YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
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 (00:01):
Sader.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Nice to be back with you in studio, and we
have got so much to cover. This is gonna be
a really important show, one that I think people are
gonna want to.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Make sure they share, especially the clips.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
That's why we're doing this one in video because there's
gonna be a lot of clips that come out of
this that people are gonna want to let their family
and their friends know. There was something very interesting to
happen this week, and as I was watching it, as
if you were watching it, I think we're not surprised,
but we're also glad to see it come out. And
that is the prosecutor who was fired in Ukraine that
(00:32):
was investigating Barisma has now come out and said this
is why it happened and kind of gave the timeline
of how the Biden influence came down on him and
destroyed his career.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
There's been in this last week significant new evidence of
Biden family corruption and if you watch CNN, if you
watch MSNBC, you'll hear none of it because they don't
actually cover news, they're propagandists. But starting off with this
new interview that Victor Schokuin has given, now what is
the relevance of this. The central charge against Joe Biden
(01:06):
is bribery that he solicited and received multimillion dollar bribes
from foreign nationals, in particular Ukrainian oligarch. As you'll recall,
the essence of bribery is quid pro quo. The Latin
phrase is this for that. Now, this the quid is
(01:26):
alleged to be the firing of Victor Chokun, the prosecutor
who was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch who owned Barisma. The
quot was allegedly millions of dollars that that Ukrainian oligarch
paid both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We know that
he paid a million dollars a year eighty three dollars
(01:48):
eighty three thousand dollars a month to Hunter Biden to
be on the board.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And to be clear, that was just part of funneling
that money. They knew they couldn't send a whole check
for the full amount. They had to make it look legitimate,
and they said, okay, well put you on the board
in essence, and we'll funnel it to you over an
extended period of time and so that it won't look
like we just flat out handed you five million bucks.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
And the allegation in the FD ten twenty three, which
is the report from the confidential human source that came
into the FBI, is that the Oligart paid Hunter five
million dollars and the Oligarch paid Joe five million dollars
and funneled it through multiple different sources. But to assess
whether Biden is guilty of bribery, you've got to prove
quid pro quo. Now, the quid part of it, that
(02:32):
Biden is responsible for firing Choken, that's undisputed. And let's
go back to because Biden has bragged on air about
getting Shoken fired.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Here take a listen.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
I went over I guess the twelve thirtieth time to Kiev,
and I was supposed to announce that there's another billion
dollar loan guarantee, and I had gotten a commitment from
Porshenko and from that they would take action against the
state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had
(03:05):
they were walking out to press cont I said no,
I said, I'm not going to or we're not going
to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have
no authority, you're not the president. The president said, I said,
call him. I said, I'm telling you're not getting a
billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm
going to be leaving here. And I think it was
what six hours. I looked at I Said'm leaving the
six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting
(03:26):
the money. Oh, son of a bitch got fired, and
they put in place someone who was solid at.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
The time, solid at the time, solid for the Biden team.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
So the Biden white House's defense to this is they say, well,
the prosecutor Victor Schoke, and he was fired because he
wasn't tough enough on Barisma and the Ukrainian oligarch. That
that's their claim that that they were really seeking rule
of no Lord. Now, mind you, the FD ten twenty
(04:00):
three says that the Ukraine and oligarch specifically said, get
this guy fired. The reason we hired Hunter Biden was
to get this guy fired. But what is new now
is that Shokun has come and done an exclusive interview
with Fox News, and what he says is really striking
because it is directly contrary to what Joe Biden and
(04:22):
the Biden white House has said.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Here listen to the first part of that interview.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Not only the position of President Poroshenko, the office of
President Paroshenko was humiliated, but the entire country of the
Ukraine was humiliated. And I developed a very firm understanding
of the fact that vice president. The vice president was
only acting in his own interests. He generally speaking, handled
(04:47):
Ukraine like it was his own backyard. He would put
people that were suitable for him, he would arrange for
them to be put in a certain positions.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Somebody said the other day, by the way, and I thought,
this is a very interesting point. The billion dollar loan guarantee,
if that would not have gone through in Ukraine. They said,
that was like almost a trillion dollars in America.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
The amount of money.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
The massive amount of money in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
In Ukraine, I mean a billion dollars could have wrecked
parts of their economy if we wouldn't have fulfilled that promise.
And that's putting a gun to the head of that country,
saying I'm getting on a plane. And I think sometimes
people hear a billion to think, oh, that's not that
much money. I know people in America there are billionaires.
This amount of money Ukraine was enough to destroy things
in their economy.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Well, and look what Chokin is saying there that Biden
treated Ukraine like his own personal playground, like he put
people in place where he could control them. You know
the clip we just played a second ago of Biden
bragging that he said it was his eleventh or twelfth
time going there.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
That is bizarre.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Why is a vice president going eleven or twelve times
to Ukraine? Like it is weird for a vice president,
for a vice president to go over and over and
over again. And what Chokin is saying is the reason
he's doing it is because he had corrupt business interests,
(06:09):
and we know it was very profitable for Hunter. Here,
listen to what Chokin went on to say.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
I did not want to deal in unproven facts, but
my firm personal conviction is that yes, this was the case.
They were being bribed. The fact that Joe Biden gave
away one billion dollars in US money in exchange for
my dismissal my firing, isn't that alone a case of corruption?
Speaker 1 (06:38):
He also said, And I want to make sure I
have this right.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
He said that up until his firing, there were no
complaints about his performance in the investigation. He said the
only problem was that he was investigating Barisma, which means
he was investigating the company which was fundling money to
the big guy and a hunter Biden who was on
the board. He said before that no one had even
(07:01):
brought up that there could possibly be anything wrong.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
Look, it really is striking that the Ukrainian prosecutor who
Joe Biden got fired says that he believes Joe Biden
was being bribed. I mean, that's an explicit allegation. By
the way, did you see that on ABC News too?
Now do you see that on NBC? No, how about CNN,
None of them. They don't cover that. They don't cover
that a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a corrupt oligarch,
(07:26):
who Joe Biden bragged about getting fired and bragged about
holding a billion dollars in US loan get guarantees hostage
to get him fired, says the reason Joe Biden did
that is Joe Biden was being bribed.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Yeah, that's a big damn deal. Yeah, And by the way,
it's exactly what Soakin said.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Listen to this.
Speaker 6 (07:44):
There were no complaints whatsoever, and all problems with how
I was performing at my job but because pressure was
repeatedly put on President Parshanko, that is what ended up
in firing me.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I read this guy as very believable. I read this
guy as a guy that was hired to do a job,
to investigate, and then all of a sudden, he's like, wait,
there's the President, Vice President United it's America's son on
this board. You keep digging, and all of a sudden
you get a phone call, Hey, you're fired because we
need a billion dollars. One, I'm honestly surprised he's still
alive if this is how things work in that part
(08:22):
of the world. And two, I'm shocked that he was
willing to do this interview at this point.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Yeah, and let me say, look, I don't know if
chokun Is is someone who has integrity or not. And
I'm certainly not invested in saying the guy was a
paragon of virtue. Yeah. Ukraine is a country that has.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
A long history of corruption, and many say it's worse
than even Russia.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Yes, and it's been tragic the corruption that's in Ukraine.
But that makes it all the more questionable. Why does
Joe Biden turn it into his playground? You know, if
you go to a place that is infamous for corruption,
you know what people do. Apparently they offer you millions
of dollars like it's a pretty profitable place. If you're
a senior government official, you go there over and over
(09:06):
and over again. And by the way, you bring a
billion dollars of US taxpayer money with you. If you
want to get corruption, having a billion dollars in your
pocket that doesn't happen to be yours, but you can
choose to give it or not is an awfully good
way to attract a ton of interest.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Listen to what else Showken says, I.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
Have no doubt that there were illegal activities engaged in
by Barisma. As a matter of fact, the criminal case
had been started before me. It continued to expand and Slotchevsky,
who at the time held the post administer and was
the founder and CEO of Parisma, started bringing in people
who could provide protection for him. Hunter Biden was among them,
(09:49):
and the corruption network expanded as a result. So, yes,
to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind
that Parisma was engaged in legal activities.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
There's a lot of people, including business partners of Hunter Biden,
that have said that if Joe Biden wouldn't have gotten
involved with Barisma, gotten Soaken fired, the investigation started before
Soakin got his job, that this company would have gone under.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Look, Slotchevski is a billionaire, he's an oligarch. There were
massive allegations of corruption. He was also a government minister,
so it was very profitable. One of the ways Barisma
made so much money as they had access to the
government leases for natural gas and gosh, when they were
sold to himself, it made a whole lot of money
(10:38):
in this investigation from Chokun. Look, chokn was going after Bearisma,
that's undisputed. The Biden folks say, well, we wanted him
fired because he wasn't going after tough enough. Well, you
know what, once Chokun was fired, the investigations on Barisma
largely disappeared. So the objective that is alleged in the
(11:03):
FD ten twenty three, which is get rid of the
prosecutor that is investigating the corrupt oligarch, that objective was accomplished,
and the Biden White House has really no defense.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
And here listen to what else Joken says.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
It is public knowledge. Everybody knows that it was because
of Joe Biden's actions that Russia was able to claim
Crimea without firing a single shot, which of course eventually
led to a full scale war that is currently underway.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
It's full circle in a sense what we're now seeing.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I mean, he's talking about not only Crimea, we're talking
about the war now, we're talking about a weak policy
that now. I mean for a guy that was an
expert in Ukraine and watching what's happened in Ukraine and
then now trying to send tons of money over to.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
Ukraine, billions, tens of billions.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yeah, and people are worried about that. Where's the money going?
Follow the money? How much this money's actually going to
the back and how much is going to oligarchs who
are in Warsaw in five star hotels, which is where
they are in a lot of their families.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
And are any of the oligarchs continuing to pay the
Biden family?
