November 24, 2023 • 30 mins
Sean and Jim Jordan react to stories that Hunter Biden wants House Republicans to stop their investigations into his scandals.... why would this every be done?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sean Hannity's show, tol Free.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It's eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn, if you
want to be a part of the program. We have
James Comer the House Oversight Committee on tonight. As we
now have the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, they are
now moving forward in their investigation into the Biden family syndicate,
if you will, and they have now sent out subpoenas
(00:24):
for interviews for Hunter Biden, for James Biden, which is
Joe's brother, and for Rob Walker. We're also expecting many
more letters to be sent out as well for other
people so that they will go in and they will
have to testify. These subpoenas are going to go out left,
right and sideways in the days to come. I know
it's taken a long time in some people's minds, but
(00:46):
in the case of Congressman Comber, what he has wanted
to do is he wanted to get to the bottom
of this, and he wanted to follow the money, and
this is where he found. Now ten if you include
Joe Biden, ten Biden family members have been paid what
he is describing, and their business associates and their companies
over twenty four million dollars just from China, Russia, Ukraine,
(01:09):
Romania and Kazakhstan itself. I mean that is a massive
amount of money. So now the President's son, the President's brother,
other Biden family associates connected to the record and the
evidence obtained by that committee is now going to have
a lot of substantive questions based on what they have
(01:32):
discovered up to this point. Now this investigation is going
in tandem with what is happening in the House Ways
and Means Committee and Jason Smith, but also with the
House Judiciary Committee, and that is the issue of whether
or not the Department of Justice and the FBI have
been weaponized and whether they've been protecting Biden family members. Now,
(01:53):
for example, Daily Caller has a peace out Congressman Jim Jordan,
who's the chairman of the House Judiciary Coms Comte, has
uncovered new evidence showing that top FBI officials actually ordered
a field agent to monitor and when necessary, censor conservative
material that they considered disinformation. And by the way, some
(02:14):
of the censored material, my name is directly associated with it.
I was on the list to censor information. On top
of that, we know in the lead up to the
twenty twenty election that the FBI was meeting weekly with
big tech companies warning them they may be victims of
a disinformation campaign, and that disinformation campaign maybe about Hunter
(02:35):
Biden or Joe Biden. Now, the FBI, we now know
they knew in December of twenty nineteen, but likely probably
earlier about Hunter Biden's laptop. By March of twenty nineteen,
they knew about the laptop. By March of twenty twenty,
they had. You know, they've they've found it to be
authentic and confirmed it to be authentic. And yet they're
(02:56):
warning all these big companies. And then specifically when companies
like then Twitter and Facebook actually asked the FBI, is
this Hunter Biden laptop story true, they would not give
them an answer.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
All right, here to put it all.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Together as only he can as the chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee. Our friend Jim Jordan is with us, sir,
how are you?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
I'm fine, Sean.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
By the way, can you explain to me who targeted
me and tried to censor me? Because I've already had
thousands of my personal text messages released to the public.
I have no privacy in this country anymore personally I
find it offensive, but I don't think I have any recourse, do.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I, other than us exposing this and them stopping it.
And that is beginning to happen that they're I think,
pulling back, and I don't think you're going to see
this kind of stuff take place in the twenty twenty
four election. As you described, it took place in twenty twenty,
but it was your here's the kicker, Sean. They were
censoring your stuff and using your tax money to do it,
because these were government agencies partnering with big academia and
(03:57):
big tech to set up this system, software system where
they basically had this dashboard where they say, take down
this tweet, limit the visibility of this post. And it
was it was President Trump, it was Sean Hannity, Mike,
how could be Molly Hemingway. I mean, you just go
down the list of conservatives and it was disproportionately conservatives
that they that they targeted. Now we've got the good
(04:17):
case that that's happened in the Fifth Circuit, that good decision.
I think it's going to go to the Supreme Court
and we'll get a good I think a good ruling
there to limit these agencies' ability to do this. There's
been a story in the Washington Post saying that universities
are backing off of this because we've called so many
of them in. It's costing them, you know, attorney fees
to come in when we ask them questions. And we
were able to do all this and expose what they're
(04:38):
doing and put that out there with that report earlier
this week. So I think we're making real progress here
and that's important as we head into this next election.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Let me, let me get to the heart of this,
based on what Comer is doing in his committee, and
based on what you're discovering in your committee, and the
DOJ now tightening rules for prosecutors when probing Congress. Okay,
that's only part of it, but we also have The
Daily Caller had this onearthed emails showing the stonewalling. The
(05:06):
FBI agent had orders from the bureau's officials to censor.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But then it goes further.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
You had a closed door interview meeting with David Weiss,
he's the special prosecutor. Now that was only recently that
that happen, and it turns out that he corroborated what
the IRS whistleblowers had to say, and that he did
not have the charging authority that I believe under oath
that the Attorney General said that he did have. Did
(05:32):
the Attorney General not go before Congress and say that that,
in fact, he had the authority to charge in other jurisdictions.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yeah, he said it, and so did David Weiss in
his initial letter to me, where he said he had
the ultimate authority to determine, when, where, and whether to
bring any charges against Hunter Biden. But during the deposition
he was directly asked, did you ever seek special attorney
status which would have given him the status under section
five fifteen of the Code, given him the status to
take a case and prosecuted in some other United States
(06:02):
attorney's district. He was asked, did you ever request that?
His answer was yes, I did in the spring of
twenty twenty two. And here's the important fact. He requested
that from Department of Justice, the main Justice Department, just
prior to going to the District of Columbia US attorney
and asking would you partner with me on the prosecution.
So he asked to get that power before he went.
(06:23):
When he goes there, the district attorney says, no, I'm
not going to partner with you, and then he never
got that status until just this August when he requested
it the course after the whole case fell apart with
a plea agreement. So that directly confirms what whistleblower Gary
Shapley told us. Their testimony has stood up after we've
done seven different depositions now and all the information we've uncovered,
(06:45):
the whistleblower's testimony has been confirmed and validated every single time.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Is are any of these facts wrong?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Did the FBI have a copy of Hunter Biden's laptop
in December of twenty nineteen, is that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
That's correct?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Did they rate it's authenticity in March of twenty twenty
is that correct?
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Okay, then can you explain to this country if they
knew the laptop was real? They also knew and correct
me if I'm wrong that the likes of Rudy Giuliani
and others had copies of this Hunter Biden laptop?
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Is that true?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
So then why would FBI agents be meeting weekly in
the months leading up to the twenty twenty election warning
all of these big tech companies they may be a
victim of a disinformation campaign and specifically told it may
be about Joe Biden and it may be about Hunter Biden.
