 3: The Democrats, the White House, the corporate media, they all
Speaker 3: say there's no evidence of corruption, no evidence corruption, and
Speaker 3: no evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. Just say what you
Speaker 3: just said again, because that is completely contrary to the
Speaker 3: talking points on the other side.
Speaker 4: One of the things we found out when we interviewed
Speaker 4: Devin Archer was that Joe Biden actually had lunch with
Speaker 4: the female oligarch from Russia, the former mayor of Moscow's wife,
Speaker 4: the wealthiest lady in Russia. She had sent Hunter Biden
Speaker 4: three and a half million dollars while Joe Biden was
Speaker 4: vice president, and we have no idea what the Bidens
Speaker 4: did to receive the three and a half million dollars.
Speaker 4: That's one of the questions we would ask Hunter Biden
Speaker 4: in his deposition. So we didn't know. Joe Biden acts
Speaker 4: like he had never met her, but Archer said, yeah,
Speaker 4: they had. They had a very long lunch or dinner,
Speaker 4: like several hours.
Speaker 3: Do we know where they had lunch or dinner? Do
Speaker 3: we know that?
Speaker 4: I think it was Cafe Milano, but I'm not one
Speaker 4: hundred percent certain. And when Joe Biden became president, and
Speaker 4: when Russia invaded Ukraine, he announced sanctions against all the
Speaker 4: oligarchs in Russia except one, the lady who had sent
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden three and a half million dollars.
Speaker 1: And in the updated the because they've updated these sanctions
Speaker 1: throughout this war with Ukraine, have they ever then added
Speaker 1: her name to that list, because several times they've updated
Speaker 1: and added new people to that list, or has she
Speaker 1: been protected to date by the Biden crime family.
Speaker 5: She's been protected today.
Speaker 3: So look, there's an important thing to underscore, and we've
Speaker 3: talked about this at length on verdict. Bribery, as everyone
Speaker 3: knows who listens to this pod, requires a quid pro
Speaker 3: quo Latin for this for that. And so you need
Speaker 3: this the payment the benefit, and you need it in
Speaker 3: exchange for that. And that is typically a government either
Speaker 3: an affirmative failure or declining to do something that because
Speaker 3: of the payment, in this instance three and a half
Speaker 3: million dollars from a russ Russian oligarch to Hunter and again,
Speaker 3: and James jump in if anything I'm saying is wrong,
Speaker 3: But there's no indication Hunter did anything of value, has
Speaker 3: any expertise in any thing relating to Russia, has any services,
Speaker 3: has any skills performed, did anything that someone would pay
Speaker 3: three and a half million dollars for. We do know
Speaker 3: that that along with the payment, this Russian oligarch has
Speaker 3: lunch or dinner with Joe Biden while he is vice president,
Speaker 3: So that is directness, direct access, direct conversation to Joe, Hey,
Speaker 3: you know I'm giving your son three and a half
Speaker 3: million dollars. You know, we don't know he said that,
Speaker 3: but it'd be kind of weird in the conversation that
Speaker 3: if either she or Hunter didn't tell Daddy, Hey, this
Speaker 3: is the person that gave me three and a half
Speaker 3: million dollars. Particularly if this is not proven. Although we
Speaker 3: know the laptop makes reference with regard to China to
Speaker 3: ten percent for the big guy, and to the extent
Speaker 3: that there is a pattern of Joe profiting directly off
Speaker 3: of Hunter's revenue, he would have a real reason to
Speaker 3: care about the three and a half million. But the
Speaker 3: thing that is new that is connected here is that
Speaker 3: when Joe becomes president and he puts in sanctions on
Speaker 3: Russian oligarchs, the one person that is miraculously left off
Speaker 3: is the oligarch that gave Hunter three and a half
Speaker 3: million dollars. So that's a second example of a quo.
Speaker 3: We've talked quite a bit about the firing of Victor Chokin.
Speaker 3: Victor Chokin was the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Barisma.
Speaker 3: The oligarch that owned Borisma paid Hunter a million dollars
Speaker 3: a year, and Joe Biden got him fired. That's a
Speaker 3: quot that would, I believe, support a bribery claim. This
Speaker 3: is a second quo that could support a bribery claim,
Speaker 3: which is not listing someone for sanctions who otherwise should
Speaker 3: be listed, and who would have been listed, but for
Speaker 3: the payment to your family member. That qualifies as bribery
Speaker 3: as well. Is what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: Accurate, It's accurate. I wish you were on the oversight
Speaker 4: committee to help me with all this.
Speaker 1: I have a question for both of you, and and
Speaker 1: I go back to when I was on the Bush campaign,
Speaker 1: even as someone younger, there was a very clear warning
Speaker 1: that was given to us, and it was explicit, be
Speaker 1: careful who you meet with, Be careful about any meeting
Speaker 1: on the clock or off the clock with anybody that
Speaker 1: could be nefarious. And that I remember that meeting because
Speaker 1: it was such a important line. Here is there any
Speaker 1: reason and I want to know more about the background
Speaker 1: of this of this oligarch and this woman, richest woman
Speaker 1: in Russia connected directly to Vladimir Putin. You don't get
Speaker 1: the job as the mayor of Moscow without Vladimir Putin's
Speaker 1: explicit picking you and consent.
Speaker 2: And being in that world.
Speaker 1: Would this be a meeting that our US government would
Speaker 1: have warned against, Like, you don't meet with this type
Speaker 1: of person. You certainly don't do business with this type
Speaker 1: of person. You don't take three and a half million
Speaker 1: from this type of person. I mean, would that not
Speaker 1: be some sort of conversation that would have happened?
Speaker 3: Of course, listen, this is freaking weird. This is weird.
Speaker 3: This is not something that, oh, this is typical what
Speaker 3: people in government do. You don't run around having dinner
Speaker 3: with Russian oligarchs. That that is a strange thing to do.
Speaker 3: I don't know anyone else in government. I don't know
Speaker 3: anyone else in the Senate. I don't know anyone else
Speaker 3: in the House who does that. I don't know anyone
Speaker 3: else getting millions of dollars from foreign countries. It's freaking weird. James,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna go out on a limb. Have you received
Speaker 3: millions of dollars from any foreign country?
Speaker 4: No? But I keep expecting the associated prits a Washington boast.
Speaker 5: To write that, But no, I have done.
Speaker 3: Look the closest I've come is I got change once
Speaker 3: at a Chinese restaurant for dinner. Yeah, like that is nuts.