Speaker 1 (12:09):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
One of the things about people who engage in bribery
and corruption, they tend not to stop. Yeah, and that
the amount of money that Biden is shoveling towards Ukraine.
And remember shoveling after Biden waived the sanctions on Nordstream
two on Russia and Putin, which caused the Ukraine War.
Right now and right now, Biden is funding both sides
(12:32):
of this war. He's sending billions to Ukraine, but he's
also refusing to enforce oil sanctions on Iran. Iran is
using the billions of dollars they're making to produce drones
that they're giving to Russia, and the drones are killing
Ukrainian soldiers. So Biden's funding both sides of this war.
And by the way, war profiteers for a long time
(12:52):
have funded both sides of war. And I'll tell you,
if you have corrupt oligarchs, funding both sides of a
war can be a very offitable way to pursue it.
And so Chokun's allegations are very serious.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Will Congress do anything with this intel? With this information?
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Is there a way that Congress could bring a guy
like Choking over and say we want you to testify
after seeing this. Would that be a smart move for
House Republicans.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
I think that's entirely possible. I would expect the House
of Representatives to do it. I would expect either James
Comer or Jim Jordan to do that. I'll tell you
what I don't expect. I don't expect the Senate to
do it because Senate Democrats don't want to know. Not
a single Democrat has any interest in knowing whether Joe
Biden has received millions of dollars of bribes from foreign nationals.
They're never asked it. They don't ask any questions about it.
(13:41):
That they are ostriches with their head buried in the sand.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
They don't want to know.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
And much of the media, The New York Times, the
Washington Post, they don't want to know either, because they
have abandoned any pretense of being real journalists.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
I want to tell you about a friends of our
Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
If you are conservative and you are sick tired of
giving your money to wote companies, you need to grab
your cell phone and switch to Patriot Mobile. It is
so easy to switch, and you get the same great
coverage that you have right now, except when you pay
your bill.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
This was This is what happens.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
They take a percentage of your bill every month, they
give it back to conservative causes that you help choose.
The support we're talking about setting up for the rights
of onborn children. Children, we're talking about supporting the First
and Second Amendment rights. We're talking about helping our veterans,
our first responders, our policemen, and our fallen warriors. That
is why I love Patriot Mobile. Now, Patriot Mobile has
(14:34):
the same great coverage that you have right now. You
don't have to worry about that. The other thing is
you can keep your same cell phone number if you
want to. You can usually keep your same cell phone
you have right now in your hand, or you can
upgrade to a new one. If you're tired of giving
money to corporations that fight against your values, then switch
a bill you're gonna have every month no matter what.
(14:54):
That's your cell phone bill to Patriot Mobile. Go online
to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot
com slash verdict. You'll get free activation, the best deals
of the year. Eight seven eight. Patriot is their number
as well. That's eight seven eight Patriot eight seven eight
Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You look at also Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
One other question on this statute of limitations seem to
be part of the play of wis and we're gonna
deal with that with China in a little bit but
you look at Ukraine now, it's like we're finding out everything,
or maybe we're confirming it.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
We've known about a lot of these activations for a while,
but Weis and his team at the DOJ have done
one hell of a job of making sure, oh yeah,
that's too far in the past. We can't even look
it into it if we wanted to. What a great alibi.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Well, we know from the IRS whistleblowers that the Biden
DOJ forbade any investigation into Joe Biden any questions about
the big guy, any questions about what he did that
was off limits. So no wonder the investigation doesn't cover
whether Joe Biden has received bribes. The Biden DOJ ordered
the investigators you're not allowed to inquire whether Joe Biden
(16:06):
received bribes. And I got to say it's effective because
they still haven't even begun to examine it in any
serious way.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
There's a second part of this story, obviously, just with
the Bidens, and there is now Biden staffers. I'm reading
this because I want to make sure I get it right.
Biden staffers. We now have confirmation and this would be
contradicting what the Biden White House has said, and what
Joe Biden said. They met with Special counsel Jack Smith's
age just weeks before Trump was indicted. Jack Smith, special
(16:38):
counsel that brought the charges against President Trump for allegedly
mishandling classified documents. There's a guy by the name of
Jay Bratt who joined the Special council team in November
of twenty twenty two. He took a meeting in the
White House on March the thirty first of twenty twenty
three with Caroline Sabbath, the Deputy chief of Staff for
the White House Council's Office. Now, this is proven through
(17:00):
White House visitor logs. They were joined in a ten
am meeting. We're being told now by an FBI agent
in the Washington Field office. This is nine weeks after meeting.
On June eighth, Trump was indicted by Smith's office. Interestingly enough,
here is what Biden had to say on the exact
day of trump indictment about saying, I've stayed out of this.
(17:22):
Clearly the White House logs these meetings proved that's aye.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Look, do you notice I have never once, not one
single time, suggesting your Justice Department what they should do
or not do. Lt to bringing to charge and not
bring to charge. I'm honest.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
He's not honest.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Okay, that is a flat out lie. He says he's
never once suggested to the Justice Department what they should
do or not do regarding Trump.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
That was in June.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Let me read you a quote from the New York Times,
hardly a right wing source, on April second, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Quote.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
And while the President has never communicated his frustrations directly
to mister Garland, he has said privately that he wanted
mister Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and
more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive
action over the events of January sixth. Now, listen, this
(18:14):
is reminiscent of England's King Henry the Second, who said
about Thomas Beckett, the Archbishop of Canterbury in eleven seventy,
who will rid me of this troublesome cleric? Where he
says it out loud and promptly his knights went and
(18:35):
murdered Beckett. Well, in this instance, Biden's defense is I
didn't directly tell Merrick Garland what to do. I just said, gosh,
who will rid me of this troublesome, ponderous judge and
get him to act like a prosecutor and actually prosecute Trump.
(18:55):
That's according to the New York Times. If the New
York Times is telling the truth, then Joe Biden and
the clip you just played was flat out lying. And
then this breaking news. Look the fact that Bratt, one
of the senior lawyers in the Special Council's Office, met
with the White House, with the White House Counsel's Office,
(19:16):
not just the Council's Office, met with political senior political
leaders in the White House. It is difficult to overstate
what a massive breach of protocol this is. Listen line,
lawyers at DOJ don't meet with the White House. If
you're in AUSA an assistant US attorney, you don't go
meet with the White House.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
You're not taking that mean they wouldn't let you. Probably go.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
There are very rigid I was at the Department of Justice.
I was an associate Deputy Attorney General under George W.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Bush.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
There are strict rules that limit who from the Department
of Justice can meet with the White House, and it
is run through very narrowly circumscribed channels, precisely to avoid
political interference withcution. So a line prosecutor would pretty much
never meet with senior officials at the White House. Now
(20:08):
Bratt's not just a line prosecutor. He is with the
Special Counsel. So he is charged with which everyone knows,
investigating Donald J. Trump, investigating the chief political opponent of
the president. The idea that a senior lawyer for the
Special Counsel is over at the White House, is in
meetings with the White House just weeks before Trump is indicted,
(20:32):
just weeks before mar A Lago is raided. And by
the way, Bratt was intimately involved in the mar A
Lago raid. There is no innocent explanation for it any
Department of Justice with even a shred of integrity. If
you were to suggest the Special Counsel, let's go meet
with the White House, any real prosecutor would say no
(20:52):
to the hell no, that's not gonna happen. But let's
be clear that this Bratt guy, and I don't know him,
but there are real evidences that this Bratt guy is
deeply involved in corruption and cover up. And I'm going
to read from NBC a story June eighth, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
The title of the.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Story is lawyer for witnessing Trump's dox probe alleges prosecutorial misconduct.
Here's what NBC reported. The source said Woodward's allegation could
raise questions about any prosecution of Nauda, a military valet
in the Trump White House who went to work for
the former president at mar A Lago, adding that the
(21:32):
Justice Department appears to be taking the allegation seriously and
plans to respond to the judge. The source says that
Woodward alleges that Bratt, same guy, same guy who's over
at the White House meeting. Source says that Woodward alleges
that Bratt had with him a folder of information related
to Woodward's bid for a judgeship and told him, quote,
(21:56):
I didn't take you.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
For a Trump guy. Quote.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
The implication was that the judge thing would go badly
for him if his client didn't cooperate. The source said, Now,
now I want to break up what that means. So
Woodward is a lawyer who's representing now to who's Trump's
valet now is one of the defendants. Yeah, Woodward comes
in to meet with DOJ, to meet with Bratt, senior
(22:24):
lawyer in the special counsel's office. Now unrelated to this,
Woodward had applied to be a judge, had an application
to be a judge, and according to Woodward, Bratt shows
up with a folder of here's your application.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
I know who you are, I know what your dreams are,
I know what your life goals are, I know what
you've applied for it. He's basically saying, I'm holding your
life in this folder and your life's work in this folder,
and I can either possibly make it happen or make
sure it never happens and you never reach this goal.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Is that not what he's doing there?
Speaker 4 (22:57):
If this is true, it absolutely is. It's reminiscent someone
walking into an establishment, going, nice little bar you have here,
shame is something happened to it.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
That's a threat.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
It's almost a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
It is a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
And to be clear, if this happened, and it's only
an allegation, but if it happened, Bratt would and should
face serious legal discipline for threatening to tank someone's judicial application.
If that lawyer didn't get his client to cooperate with
(23:32):
the prosecutors. That's not what a prosecutor is supposed to do.
Those two are not supposed to be connected. That is
something corrupt prosecutors do. That is something political prosecutors do.
And I can ask you a question.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
You were at the DOJ and I just want to
people to understand how I abnormal this would be.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
This is not opposition research.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
When you're a lawyer in this position, to even get
your hands on that application to become a judge, you're
not work working in the best interest in the American people.