Was that pre bunking a very real and true story
(07:40):
that they probably knew, if they have any political sense
at all, would be extremely damaging to Joe Biden's presidential aspirations.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Well, that's what I think. That's what you think. I
think that's what your audience thinks. I think that's what
most common sense Americans think. They would tell you. People
in the national security and intelligence communities wouldell you, well,
we knew Russia tried to interfere with PEPs. We thought
it was going to happen again. So they will go
back to that as their talking point in the point
they made because frankly, they did that when we interviewed
mister Clapper and mister Brennan and others who were associated
(08:10):
with those fifty one people who signed out and letter.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
That but in light of the fact that they knew
it was authentic, and they knew it was true, and
they knew it was real, and yet they're warning Big
Tech that they may be a victim and of misinformation
about Joe and Hunter. And then when they knew the
truth and these companies went to them. They want they
were being responsible. They said, you've been warning us about
(08:32):
this is the laptop story published in the New York Post.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
True. They wouldn't give them an answer.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Why not, here's what's funny, and we've discovered this in depositions.
There was one point where one one agent said, yes,
it's it's accurate. We have the laptop. And then in
a subsequent meeting that same day, and this is right
when the New York Post story comes out October fourteenth,
twenty twenty. That same day, there's another meeting later that
day with Facebook people and they say no comment. So
someone flipped up right away and then they off of
(09:00):
it and then later confirmed with each other the government did.
And the next time they got asked later that day,
they said no comments. But they did keep that information.
Here's the other thing, Sean, They not only kept it
from them when it happened. When when Scott Brady, the
US Attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, was tasked
in early twenty twenty. January third, twenty twenty, was filtering
(09:20):
all information related to Hunter, Biden and Ukraine. He was
passed with that job. He went to the FBI. Give
me that information. It'll filter through me as the Attorney
General wants me to do, and then I'll get it
to I'll get it to David Weiss or the Southern
District of New York wherever they have a grand jury
and they're looking at possible prosecution. They never told you
about the laptop. We asked him about this two weeks ago.
We said, when did you learn about the laptop? And
(09:41):
you got this smile in his face. He said, I
learned about it when you did, when it came out
in the press on October fourteenth, twenty twenty. I'm like,
they didn't share that with you. Did that surprise you? Go, yes,
it surprised me. Surprised the agents we had working on
the case, the US attorneys we had working on the case,
so they kept it from him as well. And he
was supposed to be the clearinghouse for all information related
to Hunter, Biden and uklaim.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Quick break right back.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
We'll continue our final moments with the Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan on the other side, and
then your calls, Ted Cruz and much more. We continue
now with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Our
final moments with Jim Jordan. How do you react to
these stories just out yesterday and today that Hunter Biden,
through his attorneys, wants his father's Justice Department DJ to
(10:25):
investigate smoking gun witness Tony Bobolinsky. That's number one, number
two Hunter's scandal. His attorney again is asking the speaker,
Speaker Johnson to cancel your investigation, Jason Smith's investigation in
James Comer's investigations into the Biden family completely.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Now, why would they do that.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Considering we've discovered all these show corporations. Ten Biden family
members now Comer believes have been paid twenty four million
dollars just from the countries that I mentioned China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Why would you stop your investigation under any circumstances Because
what we're talking about here is did Joe Biden take
actions that benefited his family or himself?
Speaker 4 (11:15):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (11:15):
And in the case of Borisma, using taxpayer money to
do it?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, I think you hit on it right there, Sean.
The reason they're they're making these moves is because they
know this. This story is so so the country gets it.
The storyline is as simple as it gains. Politician takes
actions that benefit his family financially, and then there's an
effort to swooping under the rug. And the effort to
swooping under the rug is all the things we've been
talking about, all the things David White did. I mean,
he's been at this now almost six years, investigation for
(11:41):
that long a time, and yet finally get special Council status.
Let's the statute of limitations lapse for the years when
when Hunter.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Biden the year?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
The years, Yeah, the Barishman years, because that would go
right back to the White House. So so that's the
basic storyline. And of course they're going to push back
in any way they can, because the country gets it.
This is a tale as old as time. This is
a story as old as the hills. Politician is doing
certain things that benefit his family financially, and then there's
an effort to conceal it. All.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Right, let's go through another timeline, because I think the
most damning the two most damning cases are Barisma, an
oil giant in Ukraine and Gas an oil giant in Ukraine,
and the CEFC, the oil giant out of China. And
if we start with Barisma, what do we know and
correct me if any of these dates are wrong. It
(12:31):
became official Obama administration policy. They came to believe interagency
consensus that Ukraine had made enough progress on the issue
of corruption that warranted a billion dollars in long guarantees.
Let's fast forward. We're still in the year twenty fifteen.
In December, Joe Biden gets a call from his son
(12:53):
Hunter and to Barisma executives. This is around the time
that they were panicked and they desperately needed DC help.
Now DC help certainly couldn't come from Hunter. That would
have to come from Joe. Five days after that phone
call with Maeris Megzas and Hunter, Joe goes to give
the billion dollars in loan guarantees. And that's when he
(13:16):
famously bragged that you know that, you know, I gave
him six hours to fire the prosecutor. Son of a bee.
They did it. We also learned that Hunter had no
experience in Ukraine oil, gas, or energy, and we that
as a result of Joe's decision, Hunter continued to get paid.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Now, is that bribery, Well, that's that's.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
What I think. It certainly looks like seans. I always
say that it's four facts. Hunter Biden gets put on
the board of Barisa. B fact too, he's not qualified
to be on the board. Factory is what you just
pointed out? The Barisma executive is on December fourth, twenty fifteen,
say hey, we need you to take some action. We
need you to do something. We're under a lot of pressure.
Can you help relieve that? He immediately then calls his dad.
This is Devin Archer in his testimony. What does he
do next? He calls his dad. He calls his dad.
(13:57):
Five days later, his dad is in Ukraine and starts
the process, gives the speech, goes after the prosecutor, gets
the prosecutor fired, and threatens and says, I will hold
up the money that had already been approved by the
Interagency Policy Committee, had been approved by the State Department.
They'd already say go ahead with the European unions that
go They were for this as well, said the prosecutor
is doing you a good job. He holds that up
(14:20):
to get this prosecutor fired at the request of the
very people. Hunter Biden's getting paid millions of dollars and.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
He's on TV bragging about it. We're going to hold
Jim Jordan over or I have a couple more questions.
He's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I mean,
this is now hitting critical mass and I don't see
how the Bidens get out of this. We'll explain that
on the other side. Eight hundred and ninety four one,
Shawns on number. We'll get to your calls as well
as we continue twenty five to the top of the hour.
