Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / All the President's Men-AG Garland Faces Whistleblower Allegation of Perjury on Hunter Biden & Tony Blinken Caught Red-handed Lying about Hunter's Laptop

Transcript

All the President's Men-AG Garland Faces Whistleblower Allegation of Perjury on Hunter Biden & Tony Blinken Caught Red-handed Lying about Hunter's Laptop · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

0:01
Speaker 1: Senator, It's going to be a fast paced show. We
0:03
Speaker 1: have so much news has broken this week about a whistleblower,
0:07
Speaker 1: someone asking for whistle blower protection. We actually have an
0:12
Speaker 1: attorney saying he needs this protection. And then on top
0:16
Speaker 1: of that, we hear all of a sudden, Joe Biden's
0:18
Speaker 1: filing an decide I'm going to announce I'm running for president,
0:21
Speaker 1: hoping that I'll put a lot of this to bed,
0:23
Speaker 1: that the media will protect him. Your initial reaction to
0:27
Speaker 1: this was probably the worst week from a media perspective
0:30
Speaker 1: for this president since he got into office, excluding maybe Afghanistan,
0:34
Speaker 1: because they're finally reporting on what's happened.
0:37
Speaker 2: Well, look, the allegations that are coming out. We've discussed
0:42
Speaker 2: great length on Verdict, the allegations of corruption within the
0:46
Speaker 2: Biden family, of profiting from Joe Biden's positions of government
0:51
Speaker 2: authority both as Vice president and as president. We now
0:56
Speaker 2: have all of that escalating significantly, and and a new
1:00
Speaker 2: element of the politicization of the Department of Justice protecting
1:06
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden and in particular this whistleblower who sent a
1:10
Speaker 2: letter on April nineteenth, send a letter to senators and
1:13
Speaker 2: House members of the applicable congressional committees, offering to provide
1:19
Speaker 2: testimony demonstrating that the Biden administration lined and the letter says,
1:24
Speaker 2: I represent a career IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent who
1:29
Speaker 2: has been overseeing the ongoing and sensitive investigation of a
1:34
Speaker 2: high profile, controversial subject since early twenty twenty and would
1:39
Speaker 2: like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress. Now we
1:43
Speaker 2: now know that high profile subject is Hunter Biden, but
1:46
Speaker 2: the letter doesn't specify that despite serious risk of retaliation,
1:52
Speaker 2: The letter continues, my client is offering to provide you
1:55
Speaker 2: with information necessary to exercise your constitutional oversight functions, and
2:01
Speaker 2: wishes to make the disclosures in a nonpartisan manner to
2:05
Speaker 2: the leadership of the relevant committees on both sides of
2:08
Speaker 2: the political aisle. Now, now, what would the testimony be, Well,
2:11
Speaker 2: the letter gives you some indication of what the testimony
2:14
Speaker 2: would be. The letter continues, quote, my client has already
2:18
Speaker 2: made legally protected disclosures internally at the IRS through Council,
2:25
Speaker 2: to the US Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and
2:29
Speaker 2: to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General.
2:34
Speaker 2: The protected disclosures one contradict sworn testimony to Congress by
2:42
Speaker 2: a senior political appointee, two involve failure to mitigate clear
2:48
Speaker 2: conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the case.
2:52
Speaker 2: And three detail examples of preferential treatment and improperly infecting
3:03
Speaker 2: decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career
3:07
Speaker 2: law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject were
3:13
Speaker 2: not politically connected. Now, Hunter Biden is politically connected in
3:16
Speaker 2: that daddy's in the White House. Yeah, but what is
3:23
Speaker 2: striking So we talked about this on the last podcast
3:26
Speaker 2: on Friday. What has broken since we recorded that podcast
3:30
Speaker 2: is who the senior political official is. And it's not
3:35
Speaker 2: the assistant secretary of what you might call it. The
3:38
Speaker 2: senior political official is allegedly Merrick Garland, the Attorney General
3:44
Speaker 2: of the United States. That's a big damn deal. He's
3:48
Speaker 2: accusing the Attorney General of the United States of committing perjury,
3:53
Speaker 2: of lying under oath to Congress. That is serious and well, look,
3:59
Speaker 2: his lawyer went on TV to describe what his client
4:03
Speaker 2: wants to say. Give a listen.
4:05
Speaker 3: So, my client's a career law enforcement officer who is
4:09
Speaker 3: respected within the IRS, and he teaches other agents how
4:12
Speaker 3: to properly do investigations. He knows when to spot when
4:15
Speaker 3: other invest when investigative steps aren't done in the traditional
4:19
Speaker 3: way to get at the truth. And he has spotted
4:23
Speaker 3: and observed things that are done differently in this particular
4:26
Speaker 3: matter which I can't identify, and he wants to talk
4:29
Speaker 3: about them, and he believes that they were influenced by politics.
4:33
Speaker 2: That is significant.
4:34
Speaker 1: From to say it this way, you can also see
4:36
Speaker 1: that this attorney's trying to be very smart and go
4:39
Speaker 1: buy the book because they're afraid of Merret Garland, I
4:41
Speaker 1: think in the just department coming back and retaliating against
4:44
Speaker 1: this individual. He's saying, there are things I don't even know.
4:48
Speaker 1: And it's obvious they're terrified of the weaponsation of this
4:51
Speaker 1: DOJ and of the FBI. They're trying to do everything perfectly.
4:55
Speaker 1: He's saying, there's a lot of things I don't even
4:56
Speaker 1: know yet. This is a pretty brave decision to forward.
5:00
Speaker 1: Would you agree with that?
5:01
Speaker 2: It is? And this IRS agent, this supervisor is risking
5:07
Speaker 2: his or her career, is obviously afraid of retaliation. And
5:12
Speaker 2: I'll say this letter was a pretty serious elevation. Now,
5:17
Speaker 2: now the individual had already taken it to the Inspector
5:20
Speaker 2: General at the Treasury Department, to the i r SS itself,
5:26
Speaker 2: and to the Department of Justice. So this whistleblower is
5:30
Speaker 2: trying to blow the whistle, and the Biden administration, as
5:34
Speaker 2: far as we know, in doing anything about it. How
5:36
Speaker 2: much does this remind you?
5:37
Speaker 1: And that why I said today we're going to go
5:38
Speaker 1: fast paced because there's so much here. This reminds me
5:41
Speaker 1: so much to Tony Babolinski when he came forward, He's like,
5:44
Speaker 1: no one will listen to me. This reminds me of
5:47
Speaker 1: the guy who John Paul McK isaac, the guy who
5:49
Speaker 1: had the laptop. Right, He's like, I call the United
5:52
Speaker 1: States government, I say I have this, and yet nothing
5:55
Speaker 1: seems to happen. So therefore you forced me to come
5:58
Speaker 1: out in a different way.
5:59
Speaker 2: The Biden, I believe, is desperately trying to protect Joe Biden.
