Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
🚨BIDEN BOMBSHELL LIVE COVERAGE: Comer Release of New Evidence
Recorded: May 10, 2023 Duration: 3:04:20Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion primarily revolves around allegations of corruption involving the Biden family, focusing on financial transactions with foreign entities during Joe Biden's vice presidency. The conversation highlights the complexity of these transactions, the potential influence peddling, and the implications for national security. Participants debate the legitimacy of these allegations, the role of media bias, and the broader issue of corruption in U.S. politics. The need for legislative solutions to prevent such issues in the future is emphasized.
Full Transcription
Like, I feel bad making fun of you right now, because I know you haven't slept.
It's alright, me on 10% is better than you on 100%, so go for it bro, try.
Alright bro, we need to teach you what finance means, so I can't make, I can't take a big jab because I'm actually inviting.
That was a shitty jab, I'm just inviting speakers.
That was just so good bro, I told you bro, me on 10%, you on 100%, you're not all about it.
Okay bro, alright, let me get the speakers in.
Vi har din barn Kim.com med oss, så vi har en som vil støtte deg i dag.
Ja, vi har ingen støtte, for vi kan støtte deg med 10%, eller 5%, men det er kult å ha Kim med oss.
Det var en ganske episk sted, å ha Peter Schiff på scenen. Det var en stund i stedet.
Ja, det var hyppig, det var hyppig. Det var veldig bra.
You did a great job, man. Well done moderating that space slam, man. I was just impressed.
Yeah, yeah. It's got to be done. You know, you're told at the last minute, short notice, you've got to go for it, and you just get up, you just do it.
It was epic.
The Tate way, bro. If you let the Tate way, you could get it done.
It was epic. Kim, what do you think of Andrew Tate?
Andrew Tate? Hvorom kommer det her?
Det er Slaymans beste venn.
Han har gavt meg myr respekt myr stort, også nært.
Hver gang vi startar en spesie,
så spør jeg Slayman for en nybundning om hans barn Tate.
Well, I told you that I think it would be fair for him to have bail and to defend himself against these charges that are coming.
You know, being a free man and working closely with this legal team, and I think that's what's happening now.
So, kudos.
I mean, Kim knows what it feels like when the establishment's after you.
All right, man. All right, suddenly now you're talkative and happy, huh?
Because this is something you know what the fuck you're talking about, finally.
A space where you know what to talk about.
Mays, good to have you.
We do have Jim as well.
Good morning to you.
Mr. Whitfield is here as well,
and of course, Kim's great, great friend,
Pjotr, is with us as well.
And everyone's waking up, so we're going to have a full panel shot.
Why?
Yeah.
By the way, now that you mentioned him, let's just be clear, he was wrong about fucking everything. Remember how he said bricks is not gonna happen, de-dollarization is not gonna happen, and look at the facts right now. I mean, that guy is incompetent.
Så, forstå om vi kan forstå hvorfor...
Denne morgen har bare begynt.
...hvorfor denne rassen av den dollar-reserv-karen er alltid på nivå.
Forstå om du kan forstå hvorfor brittene fungerer
når India og Kina ikke har noen legitime relasjon.
Forstå om du kan forstå hvorfor Russia...
Hvordan...
...og hvorfor mange lande slipper ut av noen relasjoner med Kina.
Har du...
Så, før du svarer, Kim,
So, man, can you just give us an idea of the space?
What we're going to talk about?
You did a whole tweet today about it.
Would love to get an idea.
I would love to get an overview, sorry for the audience.
Yes, sure, sure.
So, basically, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Cormer
is going to be holding a press conference.
It should be starting any minute now.
And essentially, what the press conference is about
is the Biden family finances issue.
Nå, det tror jeg at fokuset på presskonferens...
Vil du gå inn i detaljer, eller bare en liten overgående?
Ja, ja, bare en liten overgående.
SÃ¥, jeg vil ha noen detaljer, ja.
Presskonferens kommer i sted. Hvor lenge vil det gå på?
Vi kommer til å streama det, så snart det kommer.
Hvem kommer til å spela? Faktisk, Name, du har en god audio-setup.
Kan du komme på og streama det? Jeg forstod at...
La meg se om Justin er online.
Men Slime Man's audio-setup er shit. Det er vanskelig.
Vent, vent, hvordan vet du det? Hvor kommer du fra?
Du har sikkert rett.
Name...
Yeah, yeah, Mays, do you have a good audio setup?
Does anyone have a good audio setup for the stream?
I mean, usually it works well when I just put it up close to my laptop, I don't know.
Hold on, name is here. Name, are you there?
Can you hear me? Yeah.
Yeah, man, yeah, you've got your audio setup, you can play the stream on your end, is that possible?
Yeah, it's the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, the, uh, Jane.
Yeah, I'll send you, yeah, I'll send you the link now, yeah, I'll send you the link now.
I'm on it, I can play it.
Our beautiful man. Fuck yeah, lifesaver.
All right, Slamman, give us the overview.
And we've got Name Redacted himself playing it.
And it's good to have him on the panel as well.
Slamman, what else is there today?
Yeah, yeah. So for today, the press conference is going to be about
the Biden family network of companies
and the millions of dollars that they received from foreign nationals.
It's going to talk about why Cuomo wants detailed financial records
and he wants bank subpoenas.
And the findings, the thought is in the press conference, the findings are going to show Biden's attempt to conceal large financial transactions from foreign nationals.
And then he'll also announce future investigative actions related to the Biden family's financial activities.
Ja, jeg har laget en link i nesten med YouTube-livestreamen som kommer til å starte momenter.
Så, alle som ikke vil høre det på Spaces kan bare se det på YouTube og så sammenlå diskussionen etter.
Og hva vet vi så far? Andrew, jeg vet at du har beskrivet mange av disse fall.
Hva er de fakta vi vet så far? For det er jo klart at vi kommer til å finne ut mer i dag.
Bare for å gi kontekst for publikum.
Ja, jeg...
I guess I can now talk about the memo that has been released by the Oversight Committee,
because it's now after 9 a.m. here in Washington.
The committee teased a few days ago that there would be evidence of what
has been described as bribery.
That's not what's in here.
They also teased that it was linked somehow to a FBI tip
about former Vice President, now President Biden.
That's not mentioned in here either.
None of it.
There's not a single thing in this memorandum
that even mentions the allegations that have been floating around since last week.
There's just nothing.
What we have here in this memo is a bunch of lists of payments,
many of which have been previously reported and discussed by these same Republican House members.
Yes.
And then you now, they've now expanded what they're talking about to include work that, uh,
that Hunter and I believe James Biden did in Romania.
So Andrew, why are we seeing this happen now?
Is this to do with anything that's going on in Ukraine,
given the relationship that's on the right side with Hunter Biden?
Why is this happening now?
I mean, fuck if I know.
They have to show something.
They've been running this investigation for,
for over 100 days since Republicans took control of Congress.
They have promised bombshell evidence of multiple crimes.
Let me ask you a quick question, if you don't mind, Andrew.
Then I'll let you continue.
So I'll ask you a quick question, and that one goes to you, Sleiman.
So Sleiman, you've talked, and I'll probably be pushing back a bit here.
Are you asking me the question, or are you asking him the question?
I might ask Slayman this question, and then I want you to help me push back on Slayman.
So Slayman's narrative, Andrew, has always been about the establishment.
Okay, I don't deal in narratives. I don't deal and talk about the establishment.
If you have a fact-based question to ask me, ask me.
You know, it's...
Honestly, the one thing that exasperates me about these spaces, and I enjoy coming on here when I have time,
is that everyone talks about the narrative, the narrative, the narrative.
Well, you have facts and fact patterns, or you don't.
Andrew, what do we expect to come out of this then?
Is this a bit of a witch hunt because of what we're seeing going on elsewhere?
Is this just Republicans because they've taken back one of the forms of the legislation that this is?
trying to get something, or is it
nothing more than a witch hunt?
Well, the good thing is we will all
know about what it is.
Just watch the live stream.
As I've said many times...
I mean, you know what Andrew's saying is a bit ridiculous.
Like, let's be honest. When he says he doesn't
deal in narratives, he only deals in facts.
Like, that's not the case. You know when Andrew comes on, you know what his talking points are going to be, you know what narrative he's going to say.
It's going to be the Democrat position, it's going to be the liberal position.
But to argue and make it look like other people's state narratives and these days' facts is highly inaccurate.
Dude, shut the fuck up. Do you even know what I do for a living? Like, ugh.
Seriously.
I mean, I don't really care if you're wearing
on Twitter.
Don't invite me on here
and insult me.
I'm taking time out of my day
when I could be doing a lot of other
ting som er så viktig, og som jeg skulle bli betalt for å gjøre,
å komme her og snakke, og du slått meg.
Jeg har ingen annerledes.
Jeg mener, det er ikke en slått.
Jeg bare støtter ham tilbake på din idé
at andre mennesker står i narrativer, og du ikke.
Jeg mener, om du ikke vil bli støttet tilbake på en punkt,
så det er ok.
Men, Andrew,
selv om du slått inn og forlatt meg til å gjøre denne punkten,
jeg tror faktisk at det er en valid punkt.
Det er viktig å stå på fakten
Men den frågen som jeg har hatt, er ikke ...
Hvis du hører den frågen, tror jeg at du vil like det.
Fordi jeg styrer på narrativen på en måte.
Fordi jeg har snakket om hvordan alle har laget alle
allegaioner mot Trump som en politisk kvitthund.
Hvor i noen måter, denne case, denne case,
ser ut som en potentiell kvitthund eller politisk motivert.
Andre allegaioner er ikke alle politisk motiverte.
De er ikke alle en kvitthund.
But then when we see,
and then Sleiman always says,
the establishment,
and we talked about privately,
and I used to fight with him,
he's like,
the establishment is targeting Trump.
I know it's possible,
but it's just,
you can't know it for sure.
He's like, no man,
I know it for sure.
So then,
when we see what's happening now
with the Bidens,
well, we're seeing an investigation
into the Bidens.
So my question is,
does that,
you know,
Show flaws in the argument.
I wanted to ask Simon, I thought you'd help me debate him, Andrew,
since you went back and forth with him now, you might help me out.
But Simon, does that still support your narrative?
If the establishment is there targeting just Trump,
why would there be an investigation right now into the Bidens,
which we're covering and we're looking to?
I'll answer that, but they're about to start the press conference.
Oh, okay.
I just want to point out that it's not a witch hunt
unless you have a duck and a very large scale to weigh someone.
Well said. Alright, we'll start the stream. Name, you ready? You're muted, name redacted.
Yeah, I'm ready.
Alright, let's kick this off.
Thank you all for coming today. Since taking the gavel in January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability has accelerated its investment in the international business.
There's a huge echo on your own name. I don't know if you can fix it.
Slayman will have it ready as well if you can't fix it.
President Biden and his family's shady business deals that capitalize on Joe Biden's public office
and risk our country's national security.
This committee has a duty to ask questions and pursue the facts no matter where they take us.
Through the committee's investigation, we intend to provide transparency to the American people
and reach legislative solutions.
I only four months since obtaining subpoena authority, we have made astonishing progress.
Today, we'll talk about that progress.
First, we want to discuss information the committee has learned since our last press conference in November.
New information investigators have uncovered regarding the transfer of money from foreign entities to the Biden family.
Many of the wire payments occurred while Joe Biden was vice president.
and leading the United States' efforts in these countries.
First instance, while Vice President Biden was lecturing Romania on anti-corruption policies,
in reality he was a walking billboard for his son and family to collect money.
Hunter Biden and his associates capitalized on a lucrative financial relationship
with a Romanian national who was under investigation for,
and later convicted of, corruption in Romania.
The Bidens received over $1 million for the deal,
and 16 of the 17 payments to their associates' account
that funneled the Bidens' money occurred while Joe Biden was vice president.
In fact, the money stops flowing from the Romanian nationals
soon after Joe Biden leaves the vice presidency.