Speaker 3: Who the hell? But like it is weird. I mean,
Speaker 3: I mean, look, you know your four hundred and thirty
Speaker 3: four colleagues. I know my nine and nine colleagues to
Speaker 3: the best of my knowledge, none of them, none other
Speaker 3: than Bobendez, who is under indictment. So let me set
Speaker 3: him aside. Because he's under indictment for this. That's actually
Speaker 3: a pretty powerful point. The only person I know who
Speaker 3: did something like this is currently being prosecuted for receiving
Speaker 3: brides because Bob be Menendez, it is alleged, did government
Speaker 3: favors for Egypt, was paid tens of thousands of dollars
Speaker 3: was paid in gold bars, and they're trying to put
Speaker 3: him in jail. Well, where is the indictment for Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: Because it's Joe Biden that's performing the government favors. And
Speaker 3: the closest analog I can find to someone who has
Speaker 3: done conduct similar to what Joe Biden did, although not
Speaker 3: as brazen, not as large scale, not as lucrative, not
Speaker 3: involving as many countries, the closest analogy is Bob Menendez
Speaker 3: to Joe Biden. And if they're indicting Bob Benendez, why
Speaker 3: on earth are they not indicting Joe And why are
Speaker 3: they not indicting Hunter For I get the tax claims,
Speaker 3: But we've talked at length about this. At the end
Speaker 3: of the day, this is not about Hunter Biden. If
Speaker 3: his name was Hunter Smith and he was some corrupt,
Speaker 3: messed up guy with substance abuse problems, none of us
Speaker 3: would be talking about it. He would be prosecuted, he'd
Speaker 3: face consequences. But it's not his life. It's not his
Speaker 3: personal demons that matter. It is when you have the
Speaker 3: Vice president of the United States and then the President
Speaker 3: of the United States selling official favors in a corrupt
Speaker 3: way to foreign oligarchs. There is a reason the Constitution
Speaker 3: specifies bribery as a ground for impeachment.
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 4: Well, one of the things that I wanted to get
Speaker 4: in here on the tax crimes that he was indicted on.
Speaker 4: That's from his W two from Barisma. So that's like
Speaker 4: the most obvious thing. He he got a W two
Speaker 4: from Barisma, and whether he was supposed to be on
Speaker 4: the board or not, whether it was ethical or not,
Speaker 4: it wasn't illegal for him to be on the board.
Speaker 5: He gets a W.
Speaker 4: Two, which that's on the up and up. He just
Speaker 4: didn't pay taxes on it. He failed to pay taxes
Speaker 4: on the millions of dollars he got from Barriskma that's
Speaker 4: listed on his W two. What he's never been pressed
Speaker 4: on are these millions of dollars in loans and all
Speaker 4: these fake ride offs that he had in these shell companies.
Speaker 4: I mean, he probably owes six or seven million more
Speaker 4: dollars that he hasn't been prosecuted on yet.
Speaker 3: The most obvious James tell us about about the fake
Speaker 3: write offs because because that's something that doesn't get discussed much.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, you know, so in these shell companies, so
Speaker 4: he would wire you know, say he got a five
Speaker 4: million dollar wire, then he would wire different you know,
Speaker 4: maybe five million dollar wires to five different shell companies,
Speaker 4: and then he would take half that money and wire
Speaker 4: it to various Biden family members. He keep the other
Speaker 4: half in the shell and he would pay for basic
Speaker 4: living expenses, and he would pay for things like prostitutes
Speaker 4: and drugs, and he would right them off as a
Speaker 4: business deduction. So at the end of the day.
Speaker 3: Prostitutes and drugs were business deductions for Hunter Biden was.
Speaker 4: That was part of the indictment in California.
Speaker 5: That was one of the things.
Speaker 4: He joined a sex club in California and paid for
Speaker 4: it out of a shell company that he claimed was
Speaker 4: his law firm aasco. Now, think about this. His law
Speaker 4: firm was paying his sex club membership, and on his
Speaker 4: taxes he put down that it was a golf country
Speaker 4: club membership so he could ride it off.
Speaker 3: You know, Ben, I feel bad when I was at
Speaker 3: a law firm, they didn't pay for my parking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I apparently needed one hell of a bonus structure
Speaker 1: over there. He goes law fundamentally differently, one hell of
Speaker 1: a of a of a write off there go back
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden for a second, and I want to
Speaker 1: play for you another montage of Joe Biden, uh consistently
Speaker 1: saying there's nothing, there's no there, there, there's nothing wrong here.
Speaker 2: I wasn't involved.
Speaker 1: And he also says the media has investigated this and
Speaker 1: no one's found any wrongdoing.
Speaker 2: Here's the president in a montage in his own words.
Speaker 6: Every single solitary serious investigator, including your network and others,
Speaker 6: have looked at this have said there's absolutely zero basis
Speaker 6: to the accusation that I acted anyway inappropriately or that
Speaker 6: my son did. Every major national, international, and local news
Speaker 6: operations looked into it has said it's a lie. This
Speaker 6: is a president's flat line. So it's not been a
Speaker 6: centilla of evidence point of anything is wrong. There's not
Speaker 6: a single solitary evidence anywhere. There's not been one sentilla
Speaker 6: to evidence that my son ever interfered, that I ever
Speaker 6: asked me anything, that I ever got involved in anything.
Speaker 6: I mean, come on, this is so these guys are amazing.
Speaker 2: So you think that everything that happened was kosher?
Speaker 6: You know, there's not one single bit of evidence, not
Speaker 6: one little.
Speaker 2: Tiny bit, not one tiny bit of evidence.
Speaker 1: Is the president a liar based on everything that you've
Speaker 1: seen and the idea that everybody's investigated this, they found nothing.
Speaker 1: Now the news media is reporting on some of this,
Speaker 1: so they're not even backing him up anymore.
Speaker 3: So I got to say, you know, Joe Biden is
Speaker 3: particularly fond of saying there's not a sentilla of evidence,
Speaker 3: and I couldn't help thinking of my favorite movie, The
Speaker 3: Princess Bride. You keep on using that word. I do
Speaker 3: not think it means what you think it means. I'm
Speaker 3: not sure Joe knows what the word scintilla means. So
Speaker 3: so let me just ask you directly, James, what is
Speaker 3: the most compelling evidence that you are aware of right
Speaker 3: now of corruption by Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: Well, the fact that we've found five payments to Joe
Speaker 4: Biden that we trace the source of the payments directly
Speaker 4: from his family's influenced pedling scheme. So when Joe Biden
Speaker 4: says that he's never benefited from his family's influence pedling scheme,
Speaker 4: that is a lie.