(14:47):
All right, we continue with the House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Jim Jordan, who is with us. All right, so we
just went over to the Barisma example. Let me go
to the other example, and I want to hhighlight something
that is very important and that is in the process
of this story unfolding. There was a moment when Hunter
(15:08):
Biden went on Good Morning America. He said on Good
Morning America that he had absolutely no experience and energy,
oil gas Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
And it was pretty shocking.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
And then one has to ask, go, how are you
making all of this money sitting on a board in Barisma?
And then we discover later and I'll get this to
this next question in a second with Jim Jordan. Then
he's making money doing oil deals with the biggest oil
and gas giant in China, connected to the Chinese government.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
But this is what Hunter said on Good Morning America.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
There's been a lot of misinformation about me, not about
my dad. Nobody buys that, but advised this idea that
I was unqualified to be on the board.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
What were your qualifications to be on the board of Barisma?
Speaker 4 (15:58):
Well, I was vice shaming of the board of for
five years. I was the chairman of the board of
the UN World Food Program. I was a lawyer for
Boys Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms
in the world.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or
Ukraine itself though, No.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
But I think that I had as much knowledge as
anybody else that was on the board, if not more.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
In the list you gave me the reasons why you're
on that board, you did not list the fact that
you were.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
The son of the course. Yeah, what rule do you
think that played?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
I think that it is impossible for me to be
on any of the boards that I just mentioned without
saying that I'm the son of the vice President of
the United States.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you
would have been asked to be on the board of Barisma.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
I don't know. I don't know, probably not. I don't
think that there's a lot of things that would have
happened in my life that if my last name.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Was in Biden.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Now let's go to the what's app message you issued.
This is what the Chinese oil conglomerate, the CEFC. Congressman
Jordan correct me if I'm wrong, but that what's apt
message directly implicates Hunter and his father. I am sitting
here with my father and they're both mad that they
did that, the CEFC did not keep their commitment to them.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And then he.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Goes through a long list between everybody that my father
knows and my ability to hold the grudge. You are
going to regret not keeping your commitment, and we're waiting
for your call. My father and I are waiting for
your call right now. Well five days later, James Comer
confirmed it again. Last night, five million dollars was sent
to one of these show corporation accounts of the Bidens. Now,
(17:39):
he doesn't have any experience in this field. Why on
earth would they be paying him or Joe, or grandchildren
or any one of ten different Biden family members this
massive amount of money. Why would they be paying them
when you don't have experience. I love that job. Pay
me that money. I love tim million. I'd love to
(18:00):
get paid millions with no experience.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Yeah. I mean he got it because he said what
he got it. He got it because of his last
name and here and what's more, his business partner confirmed
that in his deposition under oath in front of us
a few months back.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
You're talking about Devin Archer. What did he confirm to you?
Speaker 3 (18:19):
He said they were selling the brand? And who is
the brand? What is the brand? The brand is Joe Biden.
And then you have the what's that message that you
just brought up, Sean, The brand is sitting right beside
the guy on the phone. He's sitting beside him because
the guy on the phone, Hunter Biden says, the guy
sitting beside me is between the two of us, We're
gonna make life tough for you. And I'm paraphrasing, but
(18:39):
they go through that. What that message? So that is
the brand, That is what was always for sale. That
is the politician providing access. It looks like taking actions
based on what happened with Barisma and the Prosecutor General
in Ukraine, so that his family benefits financially. And we
asked Jonathan Turley this under oath and in a hearing
two months back, we said, is a benefit to your
(19:01):
family a benefit to you? And he said, of course
it is, particularly when you're an older an older person,
and you're looking to make sure your family, trying to
help your family have the resources for their kids, their grandkids.
That is exactly so, of course at the benefit there,
that is what's going on here. It seems to me
based on the evidence we've uncovered.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Now, remember, in the Judiciary Committee, you are asking a
very important question whether or not we have a two
tier justice system. You're asking other questions whether or not
the Biden family was protected by the Department of Justice.
You're asking, you know, other important questions about the weaponization
of justice in America. Now, let me go back to
(19:41):
the testimony that you just refer to, and that's Devin Archer,
because correct me if I'm wrong. He testified that Joe
Biden had called into at least twenty meetings with Hunter
being there and their foreign business partners. Now that directly
contradicts what Joe Biden has said both as a candidate
and as a president. When he repeated it often.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
He said this, how many times have you ever spoken
to your son about his overseas business dealings.
Speaker 6 (20:09):
I've never spoken my son about his overseas for a
serious I have never discussed with my son, or my
brother or anyone else, and they have them.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
To do with their business period.
Speaker 6 (20:20):
And what I will do is the same thing we
did in our administrations, an absolute wall between personal and
private and the government.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Do you stand by your statement that you did not
discuss any of your son's overseas business.
Speaker 6 (20:34):
Large Dan Barb's too. I would lolve to your son's
tiny shakedown text message.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Were you sitting there for yourself?
Speaker 6 (20:46):
The only thing they can do is make up things
about my family.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
It's not going to go very far.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
There's this testimony now where one of your son's form
our business associates is claiming that you were on speakerphone
a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
With them talking business. Is that what? Neverdogg business?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
And I know you'd have a.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Lowsy question, Well, what do you Why is that allowsy question?
Because it's not true?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
So I asked you, Jim Jordan did did Joe Biden
as a candidate and as a president flat out lie
when he said he never spoke to his son brother
or anybody for that matter about their foreign business dealings.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Of course, the facts, the facts show that that all
those things were not accurate. He said, time and timing,
and I didn't have no we know you that dinners.
We know that he was at a dinner for several
hours with the wealthiest lady in Russia, the wife of
the former.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Maria Mofka, Elena Botina is her name, and that's at
the Cafe Milano on the Russian oligar.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
So yes, And by.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
The way, didn't that Russian oligarch that Joe had dinner with,
didn't she invest three and a half billion dollars to
give three and a half million to the Biden family
and over one hundred million, according to Devin Archer, invested
in their real estate a ventures.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Yeah, and more importantly, she never wound up on any thanks.
So yes, that is that's another example where it looks
like money came in. Joe Biden had contact, which goes
directly against what he said to the press numerous times,
including Peter Doucy. There your last a few played and
then there's action that happens or doesn't happen in this case,
(22:18):
those sanctions are imposed on this individual.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Tell me what else now, I want to compare and contrast,
where are you now in terms of your investigation into
whether or not the Department of Justice is weaponized, whether
or not we have a two tier system of justice
where Republicans are treated one way if your last name
is Trump, for example, versus your last name being Clinton
(22:45):
or Biden.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Yeah, well, I was just going to say, so, I
think that's obvious based on what the whistleblowers brought forward.
They said, they've never seen an investigation done this way.
