Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Bombshell Evidence: Up to FOUR Biden Family Members Together Getting Over $1 MILLION from Communist China

Transcript

Bombshell Evidence: Up to FOUR Biden Family Members Together Getting Over $1 MILLION from Communist China · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome. At his verdict was Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
0:04
Speaker 1: with you and Senator the House Oversight Committee revealed that
0:07
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seventeen, China's State Energy HK Limited
0:12
Speaker 1: sent three million dollars to a company controlled by family
0:17
Speaker 1: associate Robert Walker, who in turn distributed funds to members
0:22
Speaker 1: of the Biden family. And we now know that the
0:25
Speaker 1: number of Bidens that are getting money from these transactions
0:30
Speaker 1: has expanded. House shocked, are you by this revelation? Well,
0:35
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say I'm not shocked at all. We
0:38
Speaker 1: keep seeing every day, every week, more and more evidence
0:41
Speaker 1: of Biden family corruption and in particular evidence of the
0:45
Speaker 1: Biden family being in business with the Chinese Communist government.
0:50
Speaker 1: If you look at it what the House Oversight Committee
0:52
Speaker 1: has released and what the records show according to that committee,
0:57
Speaker 1: it starts with the fact that I'm first twenty seventeen,
1:01
Speaker 1: which is less than two months after Biden Lee's public office,
1:06
Speaker 1: Robinson Walker LLLC, and this fellow, rob Walker is a
1:11
Speaker 1: close associate of Biden, receives a three million dollar wire
1:15
Speaker 1: from State Energy HK Limited, which is a Chinese company. Now,
1:19
Speaker 1: what does Robinson Walker ll lc do. It then wires
1:24
Speaker 1: one million, sixty five thousand to a company that is
1:28
Speaker 1: associated with James Gillier, who is James Gillier. James Gillier
1:33
Speaker 1: was a business partner of Hunter Biden and was involved
1:37
Speaker 1: in foreign transactions with a Biden family And what happened
1:41
Speaker 1: after that? After that, Biden family members in their companies
1:45
Speaker 1: began receiving incremental payments over a period of approximately three months.
1:49
Speaker 1: How much were those payments one million, sixty five thousand,
1:54
Speaker 1: six hundred ninety two. So to underscore that, the amount
1:58
Speaker 1: that's transferred to James gill is a million, sixty five thousand.
2:02
Speaker 1: The amount that then goes to Biden family members is
2:05
Speaker 1: a million sixty five thousand and an additional six hundred
2:09
Speaker 1: ninety two dollars. I don't know what the six hundred
2:11
Speaker 1: ninety two is. So that fact is there that about
2:14
Speaker 1: a third of the money that apparently came from China
2:16
Speaker 1: went to the Biden family. But fact number two, the
2:20
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee mentions is the number of people receiving this
2:24
Speaker 1: cash has grown. So according to the Oversight Committee, James Biden,
2:29
Speaker 1: which is Joe Biden's brother, receives some of the money.
2:32
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, who we all know, receives some of the money.
2:36
Speaker 1: And then a new person of interest, Hallie Biden, now
2:39
Speaker 1: Hallie Biden was the widow of Joe Biden's son Biden,
2:44
Speaker 1: She receives some of the money. And then there's a
2:47
Speaker 1: fourth bank account that is identified as an unknown Biden
2:53
Speaker 1: who also received some of the money. And it's not
2:56
Speaker 1: clear from what the House is released, and I don't
2:58
Speaker 1: think they know yet whether this fourth Biden is one
3:03
Speaker 1: of the three already listed James, Hunter or Halle or
3:06
Speaker 1: whether it's someone else entirely. But what we now know
3:11
Speaker 1: is the number of Bidens receiving cash and cash that
3:14
Speaker 1: appears to be funneled directly from the Chinese Communist government
3:18
Speaker 1: has grown substantially in the last twenty four hours. The
3:22
Speaker 1: question that I think so many Americans want to know
3:26
Speaker 1: right now is, Okay, at what point do we just
3:29
Speaker 1: call this straight up bribery and corruption. And the reason
3:33
Speaker 1: why is there's no indication that James Biden and Halle
3:39
Speaker 1: Biden did business together, and we're talking about legitimate business
3:42
Speaker 1: or the new person of interest with Hunter Biden and
3:46
Speaker 1: with the President. And at some point you ask, okay,
3:49
Speaker 1: are these people doing legitimate businesses or could they even
3:53
Speaker 1: claim center that they were doing legitimate business when clearly
3:57
Speaker 1: their resumes are completely different. And you put it Hallie
4:02
Speaker 1: in there, and the question becomes, at what point do
4:05
Speaker 1: we just say this is a this is a money
4:08
Speaker 1: laundering scheme in essence to give it to all the
4:10
Speaker 1: family members. Well, it certainly looks like it on the face.
4:14
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any facts justifying work that that
4:18
Speaker 1: Hallie Biden might have done for for the Chinese Communist
4:21
Speaker 1: government or for this Chinese company. Um. You know, Hunter
4:25
Speaker 1: Biden led the effort to try to get this money
4:29
Speaker 1: from China, and he received the lion's share of it.
4:33
Speaker 1: His experience with China seems quite limited other than the
4:36
Speaker 1: fact that Daddy was vice president and China I believe
4:41
Speaker 1: thought it was profitable to send money to the Biden family,
4:45
Speaker 1: including as Hunter Biden's laptop famously says, ten percent for
4:50
Speaker 1: the big guy, that obviously being Joe Biden. We now
4:54
Speaker 1: have multiple witnesses who've testified that the big guy was
4:58
Speaker 1: was Joe Biden. Look, this is similar to an even
5:04
Speaker 1: greater degree the inference that was raised by Hunter Biden's
5:10
Speaker 1: working for Barisma and getting over a million dollars for Barisma.