And just as that point, you're working for the Democratic
Party or for Joe Biden and saying go in there
and you better tell this guy give us something good
(24:12):
on the president, give him up the former President Trump,
and will reward you with something if you do it.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
And yes, and by the way, the natural follow up
question is who gave Bratt that folder of the application
to be a judge. Look, when he applied to be
a judge, he didn't submit it to Bratt. That folder
would have been at one of two places in DJ
or in the White House, probably in both places, so
it's entirely possible in his meetings in the White House,
(24:38):
the White House political operatives gave him that folder said
here's something you can use to pressure the lawyer to
get Trump's assistant to flip. I don't know that that happened,
but Bratt either got it from the White House or
from DJ. But to be clear, DOJ the office that
is in charge with reviewing that application, is not in
the Special Council's office. It's not the people prosecuting Trump.
(25:01):
It's somebody else.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Who said, hey, we got it, we got it, We
got you something you might want to take down there
to meet with them.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
We got some leverage on this lawyer, and we got
a political objective. We want to get Donald Trump. Look,
I actually am stunned that they would do this meeting
at the White House. I'm absolutely stunned. As I said,
I cannot think of an instance where a line prosecutor
(25:31):
ever meets with a White House, where an AUSA ever
meets with a White House. Typically, white house meetings are
done by senior officials. They're done by the attorney General.
They're done by the deputy attorney general. They're done by
an assistant attorney general. They might be done by a
deputy assistant attorney general or an associate deputy attorney general.
Those are the and they're pretty much always done with
(25:54):
a ledge affairs staffer from DOJ in there to make
sure that the communication are appropriate. So you might get
if they're discussing some criminal justice legislation, you might have
DOJ meeting with a White House and saying, Okay, here's
here's what we think in terms of this legislation. That
would be something that would be appropriate. There are lots
of issues that are policy base that are appropriate. There
(26:17):
are lots of issues DOJ, the National security prosecutors might
be meeting with a White House to say, hey, we
got some threats, we got some terrorists who are raising threats.
That's an appropriate area. But it's senior people, it is
political appointees.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
And if anyone below senior even goes into that meeting,
that's with a significant amount of approval, like hey, you're
going to go take this meeting because we're working on
this stuff, but give them an update. Maybe that could
be possible, But you don't just randomly get to go
make a meeting at the White House on your own, right, said, I.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Do not know of a single instance in which an
AUSA and Assistant US attorney has ever had a White
House meeting. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I
don't know of it. But then take the whole thing
and put on steroids. This guy isn't just some random Ausa.
He's a senior lawyer in the Special Council's Office. The
whole point, why do you appoint a special counsel. You
(27:11):
appoint a special counsel because there's a conflict of interest
with a White House, because politically you need some separation
from the White House. For a lawyer from the Special
Counsel's Office to go meet with the White House. No
one has articulated an innocent explanation, and I don't think
(27:32):
there can be one. This is corruption on its face.
And apparently the meetings went well because contrary to Joe
Biden's lie that he's never told people what to do,
right after the meeting, what did they do? They went
and rated mar A Lago, They went and indeded Donald Trump.
They did exactly what the political operatives at the White
House wanted to do. And I got to say, the
(27:54):
corruption on the face of it would make the Ukrainians blush.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I tell you about a friends of Augusta precious medals.
You've been seeing what's going on in the economy, you've
seen the bank failures that happened earlier this year. You've
also seen the interest rates that are now skyrocketing. House
In interest rates are a twenty one year high. So
now people are saying, all right, especially if you're in
retirement or close retirement, how do I protect my hard
earned dollars my assets? How do I make sure that
(28:20):
I'm not losing money right now because there's no time
to make up losses. Well that is where my friends
and Augusta Precious Metals come in. A gust of Precious
Metals can sit down with you and talk to you
about how to protect your retirement in this crazy economy
with a gold IRA. I trust a gust of Precious
Metals and I can tell you this. They do two
things that are really unique. One they're gonna send you
(28:41):
the free Investors Guide on gold. But number two, they
do a face to face web conference to answer all
of your questions about gold and how to protect your
assets in an IRA. If you've never talked to them,
you should call them and they will do this conference
with you for free. Eight seven the number four Gold IRA.
(29:03):
That's eight seven to seven the number four Gold IRA
or online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. That's Augusta Precious
Medals dot com or eight seven seven the number four
goldr A. One other thing you mentioned about the meetings
is this other meeting. Prior to the appointment of the
Special Council, Brett met with SABA at the White House
(29:25):
in November of twenty twenty one, Trump was involved in
negotiations with the National Archives, who were demand the return
of the presidential records from his mar Lago state before
a formal investigation had been open. We then find out
that Bratt had a third meeting with the White House
in September of twenty twenty one, with Catherine Riley, an
(29:46):
advisor to the White House Chief of Staff's office.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
The logs we also bought by the way, that woman
is not in the White House Council. So typically if
there's a meeting with DOJ, you meet with a White
House counsel, you meet with the lawyers. He's meeting with
an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. That
is bizarre.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
That doesn't happen normal, That.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Does not happen normally, and it, on the face of it,
it stinks.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
We also know that apparently he was one of the
guys that went down to Marlago when they were negotiating
on the records to see the secure room slash location
where where Trump was holding these documents. So, how on earth,
being this intertwined, could you possibly serve on a special
(30:37):
prosecutor as part of that team, knowing that you were
in all this before they'd even named him.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Look, because I think this entire thing is a sham,
and I think it's corrupt. I think the Biden DOJ
is corrupt. I think they targeted Donald Trump from the beginning.
I think these indictments are corrupt. I think this was
designed to defeat their political enemy and to abuse the
Administration of Justice to do so.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I think that these.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
Clowns have done massive damage to the integrity of the
Department of Justice and the FBI, And as an alumnus
of the Department of Justice, that saddens me profoundly. Listen,
David Weiss, who is the fake special Counsel So Merrick
Garland nominated, the guy who is accused of participating an
obstruction of justice of blocking investigations into whether Joe Biden
(31:27):
solicited and received bribes, has been now named the fake
Special counsel, the fake special counsel, the guy who Merrick
Garland knows. And by the way, we talked about this
in an earlier pot it was illegal to name David
Weisse's special counsel. Why because the DOJ guidelines say it
a special counsel must be someone from outside DOJ. Merrick
Garland just ignored the law, said, nope, nope, I got
(31:49):
my guy. I know he'll do it right. Why because
he's been doing it right. He's already been willing to
engage in corruption and.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Remind people if they missed our past podcasts you said.
The problem is the reason why Garling can get away
with doing that is because if that protocol that law
has broken, who do you go to to whistle blow
that the laws being broken?
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
And the DOJ guidelines say that it's non justiciable, in
other words, that you can't challenge it in court. So
he violated the law, but he knows that no one
will force him to follow the law, and he knows
the press will ignore the fact that it's illegal. Now,
why is it that the DOJ guidelines say it should
be someone from outside DOJ? Because you appoint a special
counsel when there's a political conflict of interest. And let
(32:35):
me tell you something David Weiss has done, which again
nobody in the media is reported on. David Weiss in
the last two weeks has given Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden and the Chinese Communist Party a get out of
jail free pass on the mountains of evidence of corruption
(32:55):
concerning China. And I want to walk through this in
some detail because nobody is reporting on it and it's
really important. Andy McCarthy at National Review has done a
very good job of highlighting it, but almost nobody else
has focused on it. All right, Let's go back for
a second to the WhatsApp text that Hunter Biden sent,
and I want to read it again. The WhatsApp text said, quote,
(33:16):
I am sitting here with my father and we would
like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.
Tell the director that I would like to resolve this
now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.
And Zee, if I get a call or a text
from anyone involved in this other than you, Zang or
the chairman, I will make certain that between the man
sitting next to me and every person that he knows
(33:40):
and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you
will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
waiting for the call with my father. That's five references
to Papa Joe in one text. Now, that was a
message that was sent to Henry Zoo. Who is Henry Zoo?
(34:01):
Henry Zoo is the CCP connected General secretary of China's
Harvest Fund, which was part owner, along with Hunter and
others a bo High Harvest RST Partners. And by the way,
Hunter appears to have transferred his ten percent stake in
(34:22):
that venture to Kevin Morris. Now who is Kevin Morris.
Kevin Morris is the Hollywood lawyer who paid Hunter's millions
in delinquent taxes. Now, the Zang that Hunter mentions appears
to be CEFC executive director Zang Jin Jun, who is
(34:42):
a CCP heavyweight who accompanied President j to a twenty
seventeen meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow as China sought
a steak in Russia's state owned energy giant Rosneft. So
these are high ranking Communist Party officials. Now the chairman
(35:05):
appears to refer to Yi xing Ming, who is the
CEFC chairman and a former she protege who began his
business relationship with Hunter in twenty fifteen while Joe Biden
was Vice president, And Ye gifted Hunter what do you
think you gave Hunter?
Speaker 2 (35:22):
I know now only too much because we cover this.
But it's either got to be It's got to either
be a a car, be a diamond, or see an airplane.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
Let's just go with that, all right, that's good. It's
door number two, this particular one. It's hard to keep
the keep corruption. By the way, you forgot the watch.
I forgot the watch, but this is watch. By the way,
this is not the watch. So Ye gifted Hunter a
three point one six carrot diamond worth eighty thousand dollars
to seal the deal. Ben, you're a good looking guy,
(35:53):
You're a charming guy. Has anyone ever given you a
three carrot diamond?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
No?
Speaker 3 (35:56):
Why not?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Probably because I'm not corrupt as hell, and probably I
don't take bribes well.
Speaker 4 (36:01):
And you also don't have the ability to deliver favors
from the vice president of the United States if you
were selling favors from Daddy, and Daddy happened to be
vice president, perfectly willing to give favors, then maybe you'd
get three carrot diamonds from senior communists.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Side note, by the way, on the diamond thing, this
is interesting to me.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
I had no idea.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Apparently, about fifteen years ago, I was told this from
a diamond broker, a guy that's been doing this in
New York City. He said, out of nowhere, China got
into diamonds big time, and they started coming in and
out of the diamond district in New York. And they
said it was because they realized it was the easiest
way to funnel money on airplanes that you could not trace,
(36:40):
because you could take something that's three carrots and three
carrots is you know, I mean we're talking something very small,
the size of a dime or smaller, a lot easier
than a when you're tracking money through bank accounts. Right
with suspecialtive reports B you can bring a billion dollars
in a little bag. And they said they noticed a
massive influx of these diamonds coming in from shady characters.