They've never seen a slow walk like this, They've never
seen the statute limitations laps when you have that kind
of tax liability that Hunter Biden had at or those
those tax years when he was receiving the income from
Barisma and other sources as well in those those tax years.
So you have all that, and then you have the
(23:09):
multiple times the story changed from David Weiss, the multiple
times the story has changed from the White House on
what involvement Joe Biden may or may not have had.
So I do think that you see this this different standard,
one set of rules for US regular guys. One set
of rules if your last name is Trump and you're
a conservative Republican like President Trump, and a difference set
if your name is Clinton Biden. Comeey those names.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
How do you do you do you see any way
that the Biden family gets away with all of this
in light of all the information uncovered by your committee,
by the Oversight Committee, and by the Ways of Means Committee.
Is there any way possible that they they that that
that they escape justice here?
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Well, I mean, our job is to get the facts
out there, to propose legislative solutions to limit how tax
dollars are spent. That's what we can do in the
legislative branch. And if we get to the point where
we think this warrants going to articles of impeachment, there's
that response as well from the legislative branch.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Can we assume for a second everything we have now
discussed in the last thirty minutes on this program are true?
It is does that not meet the threshold for bribery,
high crimes misdemeanors?
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Well, again, I want to complete to investigate it. I
want to have it all in front of us before
that decision is made. And what I've said all along
is this is a decision that the entire Republican Conference
has to make as a unit. I think we have
to make that. I think we have to remain consistent
to the Constitution. We have to do this in a
deliberate way, unlike what the Democrats did to President Trump
in twenty nineteen, where I was on the other side
of sending President Trump from ridiculous stuff they did. But oh,
(24:42):
by the way, that all dealt with supposedly holding up
money for Ukraine based on one phone call. That was fine.
I've got the transcript. You looked at the transcript of
that phone.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
I almost have it memorized.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Yeah, they are peaching for that. And here we had
what happened with Garisma Joe Biden. And there was a
Washington Post story back in September that said when they
got on the plane, when Joe Biden got on the
plane on December seventh, who over there and gave that
speech on December ninth, twenty fifteen, just five days after
his son had asked him to weigh in and relieve
the pressure that Baris was under. When he did that,
on the fight over, Joe Biden called in audible and
(25:16):
he said, because the whole State Department. Everyone was saying
the money should go to Ukraine, the one billion dollars
the loan should go there. Joe Biden decided, no, I'm
gonna I'm gonna threaten that money. I'm gonna use that
as leverage to get this guy fired, which seems to
me to be exactly what his son asked him to
do when he picked up the phone and called him
after he got the request from the briefs to make decades.
That is that is that is that is what happened.
(25:39):
It looks like to me, and that is exactly what
they accused President Trump of doing when he didn't do
it right.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Quick break right back. We'll continue with Jim Jordan. He
has agreed to stay longer with us. More with him
on the other side, continue now with the Chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee. Our final moments with Jim Jordan.
The last question. One thing I would argue that Hunter
Biden is going for him. He does have a very
good lawyer, and that lawyer was able to get Robert
Menendez off in his first trial in New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
I think he's representing him again.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Uh, this is the same lawyer that got John Edwards
an acquittal, I'm not I think a hung jury in
his case. One was a quittal. I believe in his case.
His name is Abby Lowe. Lowell is a serious attorney.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
That seems to be the one thing working in his favor.
But I would imagine facts become very difficult things for lawyers,
don't they.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
I sure do. And that's that's our job is uncovered
the facts. And it's why.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
There there are more subpoenas going out today of people
we want to talk to and we think are important.
We want to talk to Eric Sherwin, one of on
A Biden's business partners.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That the way isn't Eric Sherwin, the guy that Hunter
would email with because he was in charge of finances
and ask questions about which account he should use to
pay for his father's home repairs.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yep. And And we want I want to talk to
this Kevin Morris, this guy who just came out of
nowhere and says I'm going to pay on the Biden tech.
I'm going to talk to this guy. So there's a
number of other people we're going to talk to, some
of the people who bought the art and dealt with
Hunter Biden's art. How did that all play out? How
did that all work? So there are key folks that
we do want to talk to that we will Chairman
Comer will be a shin supoenas on here. I think soon.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I think this is now though hitting critical mass. It's
hitting ahead here. And you know, I don't have a
crystal ball, but you know, you see this judge in
New York clinging to this idiotic valuation of mari A
Lago at eighteen million dollars in spite of all the
evidence of the contrary. I mean, I put up on
the screen on television, Congressman, a two acre plot of land,
(27:38):
just dirt, nothing on it, for two hundred million dollars
ocean front property in Palm Beach. There's over twenty acres
at Mara Lago. You have the inner coastal and you
have the beach, the ocean, and you have a club.
And it's a historic building, and it's got fifty some
odd bedrooms and thirty some odd bathrooms and every amenity
you could ever want or imagine. Why would the judge
(28:01):
cling to it an eighty million dollar evaluation?
Speaker 1 (28:04):
How is that fair? Do you think Donald Trump can
get fair?
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Trials in New York, in DC, the in Fulton County, Georgia,
because I don't think he can.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Now when you stand up to the swamp, they come
after you. They got this crazy fourteenth Ammic case in Colorado,
they got the civil cases in New York, they got
the state case in Atlanta, which is belowing. We know
how blowey that was, because we learned after she In
died in nineteen people and President Trump she was thinking about.
She actually literally contemplated indicting three United States Senators, including
(28:33):
Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. And
then you got Jacksmith in both Miami and in DC.
Like of course they're out to get president. I mean
the I did at Marilanco's only worth that you been there.
I've been there.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Okay, So now all of these issues happened years ago.
But they're going to have the trial in an election year,
and I think if the president is are going to
have any shot at real justice and fairness, that would
be on appeal. But any appeal is likely to be
after the election. Is it time for that?
Speaker 3 (29:00):
It's all part of It's all part of their campaign.
When when did the Jacksonith trial in DC. I think
it's late to start early March, that's right.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Now're supposed to start the day before Super Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Yes, exactly. It It's like it's just so. But here's
the good news. And you know this because you talk
to these people every day, to these great Americans every
day who listen to your radio, listen to you on
Fox at night, and the American people get it. They
know what's going on. They know. That's why when President
Trump does a rally like you did last night, everybody
shows up. I mean, the country gets that. They are
(29:30):
out to get him, just like they were out to
get on Handy, just like they've come out for me,
just like they wanted to censor your your posts and tweets.
That's what the country understands what is happening. And that's
why I think one of the reasons President Trump is
going to win and what now is a little less
than a year.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I know
you've been very generous with your time, Congressman. Thank you,
we appreciate it. This is very comprehensive and I think
it brings everybody up to speed with where things are
this is really really getting to a critical mass here.
Eight hundred and nine point one, Shawn, is a number
you want to be a part of the program.