This is a pattern of influence peddling.
This appears separate from any payment Hunter received from his work connecting this entity.
We'll also provide further information regarding the Biden's relationship with China.
This includes two individuals the committee is particularly concerned about.
One of them, Yi Jinping, had close ties to the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party
and operated a multi-billion dollar energy company with access to large sums of money.
We'll discuss how the Bidens received millions of dollars from this individual through the use of shell companies and wire transfers.
In March, the committee released its first bank records memorandum that showed a Biden associate, Rob Walker,
used his company to funnel money from the Chinese to various Biden family members.
Democrats dismissed the evidence, even though it was based on bank records directly from the bank.
The Democrats...
on the oversight committee received the same records as the Republicans,
and they were able to verify the information.
Democrats said all the bank records showed were Papa John's and Starbucks receipts.
They deliberately chose to misconstrue and deny what was clearly in front of them.
Hunter Biden's representatives claimed the money was, quote,
good faith seed funds,
but could not explain why those funds had to go through an intermediary
in what appears to be an attempt to hide the transfers from the Chinese.
They also couldn't explain why the Bidens received over $1 million in 16 different wire transfers over a period of three months to at least five different banks.
The president, when confronted with this information, said it wasn't true.
Instead of being honest with the American people, President Biden has claimed since the 2020 election that his family has not received money from China.
That was a lie in 2020, and he continues to lie to the American people now.
The Bidens have received millions of dollars from China.
It is inconceivable that the president did not know it.
The White House refuses to correct the president's statements,
showing the president is now using the federal government to run interference for his families
and his own role in these schemes.
Now I want to say a few remarks about the developments last week.
A week ago I sent a subpoena to the FBI for a form that a whistleblower has alleged is in the FBI's possession.
We hope the FBI will be transparent and forthcoming, and provide the Oversight Committee with the 1023 form we have subpoenaed.
If they do, the committee will assess the form it has subpoenaed from the FBI, and has been my practice.
We will report to you only facts when they are verified and indisputable.
This committee will not pursue witch hunts or string the American people along for years with false promises of evidence that is beyond circumstantial evidence,
as Representative Adam Schiff and the Democrats did for years.
I trust the whistleblower.
A subpoena from this committee is a powerful tool that I do not take lightly.
The level of detail provided to Senator Grassley led me to conclude a subpoena was warranted, and I stand by that assessment.
I will say this.
When Senator Grassley approached me with the information the whistleblower provided,
it was because of the information we've learned through this committee's own investigation
that indicated to me the whistleblower's allegations are consistent with our independent findings.
Those findings are what I call you here today to discuss.
The committee has reviewed thousands of bank records from individuals and companies affiliated with the Bidens and their associates.
It has received these bank records pursuant to four subpoenas I've issued to different banks.
These were targeted and specific subpoenas, and each was different based on the information we believed the banks possessed.
Every one of those subpoenas returned valuable information that had been unreported,
and that contributed to this committee's understanding of how the Bidens conducted their businesses.
The committee is concerned by the complicated, suspicious network of over 20 companies.
We have identified the Bidens and their associates used to enrich themselves.
Most of these companies were limited liability companies formed during Joe Biden's vice-presidency.
Bank records show the Biden family, their associates and their companies received over 10 million dollars from foreign nationals and their companies.
Some of that money came from a Chinese company and went to Hunter Biden's company.
Other transfers occurred with the help of Rob Walker, who then sent it on to different Biden family members.
This is not how lawful businesses operate.
Chinese nationals affiliated with the Bidens created limited liability companies in the United States,
and then in a short period of time transferred their interest to a Chinese company that sent money to the Bidens.
This is not normal.
Hunter Biden and his associates courted business in countries that correlated directly with Joe Biden's work as vice president.
This is also not normal.
It is not ethical.
And this is why we need legislative solutions.
Thank you.
Our purpose here is to provide legislative solutions to prevent this unethical behavior from ever happening again.
This investigation is about investigating allegations of corruption and fraud at the highest levels of the federal government.
This should be a bipartisan issue.
This committee is considering legislation that would ensure these sorts of business practices do not continue for Democrats or Republicans.
Specifically, the committee is crafting legislative solutions aimed at deficiencies.
It is identified in ethics laws and disclosure laws for immediate family members of vice president and the president.
These deficiencies potentially place American national security and American interest at risk.
Additionally, the committee is considering legislation that would strengthen reporting requirements related to certain foreign transactions involving senior elected officials' family members.
Finally, the Committee is evaluating the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws to determine whether financial institutions have the available tools and support from federal agencies to thwart illegal money laundering and foreign corruption activity.
As I said, I'm very pleased with the progress the Committee is making in this investigation.
However, due to the information we're receiving,
releasing today and further developments the committee is aware of,
the investigation will enter a new phase now
that is armed with information attained in the bank records.
I will soon issue a new round of subpoenas to banks
for specific targeted information.
I will also provide one more opportunity for certain Biden associates,
including his art gallerists and Rob Walker,
to cooperate willingly with this investigation.
Finally, I'm publicly releasing the second bank accounts memorandum to the American people
so they can see for themselves the activities the Biden family is engaged in,
despite the president's statement to the contrary.
I want to thank the people and financial institutions that have cooperated with this investigation so far.
I also want to encourage more people to come forward
and let them know their information will be kept private and confidential.
To my Democrat colleagues, I want to say that this investigation will continue to move forward.
Do you want to continue covering up the Biden's influence peddling schemes when the evidence is being placed right in front of you?
With or without Democrat support, we will continue working to deliver the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people deserve.
I now turn to Andy Biggs, who will provide some information.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Comer.
We appreciate your leadership on this very, very significant issue
to the direction of this country,
and we appreciate your leadership,
and appreciate my colleagues who are here today,
and also the great staff that has done such incredible work
on behalf of this committee in reviewing these records
and helping us to obtain them. Thank you.
And thank you to...
Those of you who are here from the media today.
So when we talk about the Biden family and associates,
I think it's important for the American people to understand what we mean
when we're talking about these associates.
What are we really getting at?
First, they use them as vehicles to move money directly into Biden family accounts.
Why is that?
It's because they were looking to obfuscate and hide where the money was coming from.
For example, the Bidens used their associate Rob Walker to bring in millions of dollars from China and Romania.
Walker's limited liability company, Robinson Walker LLC, paid Hunter, James, Halley and others in the Biden network more than $2 million after foreign money hit his account.
One third to the Bidens. That was the pattern.
For example, on March 1st, 2017, only two months after Joe Biden left office,
Robinson Walker received a $3 million wire from State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese entity.
The next day, one-third of that money, $1,065,000, went to the bank account in Abu Dhabi of the company EEIG,
which was controlled by James Gilead, another Biden associate.
Over the next three months, Robinson Walker LLC sent 16 incremental payments
to over five different Biden accounts totaling $1,065,692.
This included payments to James Biden, who received five wires and over $50,000,
who did no discernible work to earn that money.
A third to Gilead, a third to the Bidens.
What was State Energy HK Limited?
That is a second class of Biden associates.
The people from whom the Bidens conducted business.
State Energy HK Limited was a company controlled by Yi Jiaming.
Yi was a Chinese billionaire who was reportedly the former deputy secretary general,
excuse me, deputy secretary council for an international outreach arm for the People's Liberation Army.
It's called the China Association for International Friendly Contact.
According to a US agency, that organization is a platform for deploying undercover intelligence gatherers.
Chairman Yi started an energy company called CEFC China.
Yi explained in a speech to the committee that the committee has obtained and translated into English that CEFC China's vision is very simple.
It is to obtain overseas resources and serve the national strategy.
Not US national strategy, Chinese national strategy.
And Chinese national strategy is Chinese Communist Party's strategy.
Yi was close to Chinese President Xi Jinping,
and welcomed at least one foreign president to Beijing with Yi.
The DOJ has referenced Yi and CEFC in a scheme bribing African leaders.
The other Chinese national I'll mention now is Gong Wendong, who did work for Yi in America.
When Yi needed to do business in America, he often looked at Gong Wendong.
The amount of money Yi was sending to Gong Wendong was staggering.
From June through August of 2017 alone, Yi transferred to Gong Wendong in America more than $130 million.
Yi met med Hunter Biden i februari 2017, og gav ham en diamant som var nødvendig verdt tons av tusen av dollar som gift.
I august 2017, Yi, tru Gangwon-dong, åpnet en business med Hunter,
og James Biden, som heter Hudson West 3, som er basert her i Washington DC.
Og Hunter ville få Joe Bidens køy til offis, og de kunne alle samarbeide i offis-spaset samtidig,
på grunn av en e-mail som var verifert av Washington Post.
But things didn't go as planned because the Chinese detained Yi in March of 2018 for fraud.
In an email to Gong Wendong and another associate, Hunter tried to explain away the last year of doing business together.
This is an email that has also been verified by the Washington Post.
Hunter wrote, and I quote,
I am not in a joint venture with CEFC. I'm not partners with CEFC, and I'm not employed nor funded by CEFC. Close quote.
But Hunter was funded by CEFC, as Ms. Mace will explain.
I'm extremely concerned about the president's connections to these individuals.
He was supposedly meant to share office space with,
and is denied knowing anything about these transactions and these business dealings,
and also is denied receiving any money for himself or his family from Chinese connections.
That has been proven to be a lie.
Now you're back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Next we have Ms. Mace.
Thank you, Chairman Comer, for your leadership.
In less than 100 days of subpoena power, this has been one of the most in-depth investigations
the House Oversight Committee has ever had in recent history.
And I would hope that the media here today would put as much attention and interest and focus on this
as they have a former president.
For years, the left has said, no one is above the law.
We'll put your money where your mouth is.
and prove that, because the American people do not trust the federal government, they don't trust Congress,
they don't even trust current presidents, because of the kind of possible and alleged corruption that we see at every level of government,
and no one is ever held to account.
I try to call the balls and strikes, regardless of whether or not you have an R or a D by your name,
I've been accused, all of us have been, over this particular issue, that we're conspiracy theorists, we're not.
What we're proving to you today is showing you actual bank records,
actual evidence of shell companies and businesses,
or more businesses and more Bidens involved that we knew of.
You have to issue more subpoenas because every time we turn over a rock,
There's more information, there's more possible corruption, there's more possible allegations that need to be investigated.
This is what we know today. Money flowed from the Chinese Communist Party, aligned with individuals into American shell companies,
and then that money was wired and transferred to Biden family members.
This could be the most corrupt scheme in American politics where a sitting vice president, where we saw members of his family, nine members so far, there may be more, that were enriched from countries all over the world.
And we're providing more information about Romania today. We know about China. We know that the president denied this during an election in 2020, continues to deny it to this day.
And we want everyone held accountable if they have...
They have violated their oath of office.
We shouldn't have folks that are in office that are betraying their oath of office.
We shouldn't have people in office that are betraying their country.
If they're paying loads of cash to their family members from adversaries of ours around the world, it's wrong.
Whether you have a Republican or a Democrat by your name.
And we saw evidence of intentionally taking steps to hide the sources of money coming directly from China through a series of financial gymnastics. Joe Biden's political career was winding down at the time, and this was one of the Biden family's last chances to cash in.
We have evidence of Chairman Yi Jingming, who is believed to be affiliated with Chinese Communist Party intelligence organizations,
and has even been accused of gathering intel for Communist China.
Yi started CEFC in China.
His agent in America, Gong Wendong, which Andy Biggs mentioned earlier,
formed CEFC Infrastructure Investment U.S. on May 11, 2017.
May 18th of 2017, Dong used one of his Chinese companies, Shang Huaxin, to fund CEFC infrastructure in an attempt to hide the source of the money.
And you see this pattern repeated over and over and over again.
On June 30, 2017, Shanghai Huoxin sent 10 million from China to CEFC Infrastructure.