6:06
Speaker 2: They leaked that Hunter Biden was going to get indicted,
6:08
Speaker 2: but he hadn't been indicted. They leaked that months ago
6:11
Speaker 2: that Hunter Biden was going to get indicted and it
6:13
Speaker 2: still hasn't happened. And what this individual is saying, like
6:16
Speaker 2: his lawyer just said, well, he teaches other IRS agents
6:20
Speaker 2: how to conduct investigations, and he can tell the signs
6:24
Speaker 2: of when an investigation is not being conducted to discover
6:28
Speaker 2: the truth. Look, that's a big deal. He's saying. This
6:32
Speaker 2: is a political cover up, and it's a political cover
6:35
Speaker 2: up that is directed by political appointees. And he says,
6:39
Speaker 2: in particular, the Attorney General lied to Congress. Here's an
6:44
Speaker 2: example of Merrick Garland talking about Hunter Biden before the Senate.
6:48
Speaker 4: I don't know the answer to that. I do, and
6:50
Speaker 4: I don't want to get into the internal elements of
6:53
Speaker 4: decision making by the US Attorney, but he has been
6:55
Speaker 4: advised that he is not to be denied anything that
6:59
Speaker 4: he needs, and if that were to happen, it should
7:03
Speaker 4: ascend to the department's ranks that I have not heard
7:06
Speaker 4: anything from that office to suggest that they're not able
7:10
Speaker 4: to do everything that the US Chorney wants to do.
7:13
Speaker 2: Do you believe him?
7:14
Speaker 1: Before you answer that, I want to remind everybody about
7:16
Speaker 1: our friends at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is the only
7:19
Speaker 1: conservative cell phone company in the US. And if you're
7:23
Speaker 1: sick and tired of giving your dollars to woke companies
7:26
Speaker 1: that are going against what you believe in, then stand
7:28
Speaker 1: up for what you believe in with a bill you're
7:30
Speaker 1: going to pay every single month. That's your cell phone bill.
7:32
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile actually fights for your First and your Second
7:35
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. They give money to organizations that stand up
7:39
Speaker 1: for what you believe in. Now, Big Mobile, they're fighting
7:42
Speaker 1: against what you actually stand for. If you stand for
7:45
Speaker 1: the First and Second Amendment, if you stand for the
7:46
Speaker 1: rights of unborn children, then you need.
7:49
Speaker 2: To make the switch Patriot Mobile.
7:50
Speaker 1: You get the same coverage you have right now with
7:53
Speaker 1: your cell phone.
7:54
Speaker 2: You get to keep your same cell phone number.
7:55
Speaker 1: Now, if you have a business, a small business, they
7:57
Speaker 1: have a business division that can help you switch all
8:00
Speaker 1: of your line's over. Plus, there's one other perk. You
8:02
Speaker 1: usually save money when you switch. So check out Patriot Mobile.
8:06
Speaker 1: Stand with your values and give your money to a
8:09
Speaker 1: company that's fighting to stand up.
8:11
Speaker 2: For what we believe in.
8:12
Speaker 1: You can call them eight seven eight Patriot use a
8:14
Speaker 1: promo code Verdict. You're gonna get the best deals of
8:18
Speaker 1: the year eight seven eight Patriot or Patriot Mobile dot
8:21
Speaker 1: com slash verdict. Senator, the question, I think when you
8:25
Speaker 1: look at you know Garland he's testifying there under oath.
8:30
Speaker 2: Do you believe him? I don't you know. He's referring
8:35
Speaker 2: to the US Attorney in the District of Delaware. David
8:39
Speaker 2: Weiss is his name. He is a holdover US attorney
8:43
Speaker 2: from the Trump administration, so he was appointed by Trump.
8:47
Speaker 2: I think Garland is trying to say, Look, Trump appointed
8:50
Speaker 2: this guy, so there's no political interference at all. He
8:53
Speaker 2: can do whatever he wants, he can bring whatever case
8:56
Speaker 2: he wants. Well, this irs whistleblow suggesting that's not the case. Look,
9:04
Speaker 2: here's another example of Merrick Garland testifying again before the
9:08
Speaker 2: Senate Judiciary Committee, same topic.
9:10
Speaker 4: So, as a committee well knows from my confirmation hearing,
9:13
Speaker 4: I promise to leave I promised to leave the matter
9:16
Speaker 4: of Hunter Biden in the hands of the US Attorney
9:20
Speaker 4: for the District of Delaware, who is appointed in the
9:22
Speaker 4: previous administration. So any information like that should have gone
9:27
Speaker 4: or should or should have gone to that US attorney's
9:31
Speaker 4: offices and the FBI squad that's working with him. I
9:34
Speaker 4: have pledged not to interfere with that investigation, and I
9:39
Speaker 4: have carried through on my pledge.
9:41
Speaker 1: Clearly, they're trying to paint a picture. They say, hey,
9:43
Speaker 1: why this is a guy that can get to do
9:44
Speaker 1: his own thing. Is that reality for people that I
9:47
Speaker 1: understand how the DOJ works. I mean, you can say, hey,
9:50
Speaker 1: he has free reign, do whatever you want to do,
9:52
Speaker 1: do the right thing, go where the facts take you.
9:55
Speaker 1: But ultimately doesn't he still have to go back to
9:57
Speaker 1: the people with the DOJ above him and say, this
9:59
Speaker 1: is the planner, this is what I'd like to do.
10:02
Speaker 2: Well. Typically in this sort of matter, you'd have to
10:05
Speaker 2: get approval to file charges, and you'd have to get
10:08
Speaker 2: approval from the fifth floor, from top management, from the
10:12
Speaker 2: attorney general. You know what we just played there. We
10:17
Speaker 2: don't know for sure what it is that this whistleblower
10:21
Speaker 2: is alleging was perjury, but I think that clip is
10:24
Speaker 2: a pretty good candidate. I think it could easily be
10:28
Speaker 2: that because he says specifically, I have not politically interfered.
10:34
Speaker 2: I pledged not to, and I've followed through on that pledge.
10:37
Speaker 2: It's a clear categorical statement. If it is the case
10:41
Speaker 2: as the whistleblower says that there was politics that's interfering,
10:46
Speaker 2: and if it's coming from the Attorney general, that would
10:51
Speaker 2: contradict that statement. We don't know that because we haven't
10:54
Speaker 2: heard this testimony, but look, I will say the fact
10:58
Speaker 2: that the whistleblower sent this letter and released the letter
11:02
Speaker 2: to the public, it now makes it extremely difficult for
11:07
Speaker 2: the Biden administration to directly retaliate against this whistleblower. This
11:12
Speaker 2: letter is addressed to Ron Widen, who's the chairman of
11:14
Speaker 2: the Finance Committee. It's addressed to Mike Crapo, who is
11:18
Speaker 2: the ranking member of the Finance Committee. It's addressed to
11:21
Speaker 2: Dick Durbin, the chairman of Judiciary. It's addressed to Lindsay Graham,
11:24
Speaker 2: who's the ranking member Judiciary. It's addressed to Chuck Grassley,
11:29
Speaker 2: who is on the Finance Committee and the Judiciary Committee
11:31
Speaker 2: and is co chair of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus along
11:35
Speaker 2: with Ron Wyden, a Democrat, who is also co chair
11:38
Speaker 2: of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus. And then it's also sent
11:43
Speaker 2: to four House Members Jason Smith, Richard Neil, Jim Jordan,
11:46
Speaker 2: and Jerry Nadler. Sending it to five senators, to four
11:51
Speaker 2: House members, both Republicans and Democrats, is a very effective
11:57
Speaker 2: way to avoid this whistleblower just being disappeared in the night.