(37:01):
And they said what they figured out was you could
hold in your hand hundreds of millions of dollars in diamonds,
and you could disperse into people around the world that
you needed to and they were coming in they said
like they'd never seen before because they understood this was
a way to bribe people.
Speaker 4 (37:16):
Well, you saw the money that came in. And by
the way, the text, the WhatsApp text that Hunter said
that says I'm sitting next to his father. We know
from the irs whistleblowers that the Biden doj forbade any
examination in GPS dated to determine if Joe Biden was
(37:37):
in fact sitting next to him. But we also know
from photographs on Hunter's laptop that the laptop that Hunter
was at his father's home the day that message was sent,
So he was physically at daddy's home. What we just
have not confirmed, and we haven't confirmed because Mary Garland
doesn't want us to confirm it is whether Joe Biden
(37:59):
was physically to him or not.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
And we could have figured that out. That was easy,
one hundred percent and could have figured that out. He said,
we don't want to know because I think you knew
the answer.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
They didn't want to know. It's see no evil as
their of you. By the way, here here's some other
things Hunter said. Is zau quote. All too often people
mistake kindness for weakness, and all too often I am
standing over top of them saying I warned you from
this moment until whenever he reaches me. It is nine
forty five am here and I assume nine forty five
(38:30):
pm there, So his night is running out. Ask you,
if you ask yourself, is that threatening? Okay, here's something
zou respondents told Hunter he would call him on WhatsApp.
And here's Hunter's reply. Okay, my friend, I am sitting
here waiting for the call with my father. I sure
(38:52):
hope whatever it is you're doing is very, very very important.
That's what he's saying back and forth. And you know what.
What was the response to these threatening emails, Daddy's getting
ready to punish you.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Well.
Speaker 4 (39:11):
The next day, Hunter got in touch with Gon Wing
Kevin Dong, who has been described and some of these
names seem like something out of a John Hughes movie,
like like Pretty.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
In Pink, but set that aside.
Speaker 4 (39:25):
Kevin Dong has been described as his CFC partner in
the United States and an emissary of Chairman Ye. Three
days later, an LLC known as Hudson west I began
establishing checking accounts. What happened with the checking accounts. The
following day, CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC, which is a US
(39:48):
based CFC subsidiary that listed Gong Wing Dong as its director,
sent Hunter Biden's a Wasco firm a payment of one
hundredth one thousand dollars one hundred thousand dollars. So that
was a good text one hundred grand boom. That's worth
more than your three carrot diamond that was only eighty grand.
But you know what, one hundred grand is chump change.
(40:11):
Four days later, that same CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC wired
how much you think that they wired Hudson West.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
It's got to be a hundred one thousand plus.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
Five million dollars five million dollars. Over the next seven weeks,
almost all of that five million dollars, and specifically four million,
seven hundred and ninety thousand, three hundred and seventy five
dollars and twenty five cents was transferred from Hudson West
the third to Hunter's Awasco firm. By the way, if
(40:39):
a wasco is familiar to you, remember oasco is one
of the things that David Weiss wrote in the Plea
Deal that says we will exempt everything and you will
be forgiven from everything. THEASCO did so, the plea deal
whitewashed all of this until the twenty.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
From everything we've ever looked at, anything on your laptop,
all of it you did. It doesn't matter, and we're
just gonna say, sign your name on this piece of paper,
don't go to jail, don't do any jail time, don't
worry about the gun problem that you've got.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
It'll all just go away.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
And remember we covered this in an earlier podcast. Also,
the Biden DOJ didn't want to prosecute any of this
at all. Wanted no no criminal charges, wanted no guilty plea,
wanted to give a complete exoneration. But let me tell
you how they did give an exoneration. Today is August
twenty eighth, twenty twenty three. Let's go back and look
(41:32):
at the calendar because the dates are incredibly important.
Speaker 3 (41:37):
Hunters.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
What's that message happened on July thirtieth, twenty seventeen. Now,
the statute limitations for most of these violations is six years.
That means the statutal limitations for a charge related to hunter,
what's that message expired July thirtieth, just a few weeks ago.
The one hundred thousand dollars payment that rolled in was
(42:00):
on August fourth, twenty seventeen. That means the statute of
limitations expired on August fourth, just a few weeks ago.
The five million dollar payment that followed was an August eighth,
twenty seventeen. That means the statute of limitations expired twenty
(42:22):
days ago. Now, David Weiss is known about all of
this for years, and he sat there and did nothing.
Those texts are corrupt as hell. This money trail is
corrupt as hell, and David Weiss is directly responsible, and
with Merrick Garland's blessing. And by the way, Bratt going
(42:45):
to White House meeting after White House meeting after White
House meetings, said look, all we got to do is
get six years beyond that.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
And it is.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Now incredibly difficult to prosecute Hunter Biden or Joe Biden
for their corruption with China. And that was a deliberate objective,
I believe, of David Weiss, of Merrick Garland, the Department
of Justice.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
Let me tell you about a friends of her chalk.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
If you're a guy and you are getting a little
bit older and you feel like fatigue is sitting in
and you just don't have the energy used to have.
You need to check out chalk choq dot com. Why
because you can actually take the mail bac Teality Stack
and booster t estost from levels up to twenty percent
over ninety days. If you are just sick and tired
of feeling sick and tired, you want to get that
(43:29):
energy back, then go to Chalk and see what they
can do with their natural herbal supplements.
Speaker 1 (43:35):
Testalstrom levels in this country.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
Have actually dropped off a cliff actually worldwide, and this
is why Chalk is being used by so many men.
They're making sure that they get back to feeling like
they used to.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
So go online to chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Now if you use the promo code Ben, you get
thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's
choq dot com. Use promo code Ben thirty five percent off.
Check out that mail Vitality Stack and boosters at SAWS
from levels of twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
Over ninety days.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Senator, what you just said a moment ago is obviously
very depressing because it feels like we're getting played in
real time and we're watching this happen in real time.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
And by the way, is anyone covering this?
Speaker 1 (44:17):
No?
Speaker 4 (44:18):
No one is Jake Tapper? No, how come, Jake, you
want to be a journalist, you pretend to be a journalist.
How about on State of the Union on Sunday, you
walk through that timeframe, you walk through the WhatsApp, you
walk through the one hundred thousand dollars payment, you walk
through the five million dollar payment, and then you make
clear that David Weise just let the statute limitations expire
in the last few weeks. That would be seeing an
(44:39):
actually covering news. And the chances that Jake does that,
I think are zero points zero percent, because if you're
the apologist for the regime, you don't cover facts that
are problematic. You don't cover facts like senior lawyers for
the Special Counsel are going to the White House over
and over and over again in a way that is
obviously corrupt.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Last thing on this and that is as Jim Jordan
and James Commy both said that they are going to
have more banking records come out, we're now I think
north of fifty million that could have come into the
Biden family, and we keep seeing the statute of limitations
run out. If we find new money, is there anything
that the House can do or is this going to
(45:18):
just straight up be an election your issue where you say, hey,
if you want this guy who we know is corrupt,
we can prove he's corrupt, who's been taking bribes, who
has compromised at the highest levels of government from our advisaries.
If you want to get him out of the White House?
Is that maybe the best case scenario at this point.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
So look, statutes of limitations don't apply to impeachment. So
one remedy that remains there is impeaching Joe Biden for bribery.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
And if the.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
House demonstrates evidence of bribery, the House should impeach him,
and the Senate if Senate Democrats had a shread of integrity.
If it's proven that the President of the United States
solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from foreignation,
he should be removed from office. Now I'm not naive
enough to think that there's even a single Democrat who cares.
(46:06):
We could literally have video of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs
handing Joe Biden bags of cash or three caret diamonds
or sports cars or watches, and that would not be
enough to move a single Democrat vote. But impeachment is
one remedy that's unquestionably there. In terms of criminal prosecution, Listen,
(46:29):
at some level, it doesn't matter because Merrick Garland, I think,
will never ever ever prosecute Joe Biden for the corruption
that right now the evidence is really growing and growing
on a daily basis. Merrick Garland sent his own integrity
up the river. And it's sad because the guy used
to be a respected federal judge and he's going to
(46:50):
go down in history, I believe, is the most partisan
attorney general in US history. Whether you could secute Hunter
and Joe for all of this China activity depends. You
can't prosecute it directly for something that has got exceeded
(47:10):
the statute of limitations. It is possible that DOJ could
take a page out of Fanny Willis, the Georgia prosecutor
is going after Trump and bring a RICO charge and
a RICO charge of a criminal enterprise. If you demonstrate
an ongoing RICO charge with conduct that falls within the
statute of limitations, you might still be able to focus
(47:32):
on it. But at a minimum, David Weiss, fulfilling his
job as protector in chief of Joe Biden, has given
a very strong legal shield to protect against any criminal
charges for bribery and corruption between the Bidens and communist China.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
It's going to be a campaign issue for sure in
this presidential It should be one yes, and it's certainly
one of the hacks and the media should be covering,
but they're not. So that's why you should share this
podcast wherever you can. If you're seeing the video, makes
you share that on social media. If you're listening to
the audio only version, make sure you share it hit
that follow button. If you're listening on Apple or subscriber
auto download, it's always free wherever you're listening to this podcast.
(48:14):
And on the days that we don't publish, we publish Monday,
Wednesday and Fridays, make sure you check out my podcast
as well. It's the Ben Ferguson Podcast, and I'll keep
you updated on the breaking news in the days in
between this podcast. We'll see you back here in a
couple of days.