5:14
Speaker 1: Barisma is the Ukrainian natural gas company. Hunter Biden does
5:17
Speaker 1: not speak Ukrainian. To the best of by knowledge, there's
5:20
Speaker 1: no evidence that he does. Hunter Biden did not know
5:22
Speaker 1: a damned thing about oil and gas, and so it
5:25
Speaker 1: raised an obvious question, why would a Ukrainian company pay
5:28
Speaker 1: someone who knew nothing about what they did over a
5:31
Speaker 1: million bucks? Generally companies don't do that. If you pay
5:34
Speaker 1: someone a million bucks, you think you're getting something for it.
5:37
Speaker 1: That raises the inference at the payment. The only thing
5:43
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden added to the equation was Daddy. That now
5:48
Speaker 1: is made even more likely by the escalating number of
5:52
Speaker 1: Biden family members who for the Chinese Communist government. Presumably
5:56
Speaker 1: we're doing even less than Hunter Biden was doing for Barissma.
6:02
Speaker 1: All of which gets back to something we've discussed on
6:04
Speaker 1: this podcast before, which is the Department of Justice has
6:08
Speaker 1: appointed a special counsel that is investigating number one, the
6:13
Speaker 1: classified documents that Joe Biden had littered around seemingly every
6:18
Speaker 1: home he owns, and we've talked about in this podcast
6:22
Speaker 1: before that special counsel's investigation and also the DOJ's investigation
6:27
Speaker 1: into Hunter Biden that they have leaked vigorously to the press.
6:33
Speaker 1: Both of those, we will know whether DOJ is shilling
6:37
Speaker 1: for the White House by answering one question, do those
6:41
Speaker 1: investigations examined directly corruption by Joe Biden, the big guy,
6:49
Speaker 1: the president, or do they do everything they can to
6:52
Speaker 1: shield off the big guy and stay focused on potential
6:58
Speaker 1: crimes committed own down river Biden family members. If DJ
7:05
Speaker 1: turns a blind eye to the big guy, that means
7:08
Speaker 1: the Biden Department of Justice is an active participant in
7:11
Speaker 1: the cover up, and we're going to know that sooner
7:13
Speaker 1: rather than later. There's another aspect of this, and that
7:17
Speaker 1: is it's not even clear with this wire transfer, with
7:21
Speaker 1: this three million dollars and an over a million going
7:24
Speaker 1: the Biden family, what goods or services? And I say this,
7:28
Speaker 1: everybody listened to this. If any we're provided in exchange
7:33
Speaker 1: for these payments. Before we go through that, I want
7:36
Speaker 1: to tell people about Patriot Mobile real quick. Patriot Mobile
7:39
Speaker 1: is the only Christian conservative cell phone company in the US.
7:43
Speaker 1: And if you're sick and tired of what companies that
7:46
Speaker 1: you pay money to every month and then they actually
7:49
Speaker 1: go against your values, You've got an option now in
7:51
Speaker 1: the cell phone industry, you can actually switch to Patriot Mobile,
7:55
Speaker 1: and it's easy. You can keep your same cell phone number.
7:58
Speaker 1: You can keep your same cell phone or switch to
8:00
Speaker 1: a new phone. Maybe you want to upgrade, you can
8:02
Speaker 1: do that. The other great thing about Patriot Mobile is
8:04
Speaker 1: when you pay your bill every month, they take a
8:07
Speaker 1: portion of that bill and they give it back to
8:10
Speaker 1: conservative causes and organizations that actually stand for what we
8:15
Speaker 1: believe in. We're talking about First and Second Amendment right
8:18
Speaker 1: organizations standing up for the rights of unborn children, and
8:21
Speaker 1: even helping people with adoptions. If you're ready to have
8:25
Speaker 1: a company stand with you and what you believe in,
8:27
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a cell phone anyway, you might as
8:29
Speaker 1: well support what you believe in. When you pay your bill,
8:32
Speaker 1: call them age seven eighth Patriot. That's eight seven eight
8:36
Speaker 1: Patriot eight seven eight Patriot. Use a promo Verdict you'll
8:39
Speaker 1: get the best deals of the day. Patriotmobile dot com
8:42
Speaker 1: slash Verdict now center. When this hit, it obviously spooked
8:46
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's team because they usually don't put out much
8:49
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden's legal team issued a statement claiming that
8:52
Speaker 1: he had engaged in a quote legitimate private business venture
8:56
Speaker 1: with a Chinese company. As part of that jointure, Hunter
9:01
Speaker 1: received his portion of good faith seed funds, which he
9:06
Speaker 1: shared with his uncle James and Hallie Biden, with whom
9:11
Speaker 1: he had he was involved with at a time, and
9:15
Speaker 1: sharing expenses quote unquote. They're not even saying what the
9:20
Speaker 1: company would have done. You would assume and you're again
9:24
Speaker 1: you're you're a lawyer, you would know this. This is
9:27
Speaker 1: a statement that I think opens them up to even
9:29
Speaker 1: more problems because they can't tell you what they actually did. Well,
9:33
Speaker 1: I think that's right, and you would think that they
9:35
Speaker 1: would want to put their best story forward, They would
9:37
Speaker 1: want to explain something. And look, I just asked folks
9:40
Speaker 1: to ask yourself at home, have you ever had anyone
9:44
Speaker 1: pay you a million bucks? And if so, and there's
9:48
Speaker 1: some people who have, did you have to do something
9:51
Speaker 1: for it? I mean, in your experience, do people usually
9:54
Speaker 1: get paid a million bucks for doing nothing? Now, let
9:57
Speaker 1: me ask a second question, when was the last time
10:01
Speaker 1: you got paid a million bucks from the Chinese Communist
10:05
Speaker 1: government or a company owned and controlled by the Chinese
10:07
Speaker 1: Communist government. Does that raise a different set of questions?