12:02
Speaker 2: It's a very effective way to avoid a late night
12:05
Speaker 2: visit from Hillary Clinton to his jail cell and end
12:08
Speaker 2: up being Jeffrey Epstein.
12:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you got to cover your abs on this one. Yeah,
12:14
Speaker 1: I mean, it's got to be terrifying to be this guy.
12:17
Speaker 1: How does this work?
12:17
Speaker 2: Then? Moving forward, you mentioned and what the lawyer's saying
12:21
Speaker 2: is this guy is a non political career.
12:24
Speaker 1: Guy, investigative guy, almost like law enforcement esque.
12:28
Speaker 2: And it at least sounds like as you read the letter,
12:31
Speaker 2: he is genuinely offended and disturbed. This is what whistleblower
12:36
Speaker 2: protections are all about, when someone sees a cover up,
12:40
Speaker 2: when someone sees the machinery of justice being misused. And listen,
12:45
Speaker 2: we've talked on a verdict all the time about how
12:50
Speaker 2: to tell the Biden Justice Department is being corrupted on
12:56
Speaker 2: this investigation. The critical question is whether they are endeavoring
13:01
Speaker 2: to focus wrongdoing on Hunter Biden, a poor, troubled soul
13:05
Speaker 2: with substance abuse issues, which is their political narrative, or
13:11
Speaker 2: whether they're willing to look into corruption that flows directly
13:16
Speaker 2: to Joe Biden. That's the connection where if you're being political,
13:20
Speaker 2: you say, okay, go after him for all the drug
13:24
Speaker 2: use you want. But you tax issues five, but the
13:28
Speaker 2: first tax issues. So look, what's interesting about this letter
13:31
Speaker 2: also is that he refers to in particular, he says, look,
13:36
Speaker 2: there are some of the protected disclosures contain information that
13:41
Speaker 2: is restricted by statute from unauthorized disclosure to protect taxpayer
13:47
Speaker 2: and tax return information. So this is an IRS investigator.
13:52
Speaker 2: He's looking at IRS tax returns. He's looking at presumably
13:57
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden's tax returns, maybe business tax returns. And what
14:02
Speaker 2: it may be and I'm speculating here, but I'm speculating
14:05
Speaker 2: based on what he said, is it may be that
14:08
Speaker 2: the political interference is saying, nope, don't look into this
14:12
Speaker 2: flow of money, and if it's going to Joe Biden, no,
14:15
Speaker 2: you can't look into that. That may be because we've
14:18
Speaker 2: said all the time that's the real critical question. Are
14:22
Speaker 2: they protecting the big guy? And if they're saying to
14:27
Speaker 2: the investigators, you know they're looking at a deal and saying,
14:30
Speaker 2: all right, is this thing crooked? You'd normally follow the money.
14:35
Speaker 2: That would be the ordinary steps that you engage in
14:37
Speaker 2: to find the truth. And so it is in other words,
14:41
Speaker 2: who else is involved?
14:43
Speaker 1: Yes, And if you're the top guy or you're Garland,
14:47
Speaker 1: and you're this whistleblower, and you say, we're following this
14:51
Speaker 1: money and we want to see where it's going because
14:54
Speaker 1: we can see what's happening here. This is again you connect.
14:56
Speaker 1: This is all the suspicious activity reports. You connected with
14:59
Speaker 1: an Biden family member last names. We now know we're
15:02
Speaker 1: involved in the in this shady business scheme of this apparatus,
15:05
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. You connect all that,
15:09
Speaker 1: and then if someone comes and says, no, no, you
15:10
Speaker 1: can't go there, that's when this whistleborow I would assume
15:14
Speaker 1: was offended.
15:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I think that's right. I mean it certainly
15:18
Speaker 2: on its face presents like someone who wanted to investigate
15:22
Speaker 2: criminal conductor or possible criminal conduct and was prevented from
15:27
Speaker 2: doing so that had political higher ups saying no, no, no, no.
15:30
Speaker 2: I mean what he alleges is it was politics. In
15:33
Speaker 2: other words, we're protecting the big guy. You can't go there,
15:38
Speaker 2: Let's go to the lawyer for quickly a moment here.
15:41
Speaker 2: If you are in the IRS and you go to
15:44
Speaker 2: an attorney and you say, this is what I've seen,
15:48
Speaker 2: and then you're accusing the Attorney General of the United
15:52
Speaker 2: States of America. Senator of being the guy who is
15:56
Speaker 2: stopping you from doing your job. What is the initial
15:59
Speaker 2: react she's going to be in that conversation with any attorney,
16:02
Speaker 2: like be careful, tread lightly. Do you understand what could
16:05
Speaker 2: happen to your life and your future if you do
16:08
Speaker 2: go forward with this? How much are they going to
16:10
Speaker 2: go back and really make sure before they send this
16:12
Speaker 2: letter that this is a rock solid claim from a whistleblower. Well, look,
16:18
Speaker 2: I am assuming that this whistleblower has real evidence. This
16:22
Speaker 2: whistleblower may have his or her own testimony, but it
16:26
Speaker 2: wouldn't surprise me if they're emails. It wouldn't surprise me
16:30
Speaker 2: if there are voicemails or other written correspondence directing Okay,
16:37
Speaker 2: here's what you can investigate and here's what you can't.
16:41
Speaker 2: I don't know that, but an IRS senior supervisory investigator,
16:48
Speaker 2: those are the sorts of materials that he would present.
16:52
Speaker 2: And look the steps that he took. He went first
16:55
Speaker 2: of all to the IRS, So he went to a supervisor.
16:57
Speaker 2: He went to someone within THERS. He doesn't specify whom,
17:01
Speaker 2: but you would think to the supervisor and be the
17:03
Speaker 2: natural place, or if the supervisor was the one conveying it,
17:06
Speaker 2: you'd go to the supervisors supervisor, that would be a
17:09
Speaker 2: reasonable thing to start. He then went to the Inspector
17:13
Speaker 2: General at Treasury, so that's another place to start. And
17:17
Speaker 2: the Inspector General exists to investigate wrongdoing within the department.
17:23
Speaker 2: So he's done that. We don't know what timeframe. He
17:25
Speaker 2: doesn't specify when he raised it with the IRS, when
17:28
Speaker 2: he raised it with the Inspector General. But then he
17:30
Speaker 2: went also to the Inspector General the Department of Justice,
17:33
Speaker 2: so he's crossing over to another department and raising it
17:37
Speaker 2: there as well. And presumably this letter was sent because
17:42
Speaker 2: those three places got nowhere. Now there may be ongoing investigations.
17:47
Speaker 2: The ig at Justice in particular, Michael Horowitz has done
17:52
Speaker 2: good work. The report that the Department of Justice Inspector
17:57
Speaker 2: General did on Crossfire Hurricane, outlining the politicizations, the lying,
18:03
Speaker 2: the enormous breaches of ordinary protocol that we're done in
18:11
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice, targeting and going after Donald Trump.