Speaker 5: We have two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: That's a quarter of a million dollars, which for the
Speaker 4: self proclaimed poorest guy in Congress, that's that's a lot
Speaker 4: of money, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars directly to
Speaker 4: Joe Biden's back pocket from his family's.
Speaker 5: Influence filling steams. They want to say that was.
Speaker 4: A loan repayment, which that's a whole nother story. If
Speaker 4: if you pay me back two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, Senator,
Speaker 4: then somewhere before you pay me back, I should have
Speaker 4: a check to you for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 5: They don't have that. But let's sen you know, I
Speaker 5: don't want to.
Speaker 3: Get into so let's let the two fifty give us
Speaker 3: the details of the two fifth fifty. When was it paid,
Speaker 3: from whom? And where does it look like the money
Speaker 3: came from.
Speaker 4: Two hundred thousand dollars came from Jim Biden and Sarah
Speaker 4: Biden to Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: That money came.
Speaker 4: Directly from that AmeriCorps Health company that was an influence
Speaker 4: pedaling scheme led by Jim Biden. Okay, then forty thousand
Speaker 4: dollars went from Jim and Sarah Biden to Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: That came from China. That was the ten percent of
Speaker 4: four hundred thousand dollars. That was the company that Babylinski
Speaker 4: said was going to be ten percent held for the
Speaker 4: Big Guy. They got four hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: Wow, hold on, I got I gotta stop you there,
Speaker 3: because that's I'm following this pretty closely, and that to
Speaker 3: me is something new. So so I'm aware of the
Speaker 3: ten percent for the Big Guy that that was in
Speaker 3: the information on Hunter's laptop. What I was not aware
Speaker 3: of is that you now have a payment from China
Speaker 3: and direct evidence, by the way, non circumstantial, direct evidence
Speaker 3: of a ten percent payment straight to Joe Biden. Is
Speaker 3: that right? To elaborate on that? Because the fact that
Speaker 3: the Big Guy is being paid ten percent.
Speaker 2: The exact amount, the exact eleven.
Speaker 3: Percent, not nine percent, ten percent exactly what was reflected
Speaker 3: what Babolinski told us, that's pretty compelling. So just to
Speaker 3: explain that again, it's it's important not to miss this point.
Speaker 4: If you'll remember the WhatsApp message where Hunter Biden was
Speaker 4: shaking down the Chinese actionals saying, we expect you to
Speaker 4: fulfill your commitment, the commitment that was.
Speaker 5: Made while Joe Biden was Vice president.
Speaker 4: He said, my dad sitting here beside me, and we're
Speaker 4: gonna unleash our wrath on you if you don't. Five
Speaker 4: days later, five business days later, five million dollars pops
Speaker 4: into the Biden account. They immediately wire four hundred thousand
Speaker 4: dollars to this shell company that was supposed to be
Speaker 4: the company that Joe Biden was going to be ten
Speaker 4: percent owner of, according to babo Leinski. From that four
Speaker 4: hundred thousand dollars, they start wiring different wires to different
Speaker 4: Biden family members and different shells. This has caused Mondey laundery,
Speaker 4: and it's confusing to explain, and that's bite his un
Speaker 4: But anyway, they wire money to Jim Biden from that
Speaker 4: four hundred thousand, and he writes Joe a check for
Speaker 4: forty thousand dollars. Forty thousand is ten percent of four
Speaker 4: hundred thousand in that particular shell that Joe Biden was
Speaker 4: supposed to have a ten percent ownership in. That money
Speaker 4: came directly from China. That cary gaining evidence.
Speaker 3: How close is the time period between the WhatsApp, the
Speaker 3: five million dollar payment, the four hundred thousand dollars payment,
Speaker 3: and the forty thousand dollars payment.
Speaker 5: I mean a month.
Speaker 3: So this is all really closely compressed.
Speaker 4: This is all and remember you could when you transfer
Speaker 4: money to an account, you have to keep it in
Speaker 4: there at least twenty four hours. So you know a
Speaker 4: lot of times you say, oh, there's two or three
Speaker 4: days difference, Well maybe the bank wouldn't make it available.
Speaker 4: A lot of times when you deposit money in the bank,
Speaker 4: you'll say your funds may not be available for twenty
Speaker 4: four hours or forty eight hours or until next week.
Speaker 4: So they got the money to Joe about as quick
Speaker 4: as you could do it in banking terms, going through
Speaker 4: that many different accounts.
Speaker 2: So then here's my question.
Speaker 1: We've talked about the tax issues with Hunter Biden and
Speaker 1: James Biden.
Speaker 2: I think there's some more questions there.
Speaker 1: But if all of this is happening and money is
Speaker 1: running through to the president or then vice president, what
Speaker 1: are the liabilities that we don't know about? And I'm
Speaker 1: talking from a tax standpoint for the president of the
Speaker 1: United States and America, because what we do know is there's
Speaker 1: money flowing in, then they claim its loans and there's claiming,
Speaker 1: there's repayment of loans, but we don't see the reclaimant payments.
Speaker 2: So is that a tax issue for the president? I
Speaker 2: can't want to have.
Speaker 1: Is this if the bank accounts these shell companies were
Speaker 1: acting as piggybanks for Hunter Biden and the Biden crime family.
Speaker 1: We've also heard there were payments being made for things
Speaker 1: that benefited the Vice president and the president through things
Speaker 1: that were done at their houses, his house, home improvements, remodeling.
Speaker 1: What other benefits was President Joe Biden receiving through this
Speaker 1: money that wasn't directly coming to his bank account And
Speaker 1: would that be a tax issue in theory for the
Speaker 1: President the United States of America.
Speaker 4: I think so. So a lot of these show companies
Speaker 4: had credit cards. So we got the bank account and
Speaker 4: it'll say, all right, we spent fifteen thousand dollars this
Speaker 4: month on our City Bank card or our Chase card
Speaker 4: or whatever. We have to subpoena the credit card companies
Speaker 4: and start going down these bank statements. I mean, this
Speaker 4: is stuff, this investigation so big and so complex and
Speaker 4: so complicated. I mean, we're moving as quickly as we
Speaker 4: can for a little old congressional staff. This is stuff
Speaker 4: the IRS and the FBI and the Department Justice for
Speaker 4: better suited to do.
Speaker 5: But we're doing the best we can.