10:11
Speaker 1: And on top of that, if you happen to be
10:14
Speaker 1: Maybe we've got a podcast lister who has received a
10:17
Speaker 1: million bucks from the Chinese Communist government, although I doubt it,
10:21
Speaker 1: but if they have, it's worth asking was your father
10:24
Speaker 1: at the time or had he recently been the Vice
10:26
Speaker 1: President of the United States and making public policy decisions
10:30
Speaker 1: directly impacting China at some point, If the Chinese Communist
10:36
Speaker 1: government is essentially dropping off paper bags filled with rolls
10:41
Speaker 1: of fresh hundred dollar bills to every Biden family member
10:45
Speaker 1: they can find, if that doesn't start to look like bribery,
10:50
Speaker 1: I don't know what does. But I am glad that
10:54
Speaker 1: the House Oversight Committee is examining this. I'm glad they're
10:57
Speaker 1: putting out the facts. I assume the core media will
11:00
Speaker 1: utterly ignore it because the corporate media no longer engages
11:03
Speaker 1: in journalism. They no longer report on facts. If you
11:06
Speaker 1: want to learn facts, you have to listen to sources
11:09
Speaker 1: like this podcast that just lays out the facts. You
11:12
Speaker 1: can also watch Fox News or Newsmax to get some
11:15
Speaker 1: of these facts. But I'm going to hold my breath
11:18
Speaker 1: for CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC to cover
11:23
Speaker 1: these facts because it's inconvenient to their political narrative. You know,
11:27
Speaker 1: I pulled this clip up center because it was you
11:30
Speaker 1: were speaking. It made me remember something that Joe Biden
11:34
Speaker 1: said in an Axios on HBO interview back in two
11:38
Speaker 1: thousand and nineteen when he was asked a question about
11:41
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. This goes back to Barisma. This goes back
11:44
Speaker 1: to him on the board, and the President said this.
11:47
Speaker 1: We now know that his statement here is not accurate
11:52
Speaker 1: and or correct. Another way of putting is he lied
11:54
Speaker 1: to listen. I don't know what he was doing. I
11:57
Speaker 1: know he was on the board. I found out he
11:59
Speaker 1: was on the board after he's on the board, and
12:01
Speaker 1: that was it. And there's nobody has a lot of time.
12:04
Speaker 1: Isn't this something you want to get to the bottom of. No,
12:07
Speaker 1: because I trust my son. I trust my son, Senator.
12:10
Speaker 1: That's his statement. He said he didn't even know that
12:12
Speaker 1: he was on the border Barisma until after he was
12:14
Speaker 1: on the border Barisma. We know from the emails laptop
12:17
Speaker 1: that's not true. And he basically says, I trust my son,
12:20
Speaker 1: So everybody else in America should trust us as well. Well.
12:23
Speaker 1: Now with the Biden family money expanding to these other
12:26
Speaker 1: people with the last named Biden. How does the present
12:29
Speaker 1: still stand by that statement, and how damning could that
12:31
Speaker 1: be if we look at at the actual issue of impeachment. Look,
12:36
Speaker 1: it can be very damning. And I want to be clear,
12:39
Speaker 1: there's more than one way that the Chinese Communist government
12:44
Speaker 1: or Barisma, the Ukrainian Natural Gas Company can funnel cash
12:48
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden. One way to funnel cash is with
12:51
Speaker 1: cash going directly to the big guy, directly to Biden.
12:54
Speaker 1: But another way is just sending cash to various family members.
12:58
Speaker 1: I know, imagine for a second. You know you've got
13:01
Speaker 1: little kids, but imagine you had an adult son who
13:04
Speaker 1: had serious substance abuse problems, who had been a serious
13:07
Speaker 1: financial drain on your bank account because you were supporting him,
13:11
Speaker 1: You were having to provide for him. He was a
13:13
Speaker 1: troubled son, and suddenly a foreign government begins sending him
13:17
Speaker 1: millions of dollars and taking the burden off you, even
13:21
Speaker 1: if you never deposit a penny in your own bank account,
13:24
Speaker 1: removing a burden that you previously had providing for your
13:28
Speaker 1: troubled son. That is, money is fungible, that that is,
13:33
Speaker 1: in effect, giving money directly to Joe Biden and it
13:37
Speaker 1: certainly would have been received, is that. And I'll say
13:40
Speaker 1: that was a point that was made to me by
13:42
Speaker 1: someone who was a former very senior official in Washington,
13:47
Speaker 1: who had served in very senior positions in previous White Houses.
13:51
Speaker 1: And I think it's a point that is exactly true.
13:55
Speaker 1: One of the things we know about China, and we
13:57
Speaker 1: know this from our own you know, internal reporting from
14:01
Speaker 1: the Deep State when they've talked about this, China has
14:04
Speaker 1: a clear desire to compromise and to have influence over
14:09
Speaker 1: American policy. We've seen this at the universities that's been
14:13
Speaker 1: that's come up with a Biden Center, for example. We've
14:16
Speaker 1: seen this with the money that they've given the Clinton
14:18
Speaker 1: Foundation to others. But they want influence. And China having
14:21
Speaker 1: this desire to have influence, you couldn't have hit a
14:24
Speaker 1: bigger grand slam than this amount of influence over the
14:29
Speaker 1: most prominent family in American politics right now, in real time.
14:34
Speaker 1: And that is the other thing. If Joe Biden is compromised,
14:38
Speaker 1: can you impeach somebody center going backwards, and I'm sure
14:43
Speaker 1: the Democrats say, well, this stuff happened when he left
14:45
Speaker 1: the vice presidency. The payments came in after he left.
14:49
Speaker 1: So there's there's you can't go back and look at
14:52
Speaker 1: what he did in the past. But if it is
14:54
Speaker 1: influencing his what he's doing now and what he's saying now,
14:58
Speaker 1: and he's still doing favors for these countries, now, is
15:01
Speaker 1: that an impeachable offense. Well, I think that is an
15:05
Speaker 1: open question, but the Constitution itself is silent on it.