18:16
Speaker 2: That was a very good report. So it's possible one
18:20
Speaker 2: or both inspectors General are actively investigating, and there may
18:23
Speaker 2: be more coming. But those investigations can take a long time.
18:29
Speaker 2: They can be drawn out. They usually culminated a report
18:32
Speaker 2: on the back end that can end up if there's
18:36
Speaker 2: criminal conduct resulting in a referral for criminal prosecution. Sending
18:42
Speaker 2: the letter to Congress elevates it by making it public. Now, look,
18:47
Speaker 2: it also performs a function that it lets the American
18:51
Speaker 2: people know about it. And this is highly relevant if
18:55
Speaker 2: you have a president and an attorney general who are
19:00
Speaker 2: eyeing to the American people who are abusing the justice system,
19:03
Speaker 2: who are covering up evidence of corruption by the president.
19:08
Speaker 2: You know, we've seen that before. There's a guy named
19:09
Speaker 2: Richard Milhems Nixon, and he had an Attorney general, John Mitchell,
19:13
Speaker 2: who covered up for him and covered up for his
19:15
Speaker 2: criminal conduct. And the end of that story, Richard Nixon
19:20
Speaker 2: resigned in disgrace and John Mitchell went to prison. So
19:24
Speaker 2: what's being alleged by this whistleblower, the consequences of it
19:30
Speaker 2: are potentially very very serious.
19:32
Speaker 1: Set expectations quickly for this whistleblower and what the public
19:36
Speaker 1: may see if he has granted this protection. Do we
19:41
Speaker 1: see him in front of cameras testifying before Congress? Is
19:46
Speaker 1: this done behind closed doors? Will we find out who
19:50
Speaker 1: he is a person? How does this work.
19:52
Speaker 2: So it depends, and because they're multiple committees, the answer
19:55
Speaker 2: may be different committee by committee. I will say, if
19:59
Speaker 2: we had a Democrat Senate in a Democrat House, the
20:02
Speaker 2: odds would be very high that the result would be
20:04
Speaker 2: the same as the result has been so far from
20:06
Speaker 2: his other three referrals that they just basically deep six
20:09
Speaker 2: and ignore it. Senate Judiciary Committee. I expect Dick Durbin
20:16
Speaker 2: doesn't want to go near this. I will be surprised
20:19
Speaker 2: if Durbin has any interest in getting into this issue.
20:25
Speaker 2: But Jim Jordan will. The fact that we have a
20:32
Speaker 2: Republican majority in the House, I am confident the House
20:36
Speaker 2: will be eager to listen to this whistleblower. It will start, presumably.
20:42
Speaker 2: So the lawyer offers to sit down, and he says,
20:45
Speaker 2: you know, my goal is to ensure that my client
20:48
Speaker 2: can properly share his lawfully protected disclosures with Congressional committees. Thus,
20:54
Speaker 2: I respectfully request that your committees work with me to
20:57
Speaker 2: facilitate sharing the information with Congress legally and with the
21:01
Speaker 2: fully informed advice of counsel, with the appropriate legal protections
21:06
Speaker 2: and in the appropriate setting. I would be happy to
21:08
Speaker 2: meet with you and provide a more detailed profer of
21:11
Speaker 2: the testimony my client could provide to Congress. So the
21:15
Speaker 2: next step at all likelihood, and it may have happened
21:18
Speaker 2: last week. If it didn't happen last week, I'll be
21:21
Speaker 2: shocked if it doesn't happen this week is lawyers for
21:25
Speaker 2: the committees will sit down with the lawyer for this
21:30
Speaker 2: whistleblower and he'll give a more detailed profer. So profer
21:34
Speaker 2: is a legal term where a profer is basically saying, Okay,
21:37
Speaker 2: here's what my client will testify to. And it it's
21:40
Speaker 2: sort of giving a foreshadowing of this is going to
21:43
Speaker 2: be his testimony, and they will presumably work out an
21:47
Speaker 2: agreement the committees with him to ensure that he has
21:53
Speaker 2: the legal protections of being a whistleblower so that he
21:55
Speaker 2: doesn't get fired for doing it. And in particular, you know,
21:59
Speaker 2: he meant that there're statutes that limit what you can
22:02
Speaker 2: say about taxpayer filing information. Now there's some irony because
22:06
Speaker 2: the Biden irs leaks informations about tax returns of people
22:11
Speaker 2: they don't like, people like Elon Musk. They're happy to
22:13
Speaker 2: leak informations about his tax returns. But this guy is
22:17
Speaker 2: very smart, saying, look, if I come and tell you
22:19
Speaker 2: about something in the tax return, Merrick Garland could turn
22:23
Speaker 2: around and prosecute me because you're not allowed to share that.
22:26
Speaker 2: So I want to make sure I'm conveying it in
22:29
Speaker 2: a way that it is consistent with law. That will happen,
22:32
Speaker 2: and a minimum will happen in the house. What will
22:35
Speaker 2: start will be a conversation with a lawyer. What will
22:38
Speaker 2: probably happen next will be a conversation perhaps a deposition
22:44
Speaker 2: taken behind closed doors from this whistleblower to hear his testimony,
22:53
Speaker 2: and then the next step. My prediction is we're going
22:56
Speaker 2: to see this guy testify in the house that Jim
23:00
Speaker 2: Jordan or James Comby. Do you think we'll actually see
23:02
Speaker 2: him as an individ joint human being. I think that's
23:05
Speaker 2: quite likely. Now that's probably two months away, Okay, takes time.
23:14
Speaker 2: The committee will want to first of all, here from
23:16
Speaker 2: the lawyer, second of all, hear from the witness. It
23:21
Speaker 2: could be fast. Look, we could hear from him in
23:23
Speaker 2: a week if they if they want to go fast.
23:26
Speaker 2: They can not always smart though. Look, I would think
23:30
Speaker 2: whatever the allegations are, they're going to ask Art do
23:32
Speaker 2: you have any evidence to back it up? Do you
23:33
Speaker 2: have emails? Do you have memos? Do you have like
23:35
Speaker 2: what corroborating information? They might ask what other witnesses do
23:39
Speaker 2: you have, and they may say, Okay, we want to
23:41
Speaker 2: talk to these other witnesses. And so my guess is
23:48
Speaker 2: we will see a public hearing. I don't think we'll
23:50
Speaker 2: see what in the Senate. I don't think Dick Durban
23:52
Speaker 2: wants a public hearing in the Senate. But the House,
23:56
Speaker 2: I think we will probably see a hearing with this
23:58
Speaker 2: witness testifying, and depending on the specifics of the evidence
24:08
Speaker 2: that he or she puts forward, the next steps that
24:12
Speaker 2: could escalate quickly.
24:13
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about Garland, specifically how much
24:15
Speaker 1: trouble he could actually be in from all this. Before
24:18
Speaker 1: I get your reaction to that, I want to tell
24:20
Speaker 1: you about her friends of her chalk. If you're a
24:21
Speaker 1: guy and you're dealing with that real issue. If you're
24:24
Speaker 1: just getting older, you feel like you're losing a little
24:26
Speaker 1: bit of your edge, you feel like you're just more
24:29
Speaker 1: tired than you used to be, you should check out chalk.