Speaker 4: So we know from the laptop there were things Hunter
Speaker 4: Biden was paying for a value for Joe, like a
Speaker 4: new roof and a cell phone bill and things like that.
Speaker 5: But the two hundred and fifty thousands.
Speaker 3: Hold on a second, did you just say Hunter Biden
Speaker 3: paid for a new roof for Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: According to the laptop.
Speaker 4: According to the laptop, And remember there's message from Hunter
Speaker 4: Biden to Hunter Biden's daughter saying, unlike Dad, I won't make.
Speaker 4: I won't make you have to turn over fifty percent
Speaker 4: of your salary to me. So there's lots of references
Speaker 4: in the laptop where Hunter Biden was complaining about having
Speaker 4: a pay for stuff for Dad, for Joe Biden. That's
Speaker 4: why we wanted to depose him. That's why we wanted
Speaker 4: to ask that was one of those questions.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the deposition. Were you surprised that Hunter
Speaker 3: defied the subpoenan refre used to set for the deposition.
Speaker 4: I wasn't because I felt like that indictment was done
Speaker 4: to protect him from this deposition.
Speaker 5: Because you've been dined.
Speaker 4: Yes, you've beendicted him for two things.
Speaker 5: Uh, the line on a gun.
Speaker 4: Application and his basic failure to pay taxes.
Speaker 5: On his W two income.
Speaker 4: I mean, those are the two things that you really
Speaker 4: can't tie to Joe Biden. But the money laundering you
Speaker 4: can tie to Joe Biden, the UH, the the loans,
Speaker 4: the tax evasion on that, the securities fraud, even the
Speaker 4: even the problems with prostitutes and possible human trafficking and
Speaker 4: all that, you can tie that to Joe because some
Speaker 4: of that was at at Joe's house.
Speaker 5: Apparently there's lots of things.
Speaker 3: That hold on a second, James, you said possibly human trafficking.
Speaker 3: What what? What is the evidence we have of that.
Speaker 4: There's a suspicious activity report filed against an escort service
Speaker 4: in Florida, and the suspicious at Timy report is on
Speaker 4: the escort service. But Hunter Biden is a subject of
Speaker 4: that suspicious activity report because he was a big customer
Speaker 4: and send him money to and from the bank notified.
Speaker 4: And this is public not because of us. You're not
Speaker 4: supposed to leak these activity reports, but it's out there.
Speaker 4: It's out there on the internet. I think it was
Speaker 4: in that Marco Polo report. But we you know it's real,
Speaker 4: and what it said was the bank notified. I think
Speaker 4: it was JP Morgan notified the Treasury that we believe
Speaker 4: is our client is operating an escort service and the
Speaker 4: two prostitutes that they're paying are here illegally, one from Russia,
Speaker 4: one from Ukraine.
Speaker 5: I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 4: And we don't know if they were human traffic We
Speaker 4: don't know if. All we know is they're not here legally,
Speaker 4: and we're pretty sure they're h and engaged in prostitution,
Speaker 4: which is illegal in Florida. And they list like the
Speaker 4: two or three names of people that were spending a
Speaker 4: lot of money there, and Hunter Biden was at the
Speaker 4: top of list, which is another reason they filed the
Speaker 4: Star because then you Russia and Ukraine human trafficking and
Speaker 4: at the time he was living in Joe Biden's house,
Speaker 4: they were.
Speaker 5: Sending the prostitutes to him.
Speaker 4: He wasn't going there, so they were sending them across
Speaker 4: state lines, which.
Speaker 3: Is you know, is there evidence that they were sending
Speaker 3: the prostitutes to Joe Biden's house.
Speaker 4: All we know is Hunter was living there at the time.
Speaker 4: We don't know if he was going to a hotel
Speaker 4: or whatever. But I'm just telling you what JP Morgan said, okay,
Speaker 4: I mean this is so.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you about more. Let me ask you
Speaker 3: about the deposition. So Hunters refused to testify. What happens
Speaker 3: next in the next week, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks.
Speaker 4: What happens next, Well, we're gonna have to issue contempt
Speaker 4: of Congress charges.
Speaker 5: We'll run that through the Oversight Committee and tell.
Speaker 3: People what are the mechanics of what has happen.
Speaker 4: I was hoping Jim Jordan would lead that through the judiciary,
Speaker 4: but it looks like we're going to do it through
Speaker 4: the House Oversight Committee. There's a lot of paperwork that's
Speaker 4: gonna have to get done. Remember, we've got a new
Speaker 4: Speaker of the House, all new staff rolling in. He
Speaker 4: kept some of McCarthy's staff on till the end of
Speaker 4: the year. We got a new staff coming in. So
Speaker 4: we're going to try to get all this accumulated as
Speaker 4: quickly as possible and then have a committee here and
Speaker 4: then hopefully mark.
Speaker 5: It up on the floor.
Speaker 4: But there's a lot of legwork that has to be done,
Speaker 4: a lot of documentation that has to be accumulated, and
Speaker 4: we're doing this at a time when we're shifting a
Speaker 4: lot of people in the Speaker's office in one thing center,
Speaker 4: A lot of people don't realize I have subpoena authority,
Speaker 4: but the Speaker has to sign off on it. That's
Speaker 4: something that Darryl Olysis talked about, and Trey Gout He's
Speaker 4: talked about, and Jason Chafitch.
Speaker 5: You know, former Republican chairsh.
Speaker 4: The Speaker's General counsel has to sign off on it
Speaker 4: because if it goes to court, they're the ones that
Speaker 4: represent us in court.
Speaker 5: It's the Speaker's General Council.
Speaker 4: So there's you know, there's some bureaucracy involved in these subpoenas.
Speaker 4: There's some bureaucracy involved in the contempt of Congress, But
Speaker 4: we plan on moving forward to that and we're working
Speaker 4: on it as we speak.
Speaker 3: So let me ask you something. When U subpoena Hunter,
Speaker 3: he came back and said he was willing to testify,
Speaker 3: but only only in an open hearing, not in a
Speaker 3: closed door deposition. Tell us, from your perspective, what the
Speaker 3: advantages are of doing a closed door deposition first before
Speaker 3: open public testimony.
Speaker 4: We have tens of thousands of pages of documents, bank statements, emails,
Speaker 4: sworn testimony, we have hundreds and hundreds of questions, you know,
Speaker 4: probably close to a thousand questions. In a deposition, you
Speaker 4: have one hour. The Republicans have an hour, then the
Speaker 4: Democrats have an hour, then you come back and have
Speaker 4: another hour, the dimogrants have another hour. So you know,
Speaker 4: easily you can get an eight hour deposition in it
Speaker 4: the day, whereas we would have four hours. The staff
Speaker 4: would generally be the ones that would which I have.