Sader.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Nice to be back with you in studio, and we
have got so much to cover. This is gonna be
a really important show, one that I think people are
gonna want to.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Make sure they share, especially the clips.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
That's why we're doing this one in video because there's
gonna be a lot of clips that come out of
this that people are gonna want to let their family
and their friends know. There was something very interesting to
happen this week, and as I was watching it, as
if you were watching it, I think we're not surprised,
but we're also glad to see it come out. And
that is the prosecutor who was fired in Ukraine that
(00:32):
was investigating Barisma has now come out and said this
is why it happened and kind of gave the timeline
of how the Biden influence came down on him and
destroyed his career.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
There's been in this last week significant new evidence of
Biden family corruption and if you watch CNN, if you
watch MSNBC, you'll hear none of it because they don't
actually cover news, they're propagandists. But starting off with this
new interview that Victor Schokuin has given, now what is
the relevance of this. The central charge against Joe Biden
(01:06):
is bribery that he solicited and received multimillion dollar bribes
from foreign nationals, in particular Ukrainian oligarch. As you'll recall,
the essence of bribery is quid pro quo. The Latin
phrase is this for that. Now, this the quid is
(01:26):
alleged to be the firing of Victor Chokun, the prosecutor
who was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch who owned Barisma. The
quot was allegedly millions of dollars that that Ukrainian oligarch
paid both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We know that
he paid a million dollars a year eighty three dollars
(01:48):
eighty three thousand dollars a month to Hunter Biden to
be on the board.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And to be clear, that was just part of funneling
that money. They knew they couldn't send a whole check
for the full amount. They had to make it look legitimate,
and they said, okay, well put you on the board
in essence, and we'll funnel it to you over an
extended period of time and so that it won't look
like we just flat out handed you five million bucks.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
And the allegation in the FD ten twenty three, which
is the report from the confidential human source that came
into the FBI, is that the Oligart paid Hunter five
million dollars and the Oligarch paid Joe five million dollars
and funneled it through multiple different sources. But to assess
whether Biden is guilty of bribery, you've got to prove
quid pro quo. Now, the quid part of it, that
(02:32):
Biden is responsible for firing Choken, that's undisputed. And let's
go back to because Biden has bragged on air about
getting Shoken fired.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Here take a listen.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
I went over I guess the twelve thirtieth time to Kiev,
and I was supposed to announce that there's another billion
dollar loan guarantee, and I had gotten a commitment from
Porshenko and from that they would take action against the
state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had
(03:05):
they were walking out to press cont I said no,
I said, I'm not going to or we're not going
to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have
no authority, you're not the president. The president said, I said,
call him. I said, I'm telling you're not getting a
billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm
going to be leaving here. And I think it was
what six hours. I looked at I Said'm leaving the
six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting
(03:26):
the money. Oh, son of a bitch got fired, and
they put in place someone who was solid at.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
The time, solid at the time, solid for the Biden team.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
So the Biden white House's defense to this is they say, well,
the prosecutor Victor Schoke, and he was fired because he
wasn't tough enough on Barisma and the Ukrainian oligarch. That
that's their claim that that they were really seeking rule
of no Lord. Now, mind you, the FD ten twenty
(04:00):
three says that the Ukraine and oligarch specifically said, get
this guy fired. The reason we hired Hunter Biden was
to get this guy fired. But what is new now
is that Shokun has come and done an exclusive interview
with Fox News, and what he says is really striking
because it is directly contrary to what Joe Biden and
(04:22):
the Biden white House has said.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Here listen to the first part of that interview.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Not only the position of President Poroshenko, the office of
President Paroshenko was humiliated, but the entire country of the
Ukraine was humiliated. And I developed a very firm understanding
of the fact that vice president. The vice president was
only acting in his own interests. He generally speaking, handled
(04:47):
Ukraine like it was his own backyard. He would put
people that were suitable for him, he would arrange for
them to be put in a certain positions.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Somebody said the other day, by the way, and I thought,
this is a very interesting point. The billion dollar loan guarantee,
if that would not have gone through in Ukraine. They said,
that was like almost a trillion dollars in America.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
The amount of money.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
The massive amount of money in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
In Ukraine, I mean a billion dollars could have wrecked
parts of their economy if we wouldn't have fulfilled that promise.
And that's putting a gun to the head of that country,
saying I'm getting on a plane. And I think sometimes
people hear a billion to think, oh, that's not that
much money. I know people in America there are billionaires.
This amount of money Ukraine was enough to destroy things
in their economy.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Well, and look what Chokin is saying there that Biden
treated Ukraine like his own personal playground, like he put
people in place where he could control them. You know
the clip we just played a second ago of Biden
bragging that he said it was his eleventh or twelfth
time going there.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
That is bizarre.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Why is a vice president going eleven or twelve times
to Ukraine? Like it is weird for a vice president,
for a vice president to go over and over and
over again. And what Chokin is saying is the reason
he's doing it is because he had corrupt business interests,
(06:09):
and we know it was very profitable for Hunter. Here,
listen to what Chokin went on to say.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
I did not want to deal in unproven facts, but
my firm personal conviction is that yes, this was the case.
They were being bribed. The fact that Joe Biden gave
away one billion dollars in US money in exchange for
my dismissal my firing, isn't that alone a case of corruption?
Speaker 1 (06:38):
He also said, And I want to make sure I
have this right.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
He said that up until his firing, there were no
complaints about his performance in the investigation. He said the
only problem was that he was investigating Barisma, which means
he was investigating the company which was fundling money to
the big guy and a hunter Biden who was on
the board. He said before that no one had even
(07:01):
brought up that there could possibly be anything wrong.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
Look, it really is striking that the Ukrainian prosecutor who
Joe Biden got fired says that he believes Joe Biden
was being bribed. I mean, that's an explicit allegation. By
the way, did you see that on ABC News too?
Now do you see that on NBC? No, how about CNN,
None of them. They don't cover that. They don't cover
that a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a corrupt oligarch,
(07:26):
who Joe Biden bragged about getting fired and bragged about
holding a billion dollars in US loan get guarantees hostage
to get him fired, says the reason Joe Biden did
that is Joe Biden was being bribed.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Yeah, that's a big damn deal. Yeah, And by the way,
it's exactly what Soakin said.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Listen to this.
Speaker 6 (07:44):
There were no complaints whatsoever, and all problems with how
I was performing at my job but because pressure was
repeatedly put on President Parshanko, that is what ended up
in firing me.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I read this guy as very believable. I read this
guy as a guy that was hired to do a job,
to investigate, and then all of a sudden, he's like, wait,
there's the President, Vice President United it's America's son on
this board. You keep digging, and all of a sudden
you get a phone call, Hey, you're fired because we
need a billion dollars. One, I'm honestly surprised he's still
alive if this is how things work in that part
(08:22):
of the world. And two, I'm shocked that he was
willing to do this interview at this point.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Yeah, and let me say, look, I don't know if
chokun Is is someone who has integrity or not. And
I'm certainly not invested in saying the guy was a
paragon of virtue. Yeah. Ukraine is a country that has.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
A long history of corruption, and many say it's worse
than even Russia.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Yes, and it's been tragic the corruption that's in Ukraine.
But that makes it all the more questionable. Why does
Joe Biden turn it into his playground? You know, if
you go to a place that is infamous for corruption,
you know what people do. Apparently they offer you millions
of dollars like it's a pretty profitable place. If you're
a senior government official, you go there over and over
(09:06):
and over again. And by the way, you bring a
billion dollars of US taxpayer money with you. If you
want to get corruption, having a billion dollars in your
pocket that doesn't happen to be yours, but you can
choose to give it or not is an awfully good
way to attract a ton of interest.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Listen to what else Showken says, I.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
Have no doubt that there were illegal activities engaged in
by Barisma. As a matter of fact, the criminal case
had been started before me. It continued to expand and Slotchevsky,
who at the time held the post administer and was
the founder and CEO of Parisma, started bringing in people
who could provide protection for him. Hunter Biden was among them,
(09:49):
and the corruption network expanded as a result. So, yes,
to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind
that Parisma was engaged in legal activities.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
There's a lot of people, including business partners of Hunter Biden,
that have said that if Joe Biden wouldn't have gotten
involved with Barisma, gotten Soaken fired, the investigation started before
Soakin got his job, that this company would have gone under.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Look, Slotchevski is a billionaire, he's an oligarch. There were
massive allegations of corruption. He was also a government minister,
so it was very profitable. One of the ways Barisma
made so much money as they had access to the
government leases for natural gas and gosh, when they were
sold to himself, it made a whole lot of money
(10:38):
in this investigation from Chokun. Look, chokn was going after Bearisma,
that's undisputed. The Biden folks say, well, we wanted him
fired because he wasn't going after tough enough. Well, you
know what, once Chokun was fired, the investigations on Barisma
largely disappeared. So the objective that is alleged in the
(11:03):
FD ten twenty three, which is get rid of the
prosecutor that is investigating the corrupt oligarch, that objective was accomplished,
and the Biden White House has really no defense.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
And here listen to what else Joken says.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
It is public knowledge. Everybody knows that it was because
of Joe Biden's actions that Russia was able to claim
Crimea without firing a single shot, which of course eventually
led to a full scale war that is currently underway.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
It's full circle in a sense what we're now seeing.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I mean, he's talking about not only Crimea, we're talking
about the war now, we're talking about a weak policy
that now. I mean for a guy that was an
expert in Ukraine and watching what's happened in Ukraine and
then now trying to send tons of money over to.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
Ukraine, billions, tens of billions.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yeah, and people are worried about that. Where's the money going?
Follow the money? How much this money's actually going to
the back and how much is going to oligarchs who
are in Warsaw in five star hotels, which is where
they are in a lot of their families.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
And are any of the oligarchs continuing to pay the
Biden family?
Speaker 1 (12:09):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
One of the things about people who engage in bribery
and corruption, they tend not to stop. Yeah, and that
the amount of money that Biden is shoveling towards Ukraine.