15:08
Speaker 1: Here's what the Constitution says. Article two, Section four. The
15:11
Speaker 1: Constitution reads as follows. Quote, the President, vice President, and
15:16
Speaker 1: all civil officers of the United States shall be removed
15:19
Speaker 1: from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery,
15:27
Speaker 1: or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, notably, in that
15:31
Speaker 1: constitutional text, there's no provision that that is treason, bribery,
15:35
Speaker 1: or other high crimes or misdemeanors that must have been
15:39
Speaker 1: committed while in federal office. And ultimately, the interpretation of
15:44
Speaker 1: whether the crimes had to be while in federal office
15:48
Speaker 1: would be an interpretation that would fall to the House
15:50
Speaker 1: and Senate. Now, the way impeachment works, it's the House
15:53
Speaker 1: of Representatives that brings impeachment. Impeachment is not removing a
15:57
Speaker 1: president from office. Impeachment is the effectively the same thing
16:01
Speaker 1: as an indictment. An indictment is when a grand jury
16:04
Speaker 1: returns an indictment, it is bringing charges against you. So
16:08
Speaker 1: if a majority of the House votes to impeach the president,
16:12
Speaker 1: then the president is impeached. We've seen in modern times
16:15
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton be impeached and we've seen Donald Trump be
16:18
Speaker 1: impeached twice. Both of them were impeached because the majority
16:22
Speaker 1: of the House voted to impeach them. When that happens,
16:24
Speaker 1: it then goes to the Senate, and the Senate conducts
16:27
Speaker 1: a trial for the president of the United States. The
16:30
Speaker 1: trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the
16:33
Speaker 1: United States, and in order to convict, it takes two
16:38
Speaker 1: thirds of the Senate to convict, and with the case
16:40
Speaker 1: of Bill Clinton and in both instances Donald Trump, of course,
16:43
Speaker 1: there were not the two thirds to convict. It is
16:46
Speaker 1: only upon conviction that a president can be removed from office. Now,
16:50
Speaker 1: the interpretation of what the scope of the impeachment clause
16:54
Speaker 1: is is left to the House and Senate. The House
16:57
Speaker 1: in determining whether to impeach, the Senate in determining whether
17:01
Speaker 1: to convict. In the most recent presidential impeachments. It's been
17:05
Speaker 1: a major issue of contention whether the particular misconducted issue
17:11
Speaker 1: qualified as high crimes or misdemeanors. This podcast launched on
17:16
Speaker 1: the very first day of the first Trump impeachment that night,
17:19
Speaker 1: and we've discussed at great length the meaning of the
17:23
Speaker 1: phrase high crimes or misdemeanors. We did not discuss the
17:26
Speaker 1: question of whether the conduct could precede the time as president,
17:30
Speaker 1: but I can tell you it's come up a couple
17:33
Speaker 1: of times. So Number one John C. Calhoun. So, John C.
17:36
Speaker 1: Calhoun was Vice president in eighteen twenty six, and at
17:39
Speaker 1: the time, John C. Calhoun requested that the House conducted
17:45
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry regarding allegations that he had profited from a
17:49
Speaker 1: contract during his tenure as United States Secretary of War.
17:54
Speaker 1: So it was for conduct that preceded his service as
17:57
Speaker 1: vice president. But he asked and his request was granted.
18:01
Speaker 1: A House Select Committee conducted an impeachment inquiry, and after
18:06
Speaker 1: several weeks found that Calhoun was innocent of wrongdoing. And
18:11
Speaker 1: so you might argue, and I suspect if an impeachment
18:15
Speaker 1: were proceeding, people would use the Calhoun case to argue
18:18
Speaker 1: on both sides. Some might say, well, the fact that
18:20
Speaker 1: he was not impeached shows that that perhaps you can
18:25
Speaker 1: impeach for conduct prior to being in office. Others might argue, well, no,
18:29
Speaker 1: that just showed that he was innocent of the conduct.
18:32
Speaker 1: A second example is in nineteen seventy three Spiro Agnew.
18:38
Speaker 1: So Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixon's vice president and on
18:43
Speaker 1: September twenty sixth, nineteen seventy three, Spiro Agnew asked the
18:47
Speaker 1: House again to launch an impeachment inquiry into him, and
18:54
Speaker 1: that request was denied by the Speaker of the House,
18:57
Speaker 1: Carl Albert Now. At the time, the reason Agnew wanted
19:02
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiry was there were charges that he had
19:05
Speaker 1: received bribes from construction companies during his time as a
19:11
Speaker 1: Baltimore County executive at his time as governor of Maryland.
19:17
Speaker 1: And actually, Andrew cited the John C. Calhoun president as
19:22
Speaker 1: a basis for the impeachment inquiry, and he hoped that
19:25
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiry would serve as an alternative to the
19:29
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation that was ongoing. What ultimately happened was
19:35
Speaker 1: the grand jury investigation moved forward and on October tenth,
19:40
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three, as part of a plea bargain relating
19:45
Speaker 1: to charges of tax of Asian Vice President Agnew resigned.
19:48
Speaker 1: So there now, I will say some of the allegations
19:52
Speaker 1: of corruption concerning Agnew also extended to his time as
19:56
Speaker 1: vice president. So again I would expect the House and
19:58
Speaker 1: Senate to argue that precedent on both sides. But the
20:02
Speaker 1: short answer is the House of Representatives is given the
20:07
Speaker 1: authority under the Constitution to impeach under whatever circumstances the
20:11
Speaker 1: House determines meets the standards of high crimes or misdemeanors,
20:16
Speaker 1: and nothing in the Constitution the text of it, limits
20:19
Speaker 1: it to only crimes committed while in federal office. Last
20:23
Speaker 1: question on this, and so many people have thrown around
20:26
Speaker 1: this word, and I want to be cautious when talking
20:28
Speaker 1: about it, but I think you can explain what it
20:31
Speaker 1: actually means and what it's supposed to mean. Is the
20:34
Speaker 1: word treason if a president, any president, is acting on
20:39
Speaker 1: behalf of another nation. Before I get your thoughts on that, though,
20:42
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about chalk. If you're a
20:44
Speaker 1: real American man and you want to maximize your masculinity
20:48
Speaker 1: by boosting testofs from levels up to twenty percent over
20:52
Speaker 1: ninety days. You can actually do it with the Chalk
20:55
Speaker 1: Male Vitality Stack. Now, if you're a guy and you
20:59
Speaker 1: just feel like you've us a little bit of that edge,
21:00
Speaker 1: you're getting a little bit older and you don't feel
21:02
Speaker 1: like yourself anymore, you can fight back again that war
21:06
Speaker 1: on masculinity, and you can do it with Chalk Choq.