Then on August 4, 2017, CEFC Infrastructure wired 100,000 directly to Hunter Biden's own corporation, Owasco PC.
Hunter's Owasco also received half a million from another entity affiliated with Yi State Energy HK Ltd.
State Energy HK appears to be part of Yi's personal slush fund that potentially commit bribery and launder money.
The Chinese Communist Party affiliated entities may have bought influence with the Bidens that they couldn't get otherwise, and obviously for good reason.
These alleged layering schemes are repetitive. They knew what they were doing, they knew how to do it, and they did it multiple times all over the world.
If it looks complicated and sounds complicated, it was intentionally made to be complicated so you could not follow the money.
What we're trying to do today is show you how to follow the money.
The Committee of Oversight, we need to pursue the Chinese relationship with the Serbian politician Zoran.
Vuk Jeremik, who first attempted to introduce Yi to the Bidens in 2015.
From August 2015 to June of 2016, State Energy HK paid Jeremik's company $3 million.
When Jeremik ran for UN Security General, who did he turn to?
It appears he turned to Hunter Biden.
On June 16, 2016, Jeremik wrote to Hunter asking if he could meet with the Vice President's
National Security Advisor Colin Kahl, related to the elections for UN Security General.
The meeting appears to have happened because on July 2nd, 2016,
Jeremy informed Hunter that my meeting with Colin did not last very long,
but it didn't go too bad, I think.
What is suboptimal is that the office of the vice president
seems to be outside the decision-making loop on the UN Security General elections issue.
These people didn't come to Hunter Biden because he understood world politics
or that he was experienced in it,
or that he understood chinese businesses they wanted him for the access his last name gave them
access to the chinese communist party they couldn't otherwise get in march of 2017 the same
chinese company that sent 3 million to vuk jeremy sent 3 million to one of biden's associates who
30%, as Annie Biggs mentioned, we see that repeated over and over again, siphoned off 30% or a million dollars to Hunter Biden, James Biden, Hallie Biden, why she would need that, and an unknown Biden bank account.
The committee has written to Vuk Jeremik and Rob Walker, but they have both refused to cooperate with the oversight committee.
The Biden family needs to answer for this, and the DOJ needs to get off its ass and investigate.
We've done the work for them so they can't screw it up now.
If any of these allegations are proven true, then someone with the last name Biden needs to be charged, prosecuted,
maybe spent a little time in prison to take to account and responsible for the actions they've taken today.
Also, as mentioned by the Chairman, I want to thank you.
The legislative priorities we have of our committee, this is not a witch hunt.
This is not a conspiracy theory.
If there are anti-corruption laws that need to be made stronger, we will also do that.
And I appreciate your time today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Representative Armstrong.
Thank you Chairman Comer, and thanks everybody for all the hard work.
One of the common responses we hear about this investigation is that it all happened after Joe Biden left office.
But that is not true.
I'm going to detail a specific set of payments made to members of the Biden family from Gabriel Popovich during Joe Biden's time as Vice President.
The committee has obtained the bank records for one of the companies of a close Biden associate, Rob Walker.
Walker used his company, Robinson Walker LLC, to receive money from foreign companies.
He then sent the money to various Bidens, including Hunter Biden, James Biden, Hallie Biden, and another Biden account.
Walker's LLC received 17 payments from Bladen Enterprises Limited.
The first payment was made in November of 2015, and the last payment happened in May of 2017.
16 of the 17 payments occurred while Joe Biden was vice president.
Bladen Enterprises is affiliated with Romanian businessman Gabriel Popovic.
Popovic is a Romanian businessman who at the time of these payments was subject of a high profile corruption investigation.
In fact, he was convicted of one such obstruction charge in 2016.
Popovich's company paid Walker LLC just over $3 million.
And like clockwork, Walker dispersed approximately $1 million of that money to the Bidens.
If that sounds familiar, it should.
It's essentially the same structure Walker and the Biden family had with the Chinese money.
A one-third cut.
Så hva var vicepresidentets dødseler som var relaterade med Romania på denne tider?
I maja 2014 besøkte vicepresident Biden Romania og forberedde en språk om korruption,
som sa at det kan representere en klar og present bekymring,
ikke bare til en nationens ekonomi, men også til sin verynationale sikkerhet.
And in September of 2015, Vice President Biden welcomed the Romanian president to the White House, and they spoke about anti-corruption policies.
Five weeks later, after the White House meeting, Rocker's company's bank accounts began receiving payments from Popovich's company.
Walker then sent a portion of each installment payment to Hunter Biden's business,
Awosco, and another company, EEIG,
which was owned by close Hunter Biden associate, James Gilliard.
Another Biden bank account that Hunter claims is his,
and in one case, $10,000 to Haley Biden.
Let's be clear. The $3 million sent to Rob Walker and dispersed to the Biden family appears completely separate and distinct from legal work performed by the law firm associated with Hunter Biden.
This is simply not how legal fees are paid.
I spent 10 years collecting legal fees.
Nobody would pay or receive payments this way.
It makes absolutely no sense.
And again, the structure is the same as the Chinese payments.
If it's for legal fees, why are the deals the same?
I fact, it's very hard to come up with any legitimate business reason to conduct transactions in this type of complex way.
Why would separate payments go to Hunter Biden's business and to himself individually?
Why would Walker transfer money from his business account to his personal account before distributing the money?
Why are other Biden family receiving any of these payments?
We need to understand more about this $3 million deal.
But it's clear that the pattern shows two separate foreign countries paid millions of dollars through Walker,
of which the Biden family received a one-third cut.
These payments, their timing, the complexity of the money transfer for transactions –
All warrant further investigation into a possible influencing peddling scheme.
This is simply not how legitimate business is conducted.
And the fact that Vice President Joe Biden was lecturing the Romanian people about corruption
while his family was being paid over a million dollars from a Romanian businessman
who was being prosecuted for corruption would be laughable if it wasn't so troubling.
A long time ago I had a client got stopped.
He had $50,000 in cash, 11 burner phones, and a bunch of pawn shop money tickets in his car.
And when he came to see me and I took him as a client, I said, you have a problem.
That is easy to understand.
Financial transactions amongst 17 different shell companies, banks all over the world, are complex.
We get it.
But the pattern is emerging, and there is no reason that legitimate business is ever conducted in this manner.
And with that...
Thank you, Representative Donald.
Next we have Representative Donald.
Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for being here, everybody.
A couple of things.
First, what we're seeing here, what we're witnessing with the Biden family,
frankly it's just a web of concealment, of deception.
A lot of people would say corruption.
But let's be very clear, you have this many companies involved,
this velocity of transactions, size of transactions.
Like my colleagues have said, this is not how normal businesses operate.
I had the ability with Chairman Comer and other members of the committee
to go over to the Treasury building and review documents.
Having read those documents, one thing became pretty crystal clear,
that there were many people who had serious questions about the transactions,
and about the velocity of these transactions,
and they either get very deep into concealment, hiding money, shifting money,
and for the purpose, we don't know, because one thing everybody in this room,
and the American people definitely know, is that the Biden family doesn't really have a business.
There is no business structure around this family, except politics.
And since Joe Biden has spent decades in the Senate, served eight years as vice president,
and is now president of the United States,
and the family's getting money from various countries and foreign businesses,
through various shell companies and this web of LLCs,
I mean, guys, you in the press, this is easy pickings. I'm giving you Pulitzer stuff here.
All you have to do is literally look at our memo and see the level of detail upon which they have created this.
And it's very, very frustrating.
We have now been able to clearly see that the Biden's associates, like Rob Walker, Eric Sherman, has been discussed,
created at least 16 companies while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States.
16 companies created while he was vice president.
Now the list is 20, and as we continue our investigation, that list is growing.
And like I said before, the question is, to serve what purpose?
And the purpose of all these companies being created is to conceal money that the Biden family has been gaining
because Joe Biden has been sitting at the upper echelon of our politics for almost five decades.
That is the entire purpose here.
Here's an example of what I mean. You have Rosemont Seneca Partners, Rosemont Seneca Advisors, Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, RSP Holdings, RSTP2 Alpha, RSTP2 Bravo, Rosemont Seneca Thornton, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, I want to make sure I pronounce it right, Bohai, B-O-H-A-I.
And the list goes on and on. Cycling through this many companies serves no legitimate purpose.
And as somebody who actually worked in banking, I did that long before I came here,
Whenever there was like this many companies just laying all over the place,
and you see wire transfers and cashier checks over here,
going to random members of the family for no apparent purpose,
at the size and velocity at which all of this was being conducted,
the only logical conclusion of a financial professional is,
you are concealing money.
Let me restate this.
You are concealing money from either the IRS,
or from credit agencies,
or from other people in general.
That's the only reason you set up a structure like this.
Some of these companies were connected to Hunter's personal professional company,
Oswego, or Skinny Atlas, Scale Atlas,
however you want to pronounce it.
And the list goes on and on, and Mr. Biggs, he talked about Hudson West 3, and some of those other issues that were going on as well.
One thing I want to make sure is that all of this has happened, and Joe Biden is aware.
Nobody in this room can logically sit here and say that the President of the United States had no idea that these companies were being formed while he was Vice President of the United States.
And I will add to you, he was probably in better mental shape then than he is today.
You know, I'll throw that out there.
And so what this committee is going to continue to do is pursue this investigation.
We are going to continue to document, and we're going to provide that information to all of you in the press.
So to help you, and frankly, like Congressman May said, and probably help the DOJ along with their investigation.
One quick note, it's interesting that the Department of Justice has been investigating Hunter Biden for quite some time,
and we seem to just never really get anywhere.
And so I think that's also interesting as well. I wonder what's going on at the Department of Justice.
But that being said, the bottom line is, there is no real business here. None.
And let me also say this, because I know there are many in this room who wanted to go down all the various schemes
that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle accused the former president of.
Be very clear, the former president actually had a business, a very big business.
You could say it was his name, you could say it was his buildings, you could say it was wine, you could say it was branding, you could say it was the apprentice, but he had a very big and legitimate business, which everybody in this room clearly knows and understands and can point to, and say, ah, that's the thing, that thing over there.
Joe Biden has no business, except his position in politics.
And it is the requirement of this committee to investigate that.
We're going to continue to do that, and we're going to let the facts speak for themselves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll ask Representative Jordan.
Suspicious activity reports.
The key word in that phrase is the word suspicious.
There are 170 of those reports.
Many of them put together...
by the Treasury Department of our government in the Obama-Biden administration.
So 170 of those that the committee has reviewed,
thousands of pages of bank records the committee has reviewed,
and that has told us that there are now multiple, as Mr. Donalds just said,
multiple LLCs receiving money from foreign entities
and paying that money out to multiple members of the Biden family.
And the fundamental question is the one Byron just raised.
For what?
For what?
What did they do? What was the business? What service did they provide? What value did they add? What did they do to warrant receipt of the money? That is the fundamental question, and no one seems to have an answer to that fundamental question. But Mr. Comer, Chairman Comer, and the team, that's what we're looking into trying to get. And I would just say this, too. Why not just come clean?
Why not just be honest with us?
Why not tell us the truth?
But I would tell you this, I think it's a pattern with this administration.
They haven't been square with us, straight with us, straight with the American people about anything.
They tell us the border is secure.
We know it isn't.
They tell us our debt ceiling bill is going to hurt veterans.
No, it doesn't.
Joe Biden said during the campaign that the letter from 51 former Intel officials, when he used it in the debate, he portrayed it as if it was organic, and we now know, through another investigation that we're all working on, that in fact it was coordinated.
That letter from 51 former Intel officials was coordinated with the Biden campaign, so much so, the Biden campaign told Mike Morrell, here's the journalist, we want you to have the story to the letter to first.
Why not just be straight with us?
Why not come clean?
Why not tell us the truth?
Tell the American people the truth.
They deserve that from their government.
Again, the fundamental question is,
what did they do to warrant the receipt of millions and millions of dollars?
Why did Joe Biden's brother...