And remember shoveling after Biden waived the sanctions on Nordstream
two on Russia and Putin, which caused the Ukraine War.
Right now and right now, Biden is funding both sides
(12:32):
of this war. He's sending billions to Ukraine, but he's
also refusing to enforce oil sanctions on Iran. Iran is
using the billions of dollars they're making to produce drones
that they're giving to Russia, and the drones are killing
Ukrainian soldiers. So Biden's funding both sides of this war.
And by the way, war profiteers for a long time
(12:52):
have funded both sides of war. And I'll tell you,
if you have corrupt oligarchs, funding both sides of a
war can be a very offitable way to pursue it.
And so Chokun's allegations are very serious.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Will Congress do anything with this intel? With this information?
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Is there a way that Congress could bring a guy
like Choking over and say we want you to testify
after seeing this. Would that be a smart move for
House Republicans.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
I think that's entirely possible. I would expect the House
of Representatives to do it. I would expect either James
Comer or Jim Jordan to do that. I'll tell you
what I don't expect. I don't expect the Senate to
do it because Senate Democrats don't want to know. Not
a single Democrat has any interest in knowing whether Joe
Biden has received millions of dollars of bribes from foreign nationals.
They're never asked it. They don't ask any questions about it.
(13:41):
That they are ostriches with their head buried in the sand.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
They don't want to know.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
And much of the media, The New York Times, the
Washington Post, they don't want to know either, because they
have abandoned any pretense of being real journalists.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
I want to tell you about a friends of our
Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
If you are conservative and you are sick tired of
giving your money to wote companies, you need to grab
your cell phone and switch to Patriot Mobile. It is
so easy to switch, and you get the same great
coverage that you have right now, except when you pay
your bill.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
This was This is what happens.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
They take a percentage of your bill every month, they
give it back to conservative causes that you help choose.
The support we're talking about setting up for the rights
of onborn children. Children, we're talking about supporting the First
and Second Amendment rights. We're talking about helping our veterans,
our first responders, our policemen, and our fallen warriors. That
is why I love Patriot Mobile. Now, Patriot Mobile has
(14:34):
the same great coverage that you have right now. You
don't have to worry about that. The other thing is
you can keep your same cell phone number if you
want to. You can usually keep your same cell phone
you have right now in your hand, or you can
upgrade to a new one. If you're tired of giving
money to corporations that fight against your values, then switch
a bill you're gonna have every month no matter what.
(14:54):
That's your cell phone bill to Patriot Mobile. Go online
to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot
com slash verdict. You'll get free activation, the best deals
of the year. Eight seven eight. Patriot is their number
as well. That's eight seven eight Patriot eight seven eight
Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
You look at also Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
One other question on this statute of limitations seem to
be part of the play of wis and we're gonna
deal with that with China in a little bit but
you look at Ukraine now, it's like we're finding out everything,
or maybe we're confirming it.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
We've known about a lot of these activations for a while,
but Weis and his team at the DOJ have done
one hell of a job of making sure, oh yeah,
that's too far in the past. We can't even look
it into it if we wanted to. What a great alibi.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Well, we know from the IRS whistleblowers that the Biden
DOJ forbade any investigation into Joe Biden any questions about
the big guy, any questions about what he did that
was off limits. So no wonder the investigation doesn't cover
whether Joe Biden has received bribes. The Biden DOJ ordered
the investigators you're not allowed to inquire whether Joe Biden
(16:06):
received bribes. And I got to say it's effective because
they still haven't even begun to examine it in any
serious way.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
There's a second part of this story, obviously, just with
the Bidens, and there is now Biden staffers. I'm reading
this because I want to make sure I get it right.
Biden staffers. We now have confirmation and this would be
contradicting what the Biden White House has said, and what
Joe Biden said. They met with Special counsel Jack Smith's
age just weeks before Trump was indicted. Jack Smith, special
(16:38):
counsel that brought the charges against President Trump for allegedly
mishandling classified documents. There's a guy by the name of
Jay Bratt who joined the Special council team in November
of twenty twenty two. He took a meeting in the
White House on March the thirty first of twenty twenty
three with Caroline Sabbath, the Deputy chief of Staff for
the White House Council's Office. Now, this is proven through
(17:00):
White House visitor logs. They were joined in a ten
am meeting. We're being told now by an FBI agent
in the Washington Field office. This is nine weeks after meeting.
On June eighth, Trump was indicted by Smith's office. Interestingly enough,
here is what Biden had to say on the exact
day of trump indictment about saying, I've stayed out of this.
(17:22):
Clearly the White House logs these meetings proved that's aye.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Look, do you notice I have never once, not one
single time, suggesting your Justice Department what they should do
or not do. Lt to bringing to charge and not
bring to charge. I'm honest.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
He's not honest.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Okay, that is a flat out lie. He says he's
never once suggested to the Justice Department what they should
do or not do regarding Trump.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
That was in June.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Let me read you a quote from the New York Times,
hardly a right wing source, on April second, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Quote.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
And while the President has never communicated his frustrations directly
to mister Garland, he has said privately that he wanted
mister Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and
more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive
action over the events of January sixth. Now, listen, this
(18:14):
is reminiscent of England's King Henry the Second, who said
about Thomas Beckett, the Archbishop of Canterbury in eleven seventy,
who will rid me of this troublesome cleric? Where he
says it out loud and promptly his knights went and
(18:35):
murdered Beckett. Well, in this instance, Biden's defense is I
didn't directly tell Merrick Garland what to do. I just said, gosh,
who will rid me of this troublesome, ponderous judge and
get him to act like a prosecutor and actually prosecute Trump.
(18:55):
That's according to the New York Times. If the New
York Times is telling the truth, then Joe Biden and
the clip you just played was flat out lying. And
then this breaking news. Look the fact that Bratt, one
of the senior lawyers in the Special Council's Office, met
with the White House, with the White House Counsel's Office,
(19:16):
not just the Council's Office, met with political senior political
leaders in the White House. It is difficult to overstate
what a massive breach of protocol this is. Listen line,
lawyers at DOJ don't meet with the White House. If
you're in AUSA an assistant US attorney, you don't go
meet with the White House.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
You're not taking that mean they wouldn't let you. Probably go.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
There are very rigid I was at the Department of Justice.
I was an associate Deputy Attorney General under George W.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Bush.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
There are strict rules that limit who from the Department
of Justice can meet with the White House, and it
is run through very narrowly circumscribed channels, precisely to avoid
political interference withcution. So a line prosecutor would pretty much
never meet with senior officials at the White House. Now
(20:08):
Bratt's not just a line prosecutor. He is with the
Special Counsel. So he is charged with which everyone knows,
investigating Donald J. Trump, investigating the chief political opponent of
the president. The idea that a senior lawyer for the
Special Counsel is over at the White House, is in
meetings with the White House just weeks before Trump is indicted,
(20:32):
just weeks before mar A Lago is raided. And by
the way, Bratt was intimately involved in the mar A
Lago raid. There is no innocent explanation for it any
Department of Justice with even a shred of integrity. If
you were to suggest the Special Counsel, let's go meet
with the White House, any real prosecutor would say no
(20:52):
to the hell no, that's not gonna happen. But let's
be clear that this Bratt guy, and I don't know him,
but there are real evidences that this Bratt guy is
deeply involved in corruption and cover up. And I'm going
to read from NBC a story June eighth, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
The title of the.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Story is lawyer for witnessing Trump's dox probe alleges prosecutorial misconduct.
Here's what NBC reported. The source said Woodward's allegation could
raise questions about any prosecution of Nauda, a military valet
in the Trump White House who went to work for
the former president at mar A Lago, adding that the
(21:32):
Justice Department appears to be taking the allegation seriously and
plans to respond to the judge. The source says that
Woodward alleges that Bratt, same guy, same guy who's over
at the White House meeting. Source says that Woodward alleges
that Bratt had with him a folder of information related
to Woodward's bid for a judgeship and told him, quote,
(21:56):
I didn't take you.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
For a Trump guy. Quote.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
The implication was that the judge thing would go badly
for him if his client didn't cooperate. The source said, Now,
now I want to break up what that means. So
Woodward is a lawyer who's representing now to who's Trump's
valet now is one of the defendants. Yeah, Woodward comes
in to meet with DOJ, to meet with Bratt, senior
(22:24):
lawyer in the special counsel's office. Now unrelated to this,
Woodward had applied to be a judge, had an application
to be a judge, and according to Woodward, Bratt shows
up with a folder of here's your application.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
I know who you are, I know what your dreams are,
I know what your life goals are, I know what
you've applied for it. He's basically saying, I'm holding your
life in this folder and your life's work in this folder,
and I can either possibly make it happen or make
sure it never happens and you never reach this goal.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Is that not what he's doing there?
Speaker 4 (22:57):
If this is true, it absolutely is. It's reminiscent someone
walking into an establishment, going, nice little bar you have here,
shame is something happened to it.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
That's a threat.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
It's almost a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
It is a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
And to be clear, if this happened, and it's only
an allegation, but if it happened, Bratt would and should
face serious legal discipline for threatening to tank someone's judicial application.
If that lawyer didn't get his client to cooperate with
(23:32):
the prosecutors. That's not what a prosecutor is supposed to do.
Those two are not supposed to be connected. That is
something corrupt prosecutors do. That is something political prosecutors do.
And I can ask you a question.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
You were at the DOJ and I just want to
people to understand how I abnormal this would be.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
This is not opposition research.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
When you're a lawyer in this position, to even get
your hands on that application to become a judge, you're
not work working in the best interest in the American people.