21:10
Speaker 1: They are here to help real men just like you
21:13
Speaker 1: and I maximize our test Outstrom levels by boosting them
21:17
Speaker 1: up to twenty percent over ninety days. If you are
21:21
Speaker 1: ready to get that feeling back, then you need to
21:23
Speaker 1: check out Chalk. Go online tochoq dot com use the
21:27
Speaker 1: promo code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk
21:30
Speaker 1: subscription for life plus you can cancel Anytimehoq dot com
21:36
Speaker 1: promo code Ben for thirty five percent off. Now, because
21:40
Speaker 1: they have been bribed because of these business deals, is
21:45
Speaker 1: that a treasonous offense? Because we see that as a
21:48
Speaker 1: word now that I think is overused way too much.
21:51
Speaker 1: But would that be would that fall under that category? Well,
21:56
Speaker 1: that question is interesting. Treeason is actually the only crime
22:02
Speaker 1: that is defined not just by statute but in the
22:05
Speaker 1: text of the Constitution. Article three. Section three of the
22:09
Speaker 1: Constitution provides, quote, treason against the United States shall consist
22:15
Speaker 1: only in levying war against them, or in adhering to
22:21
Speaker 1: their enemies giving them aid and comfort. No person shall
22:26
Speaker 1: be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
22:30
Speaker 1: witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
22:35
Speaker 1: open court. And so it's the only crime the Constitution
22:40
Speaker 1: specifically defines leving war against them. Let's take the first
22:45
Speaker 1: part of that. I think it would be very difficult
22:48
Speaker 1: to argue that Joe Biden has levied war against the
22:51
Speaker 1: United States. I think that part clearly would not apply.
22:55
Speaker 1: Or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort,
23:01
Speaker 1: one could make that argument. I think it would be
23:04
Speaker 1: a high standard. The long and short of it is,
23:08
Speaker 1: as as a criminal matter, I think you would be
23:11
Speaker 1: far more likely to get a conviction for bribery or
23:16
Speaker 1: official corruption than for treason. The standard for treason is
23:22
Speaker 1: really really high. But you don't have to prove treason
23:27
Speaker 1: for impeachment, and bribery is another ground explicitly laid out
23:33
Speaker 1: in the Constitution for impeachment. So I would say the
23:38
Speaker 1: more relevant inquiry here is simply the inquiry was Joe
23:42
Speaker 1: Biden corruptly benefiting in effect being bribed by the Chinese
23:49
Speaker 1: Communist government and these facts. As you have more and
23:52
Speaker 1: more Biden family members getting paid substantial sums of money,
23:57
Speaker 1: it raises the inference more and more strongly. Final question
24:02
Speaker 1: on this because it is such an important topic when
24:06
Speaker 1: it comes to law and not overstepping. We've also had
24:10
Speaker 1: a lot of people say impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, and we've
24:13
Speaker 1: seen that and abused when Donald Trump was the president.
24:17
Speaker 1: With that being said, is there enough here do you
24:21
Speaker 1: believe for the House with a good conscience to say
24:24
Speaker 1: we need to go through impeachment or do you think
24:28
Speaker 1: they still need to wait and see more intel and
24:31
Speaker 1: more information come out of the Suspicious Activity Report, etc. Well,
24:36
Speaker 1: I think they need more evidence to successfully impeach the president.
24:41
Speaker 1: I'm glad the Oversight Committee is engaging in this investigation
24:44
Speaker 1: of every confidence they will continue engaging in this investigation. Look,
24:49
Speaker 1: one thing to remember, there's only a vote majority in
24:52
Speaker 1: the House. Unfortunately, the chances that Democrats would vote to
24:56
Speaker 1: impeach President Biden are very close to zero. They've demonstrated
25:01
Speaker 1: that they will be hard partisans and holding the entirety
25:05
Speaker 1: of the House. I believe the first place impeachment should
25:09
Speaker 1: start is impeaching Alejandro may Orchis for the Secretary of
25:13
Speaker 1: Homeland Security for his utter dereliction of duty, for his
25:17
Speaker 1: refusing to follow the law, for his allowing into the
25:22
Speaker 1: country five point five million illegal immigrants. I think that
25:26
Speaker 1: should be the first impeachment. I will point out it's
25:29
Speaker 1: not even clear the House can get a majority to
25:31
Speaker 1: impeach him. There are Republicans in the House who are
25:35
Speaker 1: publicly saying they would be hesitant to do that, and
25:37
Speaker 1: so that should be the first starting point. I think
25:40
Speaker 1: the second starting point should be impeaching Merrick Garland, the
25:44
Speaker 1: Attorney General. We've talked at great length about how Garland
25:47
Speaker 1: has been the most political attorney general in our nation's history,
25:51
Speaker 1: and in fact, if we see DJ refusing to investigate
25:56
Speaker 1: the mounting evidence of official corruption against the Lighthouse, that
26:00
Speaker 1: becomes yet another grounds for impeachment of Garland. If the
26:05
Speaker 1: evidence continues to build, I think the House should very
26:07
Speaker 1: seriously consider impeachment of the president, but I think they
26:11
Speaker 1: need to build more evidence before going forward, because they're
26:15
Speaker 1: not going to get the votes if they went forward today,
26:18
Speaker 1: I don't think they would get the votes. If the
26:20
Speaker 1: evidence continues to be laid out at some point in
26:23
Speaker 1: the future, they might. Well. I want to get people
26:26
Speaker 1: an update on another story that we talked about and
26:28
Speaker 1: really broke news on here on Verdict, and that is
26:32
Speaker 1: you have now moved forward and we played that audio
26:35
Speaker 1: earlier of the judge, a federal judge that went to
26:38
Speaker 1: go speak at Stanford and was ridiculed and heckled and mocked,
26:44
Speaker 1: and it was pretty disgusting. You've now asked Stanford to
26:47
Speaker 1: punish the students who heckled that federal judge, and you've
26:51
Speaker 1: also now called for the Texas Bar Association to do
26:54
Speaker 1: something as well. Give everybody an update on that. Well, sure,
26:58
Speaker 1: two follow ups. I've said to let her to Stanford
27:01
Speaker 1: Law School, asking what steps they intend to take Stanford,
27:05
Speaker 1: the president of Stanford, the dean of the law school
27:08
Speaker 1: have publicly apologized. So. Federal Court of Appeals Judge Kyle
27:12
Speaker 1: Duncan was invited to speak at Stanford Law School by
27:15
Speaker 1: the Federalist Society. He came to speak and a group
27:18
Speaker 1: of left wing activist Stanford Law students began heckling him.