24:32
Speaker 1: Chalk can help you maximize your masculinity by boosting your
24:36
Speaker 1: sauserum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. I've
24:40
Speaker 1: been taking the Chalk mail Vitality stack. I can tell
24:43
Speaker 1: you it actually does work. If you're ready to get
24:46
Speaker 1: your edge back, check out Chalk, go to chalkcchoq dot com.
24:51
Speaker 1: Use the promo code bend for thirty five percent off
24:54
Speaker 1: any Chalk subscription for life, plus you can cancel any time.
24:58
Speaker 1: All you have to do is use a pro code
25:00
Speaker 1: ben So if you're getting older, get and win this
25:04
Speaker 1: war and get back what you had before. Chalkschoq dot
25:08
Speaker 1: com promo code ben At check out you get thirty
25:12
Speaker 1: five percent off chalkshoq dot com center. If you are
25:17
Speaker 1: Garland right now, the Attorney General and this whistleblower is
25:20
Speaker 1: clearly gonna name you, you know what your testimony was,
25:25
Speaker 1: and if you forgot it, you've probably gone back and
25:27
Speaker 1: looked at it. You also probably know what he has
25:30
Speaker 1: on you, this whistleblower. How concerned is Garland right now
25:35
Speaker 1: for his job? And since the Senate is controlled by
25:39
Speaker 1: the Democrats, how much does that protect him?
25:43
Speaker 2: Look, it depends on how specific the evidence is. A
25:48
Speaker 2: special supervisory agent at the IRS is unlikely to be
25:53
Speaker 2: meeting with the Attorney General directly. So look, the agent
25:57
Speaker 2: could come in and testify. Merrick Garland told me directly,
26:01
Speaker 2: do not investigate Joe Biden or any of the money
26:03
Speaker 2: flowing to Joe Biden. That would be really bad. If
26:06
Speaker 2: he said that. The chances of that happening are very
26:09
Speaker 2: very low. It's not likely to be direct testimony of
26:13
Speaker 2: words that came straight out of Meeric Garland's mouth. It
26:17
Speaker 2: is more likely to be as he's conducting the investigation,
26:23
Speaker 2: he's told by a supervisor don't go down that road. No, no,
26:28
Speaker 2: you can't go down that road. I want you to
26:30
Speaker 2: focus on this and not that. In all likelihood, any
26:35
Speaker 2: interference from the Attorney General went through several intermediaries. It
26:40
Speaker 2: wasn't presumably it wasn't Garland sitting there directly going nope, nope,
26:46
Speaker 2: can't touch that, So that it depends on how specific
26:49
Speaker 2: it was. If these guys are idiots enough to write
26:52
Speaker 2: a memo, which they might be because they're pretty brazen.
26:55
Speaker 2: If they wrote a memo and directed here are all
26:59
Speaker 2: the things you can't get into and it's directly contrary
27:02
Speaker 2: to what Merrick Garland said, that he hasn't interfered anyway,
27:06
Speaker 2: then that's more of a problem. And the memo. Look,
27:09
Speaker 2: we've talked about memos from Merrick Garland. The memo that
27:13
Speaker 2: he wrote to the FBI directing them to investigate parents
27:16
Speaker 2: who spoke up at school boards and then claimed it
27:18
Speaker 2: was wrong. It should never happen. I doubt that's happened.
27:26
Speaker 2: If he wrote a memo on the Hunter Biden case
27:28
Speaker 2: directing them not to look into the president, then he
27:31
Speaker 2: ought to be impeached for stupidity, forget the corruption. That
27:35
Speaker 2: would be so moronic. I would be very, very surprised.
27:39
Speaker 2: If he's a smart guy. If you don't need to
27:41
Speaker 2: understand that, I always say he is a very smart guy.
27:43
Speaker 2: He's not an idiot. He is not lacking in gray matter.
27:47
Speaker 2: He is lacking in ethics and integrity, being willing to
27:52
Speaker 2: say no, I will not allow the Department of Justice
27:55
Speaker 2: to be politicized and weaponized. But he is smart and capable.
28:00
Speaker 2: So the degree of legal jeopardy Merrick Garland is in
28:05
Speaker 2: depends upon the quality and specificity of the evidence this
28:11
Speaker 2: whistleblower has. If it's vaguer in nature, well, I was
28:17
Speaker 2: told to focus over here but not over there. And
28:21
Speaker 2: why is that? You know, people just knew it was
28:23
Speaker 2: because the Attorney General didn't want us to. It could
28:26
Speaker 2: be something if that's all it is, that you're not
28:31
Speaker 2: going to get a conviction for lying under oath. For
28:34
Speaker 2: that kind of tension, you need a much more direct
28:39
Speaker 2: He said he didn't do X. Here's evidence he did X.
28:42
Speaker 1: I mean that's there used to be a fear of
28:44
Speaker 1: lying on oath, especially to Congress, would be a real consequence.
28:47
Speaker 1: We have a lot of examples of people lying under oath. Yeah,
28:50
Speaker 1: there's no accountability. Anti Fauci is the one to name
28:53
Speaker 1: that comes right to the top of the list.
28:55
Speaker 2: There's many others in life, and I've asked Merrick Garland
28:58
Speaker 2: about Anthony Fauci, and Garland picks and chooses which laws
29:03
Speaker 2: he will enforce in which laws he won't. There is
29:06
Speaker 2: a subsequent question, which is if this evidence comes out,
29:10
Speaker 2: what happens then, Because the person who makes the decision
29:14
Speaker 2: whether Merrick Garland should be prosecuted is Merrick Garland, So
29:19
Speaker 2: how does it work, then he would surely recuse, and
29:23
Speaker 2: he would have to recuse that. Actually, I feel confident
29:28
Speaker 2: the DOJ rules are clear. You can't make a decision
29:31
Speaker 2: whether to prosecute yourself.
29:32
Speaker 1: Is this kind of like when he went after trumpet
29:34
Speaker 1: Marlago for the classified documents, then Biden had a bunch
29:36
Speaker 1: of documents like, Okay, I gotta step back here.
29:38
Speaker 2: We'll have somebody else deal with this now on a determination.
29:42
Speaker 2: If it escalated to the point that there was a
29:44
Speaker 2: determination of a criminal investigation, I would expect that Garland
29:50
Speaker 2: would recuse and the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monico, would
29:54
Speaker 2: be the acting Attorney General for that matter. By the way,
29:57
Speaker 2: same thing Jeff's sessions did. Remember Jeff's essians recused from Russia, Russia, Russia,
30:03
Speaker 2: and so Rod Rosenstein was the attorney general for all
30:06
Speaker 2: of that, which is why we went down that horrible road.
30:11
Speaker 2: In this instance, Garland would surely recuse from decisions about himself.