And just as that point, you're working for the Democratic
Party or for Joe Biden and saying go in there
and you better tell this guy give us something good
(24:12):
on the president, give him up the former President Trump,
and will reward you with something if you do it.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
And yes, and by the way, the natural follow up
question is who gave Bratt that folder of the application
to be a judge. Look, when he applied to be
a judge, he didn't submit it to Bratt. That folder
would have been at one of two places in DJ
or in the White House, probably in both places, so
it's entirely possible in his meetings in the White House,
(24:38):
the White House political operatives gave him that folder said
here's something you can use to pressure the lawyer to
get Trump's assistant to flip. I don't know that that happened,
but Bratt either got it from the White House or
from DJ. But to be clear, DOJ the office that
is in charge with reviewing that application, is not in
the Special Council's office. It's not the people prosecuting Trump.
(25:01):
It's somebody else.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Who said, hey, we got it, we got it, We
got you something you might want to take down there
to meet with them.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
We got some leverage on this lawyer, and we got
a political objective. We want to get Donald Trump. Look,
I actually am stunned that they would do this meeting
at the White House. I'm absolutely stunned. As I said,
I cannot think of an instance where a line prosecutor
(25:31):
ever meets with a White House, where an AUSA ever
meets with a White House. Typically, white house meetings are
done by senior officials. They're done by the attorney General.
They're done by the deputy attorney general. They're done by
an assistant attorney general. They might be done by a
deputy assistant attorney general or an associate deputy attorney general.
Those are the and they're pretty much always done with
(25:54):
a ledge affairs staffer from DOJ in there to make
sure that the communication are appropriate. So you might get
if they're discussing some criminal justice legislation, you might have
DOJ meeting with a White House and saying, Okay, here's
here's what we think in terms of this legislation. That
would be something that would be appropriate. There are lots
of issues that are policy base that are appropriate. There
(26:17):
are lots of issues DOJ, the National security prosecutors might
be meeting with a White House to say, hey, we
got some threats, we got some terrorists who are raising threats.
That's an appropriate area. But it's senior people, it is
political appointees.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
And if anyone below senior even goes into that meeting,
that's with a significant amount of approval, like hey, you're
going to go take this meeting because we're working on
this stuff, but give them an update. Maybe that could
be possible, But you don't just randomly get to go
make a meeting at the White House on your own, right, said, I.
Speaker 4 (26:48):
Do not know of a single instance in which an
AUSA and Assistant US attorney has ever had a White
House meeting. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I
don't know of it. But then take the whole thing
and put on steroids. This guy isn't just some random Ausa.
He's a senior lawyer in the Special Council's Office. The
whole point, why do you appoint a special counsel. You
(27:11):
appoint a special counsel because there's a conflict of interest
with a White House, because politically you need some separation
from the White House. For a lawyer from the Special
Counsel's Office to go meet with the White House. No
one has articulated an innocent explanation, and I don't think
(27:32):
there can be one. This is corruption on its face.
And apparently the meetings went well because contrary to Joe
Biden's lie that he's never told people what to do,
right after the meeting, what did they do? They went
and rated mar A Lago, They went and indeded Donald Trump.
They did exactly what the political operatives at the White
House wanted to do. And I got to say, the
(27:54):
corruption on the face of it would make the Ukrainians blush.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I tell you about a friends of Augusta precious medals.
You've been seeing what's going on in the economy, you've
seen the bank failures that happened earlier this year. You've
also seen the interest rates that are now skyrocketing. House
In interest rates are a twenty one year high. So
now people are saying, all right, especially if you're in
retirement or close retirement, how do I protect my hard
earned dollars my assets? How do I make sure that
(28:20):
I'm not losing money right now because there's no time
to make up losses. Well that is where my friends
and Augusta Precious Metals come in. A gust of Precious
Metals can sit down with you and talk to you
about how to protect your retirement in this crazy economy
with a gold IRA. I trust a gust of Precious
Metals and I can tell you this. They do two
things that are really unique. One they're gonna send you
(28:41):
the free Investors Guide on gold. But number two, they
do a face to face web conference to answer all
of your questions about gold and how to protect your
assets in an IRA. If you've never talked to them,
you should call them and they will do this conference
with you for free. Eight seven the number four Gold IRA.
(29:03):
That's eight seven to seven the number four Gold IRA
or online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. That's Augusta Precious
Medals dot com or eight seven seven the number four
goldr A. One other thing you mentioned about the meetings
is this other meeting. Prior to the appointment of the
Special Council, Brett met with SABA at the White House
(29:25):
in November of twenty twenty one, Trump was involved in
negotiations with the National Archives, who were demand the return
of the presidential records from his mar Lago state before
a formal investigation had been open. We then find out
that Bratt had a third meeting with the White House
in September of twenty twenty one, with Catherine Riley, an
(29:46):
advisor to the White House Chief of Staff's office.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
The logs we also bought by the way, that woman
is not in the White House Council. So typically if
there's a meeting with DOJ, you meet with a White
House counsel, you meet with the lawyers. He's meeting with
an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. That
is bizarre.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
That doesn't happen normal, That.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Does not happen normally, and it, on the face of it,
it stinks.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
We also know that apparently he was one of the
guys that went down to Marlago when they were negotiating
on the records to see the secure room slash location
where where Trump was holding these documents. So, how on earth,
being this intertwined, could you possibly serve on a special
(30:37):
prosecutor as part of that team, knowing that you were
in all this before they'd even named him.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Look, because I think this entire thing is a sham,
and I think it's corrupt. I think the Biden DOJ
is corrupt. I think they targeted Donald Trump from the beginning.
I think these indictments are corrupt. I think this was
designed to defeat their political enemy and to abuse the
Administration of Justice to do so.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I think that these.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
Clowns have done massive damage to the integrity of the
Department of Justice and the FBI, And as an alumnus
of the Department of Justice, that saddens me profoundly. Listen,
David Weiss, who is the fake special Counsel So Merrick
Garland nominated, the guy who is accused of participating an
obstruction of justice of blocking investigations into whether Joe Biden
(31:27):
solicited and received bribes, has been now named the fake
Special counsel, the fake special counsel, the guy who Merrick
Garland knows. And by the way, we talked about this
in an earlier pot it was illegal to name David
Weisse's special counsel. Why because the DOJ guidelines say it
a special counsel must be someone from outside DOJ. Merrick
Garland just ignored the law, said, nope, nope, I got
(31:49):
my guy. I know he'll do it right. Why because
he's been doing it right. He's already been willing to
engage in corruption and.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Remind people if they missed our past podcasts you said.
The problem is the reason why Garling can get away
with doing that is because if that protocol that law
has broken, who do you go to to whistle blow
that the laws being broken?
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
And the DOJ guidelines say that it's non justiciable, in
other words, that you can't challenge it in court. So
he violated the law, but he knows that no one
will force him to follow the law, and he knows
the press will ignore the fact that it's illegal. Now,
why is it that the DOJ guidelines say it should
be someone from outside DOJ? Because you appoint a special
counsel when there's a political conflict of interest. And let
(32:35):
me tell you something David Weiss has done, which again
nobody in the media is reported on. David Weiss in
the last two weeks has given Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden and the Chinese Communist Party a get out of
jail free pass on the mountains of evidence of corruption
(32:55):
concerning China. And I want to walk through this in
some detail because nobody is reporting on it and it's
really important. Andy McCarthy at National Review has done a
very good job of highlighting it, but almost nobody else
has focused on it. All right, Let's go back for
a second to the WhatsApp text that Hunter Biden sent,
and I want to read it again. The WhatsApp text said, quote,
(33:16):
I am sitting here with my father and we would
like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.
Tell the director that I would like to resolve this
now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.
And Zee, if I get a call or a text
from anyone involved in this other than you, Zang or
the chairman, I will make certain that between the man
sitting next to me and every person that he knows
(33:40):
and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you
will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
waiting for the call with my father. That's five references
to Papa Joe in one text. Now, that was a
message that was sent to Henry Zoo. Who is Henry Zoo?
(34:01):
Henry Zoo is the CCP connected General secretary of China's
Harvest Fund, which was part owner, along with Hunter and
others a bo High Harvest RST Partners. And by the way,
Hunter appears to have transferred his ten percent stake in
(34:22):
that venture to Kevin Morris. Now who is Kevin Morris.
Kevin Morris is the Hollywood lawyer who paid Hunter's millions
in delinquent taxes. Now, the Zang that Hunter mentions appears
to be CEFC executive director Zang Jin Jun, who is
(34:42):
a CCP heavyweight who accompanied President j to a twenty
seventeen meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow as China sought
a steak in Russia's state owned energy giant Rosneft. So
these are high ranking Communist Party officials. Now the chairman
(35:05):
appears to refer to Yi xing Ming, who is the
CEFC chairman and a former she protege who began his
business relationship with Hunter in twenty fifteen while Joe Biden
was Vice president, And Ye gifted Hunter what do you
think you gave Hunter?
Speaker 2 (35:22):
I know now only too much because we cover this.
But it's either got to be It's got to either
be a a car, be a diamond, or see an airplane.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
Let's just go with that, all right, that's good. It's
door number two, this particular one. It's hard to keep
the keep corruption. By the way, you forgot the watch.
I forgot the watch, but this is watch. By the way,
this is not the watch. So Ye gifted Hunter a
three point one six carrot diamond worth eighty thousand dollars
to seal the deal. Ben, you're a good looking guy,
(35:53):
You're a charming guy. Has anyone ever given you a
three carrot diamond?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
No?
Speaker 3 (35:56):
Why not?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Probably because I'm not corrupt as hell, and probably I
don't take bribes well.
Speaker 4 (36:01):
And you also don't have the ability to deliver favors
from the vice president of the United States if you
were selling favors from Daddy, and Daddy happened to be
vice president, perfectly willing to give favors, then maybe you'd
get three carrot diamonds from senior communists.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Side note, by the way, on the diamond thing, this
is interesting to me.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
I had no idea.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Apparently, about fifteen years ago, I was told this from
a diamond broker, a guy that's been doing this in
New York City. He said, out of nowhere, China got
into diamonds big time, and they started coming in and
out of the diamond district in New York. And they
said it was because they realized it was the easiest
way to funnel money on airplanes that you could not trace,
(36:40):
because you could take something that's three carrots and three
carrots is you know, I mean we're talking something very small,
the size of a dime or smaller, a lot easier
than a when you're tracking money through bank accounts. Right
with suspecialtive reports B you can bring a billion dollars
in a little bag. And they said they noticed a
massive influx of these diamonds coming in from shady characters.