Sean Hannity's show, tol Free.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It's eight hundred and ninety four one, Shawn, if you
want to be a part of the program. We have
James Comer the House Oversight Committee on tonight. As we
now have the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, they are
now moving forward in their investigation into the Biden family syndicate,
if you will, and they have now sent out subpoenas
(00:24):
for interviews for Hunter Biden, for James Biden, which is
Joe's brother, and for Rob Walker. We're also expecting many
more letters to be sent out as well for other
people so that they will go in and they will
have to testify. These subpoenas are going to go out left,
right and sideways in the days to come. I know
it's taken a long time in some people's minds, but
(00:46):
in the case of Congressman Comber, what he has wanted
to do is he wanted to get to the bottom
of this, and he wanted to follow the money, and
this is where he found. Now ten if you include
Joe Biden, ten Biden family members have been paid what
he is describing, and their business associates and their companies
over twenty four million dollars just from China, Russia, Ukraine,
(01:09):
Romania and Kazakhstan itself. I mean that is a massive
amount of money. So now the President's son, the President's brother,
other Biden family associates connected to the record and the
evidence obtained by that committee is now going to have
a lot of substantive questions based on what they have
(01:32):
discovered up to this point. Now this investigation is going
in tandem with what is happening in the House Ways
and Means Committee and Jason Smith, but also with the
House Judiciary Committee, and that is the issue of whether
or not the Department of Justice and the FBI have
been weaponized and whether they've been protecting Biden family members. Now,
(01:53):
for example, Daily Caller has a peace out Congressman Jim Jordan,
who's the chairman of the House Judiciary Coms Comte, has
uncovered new evidence showing that top FBI officials actually ordered
a field agent to monitor and when necessary, censor conservative
material that they considered disinformation. And by the way, some
(02:14):
of the censored material, my name is directly associated with it.
I was on the list to censor information. On top
of that, we know in the lead up to the
twenty twenty election that the FBI was meeting weekly with
big tech companies warning them they may be victims of
a disinformation campaign, and that disinformation campaign maybe about Hunter
(02:35):
Biden or Joe Biden. Now, the FBI, we now know
they knew in December of twenty nineteen, but likely probably
earlier about Hunter Biden's laptop. By March of twenty nineteen,
they knew about the laptop. By March of twenty twenty,
they had. You know, they've they've found it to be
authentic and confirmed it to be authentic. And yet they're
(02:56):
warning all these big companies. And then specifically when companies
like then Twitter and Facebook actually asked the FBI, is
this Hunter Biden laptop story true, they would not give
them an answer.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
All right, here to put it all.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Together as only he can as the chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee. Our friend Jim Jordan is with us, sir,
how are you?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
I'm fine, Sean.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
By the way, can you explain to me who targeted
me and tried to censor me? Because I've already had
thousands of my personal text messages released to the public.
I have no privacy in this country anymore personally I
find it offensive, but I don't think I have any recourse, do.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I, other than us exposing this and them stopping it.
And that is beginning to happen that they're I think,
pulling back, and I don't think you're going to see
this kind of stuff take place in the twenty twenty
four election. As you described, it took place in twenty twenty,
but it was your here's the kicker, Sean. They were
censoring your stuff and using your tax money to do it,
because these were government agencies partnering with big academia and
(03:57):
big tech to set up this system, software system where
they basically had this dashboard where they say, take down
this tweet, limit the visibility of this post. And it
was it was President Trump, it was Sean Hannity, Mike,
how could be Molly Hemingway. I mean, you just go
down the list of conservatives and it was disproportionately conservatives
that they that they targeted. Now we've got the good
(04:17):
case that that's happened in the Fifth Circuit, that good decision.
I think it's going to go to the Supreme Court
and we'll get a good I think a good ruling
there to limit these agencies' ability to do this. There's
been a story in the Washington Post saying that universities
are backing off of this because we've called so many
of them in. It's costing them, you know, attorney fees
to come in when we ask them questions. And we
were able to do all this and expose what they're
(04:38):
doing and put that out there with that report earlier
this week. So I think we're making real progress here
and that's important as we head into this next election.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Let me, let me get to the heart of this,
based on what Comer is doing in his committee, and
based on what you're discovering in your committee, and the
DOJ now tightening rules for prosecutors when probing Congress. Okay,
that's only part of it, but we also have The
Daily Caller had this onearthed emails showing the stonewalling. The
(05:06):
FBI agent had orders from the bureau's officials to censor.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
But then it goes further.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
You had a closed door interview meeting with David Weiss,
he's the special prosecutor. Now that was only recently that
that happen, and it turns out that he corroborated what
the IRS whistleblowers had to say, and that he did
not have the charging authority that I believe under oath
that the Attorney General said that he did have. Did
(05:32):
the Attorney General not go before Congress and say that that,
in fact, he had the authority to charge in other jurisdictions.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yeah, he said it, and so did David Weiss in
his initial letter to me, where he said he had
the ultimate authority to determine, when, where, and whether to
bring any charges against Hunter Biden. But during the deposition
he was directly asked, did you ever seek special attorney
status which would have given him the status under section
five fifteen of the Code, given him the status to
take a case and prosecuted in some other United States
(06:02):
attorney's district. He was asked, did you ever request that?
His answer was yes, I did in the spring of
twenty twenty two. And here's the important fact. He requested
that from Department of Justice, the main Justice Department, just
prior to going to the District of Columbia US attorney
and asking would you partner with me on the prosecution.
So he asked to get that power before he went.
(06:23):
When he goes there, the district attorney says, no, I'm
not going to partner with you, and then he never
got that status until just this August when he requested
it the course after the whole case fell apart with
a plea agreement. So that directly confirms what whistleblower Gary
Shapley told us. Their testimony has stood up after we've
done seven different depositions now and all the information we've uncovered,
(06:45):
the whistleblower's testimony has been confirmed and validated every single time.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Is are any of these facts wrong?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Did the FBI have a copy of Hunter Biden's laptop
in December of twenty nineteen, is that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
That's correct?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Did they rate it's authenticity in March of twenty twenty
is that correct?
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Okay, then can you explain to this country if they
knew the laptop was real? They also knew and correct
me if I'm wrong that the likes of Rudy Giuliani
and others had copies of this Hunter Biden laptop?
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Is that true?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
So then why would FBI agents be meeting weekly in
the months leading up to the twenty twenty election warning
all of these big tech companies they may be a
victim of a disinformation campaign and specifically told it may
be about Joe Biden and it may be about Hunter Biden.