Why did Joe Biden's sister-in-law?
Why did Joe Biden's son?
Why did so many family members get the money?
What did they do to warrant receipt of that money?
That's the fundamental question.
Chairman Comer and the team have done great work,
and they're determined to get answers to those fundamental questions.
I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the staff for all the time pouring through these documents.
Now we would like to entertain questions, and I want to begin with the fourth largest newspaper in the state,
who I read somewhere was banned from the White House, but we'll start with the New York Post.
You're always welcome here.
Thank you.
I'd like to ask you two questions.
First about the investigative next steps,
and secondly about the FBI
informant file that you're receiving.
Regarding the next steps,
you've produced a significant amount
of information so far about
foreign incomes for the president's family.
No doubt there's going to be more to come,
But are you going to be able to prove the central thesis that President Biden was correctly involved with corruption without getting bank records for either President Biden, James Biden, Hunter Biden showing the transfer of money or the payments of expenses that President Biden should have picked up himself?
And secondly, on the FBI informant file, are you going to be able to provide us any more information today on gaps such as which country pertains to it?
Is there any evidence that President Biden is also making this?
Well, first of all, with respect to President Biden, I don't think anyone in America who's watching C-SPAN or any other network that's covering this would think that it's just a coincidence that nine Biden family members have received money.
for this influence peddling scheme.
I mean, what, as Representative Jordan and the other speakers said,
what business is there?
The media has always said two things.
First of all, many in the media have said that
no transactions happened while Joe Biden was vice president.
We've proven that wrong.
Joe Biden said during 2020 that his family never took any money from China.
Today we've proven that wrong, and you have it in your memorandum,
the bank transfers.
Så vi tror at presidenten har vært involverd i dette fra begynnelsen, selvfølgelig.
Vi kommer til å se.
Det vi har beskrivet i dag, og det vi er uppdatering med i dag, er fire banker.
Det resultatet fra fire banker.
Vi tror det er 12 banker.
So right now, you could say that we're in the beginning stages of this investigation, but many of you wrote, I read your stories, many of you wrote, not the New York Post, but many of you wrote that we would never get access to bank records because that's what the White House told you.
They said we would never have access to the Treasury because that's what the White House and Jeremy Raskin told you.
But we have the bank records. We're going to get more bank records.
We just got the bank records from going through the associates.
We knew there were people that were wiring money, that were accepting the initial payments from our adversaries around the world.
And then they were funneling the money to the Bidens through various LLCs.
So we got the bank records through the back door.
And we can tell you from the people that we're meeting with that were involved,
with many of the schemes,
that we're pretty confident
that the president was very knowledgeable
of what his family was doing.
You've seen pictures with these people.
You've seen meetings.
You've seen instances where the president
took his son on trips
during the last year of his vice presidency.
And every account prior to that, he said,
but none of those transactions happened
while he was vice president.
We just laid out that 16 of the 17 payments happened
to the Bidens from Romania occurred while Joe Biden was vice president.
The second question with respect to the FBI,
this is Senator Grassley's whistleblower.
I've reviewed the transcript.
We have given the FBI until noon today
to provide that document, that very specific document.
And we're going to let the ball be in the FBI's court,
and then Senator Grassley and I,
if the FBI for some reason does not comply today,
with our subpoena. Then Senator Grassley and I will discuss the next step.
Next question.
Mr. Chairman.
Yeah.
Mark Tapscott, the FOP guy.
There have been a number of scandals in our position.
The FOP guy was a brand-new person.
You just said that you were getting state of this,
but I wonder if you or the National College
have but listened to and scored in front of your subpoena.
Yeah, I mean, look, I think we've already provided, despite a few articles saying that this committee, first, I hate to be critical of the media, but I mean, a lot of you honestly deserve it. But with respect, you know, they said there was
This began in November. We had a press conference here.
And at that time, I think Associated Press and other outlets were saying that the laptop was rushing disinformation still at that point.
They were saying that these were conspiracy theories.
And they were saying that none of the money ever happened while Joe Biden was vice president.
We've dismissed all of that. We have evidence. That's something, again, I don't think a lot of you are used to with respect to congressional investigation.
We have evidence.
And you look at the congressional scandals of the past.
You look at Watergate and things like that.
The congressional committees didn't find out about the Watergate.
The press found out about it.
And instead of the press asking Joe Biden, when we disclosed a month ago,
that through the Robinson Walker account, three or four Biden family members received $1.3 million.
Somebody yelled out, what do you think about your family receiving money from China?
And he said, that's not true. And nobody pressed him again.
So I don't think the media is playing the same role that it used to play with respect to investigative reporting.
And it's been very difficult. We're fighting the Biden attorneys, we're fighting the DOJ, we're fighting the FBI, we're fighting a lot of the media.
And we're just trying to be transparent.
The White House said today that this was a political stunt. That's what little Ian Sam said.
This is a political stunt by Comer. A press conference? A political stunt?
We're actually giving you a memorandum with evidence.
So we're trying to be transparent. We're leading a credible investigation, as Ms. Mace said.
And I think that from a historical standpoint, we've never seen a presidential family receive these sums of money from adversaries around the world.
And we're just talking about a couple of countries today.
If you look at the countries that this family was influenced peddling in,
China's probably the most reputable country on the list, if that tells you anything.
So I think we're making a lot of progress in less than 100 days.
One difference between us and the work that the Senate did is we have subpoena power,
and we got the bank records, and we're going to get more bank records.
And we're going to have more whistleblowers come forward.
A few weeks, the last thing I'll say to answer the question,
we said, I mentioned whistleblowers a couple of weeks ago,
Jamie Raskin said there were no whistleblowers.
There are two whistleblowers that have come forward now.
One with the IRS and one with the DOJ.
Så, det er så.
It would be hard for me to believe that President, that Hunter Biden was so charismatic that he could convince foreign nationals to wire millions of dollars into not just his account, but eight of his family members account.
We believe that there was a return on the investment.
for the investment that these countries were wiring money to the various Biden family members?
And why were they, as Representative Donald said, why would you create all these companies?
I don't think a lot of people understand the complexity of these businesses.
If you're doing something legitimate, if you're providing something of value,
why not just get the payment directly from Biden?
the payer. Why do you have to
fund it through three or four different
bank accounts?
So that's what,
there's an odd pattern
that's developing here.
Well, we know that the president, the vice president, during the last year of the Obama administration traveled around the world.
He talked a lot about foreign aid in different countries, talked a lot about American policy, American assistance.
And these are part of the types of policies.
You look at some of the decisions that Joe Biden's made as president.
There are many decisions that we would make a strong argument that put China first and America last.
So these are the types of decisions, and we'll get into more of those later. Yes.
You mentioned a little bit about how, I'm trying to find all the numbers,
it got $10 million or more, is that what you're thinking?
So far.
So far. And of course the White House is...
to put this off, play this off as trying to downplay it,
what message would you have for the president?
If these were legitimate payment,
and those were legitimate businesses that your family created,
then I would assume you have invoices.
I would assume that you would have books and business models
and things like that to tell us what the businesses actually were.
And I think that's something, instead of just attacking us for having the audacity to investigate this,
and be as transparent as we can possibly be with the media,
then maybe he should answer questions as to what exactly his family did to receive this money,
and why so many of his family members received money.
I don't think that's normal behavior.
I don't think the person watching this on C-SPAN, who's struggling to work,
over 40 hours a week, pay their bills.
I don't think their family members get wires
from adversaries around the world.
So I think the American people understand that this stinks,
and I think they appreciate what we're doing here.
Last question.
Annie.
You said that there's a legislative purpose
to what we're doing here,
and that we want to do more.
Anyone sitting in the highest office in the family doesn't benefit from this kind of financial business dealings.
Former President Donald Trump is running for president again.
He has, him and his family have benefited,
Baldy was in office, since he's been in office, from a number of countries.
Are you investigating those business dealings as well?
We're going to look at everything when we get ready to introduce the legislation to ban influence peddling.
If you go back to Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy Carter, receiving money from Libya,
this has been a pattern for a long time.
Republicans and Democrats have both complained about presidents' families receiving money.
But the way that the Bidens have set this up, there's no business.
President Carter's brother got the money directly from Libya.
I've already reviewed that. And Joe Biden ironically was on the committee that investigated President Carter's brother when that took place.
The former President Trump's son-in-law had some business deals, right?
As Byron Donald said, we know what his businesses were.
I'm not saying whether I agreed with what he did or not, but I actually know what his businesses are.
What are the Biden businesses?
What business?
What we read in the press about, well, these were legitimate business deals that were done after Joe Biden was president.
That's not true.
These were set up when Joe Biden was vice president.
And what is the business, Annie?
What business are they in?
Can I follow up? In the latest press conference, you said that there were at least nine Biden family individuals who bought today.
The memo today means two, three. What are we going to learn about the other six? Who are the other six?
Well, since you asked, I will tell you.
Joe Biden's son, Joe Biden's brother, Joe Biden's brother's wife, Hunter Biden's girlfriend or Beau Biden's widow, however you want to write that, Hunter Biden's ex-wife.
Hunter Biden's current wife, and three children of the president's son and the president's brother.
So we're talking about a grandchild.
That's odd. Most people that work hard every day's grandchild doesn't get a wire.
from a foreign national or anything like that.
That'll conclude our question and answers.
We're accessible.
Feel free to come up to any member on the committee.
We'll answer any questions you have.
I want to thank Congressman Jordan for his work
that they're doing with respect to
the weaponization of the federal government.
And I'm sure that everyone will be available
to answer your questions today. Thank you.
Så, jeg vil säga en ting før dere går gjennom denne presskonferensen.
SÃ¥ snart denne presskonferensen startet,
så har Storbritannia annonsert kriminaltidninger mot representant George Santos,
og han er under arrest nå.
SÃ¥ det var en liten, du vet,
gjennomgå det du vil,
men jeg ville bare ta det ut der.
Det var det.
Så, det er klart at vi har hørt intervjuet.
Kim, jeg vil ha dine tanker på dette først.
Jeg så at du ikke har mikrofon, så glem det.
Ja, så det vi ser her er basicvis
en uttangling av finansielle transaksjoner.
Vi hadde et par uker tidligere,
basert på de første subpoena,
omkring en million dollar av fonds
som kommer fra ureiske nationals til Biden-familien.
And that number has now grown to 10 million dollars.
So the more LLCs, companies are discovered in this entanglement, the more subpoenas Cromer and his team will issue, and the bigger this amount will get.
Dette ser fortfarande bare en tipp av isberget.
Og også minns du, Coma kan bare subpensere US-bankrekord.
Jeg er sikker på at mange av disse samarbeidet skulle ha skett
gjennom urene entiteter i sikre jordanskaps, som Panama.
og så videre.
SÃ¥ det er ganske fortalende
at denne nivån
av fond som har blitt
receivt av Biden-familien er stigende.
Jurisdiktsfondene
hvor disse fondene kom fra,
Romania, Ukraina, Kina...
er alle lande i hvilke Biden som vicepresident hadt en ledig roll på fornlige politik.
Så, du vet, denne sammenhengen gjør det mindre og mindre sannsynlig at disse er legitime fonds.
Og den største spørsmålet som var kontinuerlig spørt på denne presskonferensen er hva var Biden-businessen?
What did they actually receive these monies for?
And what I also found quite interesting is that Hunter Biden had gone on the record saying he's never received money
funds from this Chinese entity where we now know he lied about that
and that that was not true and the evidence was provided by Comer and his team.
So I think this is becoming a real problem for the Biden family
because if they can't explain what these monies are for
or why they had this elaborate scheme of using dozens of shell companies and
money laundering vehicles to receive the funds into the Biden accounts,
I think you'll have a real problem, you know?
Takk skal du haf, men. Piotr, what's your initial thoughts?
Ja, just a couple of things, really.