27:22
Speaker 1: Began screaming at and began cursing at, and began yelling
27:25
Speaker 1: obscene insults and expletives at him, and shut down his speech.
27:30
Speaker 1: And the Dean of d EI at Stanford Law School
27:34
Speaker 1: came and instead of enforcing Stanford's free speech policy, she
27:39
Speaker 1: stood up and gave a six minute condescending lecture to
27:42
Speaker 1: the judge, essentially siding with the protesters and attacking the judge.
27:48
Speaker 1: And Stanford has already admitted in its written apology that
27:52
Speaker 1: she was not implementing their free speech policy. She was
27:56
Speaker 1: violating that policy. So I've written to Stanford saying, well,
28:00
Speaker 1: if you mean to protect free speech, then the question
28:03
Speaker 1: is what are the consequences? How will you enforce it?
28:05
Speaker 1: And I've asked Stanford two things. Number one, what will
28:10
Speaker 1: the disciplinary consequences be for the students who engaged in
28:14
Speaker 1: this conduct? And mind you, this is all videotapes, so
28:17
Speaker 1: you don't need to be a Sherlock Holmes to figure
28:21
Speaker 1: out who they were. It's all on videotape. They know
28:23
Speaker 1: who the students are. And number two, I've called on
28:28
Speaker 1: Stanford to fire this dean, this dean, to have the
28:31
Speaker 1: school official side with the violent not violent the angry,
28:38
Speaker 1: profane protesters who were shouting down a several sitting Federal
28:43
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals judge in violation of Stanford Law School policy.
28:48
Speaker 1: I think is and should be a firing offense. And
28:52
Speaker 1: if if she gets off with a slap on the wrist,
28:56
Speaker 1: you can be sure this will happen again. This will
28:58
Speaker 1: not be the last time that left wing activist feel
29:01
Speaker 1: free to shut down events that Look, there were other
29:06
Speaker 1: students there who wanted to hear what the judge had
29:09
Speaker 1: to say, and Stanford has yet to respond to my letter.
29:13
Speaker 1: I expect that they will, but I can tell you
29:16
Speaker 1: the dean of the law school has already had a
29:19
Speaker 1: bunch of left wing protesters show up outside of her
29:22
Speaker 1: class dressed in black, dressed like Antifa protesters protesting her. Now,
29:31
Speaker 1: they did not shout her down and silence her, so
29:33
Speaker 1: they have a right to do that. But they are
29:36
Speaker 1: already I think, trying to intimidate the dean because she
29:40
Speaker 1: dared apologize for what happened. And in my view, if
29:46
Speaker 1: students believe they could engage in this conduct without consequence,
29:51
Speaker 1: we will see more of it now. I sent a
29:53
Speaker 1: second letter to the State bar of Texas and The
29:57
Speaker 1: letter that I sent to the State Bar of Texas
30:00
Speaker 1: asks the State Bar to investigate to take any students
30:07
Speaker 1: who are graduating from Stanford Law School in the years
30:10
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, twenty four, two twenty five, and ask
30:15
Speaker 1: the students graduating in those years to answer in writing
30:18
Speaker 1: a very simple question, did they participate in the shameful
30:22
Speaker 1: harassment of Judge Duncan on March nine, twenty twenty three. Now,
30:27
Speaker 1: I would assume the vast majority of Stanford graduates would
30:29
Speaker 1: answer truthfully, no, I did not participate in that. If
30:34
Speaker 1: they answer yes, here's what I said in my letter.
30:37
Speaker 1: I would leave it to the considered judgment of the
30:39
Speaker 1: Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Board of Bar Examiners
30:43
Speaker 1: what the proper remedies should be A remedial training course,
30:46
Speaker 1: a letter of apology, or the like for those that
30:49
Speaker 1: respond in the affirmative. Now, some commentators online have said, well,
30:55
Speaker 1: calling for the students to be disciplined, calling for the
30:58
Speaker 1: dean to be fired, that that censorship, that's cancel culture,
31:03
Speaker 1: and let me talk for a minute about why it's not.
31:04
Speaker 1: Because it's important understand this number one, a member of
31:09
Speaker 1: the bar, that is a unique responsibility. It is something.
31:14
Speaker 1: Every state has a bar exam. There's an extensive process.