Was that pre bunking a very real and true story
(07:40):
that they probably knew, if they have any political sense
at all, would be extremely damaging to Joe Biden's presidential aspirations.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Well, that's what I think. That's what you think. I
think that's what your audience thinks. I think that's what
most common sense Americans think. They would tell you. People
in the national security and intelligence communities wouldell you, well,
we knew Russia tried to interfere with PEPs. We thought
it was going to happen again. So they will go
back to that as their talking point in the point
they made because frankly, they did that when we interviewed
mister Clapper and mister Brennan and others who were associated
(08:10):
with those fifty one people who signed out and letter.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
That but in light of the fact that they knew
it was authentic, and they knew it was true, and
they knew it was real, and yet they're warning Big
Tech that they may be a victim and of misinformation
about Joe and Hunter. And then when they knew the
truth and these companies went to them. They want they
were being responsible. They said, you've been warning us about
(08:32):
this is the laptop story published in the New York Post.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
True. They wouldn't give them an answer.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Why not, here's what's funny, and we've discovered this in depositions.
There was one point where one one agent said, yes,
it's it's accurate. We have the laptop. And then in
a subsequent meeting that same day, and this is right
when the New York Post story comes out October fourteenth,
twenty twenty. That same day, there's another meeting later that
day with Facebook people and they say no comment. So
someone flipped up right away and then they off of
(09:00):
it and then later confirmed with each other the government did.
And the next time they got asked later that day,
they said no comments. But they did keep that information.
Here's the other thing, Sean, They not only kept it
from them when it happened. When when Scott Brady, the
US Attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, was tasked
in early twenty twenty. January third, twenty twenty, was filtering
(09:20):
all information related to Hunter, Biden and Ukraine. He was
passed with that job. He went to the FBI. Give
me that information. It'll filter through me as the Attorney
General wants me to do, and then I'll get it
to I'll get it to David Weiss or the Southern
District of New York wherever they have a grand jury
and they're looking at possible prosecution. They never told you
about the laptop. We asked him about this two weeks ago.
We said, when did you learn about the laptop? And
(09:41):
you got this smile in his face. He said, I
learned about it when you did, when it came out
in the press on October fourteenth, twenty twenty. I'm like,
they didn't share that with you. Did that surprise you? Go, yes,
it surprised me. Surprised the agents we had working on
the case, the US attorneys we had working on the case,
so they kept it from him as well. And he
was supposed to be the clearinghouse for all information related
to Hunter, Biden and uklaim.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Quick break right back.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
We'll continue our final moments with the Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan on the other side, and
then your calls, Ted Cruz and much more. We continue
now with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Our
final moments with Jim Jordan. How do you react to
these stories just out yesterday and today that Hunter Biden,
through his attorneys, wants his father's Justice Department DJ to
(10:25):
investigate smoking gun witness Tony Bobolinsky. That's number one, number
two Hunter's scandal. His attorney again is asking the speaker,
Speaker Johnson to cancel your investigation, Jason Smith's investigation in
James Comer's investigations into the Biden family completely.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Now, why would they do that.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Considering we've discovered all these show corporations. Ten Biden family
members now Comer believes have been paid twenty four million
dollars just from the countries that I mentioned China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Why would you stop your investigation under any circumstances Because
what we're talking about here is did Joe Biden take
actions that benefited his family or himself?
Speaker 4 (11:15):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (11:15):
And in the case of Borisma, using taxpayer money to
do it?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, I think you hit on it right there, Sean.
The reason they're they're making these moves is because they
know this. This story is so so the country gets it.
The storyline is as simple as it gains. Politician takes
actions that benefit his family financially, and then there's an
effort to swooping under the rug. And the effort to
swooping under the rug is all the things we've been
talking about, all the things David White did. I mean,
he's been at this now almost six years, investigation for
(11:41):
that long a time, and yet finally get special Council status.
Let's the statute of limitations lapse for the years when
when Hunter.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Biden the year?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
The years, Yeah, the Barishman years, because that would go
right back to the White House. So so that's the
basic storyline. And of course they're going to push back
in any way they can, because the country gets it.
This is a tale as old as time. This is
a story as old as the hills. Politician is doing
certain things that benefit his family financially, and then there's
an effort to conceal it. All.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Right, let's go through another timeline, because I think the
most damning the two most damning cases are Barisma, an
oil giant in Ukraine and Gas an oil giant in Ukraine,
and the CEFC, the oil giant out of China. And
if we start with Barisma, what do we know and
correct me if any of these dates are wrong. It
(12:31):
became official Obama administration policy. They came to believe interagency
consensus that Ukraine had made enough progress on the issue
of corruption that warranted a billion dollars in long guarantees.
Let's fast forward. We're still in the year twenty fifteen.
In December, Joe Biden gets a call from his son
(12:53):
Hunter and to Barisma executives. This is around the time
that they were panicked and they desperately needed DC help.
Now DC help certainly couldn't come from Hunter. That would
have to come from Joe. Five days after that phone
call with Maeris Megzas and Hunter, Joe goes to give
the billion dollars in loan guarantees. And that's when he
(13:16):
famously bragged that you know that, you know, I gave
him six hours to fire the prosecutor. Son of a bee.
They did it. We also learned that Hunter had no
experience in Ukraine oil, gas, or energy, and we that
as a result of Joe's decision, Hunter continued to get paid.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Now, is that bribery, Well, that's that's.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
What I think. It certainly looks like seans. I always
say that it's four facts. Hunter Biden gets put on
the board of Barisa. B fact too, he's not qualified
to be on the board. Factory is what you just
pointed out? The Barisma executive is on December fourth, twenty fifteen,
say hey, we need you to take some action. We
need you to do something. We're under a lot of pressure.
Can you help relieve that? He immediately then calls his dad.
This is Devin Archer in his testimony. What does he
do next? He calls his dad. He calls his dad.
(13:57):
Five days later, his dad is in Ukraine and starts
the process, gives the speech, goes after the prosecutor, gets
the prosecutor fired, and threatens and says, I will hold
up the money that had already been approved by the
Interagency Policy Committee, had been approved by the State Department.
They'd already say go ahead with the European unions that
go They were for this as well, said the prosecutor
is doing you a good job. He holds that up
(14:20):
to get this prosecutor fired at the request of the
very people. Hunter Biden's getting paid millions of dollars and.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
He's on TV bragging about it. We're going to hold
Jim Jordan over or I have a couple more questions.
He's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I mean,
this is now hitting critical mass and I don't see
how the Bidens get out of this. We'll explain that
on the other side. Eight hundred and ninety four one,
Shawns on number. We'll get to your calls as well
as we continue twenty five to the top of the hour.