30:16
Speaker 2: But Lisa Monico has been perfectly willing to be part
30:20
Speaker 2: of the politicization as well, and so I do not
30:25
Speaker 2: believe the Department of Justice would be willing to hold
30:29
Speaker 2: Merrit Garland to account. Many of us would surely call
30:33
Speaker 2: for a special counsel in that circumstances. It would take
30:39
Speaker 2: mounting political pressure to force that to happen. That's why
30:43
Speaker 2: I think if this guy has if he has the goods,
30:45
Speaker 2: if he has real evidence. Now, if it turns out
30:48
Speaker 2: it's nothing, then you may not see him testify. But
30:50
Speaker 2: if he's got real and compelling evidence, I expect to
30:54
Speaker 2: see him testify because that's the only way to ratchet
30:56
Speaker 2: up the pressure to ultimately look, if it's bad enough,
31:00
Speaker 2: it could force Garland to resign, but we don't know yet,
31:03
Speaker 2: so that it depends on whether there is clear evidence
31:07
Speaker 2: of a political interference and b Garland committing a felony
31:12
Speaker 2: in line to Congress under oath Garland.
31:14
Speaker 1: If you're Garland, you're hoping someone else has a bad
31:17
Speaker 1: week to get you off the front page.
31:19
Speaker 2: And by the way, we were talking a second ago
31:23
Speaker 2: about recusals of the attorney general and Jeff Sessions. If
31:26
Speaker 2: you remember why Jeff Sessions recused part of it, It
31:32
Speaker 2: started with his confirmation hearing. So he's before the Senate
31:35
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee being confirmed as Attorney General. And Jeff is
31:40
Speaker 2: a good guy, he's a friend. I served with him
31:41
Speaker 2: in the Senate for a lot of years. He was
31:43
Speaker 2: on the Judiciary Committee, sat just a couple of seats
31:45
Speaker 2: away from me on the Judiciary Committee. Jeff had a
31:50
Speaker 2: long day of testimony, and the morning went pretty well.
31:53
Speaker 2: He was getting questioned, the Democrats were coming after him,
31:55
Speaker 2: but he was doing a good job. As he got
31:58
Speaker 2: into the afternoon, I think I got tired. Look jeff'sond
32:03
Speaker 2: his seventies, and he just I think got tired and
32:07
Speaker 2: his answers got sloppy. And in particular, there was an exchange,
32:13
Speaker 2: and I'm doing this for memory. I don't have the
32:14
Speaker 2: transcript in front of me, but it was Al Franken,
32:18
Speaker 2: who was on the committee before he resigned from the Senate,
32:20
Speaker 2: and disgrace. Al Franken asked him about had he met
32:24
Speaker 2: with the Russian ambassador? And Session said no, he had not,
32:33
Speaker 2: and then it came out that he had, and there
32:35
Speaker 2: were photographs of him with the Russian ambassador, and it
32:38
Speaker 2: was his answer, and he actually his answer went above
32:43
Speaker 2: and beyond what Franken had asked. And I think it
32:46
Speaker 2: was just he was tired and sloppy. Now do I
32:50
Speaker 2: think Jeff Sessions was trying to lie to Congress? No,
32:53
Speaker 2: I don't think it was a deliberate lie, But it
32:57
Speaker 2: became clear after his testimony that what he said was false.
33:01
Speaker 2: It was lacking the intent to be criminal, but it
33:04
Speaker 2: was a false statement. I think it was because he
33:08
Speaker 2: was tired and he wasn't remembering and he was being sloppy.
33:11
Speaker 2: But that was a major factor leading Sessions to recuse
33:15
Speaker 2: himself from this. Yeah, was that he was facing and
33:20
Speaker 2: there were Democrats talking about wanting to prosecute him for
33:24
Speaker 2: lying to Congress the Attorney General. So look, these issues
33:30
Speaker 2: are serious, and many of these same Senate Democrats on
33:35
Speaker 2: Judiciary who are going to be protecting Merrick Garland, who
33:38
Speaker 2: were protecting Joe Biden, were the ones calling for Sessions
33:41
Speaker 2: is head over his statement, even though I think the
33:46
Speaker 2: context in which it was given it was clearly not
33:48
Speaker 2: done with the intent to deceive. Here, if he's making
33:52
Speaker 2: a promise I'm not going to politically interfere, and then
33:55
Speaker 2: he's going and politically interfering that has very likely has
34:01
Speaker 2: the intent to deceive. That is essential to it being
34:05
Speaker 2: a criminal false statement before Congress.
34:08
Speaker 1: When you have a bad week and you're in politics,
34:11
Speaker 1: what you're always hoping for is that someone else has
34:13
Speaker 1: a bad week to get you out of the headlines.
34:15
Speaker 1: Rarely do we see such a bad week for this
34:17
Speaker 1: White House. You had a bad week with the Biden
34:20
Speaker 1: family and general nine people now on the take. From
34:22
Speaker 1: what we understand, you got a bad week for Garland
34:25
Speaker 1: here with this whistleblower, and then we have another bad
34:29
Speaker 1: week for the Secretary of State, who apparently the new
34:34
Speaker 1: way to get that job is to orchestrate a massive
34:38
Speaker 1: lie to the American people to help influence an election.
34:42
Speaker 1: To your guide, Joe Biden, let's go back in time
34:45
Speaker 1: and remind people, right before the election, Joe Biden needed
34:49
Speaker 1: a bailout right at his own personal bailout. You got
34:52
Speaker 1: fifty guys that sign a letter saying this whole Hunter
34:56
Speaker 1: Biden laptop thing isn't real. It has all the markings
34:59
Speaker 1: of Russia interference and Russia try to influence our elections.
35:04
Speaker 1: That letter, we now know was put together by the
35:07
Speaker 1: now guy who's the Secretary of the State.
35:08
Speaker 2: I guess it's how you get this job.
35:10
Speaker 1: And remember it saved that letter that they all knew
35:14
Speaker 1: they were lying when they signed it. That letter saved
35:17
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's presidential campaign, and then he used it to
35:21
Speaker 1: go on offense.
35:21
Speaker 2: Take a look, there.
35:22
Speaker 5: Are fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what
35:27
Speaker 5: this he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They
35:31
Speaker 5: have said that this is has all the four five
35:34
Speaker 5: former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he's
35:38
Speaker 5: saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except
35:42
Speaker 5: them his and his good friend Rudy Jilli.
35:44
Speaker 4: You mean the laptop is now another Russia Russia Russia.
35:48
Speaker 5: Hoax, And that's exactly what, exactly.
35:51
Speaker 2: What this is where he's going.
35:53
Speaker 1: I love that exchange because it's classic Trump. But you
35:57
Speaker 1: listen to him. He went on offense this letter and
35:59
Speaker 1: now this letter has it has completely blown up in
36:01
Speaker 1: the face of the Democrats. We have official testimony that
36:05
Speaker 1: they knew they were basically lying. They knew they were
36:08
Speaker 1: going to just see the American people. These are the
36:10
Speaker 1: people we're supposed to be trusting with our national intelligence,
36:14
Speaker 1: with keeping us safe, with it being in the deeps,
36:18
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, this is the swamp. This is
36:20
Speaker 1: the swamp of the swamp, and now it comes out
36:22
Speaker 1: it's all just political.
36:23
Speaker 2: We made it all up. So several observations. One, it's
36:27
Speaker 2: really striking watching that this is something you said to
36:30
Speaker 2: me when we were watching the clip right before we
36:32
Speaker 2: started filming. How much Joe Biden has deteriorated in the
36:37
Speaker 2: last two and a half years just from that. It's unbelievable.