Speaker 4: You know, my lead deposer was the lead deposer at
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice in the in the Trump administration
Speaker 4: under Bill bark So we've got the you know, really
Speaker 4: good people that are really good at this, and Judiciary
Speaker 4: does too.
Speaker 5: Jim has good people there. They were both going to
Speaker 5: be in there.
Speaker 4: We were going to ask them specific questions, hundreds of questions.
Speaker 4: If you have a committee hearing, were you twenty five
Speaker 4: Republicans and twenty one Democrats going back and forth yelling
Speaker 4: the Democrats of the last year and they filed three
Speaker 4: motions to adjourn during the committee here and trying to
Speaker 4: disrupt it. You get five minutes each back and forth.
Speaker 4: We might get forty forty five questions in So it's
Speaker 4: a difference of forty or forty five questions in a
Speaker 4: complete chaotic poop scene versus a sit down, substantive deposition
Speaker 4: where we could easily ask eight hundred questions.
Speaker 5: This is too important.
Speaker 4: This is an investigation of public corruption at the highest levels.
Speaker 4: This has been a substantive, credible investigation that we've accumulated
Speaker 4: mountains of evidence through bank records and emails. We have
Speaker 4: lots of questions. You just can't get that into a
Speaker 4: public hearing. But I want to have a public hearing
Speaker 4: with Hunter Biden, and we will have a hearing with
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden after he gets deposed.
Speaker 3: For what it's worth, James, and this is something that
Speaker 3: I've talked about on Verdict recently. Look, you're in the
Speaker 3: middle of the fight. You're working your tail off with
Speaker 3: a lot of complicated stuff. I understand everything you said there,
Speaker 3: and I agree there's a lot of force to the
Speaker 3: argument you're putting forward to the extent I can share
Speaker 3: some unsolicited advice, which I did in our last podcast,
Speaker 3: and you know, I'm a lawyer and a senator, so
Speaker 3: I'm in the business to give it unsolicited advice. But
Speaker 3: I would encourage y'all to go ahead and have him
Speaker 3: in a public hearing anyway, and I understand why it
Speaker 3: would be better to depose him, but from their perspective,
Speaker 3: they can litigate and fight this contempt for the rest
Speaker 3: of the year and run out the clock, and that's
Speaker 3: what they want to do. And I know you know
Speaker 3: this very directly, but just I want to remind our
Speaker 3: listeners this is ultimately about Joe Biden, not about Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3: And although the questions won't be as detailed, there won't
Speaker 3: be as much time in a public hearing getting Hunter publicly.
Speaker 3: He claims he will do it, and I would also
Speaker 3: encourage and I don't know the House rules the mechanics
Speaker 3: for doing this, but to the extent you can, I
Speaker 3: would encourage you if you do a public hearing with
Speaker 3: Hunter instead of doing five minute rounds, do ten minute
Speaker 3: rounds Senate. In the Senate and the Judiciary Committee, we
Speaker 3: often do seven minute rounds or ten minute rounds. For
Speaker 3: Supreme Court nominee we do thirty minute rounds. The difference
Speaker 3: is a cross examiner of what you can get in
Speaker 3: a ten minute round versus a five minute round is
Speaker 3: night and day, and so so I would just I
Speaker 3: think the value if we could get Hunter to testify
Speaker 3: in January, and if your team could work with your
Speaker 3: down DIAS members to have all, right, here are all
Speaker 3: the questions we need to get. Can you take this module?
Speaker 3: You take this module? So you know, sometimes you and
Speaker 3: I both know their hearings where you have members, they
Speaker 3: all do their own thing, and they're all running around
Speaker 3: like crazy for something like this. To the extent the
Speaker 3: down Dias Republicans each can take a particular issue and say,
Speaker 3: all right, I'm going to take my five or even
Speaker 3: better ten minutes and ask the questions. Would it be
Speaker 3: as good as a deposition? No, but I think the
Speaker 3: value of doing that publicly if Hunter would answer those questions,
Speaker 3: the legal jeopardy for Joe would be massive from that,
Speaker 3: and I think that outweighs the strategic benefit of waiting
Speaker 3: for the closed door deposition. So consider that I don't
Speaker 3: need an answer from you now, but that you know, look,
Speaker 3: I've litigated a lot of cases and and that would
Speaker 3: be my pretty emphatic advice is that don't let the
Speaker 3: perfect be the enemy of the good. Because getting Hunter
Speaker 3: on the record in public on all the questions that
Speaker 3: we've been talking about, that is enormously valuable and I
Speaker 3: don't want to see the clock run out, particularly if. Look,
Speaker 3: you and I are both hoping there's a good election
Speaker 3: in November, but it could be a bad election if
Speaker 3: and if in November the speaker is a keen Jeffries.
Speaker 3: Your committee's going away and they're in the deposition, they're
Speaker 3: into public hearing, and it's all over. So we can
Speaker 3: hope we have a good election. But I think it's
Speaker 3: it's wise to assume that your clock may be at
Speaker 3: most eleven months.
Speaker 4: Agree or left?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let me ask you.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this question too. Is we kind
Speaker 1: of put a rap on this. I want to play
Speaker 1: Hunt and I want to play what he said because
Speaker 1: I don't know, if you know, a lot of people
Speaker 1: thought the White House was probably give me advice. I
Speaker 1: think there seems to be a little bit of a
Speaker 1: riff now between the White House.
Speaker 2: We're seeing some weeks coming out.
Speaker 1: They didn't like what Hunter Biden did at this press conference,
Speaker 1: and that means he's kind of a rogue actor in
Speaker 1: this scenario. Right now, I want to get your reaction
Speaker 1: to just as demeanor what he said.
Speaker 2: Take a look. Let me state as clearly as I can.
Speaker 7: My father was not financially involved in my business, not
Speaker 7: as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Barisma,
Speaker 7: not in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not
Speaker 7: in my investments at home nor abroad, and certainly not
Speaker 7: as an artist. During my battle with addiction, my parents
Speaker 7: were there for me. They literally saved my life. They
Speaker 7: helped me in ways that I will never be able
Speaker 7: to repay, and of course they would never expect me to.
Speaker 7: And in the depths of my addiction, I was extremely
Speaker 7: irresponsible with my finances. But to suggest that his grounds
Speaker 7: for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd.