(14:47):
All right, we continue with the House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Jim Jordan, who is with us. All right, so we
just went over to the Barisma example. Let me go
to the other example, and I want to hhighlight something
that is very important and that is in the process
of this story unfolding. There was a moment when Hunter
(15:08):
Biden went on Good Morning America. He said on Good
Morning America that he had absolutely no experience and energy,
oil gas Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
And it was pretty shocking.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
And then one has to ask, go, how are you
making all of this money sitting on a board in Barisma?
And then we discover later and I'll get this to
this next question in a second with Jim Jordan. Then
he's making money doing oil deals with the biggest oil
and gas giant in China, connected to the Chinese government.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
But this is what Hunter said on Good Morning America.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
There's been a lot of misinformation about me, not about
my dad. Nobody buys that, but advised this idea that
I was unqualified to be on the board.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
What were your qualifications to be on the board of Barisma?
Speaker 4 (15:58):
Well, I was vice shaming of the board of for
five years. I was the chairman of the board of
the UN World Food Program. I was a lawyer for
Boys Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms
in the world.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or
Ukraine itself though, No.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
But I think that I had as much knowledge as
anybody else that was on the board, if not more.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
In the list you gave me the reasons why you're
on that board, you did not list the fact that
you were.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
The son of the course. Yeah, what rule do you
think that played?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
I think that it is impossible for me to be
on any of the boards that I just mentioned without
saying that I'm the son of the vice President of
the United States.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you
would have been asked to be on the board of Barisma.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
I don't know. I don't know, probably not. I don't
think that there's a lot of things that would have
happened in my life that if my last name.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Was in Biden.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Now let's go to the what's app message you issued.
This is what the Chinese oil conglomerate, the CEFC. Congressman
Jordan correct me if I'm wrong, but that what's apt
message directly implicates Hunter and his father. I am sitting
here with my father and they're both mad that they
did that, the CEFC did not keep their commitment to them.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And then he.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Goes through a long list between everybody that my father
knows and my ability to hold the grudge. You are
going to regret not keeping your commitment, and we're waiting
for your call. My father and I are waiting for
your call right now. Well five days later, James Comer
confirmed it again. Last night, five million dollars was sent
to one of these show corporation accounts of the Bidens. Now,
(17:39):
he doesn't have any experience in this field. Why on
earth would they be paying him or Joe, or grandchildren
or any one of ten different Biden family members this
massive amount of money. Why would they be paying them
when you don't have experience. I love that job. Pay
me that money. I love tim million. I'd love to
(18:00):
get paid millions with no experience.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Yeah. I mean he got it because he said what
he got it. He got it because of his last
name and here and what's more, his business partner confirmed
that in his deposition under oath in front of us
a few months back.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
You're talking about Devin Archer. What did he confirm to you?
Speaker 3 (18:19):
He said they were selling the brand? And who is
the brand? What is the brand? The brand is Joe Biden.
And then you have the what's that message that you
just brought up, Sean, The brand is sitting right beside
the guy on the phone. He's sitting beside him because
the guy on the phone, Hunter Biden says, the guy
sitting beside me is between the two of us, We're
gonna make life tough for you. And I'm paraphrasing, but
(18:39):
they go through that. What that message? So that is
the brand, That is what was always for sale. That
is the politician providing access. It looks like taking actions
based on what happened with Barisma and the Prosecutor General
in Ukraine, so that his family benefits financially. And we
asked Jonathan Turley this under oath and in a hearing
two months back, we said, is a benefit to your
(19:01):
family a benefit to you? And he said, of course
it is, particularly when you're an older an older person,
and you're looking to make sure your family, trying to
help your family have the resources for their kids, their grandkids.
That is exactly so, of course at the benefit there,
that is what's going on here. It seems to me
based on the evidence we've uncovered.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Now, remember, in the Judiciary Committee, you are asking a
very important question whether or not we have a two
tier justice system. You're asking other questions whether or not
the Biden family was protected by the Department of Justice.
You're asking, you know, other important questions about the weaponization
of justice in America. Now, let me go back to
(19:41):
the testimony that you just refer to, and that's Devin Archer,
because correct me if I'm wrong. He testified that Joe
Biden had called into at least twenty meetings with Hunter
being there and their foreign business partners. Now that directly
contradicts what Joe Biden has said both as a candidate
and as a president. When he repeated it often.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
He said this, how many times have you ever spoken
to your son about his overseas business dealings.
Speaker 6 (20:09):
I've never spoken my son about his overseas for a
serious I have never discussed with my son, or my
brother or anyone else, and they have them.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
To do with their business period.
Speaker 6 (20:20):
And what I will do is the same thing we
did in our administrations, an absolute wall between personal and
private and the government.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Do you stand by your statement that you did not
discuss any of your son's overseas business.
Speaker 6 (20:34):
Large Dan Barb's too. I would lolve to your son's
tiny shakedown text message.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Were you sitting there for yourself?
Speaker 6 (20:46):
The only thing they can do is make up things
about my family.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
It's not going to go very far.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
There's this testimony now where one of your son's form
our business associates is claiming that you were on speakerphone
a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
With them talking business. Is that what? Neverdogg business?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You?
Speaker 6 (21:03):
And I know you'd have a.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Lowsy question, Well, what do you Why is that allowsy question?
Because it's not true?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
So I asked you, Jim Jordan did did Joe Biden
as a candidate and as a president flat out lie
when he said he never spoke to his son brother
or anybody for that matter about their foreign business dealings.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
Of course, the facts, the facts show that that all
those things were not accurate. He said, time and timing,
and I didn't have no we know you that dinners.
We know that he was at a dinner for several
hours with the wealthiest lady in Russia, the wife of
the former.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Maria Mofka, Elena Botina is her name, and that's at
the Cafe Milano on the Russian oligar.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
So yes, And by.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
The way, didn't that Russian oligarch that Joe had dinner with,
didn't she invest three and a half billion dollars to
give three and a half million to the Biden family
and over one hundred million, according to Devin Archer, invested
in their real estate a ventures.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Yeah, and more importantly, she never wound up on any thanks.
So yes, that is that's another example where it looks
like money came in. Joe Biden had contact, which goes
directly against what he said to the press numerous times,
including Peter Doucy. There your last a few played and
then there's action that happens or doesn't happen in this case,
(22:18):
those sanctions are imposed on this individual.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Tell me what else now, I want to compare and contrast,
where are you now in terms of your investigation into
whether or not the Department of Justice is weaponized, whether
or not we have a two tier system of justice
where Republicans are treated one way if your last name
is Trump, for example, versus your last name being Clinton
(22:45):
or Biden.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Yeah, well, I was just going to say, so, I
think that's obvious based on what the whistleblowers brought forward.
They said, they've never seen an investigation done this way.
They've never seen a slow walk like this, They've never
seen the statute limitations laps when you have that kind
of tax liability that Hunter Biden had at or those
those tax years when he was receiving the income from
Barisma and other sources as well in those those tax years.