I mean, to be honest, I look at this from a generalist perspective for one, so it's just really sad to see that we're still in this situation of, you know, so much polarization across the both parties and, you know, whether or not you agree that this is a witch hunt or there is some legitimate concerns here, which I, listening to some of it, I do have to say, the more I hear, the less I can hear.
unsettling it is
and given that we had Hunter Biden
actually speak to us and just the way he
acted with not wanting to be asked certain
questions or challenge certain things
he's not a
a great cup of tea, to be honest.
So yeah, and I think it's, you know,
unfortunately, it's this situation where,
you know, the more you're in power for, what, 50 plus years,
the more relationships you build up.
I mean, look at the Clintons.
So I definitely think it, you know,
more, you can, I'm trying to be objective here,
but maybe more investigation is warranted.
I don't know how much you can say
the relationships with China
or certain other countries are,
are founded, but I don't think there's anything unhealthy in principle
in being transparent and wanting to hold your elected officials to account.
So, yeah, I think the one statement that I took away the most
was when the lady who was speaking, I forget her name,
basically said, you know, we will do, you know,
in this case of both sides, Democrat or Republican,
and I think that's what you want, right?
You want both sides to be working together to hold
nepotism, corruption, whatever it is, to account.
So that's my initial thoughts.
Yeah, if there's anything else that comes to mind, I'll raise my hand.
I appreciate it. And just to get a bit of balance, go ahead, bro.
Ja, jeg skriver mye av det som Piotr sa.
Jeg tror ikke at transparanse er en dårlig ting.
Jeg tror at republikanerne er åpne mye av forståelser uten evidens til å oppnå de forståelsene.
Jeg tror at mange presidentielle familier har fått penger fra utenlandske entiteter i dekader.
I don't, I'm not saying it's right, but I don't know how you're going to stop that.
You can't just say, if you're a family member of a president, you can't make money in another country.
Uh...
I also think it's kind of hypocritical, obviously, given the Trump family and everything they've done.
Kushner, for example. I mean, I could go on and on about those.
But we'll see what happens. We'll see what comes out.
I'm not against an investigation. I think it's healthy.
But I think assumptions are being made kind of early.
I mean, the recipient of the money, though, that were a part of Biden's family were children.
Like, what business are they doing in these other countries?
Yeah, yeah, so I think that's a fair question.
But at the same time, they don't necessarily have to be doing business.
The money was transferred to a lawyer who then transferred it to these people.
That's not illegal. Yeah, it's odd, but...
Maybe he wanted to give his daughter a thousand dollars, and instead of him having it all transferred to himself, he told the lawyer to wire it here and wire it to my account.
I mean, that's possible.
So, I mean, you can't immediately jump to an assumption that a crime took place because his daughter got, what was it?
We're not talking about thousand dollars, Brian. We're talking about ten millions and counting.
Nei, men det er ikke det han gav til sin familie. Det jeg snakker om er den antall som ble tilverket til Halle.
Ja, jeg tror det er vanskelig, men det er ingen evidens av en krim vi har sett.
Inntil vi har evidens at noe har tatt sted som er vanskelig, tror jeg ikke det er fairt.
Hvis du får penger fra en business deal, kan du ha den pengeren sendt til hvem som helst du vil, ikke sant?
Problemet er at Hunter Biden har allerede gått på rekord og sa at han ikke har jobbet for noen av disse entiteter som har gjort betalingar til disse LSC-stater som enda med Biden-familien.
SÃ¥ han har allerede sagt at han ikke har tatt noen servis til dem, han har ikke jobbet for dem.
Ja, til pressen. Kan du si dette under ordning til noen?
He said that.
I'm going to counterbalance it against you just for the sake of argument,
but I mean, it isn't good that they do it in these rather convoluted methods, right?
I agree.
I agree.
Because if we're trying to accuse Trump of X or other sides, right?
I'm not saying I prefer one to the other,
but surely purely from an objective standpoint,
it's double standards, isn't it?
And that doesn't, I mean, we've had this situation in the UK before, right?
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown on the left side,
you've got the Conservatives doing all sorts of shit,
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, all this sort of stuff goes on.
And it's like, well, hang on a minute, if you're going to point the fingers,
just make sure your closets are in order, right?
That's all I'm saying.
You know, we might take, if I might jump in the rhyme real quick.
I agree that Hunter Biden is shady as hell.
I haven't seen anything, anything,
that links any of his actions
to the actions of Joe Biden as a politician.
Okay, Brian, let me ask you this real quick, Brian.
If Hunter Biden travels...
with his father to all these different countries,
and then out of those countries he is receiving payments
for unknown, undeclared services that he said he has never provided.
Isn't that a bit of a coincidence?
Well, I...
And then you've got to just look at his resume, too.
Let me just reply to that really fast.
Can I just reply?
Go ahead, Brian.
So, I mean...
I think that's shady.
But now, go back to Kushner, who was actually working for the White House,
traveling with Trump to Saudi Arabia,
and then getting a billion dollars from Middle Eastern countries for his failing business.
I mean, that is exponentially worse than what I see here.
So, Brian, listen, let's get a little bit better perspective.
By the way, I'm going to concede, and I think rightly so,
Whatever Jared Kushner got out of his connection with Donald Trump is obviously worth looking into, and we need to have transparency.
But the matter at hand is Joe Biden.
So we've got a guy who, James Comer rightly pointed out, doesn't have a business of any sort.
And by the way, the connection to Hunter, it's the freaking last name.
And Kim is right to bring out the fact.
that he's flying around with his dad.
By the way, suspiciously, in my opinion,
at the end of the vice presidency he had,
I mean, it's common for people in elected office
at the end of their tenure to start looking for work.
I've seen it dozens, hundreds of times.
You know, what we need is the ability to disclose this kind of stuff.
I mean, it is absolutely shady
that grandchildren are receiving money.
I'm just going to double down on that.
There are tax implications to that, by the way, too.
Let's not forget this.
And it was large sums of money.
But you're saying grandchildren.
It's really children,
because we haven't linked Joe Biden to any of his kids.
Listen, I don't care.
They are not adults.
Brian, and there are tax implications to that.
This is all purposeful.
There isn't, but there isn't.
If my lawyer received a million dollars for a business deal I did,
and I told that lawyer to send $10,000 to my son's bank account,
and the other $990,000 to mine, there's no tax implications to that.
There absolutely are, because it doesn't come through you.
So it would be a gift. It would be a gift tax.
Yeah, it's a gift tax.
But it's all trackable.
I got you, Brian, but here's the point I'm making.
It is a tax implication.
The reason I bring that up is not because whether I think that something criminal was done, that's possible,
but that's not my point.
My point is that it was purposeful.
It wasn't just to bless the young child.
Oh, we got this money.
No, it's about moving it around.
It's about figuring,
and when you have this kind of a network
that is developed,
on its face requires a response
and an investigation because,
and here's the basic problem,
and I'll leave with this and come back later,
but here's the basic problem.
The reason this is so frustrating and so concerning,
and on both sides of the aisle it happens.
I grant that.
I've seen it.
Men grunden til det er så frustrerende er fordi regjeringen er så stor i begynnelsen.
Bare tilbake til en exempel, Eisenhowers bekymring over militære industriekomplexet.
Det er frikende pengar.
Lyssna, jeg hadde til å gjøre utslåningsformer da jeg jobbet på Capitol Hill.
Jeg hatte dem. Jeg trodde de var dumme.
Jeg trodde ikke de utslånade nok, for den vanvarende personen.
Because you can go into ranges that don't give you clear information,
and I think that's purposeful, where we can say that we just closed,
but you can't really figure out what the heck is being disclosed.
The shady aspects of American government are set in stone
and must be dealt with because no one knows well enough why these people do what they do.
And when it's the Biden family, almost none of whom have any business experience in their lives,
are getting so much money, on its face it's corrupt.
Criminal? I don't know. We'll have to figure that out.
But corrupt? Absolutely, and without a doubt.
well well so i just want to talk about it sorry i just don't want to miss this opportunity to make
fun of uh the republicans uh so one thing i know you i know you you think this is a massive
revelation so go ahead yeah so uh i have to say i cannot imagine a better experience than using
the word witch hunt to republicans
This just sounds like a witch hunt.
This is the funniest thing.
There's no proof that ties him directly to it.
This is clearly something that we all know happens in government all the time.
And in reality, if Hunter Biden lied on the stand, put that guy in jail.
This has nothing to do with the President of the United States
taking money at the time that he was Vice President, doing anything.
And again, I promise you, if this was Donald Trump,
and by the way, his son-in-law who was actually in the government
just took how many billions from the Saudis?
I mean, can we just be honest that this would be considered like the biggest witch hunt and everybody would be saying the opposite?
This is the hard part about being a moderate in America right now.
Let me just add something.
The fundamental thing that we're talking about here, Danish, is that this does happen.
Okay, so no, we're not, we cannot, and we should not,
just say, gosh, this happens, and it would have been worse if it were Donald Trump.
No, it's bad everywhere.
This is what's hard about being a moderate,
is that I have to hear both sides cry wolf all the time.
Yeah, yeah, Danish, Danish, I don't care about both sides,
because even though I've worked in Republican circles,
the Republican Party is as corrupt and bankrupt as the Democrat Party.
I'm just setting that out on the table to say this.
Let me say this, Danish, Danish, this is a problem, right?
Now listen, we can get into what Andrew, the lawyer earlier said were narratives. Listen, we're human beings. We live in narrative. Narrative is everything about being human. Here's the problem. This is set in stone. This has built up.
så dårligt i dette landet og i landene rundt om i verden, det er mye dårligere.
Så jeg kommer ikke til å po-po dette og sier,
jeg kommer ikke til å gi Donald Trump en pass eller noen en pass,
men jeg kommer ikke til å po-po Joe Biden,
for det er problemet, vi po-po det,
on the political narrative.
And you, of all people, I'm surprised would say that,
because this is a problem.
I just think it's all stupid.
Why is no one sitting here and talking about Jared Kushner?
But Jim, I just have to say, again, you know me,
I don't give a shit about either side.
I think they're all corrupt, they're all crooks.
That's why it's so hard to be a moderate in this country anymore.
Because both sides will play witch hunt.
Both sides. I actually think that...
We have, though the biggest mistake we made was not getting President Trump as president, it's what we did to him in the first two years.
I actually am the first one to say that, but I will say, because I think it started this whole chain reaction.
But what we're talking about right now, if this same thing was Jared Kushner getting money, well he was in the administration, but another one of the family members in...
of Trump getting money,
and then sending that money to,
you know,
their kids,
I mean, we'd literally be like,
ugh,
like, are you kidding?
This is just a witch hunt.
And so,
all I'm trying to say is,
can we just look at ourselves in the mirror and say,
maybe,
maybe,
it's all broken,
and our Lord and Savior,
President Trump,
is not the person that was perfect,
and Biden,
by the way,
for the Democrats,
is not perfect either.
They're all fucking crooks.
Yeah.
Okay, but look, fair enough. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me just say this because this is important. There's just one element here that we're not talking about. There were a few whistleblowers that came to the surface, and not only to the Oversight Committee, but also the Judiciary Committee. But the last one was like a big one. This one was very credible. He was a senior supervisory special agent for the IRS.
He's claiming that in June of 2020
there was an FD-1023 form
that was filled out by an informant
that literally shows
or, I mean, it's basically saying
that there was a scheme
and there were bribes
for policy changes with foreign adversaries.
But that was covered up by the FBI.
So he subpoenaed Christopher Wray
not only to provide that document,
but to also testify.
And his deadline is noon today.
So we'll see how that goes.
But I think that that's one element
that we need to include in the conversation
if we're talking about it.
And what we also...
We know the Bidens have corruption in their family. We know the Trumps had corruption in their family. And as everyone said, you know, presidents back for decades, there's a lot of financial corruption going on. Do the investigations, arrest the criminals, no matter what part of the area is that simple. But what we really need to take from this conversation is that now we have.