36:40
Speaker 2: That was October of twenty twenty. Now, I assumed they
36:42
Speaker 2: had him pumped up with drugs, but he was so
36:45
Speaker 2: much more alert there than he is now. It's like, wow, Yeah,
36:51
Speaker 2: the decline is massive. When you look at that clip,
36:53
Speaker 2: it is he was diminished there, but the difference from
36:56
Speaker 2: there to now is striking. Look the Hunter Biden laptop.
37:03
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden has been a screw up his whole life.
37:06
Speaker 2: The laptop. I mean, it is pretty idiotic that you
37:09
Speaker 2: have a laptop with all sorts of incriminating information about you,
37:13
Speaker 2: your family, the money you're making from communist China, your dad,
37:17
Speaker 2: nine family members being on the take, and you just
37:19
Speaker 2: leave it at a repair shop and Russian oligarks. You
37:21
Speaker 2: still haven't been sanctioned at some level. It's so ridiculous.
37:27
Speaker 2: I'm sure Joe Biden is like, for Pete's sake, like
37:32
Speaker 2: Hunter stop. Yeah. But when the story broke this was October,
37:43
Speaker 2: This was a couple of weeks before the election. The
37:46
Speaker 2: Biden campaign was in full on panic mode, and so
37:50
Speaker 2: this letter. It was signed by fifty one current and
37:54
Speaker 2: former senior members of the intelligence community, heads of the CIA,
37:58
Speaker 2: James Clapper Brennan's the top dogs. Yeah, and what we
38:05
Speaker 2: didn't know until this week is that Tony Blinken was
38:08
Speaker 2: the guy who spearheaded the whole thing, who organized the
38:11
Speaker 2: whole thing. We don't think of our secretaries of state
38:15
Speaker 2: as political operatives that are dealing with a cleanup on
38:19
Speaker 2: Aisle six. I mean this was okay, now, it was
38:23
Speaker 2: a foreign policy It was are the Bidens in the
38:29
Speaker 2: tank with corrupt foreign governments? So I guess that's foreign
38:32
Speaker 2: policy in a sense. And their lie to cover it up.
38:36
Speaker 2: This is Russian information. That is a lie. It was
38:39
Speaker 2: not Russian information. It did not come from Russia. And
38:43
Speaker 2: by the way, you know who knew it wasn't Russian disinformation,
38:47
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden. You know who else knew it wasn't Russian disinformation?
38:51
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Joe Biden right there, knew he was lying.
38:56
Speaker 2: But he sends Tony, Tony go go get. Had everyone
39:00
Speaker 2: to sign up, you know, people like Mike Morrell, who
39:02
Speaker 2: was the deputy head of the CIA, who said, oh, look,
39:06
Speaker 2: I signed it because I wanted Joe Biden to win.
39:08
Speaker 2: Let's be clear.
39:09
Speaker 1: He testified that if people missed this, he actually testified
39:12
Speaker 1: The reason why he got all these people together and
39:15
Speaker 1: got them to do this letter is because we wanted
39:18
Speaker 1: Joe Biden to win. They're telling you, yes, we lied
39:22
Speaker 1: and misled the election. You know, the people going to
39:25
Speaker 1: decide the president is going to be in an election,
39:27
Speaker 1: and we did it because we wanted our guy to win.
39:29
Speaker 1: And the payoff for Anthony Wing was you get to
39:31
Speaker 1: become the Secretary of State.
39:33
Speaker 2: It does suggest how important was it to Joe Biden
39:40
Speaker 2: that they put this letter together and lie about the
39:43
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden laptop. Important enough that the guy who fixed it,
39:47
Speaker 2: at least temporarily gets secretary of State. I mean, well,
39:53
Speaker 2: and look, this is a problem the Secretary of State.
39:59
Speaker 2: They often hold themselves out to be above politics outside
40:03
Speaker 2: of politics, but now the State Department is in a mess.
40:06
Speaker 2: And okay, so State Department press briefing, their press spokesperson
40:11
Speaker 2: was asked about it. Hit his answer, Watch and listen,
40:14
Speaker 2: it's it's it's pretty during funny. Does the Secretary just.
40:18
Speaker 3: View the accuracy of the GUP letter sent to him
40:21
Speaker 3: on Hunter Biden and then does he also plan to
40:24
Speaker 3: comply and respond to it by May fourth?
40:26
Speaker 1: The deadline? That is a not a state Department issue,
40:30
Speaker 1: So I don't have a comment for you on that.
40:33
Speaker 2: We can ask you.
40:33
Speaker 3: About it because we've asked the State Department to providxims
40:36
Speaker 3: we're coming on this.
40:37
Speaker 1: Letter, and it's not clear who else outside of the
40:41
Speaker 1: Department we can ask.
40:42
Speaker 2: Given it did happen before he was Secretary of State,
40:45
Speaker 2: it is not a State Department issue. And I don't
40:47
Speaker 2: really have a comment on this from the State Department.
40:50
Speaker 2: I mean, that's that's that's a hard day's work right there.
40:53
Speaker 2: How is this not a State Department issue? When it
40:55
Speaker 2: is absolutely a state department issue. So I got to say,
40:59
Speaker 2: first of all, for those watching the video version of
41:02
Speaker 2: this on YouTube, that guy looks twelve, like like, is
41:07
Speaker 2: is this take take your kid to school day? And
41:10
Speaker 2: you know he's he's like in eighth grade and gets
41:13
Speaker 2: to answer questions and clearly with the discipline of a
41:17
Speaker 2: middle schooler. He had a line, this is not a
41:19
Speaker 2: State Department issue, and I have don't have a comment
41:22
Speaker 2: on that is the only line he was going to say. Now,
41:26
Speaker 2: I get the State Department is an entity may not
41:28
Speaker 2: want to talk about this, but what about Tony Lincoln? Yeah,
41:32
Speaker 2: like is he going to say something is he going
41:36
Speaker 2: to admit to it, and let's be clear, what is
41:39
Speaker 2: the it that he should admit to. Did he organize
41:43
Speaker 2: this letter, did he know it was a lie? Did
41:48
Speaker 2: he do it politically to benefit Joe Biden even though
41:53
Speaker 2: he knew it was a lie? And what did he
41:57
Speaker 2: say to convince these people to sign on? And also
42:01
Speaker 2: who didn't sign on fifty one did Yeah?
42:05
Speaker 1: We our fifty eight sixty seventy that were contacted and
42:09
Speaker 1: only these hacks signed it.
42:10
Speaker 2: I got to ask you this though, about all of
42:13
Speaker 2: these people. And by the way, this letter also became
42:17
Speaker 2: yet another basis for big tech to suppress the story
42:20
Speaker 2: as well, so and the media and the media, they
42:22
Speaker 2: were all intertwined. You can't talk about this doesn't exist.
42:27
Speaker 2: It's Orwellian. We are erasing this story because we do
42:30
Speaker 2: not wish it to hurt our political narrative.
42:34
Speaker 1: You look at the narrative of that letter, and it
42:37
Speaker 1: was not just the fact that it was a bailout.