Speaker 2: It's shameless.
Speaker 7: There is no evidence to support the allegations that my
Speaker 7: father was financially involved in my business, because it did
Speaker 7: not happen. James Comer, Jim Jordan, Jason Smith, and their
Speaker 7: colleagues have distorted the facts by cherry picking lines from
Speaker 7: a bank statement, manipulating texts I sent, editing the testimony
Speaker 7: of my friends and former business partners, and misstating personal
Speaker 7: information that was stolen from me.
Speaker 1: He accuses you of manipulating text messages without any evidence
Speaker 1: and says that you guys are cherry picking lines.
Speaker 2: I gotta get your response to that.
Speaker 4: I've never seen such a display of arrogance and entitlement
Speaker 4: in my life. But I'm not surprised because, look, he's
Speaker 4: gotten away with this for years because he's a Biden.
Speaker 4: The rules don't apply to Bidens. But I don't know
Speaker 4: how you manipulate a text. Was his father beside him
Speaker 4: when he was extorting that Chinese national or not? That's
Speaker 4: a simple question. The media should have asked then and there.
Speaker 1: And they stopped the GPS, right, they stopped the GPS.
Speaker 3: You and I have talked about this here. We could
Speaker 3: have answered that question. Well, okay, and it's important. Look,
Speaker 3: this is there's a reason people hate lawyers. I listened
Speaker 3: to that as a lawyer. When they say manipulating a text,
Speaker 3: what they mean is one of the copies that was
Speaker 3: released of the WhatsApp text from one of the House members,
Speaker 3: they put a Chinese flag next to the Chinese person
Speaker 3: speaking to identify them, so like, aha, snipulated it because
Speaker 3: in the real one there's not a Chinese flag, so
Speaker 3: it's true. For purposes of display, they added a Chinese
Speaker 3: flag to demonstrate that that was a Chinese person. When
Speaker 3: they say manipulated. What they don't mean. What Hunter has
Speaker 3: never said, what his lawyers have never said, is that
Speaker 3: one word of that text is inaccurate. What they have
Speaker 3: never said is I did not send that. And we
Speaker 3: talked about on verdict. One possible defense he could have
Speaker 3: is Nope, that text is fake. I never sent it. Now,
Speaker 3: that's a defense you can make, but then you've got
Speaker 3: to prove it. The fact that they haven't said that,
Speaker 3: much like Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn't bark,
Speaker 3: The fact that they didn't say that tells you that
Speaker 3: they are implicitly admitting it is accurate. We also know
Speaker 3: that DOJ prevented any search of GPS data would be
Speaker 3: very easy to determine where was Hunter's cell phone at
Speaker 3: the moment that text was being sent, Where was Joe's
Speaker 3: cell phone? Were they in the same room where they
Speaker 3: sitting next to each other. The Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 3: does not want anyone to know the answer to that,
Speaker 3: and so they blocked that. But by the way, that
Speaker 3: text is direct evidence. So and next time you hear
Speaker 3: a Democrat or their shills in the media saying there's
Speaker 3: no direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement. Understand that WhatsApp
Speaker 3: text is direct evidence. It's not circumstantial. It is written
Speaker 3: testimony from Hunter about Joe's involvement in the shakedown. And
Speaker 3: I got to say, by the way, Ben, I noticed something,
Speaker 3: so James. In our last podcast, we held the New
Speaker 3: York Times to task because they took Hunter Biden's quote
Speaker 3: at the press conference that my father was not financially
Speaker 3: involved with my business and they misquoted it to say
Speaker 3: my father was not involved in my business. They deleted
Speaker 3: the word financially and that was I believe a very
Speaker 3: deliberate deletion.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Well, what's interesting, I just discovered something again. Let me
Speaker 3: ask the team put up the very last shot from
Speaker 3: the Hunter Biden video that we were watching, if we
Speaker 3: can put it on the screen now. If you notice
Speaker 3: CNN did the same damn thing. Yeah, look at the
Speaker 3: chiron in the bottom. Hunter Biden, my father was not
Speaker 3: involved in any of my businesses. What he said was
Speaker 3: my father was not financially involved in any of my businesses.
Speaker 3: CNN and New York Times both deleted the same word.
Speaker 3: By the way, they know how to quote what he said.
Speaker 3: Often a chiron will be Hunter Biden quote quote, Yeah,
Speaker 3: my father was not financially involved in any of my businesses.
Speaker 3: But understand, CNN is on team Biden, They're on team Hunter,
Speaker 3: They're on team Joe. And it reminds me of the
Speaker 3: famous CNN chirn of the reporter saying fiery but peaceful protest.
Speaker 3: As a building is on fire with a Black Lives
Speaker 3: Matter and Antifa protest going on, CNN is happily editing
Speaker 3: out Hunter's comments to benefit the White House.
Speaker 1: James, let me ask let me ask you one other
Speaker 1: question about this that I think is also very important,
Speaker 1: and that is to remind people financially. Now, how many
Speaker 1: countries was the Biden crime family getting money from.
Speaker 2: We haven't even mentioned in the last hour. Romania. That's
Speaker 2: a country that has to be brought up.
Speaker 1: But you guys are fighting more money in more places
Speaker 1: with more people. And even Hunter Biden there in what
Speaker 1: he said, he said with my foreign business dealings plural,
Speaker 1: he was admitting, yeah, I'm getting money from everywhere in
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we know he got money from China, Romania, Ukraine, Russia.
Speaker 5: Who's Bekastan.
Speaker 4: We know that he was paid through China for stuff
Speaker 4: he did in the Congo. We know that Jim Biden
Speaker 4: operated primarily in the Middle East, so pretty much every
Speaker 4: bad country.
Speaker 5: In the world is where the Bidens.
Speaker 4: Would target their influence peddling scheme.
Speaker 1: Do you expect to get anything new about James Biden's money.
Speaker 1: I mean, we obviously know a lot about Hunters, but
Speaker 1: are you guys finding more and more of James, Because
Speaker 1: before Hunter Biden was of age, James was the bagman
Speaker 1: and then it kind of turned into, oh, hey, we've
Speaker 1: got a kid here that we can get to be
Speaker 1: the bagman, and we have an excuse for his actions
Speaker 1: that he's a drug addict, which is exactly what Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden said in that video. I was in the depths
Speaker 1: of addiction. You should feel sorry for me. I had
Speaker 1: just seen the money from anybody. James Biden seems to
Speaker 1: be smarter and have done this for decades, while Hunter's
Speaker 1: kind of the pupil under him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we have a lot of questions for James Biden. Again,
Speaker 4: the reason no one knows much about him is he
Speaker 4: didn't leave a laptop lying around. But having looked at
Speaker 4: his bank records, from his LLC and from his personal
Speaker 4: bank records, I have a lot of questions for James Biddy.