The House GOP looking for bipartisan support to legislatively fix this problem, to come up with legislative solutions to prevent it from continuing to happen and happening in the future.
So that's what we really need to be looking at, is how do we make sure that this stops happening?
Because it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat.
The executive branch and legislative branch, we have members in our government at the highest levels that are corrupt and taking bribes from foreign nations, not just China.
And this is an issue that we need legislative solutions for.
So, well, and again...
To Mays' point, which is what I was going to make, that was point one, so that was a good call-out on that one, Mays.
But the second one I wanted to make is now we're up over a hundred suspicious activity reports
that were actually being suppressed within the Treasury Department.
So this is not like anything new. People were talking about this for a long time.
Patrick Ho of CEFC, he went to prison in 2019 to serve out a term as part of what's going on here
and what they've kind of outlined in that memo, which I have tweeted, by the way.
But at the end of the day, I would hope that they would investigate Jared Kushner.
I would suspect that they probably did, considering they were trying to get anything they could on Trump.
And so if it turns out that Jared Kushner was doing something illegal, I'm 100% behind prosecuting.
I have no problem with that. Never had a problem with that.
Just because I voted for Trump doesn't necessarily make him a golden god.
I want all of this corruption out of politics.
But I don't like when people try to divert the conversation to, well, what about this? What would happen if you think about this? I don't know. We're having a hearing today with a memo today outlining all of this information. They've uncovered far more LLCs than they once originally had back from March 16th, which both those memos are out there. And this does need to be pursued. This is unresolved.
obvious corruption, and I don't want to divert
the conversation because, well, what if Jared Kushner
won't then have that investigation? I have no problem
with that. Witch hunts is stupid, but this
is beyond nothing.
So, Trash, I think here's
the issue that people completely forget.
Because I agree with you. There needs to be legislative
procedures put in place
That specifically targeted the vice president and the presidency and their family members.
Because let's look historically.
Who is the only member of, like, the president of the United States, once they leave office, right, they have basically a salary for life.
Right?
Once you're president, you get salary for life.
And the reason why that happened is because Harry Truman, when he left office, he actually almost became broke.
Right?
And so companies were going at him to be like, hey, why don't you sign a deal with us and we'll pay you money?
And Harry Truman thought that was beneath the dignity of the presidency.
And so then they passed this law basically saying presidents have salary for life.
Right. Because I agree.
But both in the Biden and Trump and other administrations.
Right. There has been very credible evidence of just treason.
improper corruption, whatever the term we want to use,
related to family members.
So I think a legislative procedure is saying,
okay, hey, if you're an immediate family member
of the President of the United States,
and that could be defined,
You know, you cannot have dealings with foreign businesses, maybe you just have to stop because of the perception of corruption. But then there has to be like, okay, well, if you're going to do that, then you need to make sure that there's no reasons, and one of the ways is just like the president, right? So I agree with that, but I think that when we throw this term corruption, like China, with...
Because that's the whole thing.
China, China, China, China, right?
Because corruption is you get money,
and then generally, at least from a public policy point of view,
is you do something, a quid pro quo.
I give you money, you do something for me.
Okay.
President Biden on China has actually been fairly...
fairly consistent on Trump's policy
on China, and if anything,
more aggressive. I mean, President
Biden was the first president, let's not
forget to say multiple times
where we had multiple spaces about this,
saying that if China invades Taiwan, we
are militarily intervening, right?
Biden-administration is giving more and more weapons to Taiwan.
They have been very tough on China.
They continued a lot of the policy.
And so when we throw corruption out there,
I think there's an issue that people forget.
Like, receiving money from foreign companies
while you're not in office,
like if you're a family member of a politician,
is not illegal.
I hate to break it to you. It's not. We can have the debate if it should be illegal, but it's not.
That's why people throw the Trumps. That's why people can throw Nancy Pelosi. You can throw anybody. It's not illegal.
Now, if you want to make laws that make it illegal, then do it.
All source. All source. What happened to the tariffs and those similar provisions that Trump put in place?
So the...
Yeah, they were removed.
You're telling me...
Yeah, they were. They have been largely removed, not entirely.
No, no, exactly.
But here's the bigger problem, all sorts, but here's the bigger problem.
I just want to let you know.
When you have a situation where anyone receives millions of dollars,
their family or otherwise,
and they are a federal official, particularly, not exclusively,
but particularly those that have only ever served in governments,
and that money is flowing into their families.
Now listen, if there is an actual quid pro quo,
that's absolutely criminal.
It is unethical and should also have consequences to it
when that money is there, because human nature is such
that when you receive money under those auspices,
It absolutely, it's impossible for it not to cloud your judgment.
This is why we ever thought about having people do disclosure forms in government,
because of this very thing.
So yeah, you may be able to say,
oh yeah, well no, he's got Trump's policies the same, whatever, okay, I get it,
and maybe it's not as bad, who knows.
I would argue it is, but maybe it's not.
The fact is he got all this money.
The fact is his son was flying with him all over the world on government aircraft,
to talk to people where he ended up ultimately taking money from them.
That is something that cannot be denied.
No, and I, look, you're not going to, look, I'm the first one to say,
I don't care which part, I agree that there's issues with,
there's a giant glaring loophole, children of former presidents
taking advantage of the name to make a substantial amount of money.
Like, let's not...
No, but we're talking in office.
Yeah, exactly. No, no, no, no, no.
I'm, I'm, yes, yes.
Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner,
you know, Donald Jr.,
Eric Trump, like,
Hunter Biden, I don't care!
There is a glaring gap
and hole of,
because when we're talking about the President and the Vice
President of the United States,
we do not...
analyser så myndig familjen som vi trodde.
Jeg tror det bør være en stor fokus
på barns presidens og vicepresidens
pga. forståelse.
Nå, jeg har tittat på det,
selv om noen terrorister for East Jim,
det er fortfarande 350 biljoner dollar
av kinesiske kunder som fortfarande har terrorister.
Min argument var basicvis å si at...
fordi jeg tror ikke...
This whole like, oh, he received money from China.
I know the perception, but like, I was actually pretty surprised of how hawkish Biden is on this whole China thing.
And to throw that.
OK, let's take a non-monetary benefit that you received.
The Anchorage situation.
Where you had Tony Blinken going up there and just being waylaid by Chinese officials.
It was played up all over the world.
You think that's not a benefit to China?
And this is the point.
A direct quid pro quo monetary benefit is not the only concern here.
It's a general tenor of policy, and Joe Biden has absolutely changed his tenor with China in ways that Donald Trump didn't.
And the reality is that whatever degree you can find, which you just proved my point, by the way, but whatever degree you can find...
The reality is when that much money flows through your family, precisely in the manner that it did with Joe Biden,
you have corruption that you must aggressively investigate and take every action possible to deal with.
Because if we're going to go around and say Trump, Trump, Trump on this one, just like if you were to do the opposite where it relates to Trump,
then you're never going to get to solve the problem.
It's just semantics.
And we've got to change from semantics to action.
This is far more severe than just Trump or Biden.
It is throughout the government.
I've seen it.
I have seen congressmen who did not have a job
scared to death when they lost their primary.
I mean, talking to me about it,
scared about what they were going to do next
because they hadn't maybe built up some other reputation.
Most congressmen don't have that fear
because they've already worked it out with lobbyists
to make multiple six-figure incomes.
This is a deep, wide, and broad problem,
and if we don't handle it at the Biden level,
then we'll never handle it at all.
But that's the point.
Let me just bring in Tony.
Tony, go for it.
Yeah, I got to bounce real quick, but I want to push back on Jim when he said poo-poo and all this seriousness about the Bidens. Jim, I was in the room when you were saying all the 34 felony counts on business transactions where they had evidence of it and they presented it to a grand jury and they indicted Donald Trump on 34 counts. You were like, oh, it's all political. Everyone knows it's political. Oh, it's political this, political that. It's all nonsense.
We don't need to go down this road, blah, blah.
It's because he's running a campaign.
Well, guess what, Jim?
We can all say the same stupid shit on the same side
about what James Comer did this morning
on his research that he did on the internet
where he's trying to bang up the Biden campaign.
So it's all election interference, right, Jim?
Just admit it.
Okay, so which one's worse, Tony?
Just admit it.
Biden or Trump?
On the specific matters we're talking about today
and the one you brought up,
which one has much greater consequences?
Which has greater consequences, Tony?
Which one?
Go ahead and admit to it one way or the other, since we're being bipartisan here, and we're being honest and truthful.
You're saying 34 criminal felony counts in the Manhattan DA's office, where they presented evidence, real evidence of crimes, real evidence of crimes to a grand jury, and a grand jury indicted him on 34 felony accounts.
You're saying that's not severe?
Yes, compared to this, yes. It is important. I'll give it important.
That's not what you said.
Because the fact is, Jim, you present yourself in one way in one week, and then another way in another week.
Have the same energy.
All right.
Have the same energy.
Tony, Tony, commit to something for me.
Is millions of dollars going into Hunter Biden's family a concern to you or not?
And I'll leave it at that.
So where was your concern and where was your energy weeks ago when we were talking millions of dollars?
Of course you're not interested in answering my question.
I mean, I'm interested in seeing James Covern's non-evidence because he presented no evidence this morning that ties Joe Biden to nothing.
That's what you don't understand. That's what you people keep poo-pooing every single time.
It's every time you're presented with real evidence, real evidence, where a grand jury, a grand jury voted to indict your former Mussolini Jesus,
the guy who's going to be the Republican nominee without anyone challenging him virtually.
Okay, I can't take this seriously.
If you keep pooing it, your word is not mine.
So if you're talking about
misfiling a business expense
versus receiving millions
of dollars and then it funneling through
your children, including a young child,
upwards of 23 million dollars
from Chinese energy companies.
We have to go back to the Kushner thing.
Have the same energy. And I know you
said earlier. What energy? I'm going over
what's being presented. Investigate him and put him in prison
and blah, blah, blah. You're saying there's no evidence.
What we're saying and what everyone on the left
has been saying is investigate
Biden. Investigate
Hunter Biden. Do it. Do it. Bring the
evidence and you don't, they don't have it.
It is here. If you'd like to take a look at it,
So it's actually all attached in the memo, which if you'd like to go take a look, I did tweet it.
What evidence do they have of any crime that Joe Biden committed?
They pulled it from the Treasury Department. It is known that it's connected.
These deals were made on Air Force Two flying to various countries with Joe Biden in that plane and Hunter Biden on that plane.
So they have evidence, actual evidence.
Yes.
that they can present before a grand jury.
Is that what you're saying?
It is. Go take a look.
It's all in that memo.
It's all right there, Tony.
So you're saying there is a prosecutor somewhere in this country
that is willing to make sure that they scour the evidence
and present it to a grand jury.
No, there's definitely not.
This DOJ, this is going to be referred to the Department of Justice.
See, and there you go again.
There you go again.
The same poo-pooing.
It's not poo-pooing.
This is how it works.
The same shit.
Bring the same energy.
The same energy.
Bring the same energy.
You can't say on one hand that the DOJ is corrupt on this hand,
but on this hand it's the completely opposite of the corruption on this.
Tony.
Okay, I'll help you out.
So this is how it works.
So you have a committee.
Okay.
and you present this evidence, and then there's a
criminal referral sent to the DOJ.
The DOJ has a responsibility
to take up that case if they should see fit.
By the way, the DOJ isn't vetting.
Yeah, we know what criminal referrals are.
But the DOJ is...
Here's what I want to say, because I really gotta go,
and I like being in these meetings,
and I like...
This is not working.
Tony, wait.
Let Tony finish, guys.
Let Tony finish, because
I'm almost done. I like to come in this room and throw fireballs. It's fun.
Especially at Zim. Jim, you're easy there.
It's easy to pick apart what you got because you just make it difficult on yourself,
and you guys lose the plot every single time.
I never have to worry because of how stupid you look when you do it.
But here's the thing. Here's the thing.
Is that...