42:40
Speaker 1: It changed it to going on offense, which is what
42:42
Speaker 1: you want to do in politics. Yeah, it allowed the
42:44
Speaker 1: media to say, we're not going to have Russian interfere
42:47
Speaker 1: in our elections, So we're America Kumbai Ya, and that's
42:50
Speaker 1: why we're protecting you from disinformation from the Russian So
42:54
Speaker 1: it justified that ability, gave them a probable cause to
42:56
Speaker 1: say we did the right thing. But what about all
43:00
Speaker 1: of these men that signed on to this letter that
43:02
Speaker 1: have tops of your clearance still to this day?
43:05
Speaker 2: Many of them do.
43:07
Speaker 1: Half of them are commentators getting paid to go on MSNBC,
43:10
Speaker 1: NBC and CNN.
43:11
Speaker 2: I had to deal with a couple of them at CNN.
43:14
Speaker 2: They're making money.
43:15
Speaker 1: Off of still having their top secret clearance where they
43:17
Speaker 1: have they deliberately misled the American people to change an
43:20
Speaker 1: alt to the outcome and election. Can you guys take
43:23
Speaker 1: away their topsier clearance for doing this knowing they were
43:26
Speaker 1: lying to the American people?
43:27
Speaker 2: Well, the problem in that question is the word you guys,
43:31
Speaker 2: Because yeah, because clearance is given in the executive branch.
43:37
Speaker 2: And so what are the chances that the Biden administration
43:41
Speaker 2: is going to revoke clearance? Zero? Because these were all
43:47
Speaker 2: the president's men. Look, these two stories are intertwined very much. So,
43:52
Speaker 2: I mean, we started talking first about Merrick Garland potentially
43:57
Speaker 2: perjuring himself to cover up his political interference to stop
44:02
Speaker 2: the investigation in a hunter Biden and Joe Biden's potential
44:06
Speaker 2: corruption together. Mark Garland's attorney general and he's willing to
44:11
Speaker 2: be politicized. Tony blink And is Secretary of State. You
44:14
Speaker 2: want to talk about two of the very top cabinet positions.
44:19
Speaker 2: They're both doing the same thing. They view their job is.
44:24
Speaker 2: We are political operatives and our priority is not truth.
44:29
Speaker 2: Our priority is not following the law. Our priority is
44:32
Speaker 2: not prosecuting criminal activity. Our priority is protecting the political
44:37
Speaker 2: interest of the Biden Harris White House. That's messed up?
44:42
Speaker 1: Can you get answers out of Anthony Blincoln on this letter?
44:45
Speaker 1: Will you guys have a chance to that. Before you
44:46
Speaker 1: answer that, I want to tell you about our friends
44:48
Speaker 1: Agusta Precious Medals. How would you like to get some
44:51
Speaker 1: free gold? You can now do it when you become
44:54
Speaker 1: a client of Augusta Precious Medals. And if you're sick
44:56
Speaker 1: and tired of being stressed out over your retirement, over
44:59
Speaker 1: your four wing, with what's been going on with the economy,
45:01
Speaker 1: with bank failures and everything else, you need to sit
45:04
Speaker 1: down with a gust of precious metals and see if
45:06
Speaker 1: gold and silver is right for you and your four
45:08
Speaker 1: oh one k. If you have one hundred thousand dollars
45:11
Speaker 1: or more invested and you talk to a gust of
45:12
Speaker 1: Precious Medals, you can actually get a free gold coin
45:16
Speaker 1: as well. That's the nice part about working with them
45:20
Speaker 1: as a company. They want to work with you short
45:23
Speaker 1: term to protect your assets for the long term. So
45:26
Speaker 1: don't worry about what's happening with the economy all the time.
45:29
Speaker 1: Be able to protect yourself and use gold as part
45:32
Speaker 1: of that protection. Call them or go online eight seven
45:36
Speaker 1: seven the number four Gold IRA eight seven seven number
45:40
Speaker 1: four Gold IRA or Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's
45:44
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. Use gold and IRA for
45:48
Speaker 1: your peace of mind. A gust Pressure Medals dot com
45:52
Speaker 1: blinking for a second. Can you guys ask him questions
45:55
Speaker 1: now on this and or does he just say, hey,
45:59
Speaker 1: that was as previous life. I don't have to answer
46:01
Speaker 1: any these questions. I'm now just working as an official government.
46:05
Speaker 1: That was in my private time on the campaign.
46:07
Speaker 2: So I don't expect the Democrats in the Senate to
46:09
Speaker 2: want to ask anything about it, but we will ask
46:12
Speaker 2: him questions. I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Tony
46:15
Speaker 2: Blinken testifies regularly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he
46:20
Speaker 2: will be forced to answer questions. But if not, you
46:24
Speaker 2: better believe the next time he testifies before Senate Foreign
46:26
Speaker 2: Relations I'm going to ask him about it, and my
46:30
Speaker 2: guess is he'll be forced to answer. Even before then,
46:33
Speaker 2: we'll see what he says. He'll come up with a statement.
46:36
Speaker 2: The statement will deny responsibility, will dodge, will be you know,
46:41
Speaker 2: I was a foreign policy advisor for the campaign and
46:44
Speaker 2: had lots of responsibilities that dealt with foreign policy, and
46:48
Speaker 2: Russian disinformation is foreign policy. I'm going to predict whatever
46:56
Speaker 2: statement he puts out will not address remotely the fact
47:01
Speaker 2: that they were all deliberately lying. Will just completely ignore
47:04
Speaker 2: that fact and try to say nothing to see here. Yes,
47:08
Speaker 2: everyone knows I was an advisor on the campaign, and
47:11
Speaker 2: so I was an advisor on the campaign. That's what
47:13
Speaker 2: I expect. Last question, Anthony Blincoln or Garland?
47:17
Speaker 1: Who would you not want to be in these two
47:20
Speaker 1: scenarios as it moves forward?
47:22
Speaker 2: And why Garland Garland? Depending on the quality of the
47:29
Speaker 2: evidence that this whistleblower has, Garland potentially has real legal
47:34
Speaker 2: exposure here Blinkin. It's unseemly, it's embarrassing, it's indicative of
47:42
Speaker 2: his being a political hack before he became Secretary of State,
47:46
Speaker 2: and so that you don't feel good about that. Yeah,
47:49
Speaker 2: but there's nothing in that that is allegedly illegal. There's
47:55
Speaker 2: not legal jeopardy and any prosecution that follows from that Garland,
48:00
Speaker 2: And to be clear, we're nowhere close to a prosecution
48:03
Speaker 2: for Garland. But if there's real evidence that he lied
48:07
Speaker 2: to Congress under oath, that would change things significantly.
48:10
Speaker 1: This is breaking obviously quickly. We're going to stay on
48:13
Speaker 1: it here at Verdict. Make sure you download our podcasts Monday,
48:17
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday when we publish. We also have our
48:19
Speaker 1: video component one of those shows a week, so you
48:21
Speaker 1: can watch that on YouTube.
48:22
Speaker 2: You can also watch it on Facebook as well. Follow us.
48:25
Speaker 1: There center a really fun show. This one has got
48:29
Speaker 1: a lot of information. Share it with your family and
48:31
Speaker 1: friends and we'll see you back here in a couple
48:34
Speaker 1: of days