Speaker 3: Does they appear that James, Joe's brother, was as involved
Speaker 3: in this family business as Hunter was, or would you
Speaker 3: say they're they're equally complicit.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say he's as involved, But a lot of
Speaker 4: transactions in and out of James Biden's LLC were with
Speaker 4: the Biden shell companies, and then obviously the two hundred
Speaker 4: and forty thousand dollars that came from Hunter's shell companies
Speaker 4: went through James Biden's personal account and had him write
Speaker 4: the money to Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: I think at the end of.
Speaker 4: The day, when Joe Biden was saying, oh, there's not
Speaker 4: a shred of evidence, not shred of evidence, they thought
Speaker 4: that we would try to get their taxes. And I
Speaker 4: never wanted their taxes. I wanted their bank records. I've
Speaker 4: looked at enough tax returns. As the director of a bank,
Speaker 4: you want to look at the bank statements. Bank statements
Speaker 4: don't lie, and you would have never seen that money
Speaker 4: to Joe.
Speaker 5: You would never see.
Speaker 4: Any of these these millions of dollars they're labeling as loans.
Speaker 4: If you had just sub pointed the tax records, you
Speaker 4: had to get their banks.
Speaker 3: And to be clear, the two hundred thousand dollars payment
Speaker 3: that went from from Jim to Joe that they claim
Speaker 3: was a loan repayment, there is zero evidence, or to
Speaker 3: use Joe's phrase, not a scentilla of evidence, that that
Speaker 3: was actually a loan that had ever gone from Joe
Speaker 3: to Jim in the first place. In other words, there
Speaker 3: has to be a loan in order for a loan
Speaker 3: to be repaid. Is there any evidence at all that
Speaker 3: that loan existed.
Speaker 4: No, it's not hard to prove.
Speaker 5: Alone.
Speaker 4: If you paid me back one hundred thousand dollars, then
Speaker 4: I should have a check to you for one hundred
Speaker 4: thousand dollars at some point before you paid me back
Speaker 4: one hundred thous dollars. That's pretty simple, and I think
Speaker 4: every American, even the financially illiterate ones, understand that.
Speaker 3: All Right, two more questions. I want to get to,
Speaker 3: what do you make of the fact that the countries
Speaker 3: that are doing business with Hunter and Jim Biden are
Speaker 3: all countries that are shady, that have corrupt oligarchs that
Speaker 3: are to various degrees enemies of America, that they don't
Speaker 3: do business with any of our close allies. You don't
Speaker 3: see them doing business with England. You don't see them
Speaker 3: doing business with France or Germany. You don't see them
Speaker 3: doing business with Japan. You don't see them doing business
Speaker 3: with Canada. I mean, there are lots of countries where
Speaker 3: people can do business with them, where it's not necessarily shady.
Speaker 3: You go out of your way to find places like
Speaker 3: Russia and China. That says something. What do you make
Speaker 3: of that?
Speaker 4: I think that was their business model. We know they
Speaker 4: sold the Biden brand, but where did you sell the
Speaker 4: Biden brand? You sold the Biden brand in shady countries.
Speaker 4: You revolved the business model around people who are in trouble. Barisma,
Speaker 4: the Romanian foreign national, the Russian oligarch. China was always
Speaker 4: in trouble because no one wants to be the United States.
Speaker 5: We don't want try to buying farmland. We don't want
Speaker 5: China buying our energy companies.
Speaker 4: But they use the Bidens to try to get their
Speaker 4: foot in the door everywhere they operated. We're in countries
Speaker 4: where we have problems with bad people from bad countries.
Speaker 3: All right, last question. Something Hunter mentions at the end
Speaker 3: of that press conference, that's kind of gratuitously tossed on there.
Speaker 3: He says, Dad wasn't involved in Bearisma and my legal
Speaker 3: practice such as it was, and my businesses, and then
Speaker 3: he says or with me as an artist, and it
Speaker 3: kind of pops out of nowhere there. What do you
Speaker 3: make of that and what is your take on quote
Speaker 3: Hunter as an artist?
Speaker 4: Well, Hunter was never an artist until Joe became president.
Speaker 4: And it looks like their business model changed. From twenty
Speaker 4: fourteen to twenty eighteen, they were taking wires directly through
Speaker 4: those show companies in the irsh rolls on them. Then
Speaker 4: they start trying to say this money they were taking
Speaker 4: in from influence pedaling, we're loans. Then once Joe became president,
Speaker 4: they stopped all of that and Hunter started selling art.
Speaker 5: So I believe the influence peddling may still be going on.
Speaker 5: It's going on.
Speaker 4: Through the art sales. We need to know who's purchasing
Speaker 4: this artwork.
Speaker 3: That's why do we know that. Do we know who's
Speaker 3: purchasing the artwork and how much they're paying.
Speaker 4: We think we know of two people, and they're part
Speaker 4: of the people we're trying to bring in to ask
Speaker 4: questions or to the pose. So that's something every American
Speaker 4: should want to know who's behind this artwork.
Speaker 1: So even with the investigation going on, and this is
Speaker 1: just to make it clear the American people where we
Speaker 1: are now, there's no reason to believe that the Biden
Speaker 1: said Okay, they're onto us, let's shut it down. They
Speaker 1: just said, okay, they're onto us, let's change the way
Speaker 1: that we're operating our business. We found out, for example,
Speaker 1: that the first American hostage that was released from Hamas
Speaker 1: was had a family member who had bought artwork from
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. Is another example of still now this is
Speaker 1: going on in real time.
Speaker 3: So do we have evidence? Do we know how many
Speaker 3: paintings Hunter has sold to whom and for how much?
Speaker 3: Those are basic questions. Since Joe became president. Do we
Speaker 3: know whether he sold one painting, fifty paintings, or one
Speaker 3: hundred paintings.
Speaker 4: We know he sold several. They bragged about it. The
Speaker 4: art director, George Burgess, he's one of the people we
Speaker 4: expected to pose.
Speaker 5: Hopefully in January, we'll ask those questions.