So you have all that, and then you have the
(23:09):
multiple times the story changed from David Weiss, the multiple
times the story has changed from the White House on
what involvement Joe Biden may or may not have had.
So I do think that you see this this different standard,
one set of rules for US regular guys. One set
of rules if your last name is Trump and you're
a conservative Republican like President Trump, and a difference set
if your name is Clinton Biden. Comeey those names.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
How do you do you do you see any way
that the Biden family gets away with all of this
in light of all the information uncovered by your committee,
by the Oversight Committee, and by the Ways of Means Committee.
Is there any way possible that they they that that
that they escape justice here?
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Well, I mean, our job is to get the facts
out there, to propose legislative solutions to limit how tax
dollars are spent. That's what we can do in the
legislative branch. And if we get to the point where
we think this warrants going to articles of impeachment, there's
that response as well from the legislative branch.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Can we assume for a second everything we have now
discussed in the last thirty minutes on this program are true?
It is does that not meet the threshold for bribery,
high crimes misdemeanors?
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Well, again, I want to complete to investigate it. I
want to have it all in front of us before
that decision is made. And what I've said all along
is this is a decision that the entire Republican Conference
has to make as a unit. I think we have
to make that. I think we have to remain consistent
to the Constitution. We have to do this in a
deliberate way, unlike what the Democrats did to President Trump
in twenty nineteen, where I was on the other side
of sending President Trump from ridiculous stuff they did. But oh,
(24:42):
by the way, that all dealt with supposedly holding up
money for Ukraine based on one phone call. That was fine.
I've got the transcript. You looked at the transcript of
that phone.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
I almost have it memorized.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Yeah, they are peaching for that. And here we had
what happened with Garisma Joe Biden. And there was a
Washington Post story back in September that said when they
got on the plane, when Joe Biden got on the
plane on December seventh, who over there and gave that
speech on December ninth, twenty fifteen, just five days after
his son had asked him to weigh in and relieve
the pressure that Baris was under. When he did that,
on the fight over, Joe Biden called in audible and
(25:16):
he said, because the whole State Department. Everyone was saying
the money should go to Ukraine, the one billion dollars
the loan should go there. Joe Biden decided, no, I'm
gonna I'm gonna threaten that money. I'm gonna use that
as leverage to get this guy fired, which seems to
me to be exactly what his son asked him to
do when he picked up the phone and called him
after he got the request from the briefs to make decades.
That is that is that is that is what happened.
(25:39):
It looks like to me, and that is exactly what
they accused President Trump of doing when he didn't do
it right.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Quick break right back. We'll continue with Jim Jordan. He
has agreed to stay longer with us. More with him
on the other side, continue now with the Chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee. Our final moments with Jim Jordan.
The last question. One thing I would argue that Hunter
Biden is going for him. He does have a very
good lawyer, and that lawyer was able to get Robert
Menendez off in his first trial in New Jersey.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
I think he's representing him again.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Uh, this is the same lawyer that got John Edwards
an acquittal, I'm not I think a hung jury in
his case. One was a quittal. I believe in his case.
His name is Abby Lowe. Lowell is a serious attorney.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
That seems to be the one thing working in his favor.
But I would imagine facts become very difficult things for lawyers,
don't they.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
I sure do. And that's that's our job is uncovered
the facts. And it's why.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
There there are more subpoenas going out today of people
we want to talk to and we think are important.
We want to talk to Eric Sherwin, one of on
A Biden's business partners.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That the way isn't Eric Sherwin, the guy that Hunter
would email with because he was in charge of finances
and ask questions about which account he should use to
pay for his father's home repairs.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yep. And And we want I want to talk to
this Kevin Morris, this guy who just came out of
nowhere and says I'm going to pay on the Biden tech.
I'm going to talk to this guy. So there's a
number of other people we're going to talk to, some
of the people who bought the art and dealt with
Hunter Biden's art. How did that all play out? How
did that all work? So there are key folks that
we do want to talk to that we will Chairman
Comer will be a shin supoenas on here. I think soon.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I think this is now though hitting critical mass. It's
hitting ahead here. And you know, I don't have a
crystal ball, but you know, you see this judge in
New York clinging to this idiotic valuation of mari A
Lago at eighteen million dollars in spite of all the
evidence of the contrary. I mean, I put up on
the screen on television, Congressman, a two acre plot of land,
(27:38):
just dirt, nothing on it, for two hundred million dollars
ocean front property in Palm Beach. There's over twenty acres
at Mara Lago. You have the inner coastal and you
have the beach, the ocean, and you have a club.
And it's a historic building, and it's got fifty some
odd bedrooms and thirty some odd bathrooms and every amenity
you could ever want or imagine. Why would the judge
(28:01):
cling to it an eighty million dollar evaluation?
Speaker 1 (28:04):
How is that fair? Do you think Donald Trump can
get fair?
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Trials in New York, in DC, the in Fulton County, Georgia,
because I don't think he can.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Now when you stand up to the swamp, they come
after you. They got this crazy fourteenth Ammic case in Colorado,
they got the civil cases in New York, they got
the state case in Atlanta, which is belowing. We know
how blowey that was, because we learned after she In
died in nineteen people and President Trump she was thinking about.
She actually literally contemplated indicting three United States Senators, including
(28:33):
Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. And
then you got Jacksmith in both Miami and in DC.
Like of course they're out to get president. I mean
the I did at Marilanco's only worth that you been there.
I've been there.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Okay, So now all of these issues happened years ago.
But they're going to have the trial in an election year,
and I think if the president is are going to
have any shot at real justice and fairness, that would
be on appeal. But any appeal is likely to be
after the election. Is it time for that?
Speaker 3 (29:00):
It's all part of It's all part of their campaign.
When when did the Jacksonith trial in DC. I think
it's late to start early March, that's right.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Now're supposed to start the day before Super Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Yes, exactly. It It's like it's just so. But here's
the good news. And you know this because you talk
to these people every day, to these great Americans every
day who listen to your radio, listen to you on
Fox at night, and the American people get it. They
know what's going on. They know. That's why when President
Trump does a rally like you did last night, everybody
shows up. I mean, the country gets that. They are
(29:30):
out to get him, just like they were out to
get on Handy, just like they've come out for me,
just like they wanted to censor your your posts and tweets.
That's what the country understands what is happening. And that's
why I think one of the reasons President Trump is
going to win and what now is a little less
than a year.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I know
you've been very generous with your time, Congressman. Thank you,
we appreciate it. This is very comprehensive and I think
it brings everybody up to speed with where things are
this is really really getting to a critical mass here.
Eight hundred and nine point one, Shawn, is a number
you want to be a part of the program.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.