31:18
Speaker 1: To become an attorney is someone who is admitted to
31:22
Speaker 1: the bar in the United States at a state, at
31:25
Speaker 1: one of the states in the United States. So I'm
31:27
Speaker 1: a member of the Texas Bar. I'm a member of
31:28
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia Bar. To be admitted to the bar,
31:31
Speaker 1: you got to take the bar exam in Texas. It's
31:33
Speaker 1: a three day exam. So I sat and took that
31:35
Speaker 1: three day exam. You have to have graduated from an
31:38
Speaker 1: incredited law school. I did that as well. But they
31:41
Speaker 1: also engage in an examination of character and fitness. So
31:45
Speaker 1: generally speaking, if you, for example, have a felony conviction,
31:50
Speaker 1: generally speaking, you can't be admitted to the bar. Remember,
31:54
Speaker 1: an attorney is someone who handles client money, who represens
32:00
Speaker 1: the interest of a client. And if you're a litigator,
32:04
Speaker 1: an attorney's job is to appear in court and represent
32:07
Speaker 1: your clients. And so every state bar handles bar admissions
32:13
Speaker 1: looking to character and fitness. And I got to say, listen,
32:17
Speaker 1: if you're just a jerk, if you're an obnoxious protester,
32:19
Speaker 1: and let's say you come and scream at a random lawyer,
32:24
Speaker 1: like the Yale law students did when Kirsten Wagoner, who
32:27
Speaker 1: had just won a major religious liberty case, spoke at
32:30
Speaker 1: the law school. If you're doing that, that's obnoxious, it's uncouth,
32:34
Speaker 1: it's problematic, and it was contrary to Yale's free speech policy.
32:38
Speaker 1: But it is qualitatively different if you scream at a
32:44
Speaker 1: public official. If you come scream at me, and I've
32:46
Speaker 1: had many protesters scream and curse at me, you know what,
32:49
Speaker 1: that's part of being in public life. It is qualitatively
32:52
Speaker 1: different if you're screaming and cursing and hurling expletives at
32:58
Speaker 1: a federal judge. An attorney owes a duty to the court,
33:04
Speaker 1: and whether you like the judge or not, if you
33:07
Speaker 1: engage in that conduct at a courtroom, you will be
33:10
Speaker 1: held in contempt and they will put handcuffs on you
33:13
Speaker 1: and send you to jail. There are judges with whom
33:17
Speaker 1: I disagree strongly. There are justices on the Supreme Court
33:21
Speaker 1: with whom I disagree strongly. I have to say, prior
33:24
Speaker 1: to what happened at Stanford, I have never once seen
33:29
Speaker 1: a federal judge treated like that like these law students did,
33:35
Speaker 1: and so I think it is an important inquiry for
33:38
Speaker 1: Stanford Law School if its policy means anything to implement
33:43
Speaker 1: its policy. And I think it's an important inquiry for
33:47
Speaker 1: the state bar I hope, not just of Texas but
33:49
Speaker 1: of other states. And let me finally mention another thing
33:52
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court has long said with respect to
33:55
Speaker 1: free speech, that you don't have a heckler's veto, which is,
34:00
Speaker 1: it was entirely within the rights of the students at
34:04
Speaker 1: Stanford to protest Judge Duncan or anyone else. And actually,
34:08
Speaker 1: if they had stood outside the event, like they stood
34:11
Speaker 1: outside the Stanford Dean's con law class and silently protested
34:18
Speaker 1: his speech, that would have been consistent with Stanford's free
34:22
Speaker 1: speech policy. But they didn't do that. They tried to
34:26
Speaker 1: aggressively disrupt the speech. They succeeded. He was not able
34:30
Speaker 1: to give the speech he had planned to give. And
34:32
Speaker 1: the heckler's veto is someone saying I'm going to prevent you.
34:37
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson, maybe you attended this speech and you want
34:40
Speaker 1: to hear what the speaker has to say. Somebody else
34:43
Speaker 1: doesn't have the right to shut down an event, And
34:46
Speaker 1: as a heckler say I'm vetoing this person's right to
34:51
Speaker 1: speak and this person's right to hear. That is not
34:54
Speaker 1: protected free speech. That is disruptive conduct, which is qualitatively different,
34:59
Speaker 1: which is why Stanford Law School has a policy that
35:06
Speaker 1: says you cannot disrupt a speech. And look, the question
35:10
Speaker 1: I asked on the pod a couple of days ago
35:12
Speaker 1: is very simple. If the identical thing had happened, but
35:17
Speaker 1: instead of a conservative Court of Appeals judge, it had
35:22
Speaker 1: been Sonya sotobayor, or it had been Steve Bryer, it
35:25
Speaker 1: had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was still alive.
35:28
Speaker 1: If students law students had shouted and cursed and yelled
35:34
Speaker 1: profane expletives at any of those justices, do you doubt
35:40
Speaker 1: for a minute that the students would have faced immediate
35:44
Speaker 1: disciplinary reaction, and for that matter, that any dean who
35:48
Speaker 1: sided with the students engaging in that conduct would have
35:52
Speaker 1: been terminated. I think the odds are one hundred percent.
35:55
Speaker 1: And now Stanford can demonstrate whether it actually means what
35:59
Speaker 1: its policy says, or whether it in effect condones this
36:05
Speaker 1: rather astonishing conduct. It's going to be very interesting to
36:10
Speaker 1: see how they respond, or if they respond. It all
36:12
Speaker 1: directly to your letter. Will obviously keep vertical listeners up
36:15
Speaker 1: to date on that. Finally, Senator three years ago to day,
36:19
Speaker 1: everything changed fifteen days is to stop the spread. Right, Well,
36:24
Speaker 1: we're now that the three year anniversary of that. Before
36:27
Speaker 1: we go through that, I want to tell people about
36:29
Speaker 1: the Gusts of Precious Metals. They're different because they even
36:32
Speaker 1: tell you if a gold Ira isn't your answer. There's
36:36
Speaker 1: no pressure with August of Precious Metals, just the facts
36:38
Speaker 1: about how it could work for you and your retirement. Now,
36:43
Speaker 1: if you have an IRA or four one K, and
36:46
Speaker 1: you've saved more than one hundred thousand dollars, and you
36:48
Speaker 1: know how crazy economy is, and you know how important
36:51
Speaker 1: it is to protect your assets, especially if you're close
36:54
Speaker 1: to retirement, because there is no time to make up losses,
36:58
Speaker 1: call a Gust of Precious Metals. Not only will you
37:00
Speaker 1: get their free guide, but you will also get a
37:04
Speaker 1: web conference. Now, the web conference is amazing. I've done it,
37:07
Speaker 1: and you'll sit down and chat with someone one on
37:10
Speaker 1: one about your goals. Call them age seven seven four
37:14
Speaker 1: the number four gold Ira eight seven seven the number
37:18
Speaker 1: four gold Ira or online augusta Precious Metals dot com.