(37:01):
And they said what they figured out was you could
hold in your hand hundreds of millions of dollars in diamonds,
and you could disperse into people around the world that
you needed to and they were coming in they said
like they'd never seen before because they understood this was
a way to bribe people.
Speaker 4 (37:16):
Well, you saw the money that came in. And by
the way, the text, the WhatsApp text that Hunter said
that says I'm sitting next to his father. We know
from the irs whistleblowers that the Biden doj forbade any
examination in GPS dated to determine if Joe Biden was
(37:37):
in fact sitting next to him. But we also know
from photographs on Hunter's laptop that the laptop that Hunter
was at his father's home the day that message was sent,
So he was physically at daddy's home. What we just
have not confirmed, and we haven't confirmed because Mary Garland
doesn't want us to confirm it is whether Joe Biden
(37:59):
was physically to him or not.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
And we could have figured that out. That was easy,
one hundred percent and could have figured that out. He said,
we don't want to know because I think you knew
the answer.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
They didn't want to know. It's see no evil as
their of you. By the way, here here's some other
things Hunter said. Is zau quote. All too often people
mistake kindness for weakness, and all too often I am
standing over top of them saying I warned you from
this moment until whenever he reaches me. It is nine
forty five am here and I assume nine forty five
(38:30):
pm there, So his night is running out. Ask you,
if you ask yourself, is that threatening? Okay, here's something
zou respondents told Hunter he would call him on WhatsApp.
And here's Hunter's reply. Okay, my friend, I am sitting
here waiting for the call with my father. I sure
(38:52):
hope whatever it is you're doing is very, very very important.
That's what he's saying back and forth. And you know what.
What was the response to these threatening emails, Daddy's getting
ready to punish you.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
Well.
Speaker 4 (39:11):
The next day, Hunter got in touch with Gon Wing
Kevin Dong, who has been described and some of these
names seem like something out of a John Hughes movie,
like like Pretty.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
In Pink, but set that aside.
Speaker 4 (39:25):
Kevin Dong has been described as his CFC partner in
the United States and an emissary of Chairman Ye. Three
days later, an LLC known as Hudson west I began
establishing checking accounts. What happened with the checking accounts. The
following day, CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC, which is a US
(39:48):
based CFC subsidiary that listed Gong Wing Dong as its director,
sent Hunter Biden's a Wasco firm a payment of one
hundredth one thousand dollars one hundred thousand dollars. So that
was a good text one hundred grand boom. That's worth
more than your three carrot diamond that was only eighty grand.
But you know what, one hundred grand is chump change.
(40:11):
Four days later, that same CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC wired
how much you think that they wired Hudson West.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
It's got to be a hundred one thousand plus.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
Five million dollars five million dollars. Over the next seven weeks,
almost all of that five million dollars, and specifically four million,
seven hundred and ninety thousand, three hundred and seventy five
dollars and twenty five cents was transferred from Hudson West
the third to Hunter's Awasco firm. By the way, if
(40:39):
a wasco is familiar to you, remember oasco is one
of the things that David Weiss wrote in the Plea
Deal that says we will exempt everything and you will
be forgiven from everything. THEASCO did so, the plea deal
whitewashed all of this until the twenty.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
From everything we've ever looked at, anything on your laptop,
all of it you did. It doesn't matter, and we're
just gonna say, sign your name on this piece of paper,
don't go to jail, don't do any jail time, don't
worry about the gun problem that you've got.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
It'll all just go away.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
And remember we covered this in an earlier podcast. Also,
the Biden DOJ didn't want to prosecute any of this
at all. Wanted no no criminal charges, wanted no guilty plea,
wanted to give a complete exoneration. But let me tell
you how they did give an exoneration. Today is August
twenty eighth, twenty twenty three. Let's go back and look
(41:32):
at the calendar because the dates are incredibly important.
Speaker 3 (41:37):
Hunters.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
What's that message happened on July thirtieth, twenty seventeen. Now,
the statute limitations for most of these violations is six years.
That means the statutal limitations for a charge related to hunter,
what's that message expired July thirtieth, just a few weeks ago.
The one hundred thousand dollars payment that rolled in was
(42:00):
on August fourth, twenty seventeen. That means the statute of
limitations expired on August fourth, just a few weeks ago.
The five million dollar payment that followed was an August eighth,
twenty seventeen. That means the statute of limitations expired twenty
(42:22):
days ago. Now, David Weiss is known about all of
this for years, and he sat there and did nothing.
Those texts are corrupt as hell. This money trail is
corrupt as hell, and David Weiss is directly responsible, and
with Merrick Garland's blessing. And by the way, Bratt going
(42:45):
to White House meeting after White House meeting after White
House meetings, said look, all we got to do is
get six years beyond that.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
And it is.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Now incredibly difficult to prosecute Hunter Biden or Joe Biden
for their corruption with China. And that was a deliberate objective,
I believe, of David Weiss, of Merrick Garland, the Department
of Justice.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
Let me tell you about a friends of her chalk.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
If you're a guy and you are getting a little
bit older and you feel like fatigue is sitting in
and you just don't have the energy used to have.
You need to check out chalk choq dot com. Why
because you can actually take the mail bac Teality Stack
and booster t estost from levels up to twenty percent
over ninety days. If you are just sick and tired
of feeling sick and tired, you want to get that
(43:29):
energy back, then go to Chalk and see what they
can do with their natural herbal supplements.
Speaker 1 (43:35):
Testalstrom levels in this country.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
Have actually dropped off a cliff actually worldwide, and this
is why Chalk is being used by so many men.
They're making sure that they get back to feeling like
they used to.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
So go online to chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
Now if you use the promo code Ben, you get
thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's
choq dot com. Use promo code Ben thirty five percent off.
Check out that mail Vitality Stack and boosters at SAWS
from levels of twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (44:04):
Over ninety days.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Senator, what you just said a moment ago is obviously
very depressing because it feels like we're getting played in
real time and we're watching this happen in real time.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
And by the way, is anyone covering this?
Speaker 1 (44:17):
No?
Speaker 4 (44:18):
No one is Jake Tapper? No, how come, Jake, you
want to be a journalist, you pretend to be a journalist.
How about on State of the Union on Sunday, you
walk through that timeframe, you walk through the WhatsApp, you
walk through the one hundred thousand dollars payment, you walk
through the five million dollar payment, and then you make
clear that David Weise just let the statute limitations expire
in the last few weeks. That would be seeing an
(44:39):
actually covering news. And the chances that Jake does that,
I think are zero points zero percent, because if you're
the apologist for the regime, you don't cover facts that
are problematic. You don't cover facts like senior lawyers for
the Special Counsel are going to the White House over
and over and over again in a way that is
obviously corrupt.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Last thing on this and that is as Jim Jordan
and James Commy both said that they are going to
have more banking records come out, we're now I think
north of fifty million that could have come into the
Biden family, and we keep seeing the statute of limitations
run out. If we find new money, is there anything
that the House can do or is this going to
(45:18):
just straight up be an election your issue where you say, hey,
if you want this guy who we know is corrupt,
we can prove he's corrupt, who's been taking bribes, who
has compromised at the highest levels of government from our advisaries.
If you want to get him out of the White House?
Is that maybe the best case scenario at this point.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
So look, statutes of limitations don't apply to impeachment. So
one remedy that remains there is impeaching Joe Biden for bribery.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
And if the.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
House demonstrates evidence of bribery, the House should impeach him,
and the Senate if Senate Democrats had a shread of integrity.
If it's proven that the President of the United States
solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from foreignation,
he should be removed from office. Now I'm not naive
enough to think that there's even a single Democrat who cares.
(46:06):
We could literally have video of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs
handing Joe Biden bags of cash or three caret diamonds
or sports cars or watches, and that would not be
enough to move a single Democrat vote. But impeachment is
one remedy that's unquestionably there. In terms of criminal prosecution, Listen,
(46:29):
at some level, it doesn't matter because Merrick Garland, I think,
will never ever ever prosecute Joe Biden for the corruption
that right now the evidence is really growing and growing
on a daily basis. Merrick Garland sent his own integrity
up the river. And it's sad because the guy used
to be a respected federal judge and he's going to
(46:50):
go down in history, I believe, is the most partisan
attorney general in US history. Whether you could secute Hunter
and Joe for all of this China activity depends. You
can't prosecute it directly for something that has got exceeded
(47:10):
the statute of limitations. It is possible that DOJ could
take a page out of Fanny Willis, the Georgia prosecutor
is going after Trump and bring a RICO charge and
a RICO charge of a criminal enterprise. If you demonstrate
an ongoing RICO charge with conduct that falls within the
statute of limitations, you might still be able to focus
(47:32):
on it. But at a minimum, David Weiss, fulfilling his
job as protector in chief of Joe Biden, has given
a very strong legal shield to protect against any criminal
charges for bribery and corruption between the Bidens and communist China.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
It's going to be a campaign issue for sure in
this presidential It should be one yes, and it's certainly
one of the hacks and the media should be covering,
but they're not. So that's why you should share this
podcast wherever you can. If you're seeing the video, makes
you share that on social media. If you're listening to
the audio only version, make sure you share it hit
that follow button. If you're listening on Apple or subscriber
auto download, it's always free wherever you're listening to this podcast.
(48:14):
And on the days that we don't publish, we publish Monday,
Wednesday and Fridays, make sure you check out my podcast
as well. It's the Ben Ferguson Podcast, and I'll keep
you updated on the breaking news in the days in
between this podcast. We'll see you back here in a
couple of days.
Host
Ben Ferguson
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.