Today is the day that James Comer decided to do this little press conference of his non-evidence, of his little transactions he found on the internet.
But here's the thing, is that this morning, a Republican congressman who they needed the vote to get Kevin McCarthy to be the Speaker of the House...
is indicted on 13 counts.
No mention of that.
I don't even know where James Comer was at on that.
And the other thing, too, is this comes the day after,
and I'm going to use these words, and it's going to piss you off,
Donald Trump was found guilty of sexual assault.
This is all politics.
Just like Jim said, it's all politics, all political.
Why wouldn't it be?
It's because Joe Biden is running for president.
Donald Trump's running for president.
That's politics.
And we're going to play politics here.
So get used to it, folks.
Strap in.
Put the seatbelt on.
We're going to take the seatbelt off.
the rollercoaster ride, and it's going to be fun
over the next 18 months. Before you go, Tony,
real quick, just so you know, the DOJ
was supposed to be rolling out charges against Hunter
Biden on Monday. It was actually postponed
until they had this conference.
So there actually is criminal charges
coming. Yeah, sure.
And I don't think
the DOJ should hold back.
So, I mean, that's the difference between what the narratives are in this country, is that Republicans and MAGA do not want Donald Trump or anyone close to Donald Trump having any accountability for anything.
It doesn't matter what it is, it's all political, it's all fake, it's all bullshit.
But when we say on our side, put Hunter Biden in jail if he committed crimes, do it, then, oh, well...
And Tony, you're losing the plot again.
It's very coincidental as well that back in December 22nd of 2022
is when they set the trial date for the rape case,
and then that's also when the House Oversight Committee
begins sending out subpoenas for this investigation,
and then the day after Trump is found liable for sexually assaulting someone
in battery and defamation,
then they come out and have their bombshell release.
Yes.
Exactly. I mean, it is all politics. And for anyone to not realize that, of course, it's politics. Trump was president. Biden is president. Trump's trying to be president again so he can stave off federal indictments by pardoning himself. We all know that.
We all know it's coming.
We all know it's coming.
We all know we're going to make politics out of it.
That's the whole point.
That's the whole point of politics and elections.
What don't you understand about it?
And yes, is there going to be narrative swarm?
Sure.
And I think Jim Comer and really...
Get out of fucking town.
And here's the thing, is that we're going to play politics over the next 18 months,
and Jim, I hope you come in these rooms more and more,
because man, I can't wait to come back in here and talk to you, man.
Yeah, I love talking to you too. You sound stupid, but here's my question.
I would like to put this bet on you.
Can we put Joe Biden through?
Jim, I don't think you can hear me, so let me know, and then I can drop you down and bring you back up.
Okay.
Kim, you got your hand up. Go ahead, bro.
Yeah, I don't know where you find these people, man.
These spaces are becoming less and less sophisticated, full with people that just spew their political views.
We've heard evidence of, you know, serious allegations of corruption against the sitting president,
and this room is turning into a farce by, you know, people on the left,
There is no evidence of that, Ken.
What is the evidence?
And you should not interrupt me because I let you speak your mumbo-jumbo
when it was your turn and now it's my turn, okay?
So there was significant evidence of money laundering
av å bruke
til å fundere pengar til Biden-familien
til å prøve å høyre
disse transaktioner
og faktet at disse fondene
kom fra ure entiteter
i hvilket Joe Biden
som vicepresident
hadde denne politikas direktionen.
Han var i handel
av disse lande
og det var der pengarna kom fra.
SÃ¥ det er signifike
evidens
evidence and serious allegations of corruption.
And anyone who's trying to downplay this is just not honest,
is turning this into a he did, she did, left and right stunt.
That is not what this is all about.
If you want to change and fix your country,
You need to pursue this kind of corruption on both sides, wherever it takes place, and not try and make excuses for the people that are robbing the American people and cheating the American voters.
Yeah, so I mean, I agree with you in that I think that we should definitely look into it. I think that the payments to his family members, yeah, I mean, they bring up questions, but by no means does it point to a crime, and it does not
It is not evidence of money laundering on its face.
Yeah, sure, if there was an underlying crime in which he was trying to conceal by shifting money all over the place,
then yes, that could be considered money laundering.
But just the fact that he had an attorney send money to his daughter and to his girlfriend,
that's not evidence of an underlying crime.
Brian, they were working with Chinese spies.
They were working with Chinese spies.
Yixuan Ming, Patrick Ho.
I mean, Hunter Biden represented Patrick Ho.
Patrick Ho arranged arms for the president.
Seriously, where is the money coming from?
This is a joke. This is a foreign influence scheme.
We're talking about national security.
You have no evidence of that.
This is juvenile sophistry, what you're talking about.
Trace the money back. Look at Quibono.
Look at who benefits.
What are the Bidens giving in exchange for all of this money?
And diamonds and all of this stuff coming from what?
Diamonds?
Good faith seed money? Come on.
I can't listen to this sophistry forever.
But just hold on one second.
We do have...
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
We do have...
Let content, guys.
Let content.
Hey, stop for just a second.
Stop for just a second.
We listened to the Russia hoax for four or five years.
You had a special counsel.
Do you drag...
Trump threw the mud for two and a half years over nonsense and allegations.
There were no real, I'm not telling you to talk about the Deutsche Bank nonsense, which was a lie.
There were no real bank records.
There was no foreign influence scheme to back this up.
So start asking serious questions.
People want to take you seriously.
Stop this game-saying on both sides.
And by the way, the same...
This is not a joke. This is national security.
And I've said my piece.
Now I get to listen to your sophistry, okay, Brian and Dr. Danish?
Thanks.
I love you too, Kyle.
Hold on one second. Does nobody admit and understand that Patrick Ho has been accused and convicted of bribing officials from multiple countries, including in Africa, to sell grenade launchers and Hunter Biden directly represented him? Not only that, Tony Bobulinski...
came forward with hard evidence.
He literally had like eight cell phones in his hand
saying Joe Biden is the big guy in these emails.
Joe Biden was receiving 10% of the funds
and the proceeds coming from the CEFC energy deal.
So wait, wait, wait.
Let me just push back on that
because if all those emails on the laptop are real,
which I think...
They probably are.
You're fucking kidding me.
You are still saying the emails may not be real, dude.
I mean, you've totally lost it.
I said I assume they are.
Kim, I say I assume they are.
There's a subsequent email about the big guy saying that the big guy vehemently, or I don't know the wording, turned it down and said he didn't want anything to do with it.
So you can use that whole big guy line, but if those emails are real, which I am assuming they are, then you just shot that argument in the foot.
Now you're explaining two totally different things.
We have to presume.
You're explaining two totally different things.
No, I'm not. Explain.
Let's go to Charles. Charles, go ahead, bro.
Do you want to respond?
If you have an email,
the one you're referencing, I believe,
was to a meeting that didn't want to take place,
but Tony Bobulinski was completely memory-holed,
completely blocked.
He wanted to come forward and do a press conference
and say, hey, listen, I have ultimate clearance on
I was involved in these deals.
I was involved in the arrangement of new companies for the CEFC deal.
I know Joe Biden was the big guy receiving 10% of those funds.
If you have an email in those records that you want to say,
hey, they said, you know, I vehemently, you know,
I'm coming out here and saying I am not the big guy.
I mean, share it with people.
This is the ultimate gaslighting.
We've had that email for years.
will not participate, or that he vehemently turned it down.
That wasn't the word that he used.
So if you're saying that, oh, this email proves that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden
are working together so that Joe Biden could profit,
then that subsequent email is...
is pushing that aside.
It's not just the email, you have a fact witness.
You have a fact witness that was there.
And I agree, I agree.
If Bobulinski is telling the truth, then that's a damning...
Well, he's given his truth to the FBI.
He has been...
Okay, what's most important here, besides all the speculation going on,
is that...
Hey, hello.
Hello, one second, guys.
Sorry, too many people talking.
Go ahead, Kim.
Kim, go ahead.
Bottom left.
Bobulinski har forverget sin evidens til FBI,
right after han har givet den nuvånlige tv-intervjun på Fox.
Han var en business insider som hadde forverkninger direkte med Joe Biden,
James Biden, Jim Biden og...
president. He's had meetings
with them, he disclosed
what the business scheme was
and the FBI interviewed
him and did absolutely
nothing about it.
And this isn't new. The Biden families have been doing this for decades.
Go back to Afghanistan and the $1.5 billion deal with the real estate and the building of housing
during the Iraq war with Jim Biden.
Go back to their credit business and all the regulations and legislation
Joe Biden was involved in, in credit bureaus and credit tracking.
I mean, it's the ultimate gaslighting to sit here and say the whataboutism of Trump and the Trump family.
There's a huge difference between Jared Kushner...
and his firm receiving a real estate investment
into a failing property in New York City
and paying...
Hunter Biden working directly with international...
Wait a minute, he was in the White House.
Kushner was working for the White House, making policy about the Middle East,
and then he gets out and Saudi Arabia sends him a billion dollars,
Qatar sends him a hundred million dollars, and the UAE sends him two hundred million dollars.
How is that any better?
It's not, this is missing the point.
Hold on, let's go for Jan.
Oh, sorry, Solomon.
Yeah, yeah, did you want to say something, miss?
Yes, I do.
I just feel like we're losing the importance of this right now.
I mean, this could be a national security risk.
Our sitting president is...
literally receiving not only him, but his whole family.
And the worst part that we can all agree upon
is that there was a major cover-up with all of the LLCs.
These were suspicious activity reports.
Even the banks recognized this as being suspicious.
and flag them.
And it's like, we're sitting here saying,
well, Trump did, you know what?
Who cares about Trump?
Hopefully they'll go investigate
whatever they need to investigate with Trump too.
But as we sit here and continue to ping pong back and forth
like it's a sport,
we're losing the importance of what happened, right?
So I would really like to keep focused on that.
This is something that's very...
It's a big deal, and I think that whatever we get from that 1023 form that actually shows that there was an informant that's showing that he was accepting bribes for policy changes, and this was suppressed in 2020, along with all of the laptop stuff that was suppressed in 2019.
I just want to keep focused on that. Go ahead, Kim.
Ja, du er absolutt riktig, og en pattern som jeg har notert hver gang vi har en seriøs diskussjon om regjering, korruption, Twitter-file, du kallar det,
anything that is going wrong, you have these disruptors come in here that are turning this into a shitshow and into a mud fight about left and right.
No one seems to be getting what's going on here. America is going down the drain.
These people are filling and lining their pockets with foreign money, and yet they're seriously...
Wait, wait, Kim. Kim, you're saying that we're coming in here to create a shitshow.
You're not even an American citizen. Why are you so concerned over this?
That has nothing to do with that.
I'm a concerned world citizen, and the US government is causing a lot of problems around the world.
Just look at their proxy war in Ukraine.
So I am concerned about the health of the world, and particularly...
potential World War 3 scenario that is unfolding right now with NATO,
maybe getting involved in a war with Russia.
Men det jeg sa er, Kim, du kommer hit og du sier at folk som meg er her for å forandre folk.
Jeg er her for å forklare ting, fordi de fleste folk her er på reit.
SÃ¥ du kommer hit og sier at jeg har en vanskelig ideologi,
eller at jeg prøver å forandre mitt land, når du ikke er engang en del av dette landet,
og vårt land egentlig vil ekstradisere deg, det finner jeg litt komisk.
Well, you may find this comical as much as you want.
One thing I can tell you is that I'm a man of facts
who learns a lot and reads a lot about what's going on.
And then when I hear you talking...
You can't just use the word facts.
Just let me finish.
Let me finish, please.
You love this.
Guys, let him finish.
Gjøtte, let him finish.
SÃ¥, you know, I do a lot of reading, and I do a lot of learning, and I look at evidence, I look at facts, and you are peddling in non-facts, you are peddling in opinions, and you come in here and make your opinions.
I just remind you that you discredited the Hunter Biden laptop just like everyone else in the mainstream media as Russian disinformation originally.