37:22
Speaker 1: Use my name Ben and you will actually get fees
37:25
Speaker 1: for up to ten years for free. Augusta Precious Medals
37:28
Speaker 1: dot com. Now Fauci, doctor Fauci and Burns. What they
37:34
Speaker 1: had to say three years ago, Take a listen. Oh yes,
37:39
Speaker 1: go ahead. He was my mentor, so I'm going to
37:42
Speaker 1: have to let him speak. The small print here, it's
37:46
Speaker 1: really small print. In states with evidence of community transmission
37:51
Speaker 1: bas restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor
37:55
Speaker 1: venues where groups of people congregate should be closed, should
38:00
Speaker 1: be closed there it is three years ago, centator where
38:04
Speaker 1: I mean, I gotta get your reaction to how joyful
38:07
Speaker 1: they see now that day my mentors here, We've got
38:10
Speaker 1: all this power, it's amazing, and we're gonna shut down
38:13
Speaker 1: everything in this country. And they basically were able to
38:16
Speaker 1: do that successfully. Yeah, look, that's exactly right. That was
38:19
Speaker 1: Deborah Burkes and Anthony Fauci. That was at a White
38:22
Speaker 1: House press conference. And the sort of smug gleeful of
38:27
Speaker 1: this in which they're laughing, in which they're they're casually
38:31
Speaker 1: you know, he's reading, just shut them all down, shut
38:33
Speaker 1: down your businesses, destroy your businesses, not my concern I've
38:40
Speaker 1: said before, and I believe Anthony Fauci is the most
38:43
Speaker 1: destructive bureaucrat in the history of this country. That the
38:48
Speaker 1: damage he did to millions of lives, the damage he
38:53
Speaker 1: did to millions of children who had their schools shut
38:57
Speaker 1: down in many instances for more than a year, and
38:59
Speaker 1: who will face serious learning gaps for the rest of
39:03
Speaker 1: their lives. And by the way, that disproportionately impacts low
39:06
Speaker 1: income kids, African American kids and Hispanic kids who bore
39:11
Speaker 1: the brunt of the callous disregard that he implemented, the
39:17
Speaker 1: jobs those restaurants and bars that he's referring to, those stores,
39:22
Speaker 1: all of the jobs family small businesses that were destroyed,
39:27
Speaker 1: many of which never opened again, and he casually flicked
39:31
Speaker 1: them away, and not to mention the restrictions that were
39:35
Speaker 1: put in place. You know, I think of all of
39:37
Speaker 1: the people who all of the seniors who died alone
39:42
Speaker 1: because policies were put in place that their loved ones
39:45
Speaker 1: couldn't be with them and comfort them. You know. I mean,
39:48
Speaker 1: it's just that those are heartbreaking tragedies. And we now
39:54
Speaker 1: know that Anthony Fauci was repeatedly lying to Congress in
39:59
Speaker 1: the Americ people. He was repeatedly lying about COVID having
40:04
Speaker 1: its origins in a Chinese lab. We now have two
40:07
Speaker 1: Biden agencies that have concluded it as likely that COVID's
40:11
Speaker 1: origins escaped from a Chinese lab. This podcast laid out
40:14
Speaker 1: the evidence for that three years ago. In fact, almost
40:17
Speaker 1: exactly the time Fauci and Burkes were doing this press conference,
40:22
Speaker 1: Verdict was laying out the evidence that COVID likely came
40:25
Speaker 1: from a Chinese government lab. Fauci was more than happy
40:29
Speaker 1: to mislead the American people about that. He was more
40:31
Speaker 1: than happy to ask big tech to censor information about that.
40:35
Speaker 1: He was more than happy to lie to Congress and
40:38
Speaker 1: insist that the federal government had not funded gain a
40:40
Speaker 1: function research. And he also repeatedly was all over the
40:45
Speaker 1: place on policy issues such as whether or not a
40:48
Speaker 1: mask is effective in stopping the spread of the virus.
40:51
Speaker 1: He had said previously that it wasn't, and then under
40:54
Speaker 1: political pressure, he flipped his position. And he was quite
40:58
Speaker 1: willing to lie to the American people as the politics dictated.
41:01
Speaker 1: And I'll point out when it came to school closures,
41:05
Speaker 1: Fauci was also very willing to respond to political pressure
41:10
Speaker 1: from the Biden White House and from the teachers' unions
41:13
Speaker 1: to keep schools closed and to urge that schools be closed,
41:17
Speaker 1: and to urge also that even young children be given
41:22
Speaker 1: the vaccine, to give arguments that we're used in support
41:26
Speaker 1: of oppressive and morally wrong COVID vaccine mandates. Three years
41:31
Speaker 1: ago today is when they started this high handed, wrongheaded policies,
41:39
Speaker 1: and the country will never be the same because of them,
41:42
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. And we're also going to make
41:44
Speaker 1: sure that we keep all of you updated on the
41:46
Speaker 1: latest breaking news with this hunter Biden and these suspicious
41:50
Speaker 1: activity reports as well. So make sure you hit that
41:52
Speaker 1: subscribe or auto download button wherever you're listening to this
41:57
Speaker 1: podcast so you do not miss an episode, and we
41:59
Speaker 1: will see you back here in a couple of days.