Speaker 1: And has any of Hunter Biden's art ever hung in
Speaker 1: any government buildings or the White House that would, in
Speaker 1: theory raise the price of that art work. The value
Speaker 1: of that art work, because we know that artwork where
Speaker 1: it hangs can increase the value significantly.
Speaker 4: I don't know that that'll be a great question. We
Speaker 4: can ask George Burgess.
Speaker 3: But the point you made that there's no evidence Hunter
Speaker 3: was an artist until daddy became president is rather amazing.
Speaker 3: Every artist I've ever known, they've been an artist their
Speaker 3: whole life. They've been painting. Usually people have been painting
Speaker 3: since they were kids. If you want to be a
Speaker 3: commercial artist, most people don't start off saying I'm going
Speaker 3: to paint something and sell it for half million dollars.
Speaker 3: Is the Biden family blocking your committee getting the information
Speaker 3: on how many paintings have been sold to whom and
Speaker 3: for how much?
Speaker 4: Well, somebody's blocking it again.
Speaker 5: That's that's the question.
Speaker 4: We're going to ask the art gallery owner, and we're
Speaker 4: going to ask Kevin Morris, who's the Hollywood attorney, and
Speaker 4: we believe he has a lot of inside knowledge.
Speaker 5: Over this artwork and who's purchasing the artwork.
Speaker 3: This would be the Hollywood attorney that paid off Hunters
Speaker 3: back taxes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the media reports that he's paid a Hunter two
Speaker 4: and half million dollars, but it's five million dollars. It's
Speaker 4: five million dollars from this Hollywood attorney. He never met
Speaker 4: until Joe was the nominee to be he president.
Speaker 3: He never met the guy.
Speaker 4: Never met the guy. We had the picture when the
Speaker 4: first time they met. It was at a political fundraiser.
Speaker 5: So this guy didn't.
Speaker 4: Grow up with, wasn't friends with like Devin Archer, boba Olin, Scurity,
Speaker 4: these guys, and he met this guy. Now this guy
Speaker 4: has loaned him five million dollars.
Speaker 2: At least don't have to put that in your taxes.
Speaker 2: I guess that's the perpoct.
Speaker 3: I tell you this. This is James, thank you. This
Speaker 3: has been very helpful, and I want us to close.
Speaker 3: We've heard mountains and mountains of evidence of corruption, mountains
Speaker 3: of evidence of corruption of Hunter Biden, mountains of evidence
Speaker 3: of corruption of Jim Biden, mountains of evidence of corruption
Speaker 3: of Joe Biden. I want us to close with Karine
Speaker 3: John Pierre claiming there is no evidence. So just give
Speaker 3: a listen to what the White House is saying, and
Speaker 3: then we're going to look at the newspaper headlines that
Speaker 3: have followed.
Speaker 8: What we're seeing from House Republic is wasted time and
Speaker 8: it is certainly, you know, baseless political stunt, that's what
Speaker 8: we're seeing. And they're leaving house. Republicans are leaving this
Speaker 8: week to go, you know, enjoy a nice holiday, right
Speaker 8: as most Americans should. But what happened to the funding
Speaker 8: to Ukraine? Just asked me about Ukraine. They haven't been
Speaker 8: able to get that done. They haven't been able to
Speaker 8: fix helpless, fix what's going on at the border. They
Speaker 8: haven't been able to get that done. They haven't been
Speaker 8: able to start a conversation on how we're going to
Speaker 8: avert a shutdown in January. They haven't been able to
Speaker 8: do that. And so look, you know, there's been zero evidence,
Speaker 8: zero evidence. You can ask me about engagement and what
Speaker 8: the president has done with his family and conversation, but
Speaker 8: there's no evidence. There's wait, wait, but there's no evidence.
Speaker 8: There is no evidence that the president has done wrongdoing.
Speaker 8: There's none, absolutely none, none, And that is just a fact.
Speaker 8: You've heard it from Republicans themselves. So they're wasting their
Speaker 8: time instead of doing the work on behalf of the
Speaker 8: American people. They got after the president's family. But that's
Speaker 8: a waste of time.
Speaker 3: Every time she says no evidence, no evidence, no evidence.
Speaker 3: It's a lie. But here take a look at how
Speaker 3: Reuters reported the House vote on impeachment. Biden impeachment inquiry
Speaker 3: authorized by House Republicans COMMA despite lack of evidence. Mind you,
Speaker 3: this is news. Next headline, New York Times. House approves
Speaker 3: Biden impeachment inquiry as GOP hunts foreign offense. Republicans are
Speaker 3: pushing forward with a former investigation even though their year
Speaker 3: long scrutiny of the President and his family has turned
Speaker 3: up no evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. That is
Speaker 3: complete bs. By the way, Washington Post still lacking evidence.
Speaker 3: House GOP votes to formalize Biden impeachment inquiry. Lawmakers have
Speaker 3: said the step will put them on a stronger legal
Speaker 3: footing for any court challenges related to their investigations. Understand Reuters,
Speaker 3: The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Kareem john
Speaker 3: On behalf of the President are lying and James, thank
Speaker 3: you for joining us because you have laid out an
Speaker 3: enormous amount of evidence that apparently you don't exist. The
Speaker 3: House doesn't exist, the investigation doesn't exist, the bank records
Speaker 3: don't exist, the WhatsApp doesn't exist. Barisma doesn't exist. Twenty
Speaker 3: four million dollars doesn't exist. Two hundred and forty thousand
Speaker 3: dollars to Joe Biden doesn't exist. None of that exists
Speaker 3: because we're told there's no evidence these are lying shills.
Speaker 3: But the truth will out. Thank you for all you're doing,
Speaker 3: and James, have a merry Christmas.
Speaker 2: Congressman. Again, thank you so much for joining us. Senator.
Speaker 1: This is such an important conversation obviously, and I will
Speaker 1: say to everyone that's listening, make sure that you help
Speaker 1: us get the word out. Whether you're on Facebook or
Speaker 1: on YouTube or on x you can grab the video
Speaker 1: and watch. You can share the video there and also
Speaker 1: share the podcast links, because without you the Verdict listeners,
Speaker 1: this show doesn't happen. And when you share on social
Speaker 1: media you bring so many others into the conversation and
Speaker 1: allow them to hear the facts of what the mainstream
Speaker 1: media is not covering. I'll say it again, thank you
Speaker 1: to James Comer and Jim Jordan for all their hard work,
Speaker 1: and we hope you enjoyed everything that we talked about.
Speaker 1: The Senator and I will see you back here in
Speaker 1: a couple of days.