I never said that.
You did that.
I said it could be.
In this space, you did that.
I said it could be.
You said that the emails are forgeries.
I never said it was Russian disinformation.
No, you did.
You absolutely did.
Show me where I said that.
There were thousands of people in this space where you did that.
Sorry guys, you're both just fine. Let me just go to Dan, because I know he wants to respond and then you guys come back, because it's not... Go ahead, Dan. Dan, go ahead, just unmute your mic.
Yeah, unfortunately I can't hear anything Kim is saying. But what I really wanted to point out, what I think is important that we're really missing here, is that...
None of these accusations have gone to President Joe Biden himself. It's all about his family and dealings there. We know that there's problem, presidential corruption, but we do know for a fact that Donald Trump does himself have 34 felony charges against him, and he has himself been found guilty.
libel of sexual assault.
So now we're not talking about their families,
we're talking about the presidents.
And the biggest thing that we're all missing here
is we all know it's corrupt.
Again, what we need to be looking at
is legislative solutions to stop it
from happening in the future.
I want to see what the GOP commission has...
You know, as far as ideas for that.
And I'd like to hear your guys' ideas
on how do we stop this from continuing to happen
in presidential administration after presidential administration.
Oh, I would gladly take that.
Come on, let me take that, please.
I agree, Dan.
Like...
That's the whole issue, right? Because it's like, so let's, so Kramer, I think one of the issues when we got this press conference, like you can even hear it's like, oh, it's, it's, there was no, when we're saying there's no evidence, it's in the sense, at least in the press conference, because everybody throws up the emails and blah, blah, blah. And it's like, this was the moment, right? This was the time to present. It was like, oh, maybe, well, it's kind of hard to believe, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, right? But,
I agree. A million percent.
I think there should be a very special category for presidents and vice presidents,
and their direct family members should have to...
If you want to be president or vice president of the United States,
you as an individual and your immediate family member,
and the Congress can define at what area that ends, right,
should not have...
any business transactions
that might be improved, specifically
with foreign nationals. Like, that
could be banned. But then the
issue is, well, then how Congress,
right, just as we do with the president, like, okay, here's
the salary for life, is there a way
that you can do that for families? And by the
way, there should also be a conversation
so that way we don't run into the Clinton Foundation
issue, right, of saying
now that you're a former
president, former vice president, former
first or second family, you
Those types of dealings is permanent, but then, you know, congressman has to say, well, here's like a life, you know, salary, because let's be honest, I mean, being a first family or second family, a family of the president and vice president probably sucks.
I think we can all agree, it's not, you have the limelight, look at everything goes on, let's look at the Trumps, the Bidens, the Obamas, etc., etc., etc.
And so I think one of the ways we can do this is saying, okay, I think this needs to end.
I think there should be bipartisan support on this, but that there's a special category for presidents and vice presidents, family members,
where specific business transactions is specifically related to foreign nationals is banned for life.
So that way, if you become and come into office.
Like the only way you can make money is like a book deal and speaking tours.
And you know, that's fine, whatever.
But then you limit it to the United States so that you do not have this perception of foreign corruption
that then undermines the faith and confidence we have in our elected leaders.
And I think that's a fundamental issue.
And then that gets rid of the politicization of this whole debate.
I just want to go to Kyle, Dan I'll come to you next just to balance it out.
So Kyle, oh sorry it was Brian, I'll come to you next after I think.
So Kyle, I mean, I know we're talking about this, and now everybody's remembered that you want a bit of balance, you know, you've got to talk about the Rye, you've got to talk about some issues up in there.
But in reality, isn't this like a major issue? We've just been told that...
Prior to this, a few weeks ago, we were told that Biden was getting money from China and using shell corporations to basically hide the money.
We could blag everyone, but that's literally what he did.
And now we know that about Romania as well.
How huge is that, Kyle? Go ahead.
So a good exercise to do this is if you're a partisan person and you're immersed in this,
This world is just to pretend, you can either detach yourself from the parties and just look at a scheme,
and just forget that you're talking about a Republican or a Democrat, forget you're talking about a liberal or a conservative,
or you could just flip it and just say, well, what if this was Donald Trump, and we found this evidence about them,
if you're a person on the left, and you could flip it.
So, yeah.
Imagine if Donald Trump Jr., for example, had all of this evidence that he was working with the spy chief of China,
and he was a business relationship, and then boasted about having policy influence,
that he can make his father have any policy put into office that he wants.
And the spy chief of China was charged by the DOJ for foreign influence operations, like Africa, like was mentioned earlier,
And then we had all these millions of dollars in transactions. Donald Trump Jr. was getting diamonds, like, from Chinese influence operatives.
And you compile all this evidence up, and it's a very serious thing, you know, so people should stop dismissing it.
Okay, I'll throw that out. I just wanted, you know, I'll just throw that out there.
Ok, så, det er en allagasjon at Joe Biden ikke er alls med i dette.
Det er jo, det laptopet av Hunter Biden, og textmessager fra Hunter Biden,
som stort sett suggerir andre.
Bara med det Bobulinski-tittet som var nært tidig, omkring 10% for den store mannen,
det var en braggning i en 2019-text til Naomi om å gi hans far halvdagen av salariet i 30 år,
There was a business relationship that was brokered in the White House with White House logs that Hunter Biden arranged a business meeting with his father's staff in the White House in 2011.
So there is evidence.
There's bank records.
There are things that we need to look at.
There are concrete things.
This isn't just a stupid story.
press conference for political reasons
to distract the country from
the civil suit
for Donald Trump or whatever. We need to put all
that stuff aside and really focus one
issue at a time. We need to walk and chew
gum.
There are a lot of different stories out.
This is probably one of the bigger stories.
It's just been
It was dragged out for so long that we have a tendency to ignore the significance of each development because we've been hearing about the Hunter Biden laptop for a long time, for a couple of years.
But I would just say today is just the culmination. If that FBI file that they're looking for shows a bribery scheme.
Then I think that, you know, you're going to, whether you agree with it or not, there's probably going to be an impeachment.
I would say that there'd have to.
I'd say like, you know, just from the political point of view, Republican Party base, even independents will strongly want an impeachment.
And thank you.
Ja, så kan jeg bare forklare allsaur riktig snabbt?
Først og fremst, jeg er med, Kyle.
Jeg mener han er litt allsaur, men han heter allsaur også.
Allsaur, ja, unngående.
Ja, så først, Kyle, jeg er med.
Hvis det er evidens at en bribering-skammer spiller,
så absolutt, jeg tror han bør bli utforskt, men jeg har ikke sett det.
NÃ¥, allsaur...
I agree that we need some sort of regulations on family members, especially of presidents.
But I think it's just really difficult to do that.
For instance, say that my father was president of the United States, and I hated him.
Why should I be penalized? I'm an American citizen.
Why should I be penalized because he decided he won for president and win?
So I think that there's definitely...
issues that need to be considered,
I do think that at least,
at the very least, we should all,
we should, and I say we, I'm not actually
the president's son, but
politicians'
families should have
reporting requirements, and
revenue requirements and how they're bringing money in.
I think that all should be public.
So I think there's a happy medium there
that could actually be reached.
And I think that if anything comes from this Hunter Biden thing,
hopefully that's something that we do kind of agree on.
Building on what Sauer was saying as well, he hit an important point that we failed to really talk about. It's not just the executive branch. My opponent, Tom Cotton, for example, in 2014 when he was running for office, he took a million dollars from an Israeli PAC.
And why would they invest on some guy in Arkansas?
Well, he's voted since then to give them over $35 billion in funding.
And he's not the only legislator that they've been donating money to.
So there's so many foreign countries involving themselves in our legislative process to get their own agendas pushed.
And nobody's talking about things like that as well.
It's not just the president.
Yeah.
I just gotta say, listen to everything. Listen, first of all, Hunter and his father shared a checking account where bills were paid out of that checking account, so that's number one. Number two, the Biden family operates like the mob. You kick up to the boss. That's the way it always is.
But more importantly, Hunter Biden and the entire Biden family is a foreign intelligence dream to the agents out there.
How many prostitutes were probably foreign agents that Hunter was engaging in?
And the reality is that his name and the Biden family name had to come across RCIA chiefs desk multiple times,
the NSA chiefs desk multiple times.
And so what did RCIA,
are intelligence officials, the top intelligence officials, know about the Bidens.
I think that is a huge story that's not getting discussed,
because they were aware of what was going on.
There's zero doubt that foreign agents were targeting the Bidens,
there's zero doubt that we would know about it,
and there's zero doubt that the intelligence chiefs didn't know about it.
James Gellar called Hunter Biden the true cheek of Washington.
That's what he called him.
And just to go back to that point that was brought up before,
by Brian and the follow-up email
where he says how they denied it.
Again, that was conflating two different things.
So you were referencing a text message
that actually was presented by Tony Bompolizzi
that says,
Both James' lawyers and my chairman give an emphatic no.
I think we should all meet in Romania
on Tuesday next week.
Zhang will be there,
and so will be the completed agreement
if they stick to schedule.
That was related to
Tony Bobulinski wanted to be on the board of governance for Sinohawk, which they set up explicitly for the deal.
So it wasn't in relation to paying the big guy, as was said before.
And that's what happens here.
There's so much information we have on that laptop.
I mean, I...
Americans like me saw this two years ago, and it was...
Imagine going into a deep hole for the disgusting depravity you saw on this laptop,
not just in Hunter's personal life, seeing him on television, walking down D.C.,
knowing the disgusting depraved things that he did,
but then having Joe Biden get on a debate stage,
when he canvassed 50 former intel agencies like they've been doing to say oh this is another
russian propaganda campaign it's the ultimate gaslighting to the american people and we're just
so sick of listening to it so you need to be clear on these facts because they're super important this
is it's a big deal it involves national security and the sovereignty of the united states
Men kan jeg bare fråge en spørsmål, når vi pratar om Biden i Kina, specifikt på en politisk måte, specifikt, fordi jeg tror det har en implikation, det var en kort kvote pga. Hunter Biden, som aldri skulle få pengar til Kina, har det.
but when we're talking about like since biden was elected president what policies did he do that was
in the benefit of qi jinping because i'm i've been on spaces with kim arguing vigorously about tainan
taiwan biden is the first let me repeat this again biden is the first president that has broke
five decades of u.s policy of of ambiguity if we were going to go to the defense of taiwan
Biden broke that three times, blatantly stating, if China attacks Taiwan, we're going to war.
So I'm just trying to get specific policies that are beneficial to Xi, because almost the entire Biden policy for relations besides Russia-Ukraine has been very aggressive on China.
And unless somebody disagrees with me, I would love this debate.
Ja, bare kort, og jeg har til å gå.
Det første jeg vil se på i tanke på Kina er selvfølgelig den covid-polisjon.
De har aldrig holdt Kina tilgjengelig for det.
Tariffene ble lyftet.
Vi har tilgjengeligst W.H.O.
Den energi-polisen har restriktet olje- og gasexplorering her,
og brokering energi-dealer som er beneficielle til Kina,
som solarpaneler, rarerf-mineraler som kan bli krediteret,
til USA.
SÃ¥ det er politik.
Vi kan tilgjøre at Taiwan er en...
Jeg kan tilgjøre at det er en utløsning,
nesten.
Det er en stor politikindikasjon
som, forståeligvis,
ikke er favorabel til Kinas preferenser.
SÃ¥ jeg vil gi deg denne.
Men jeg tror i fallet av resten av politik,
det har vært
beneficiellt til Kina i mange fall.
Men Taiwan er en interessant
kontrafaktual til denne.
What about the LNG deals
With Rosemont Seneca
Has nobody seen the prospectuses in Chinese
Of all of the
assessments of LNG deposits across the United States,
all the discussions on building new infrastructure,
that Cuomo email, the Whitmer emails,
California Newsom's involved in this.
I mean, has nobody seen that prospectus?
But so I think there's,
because here's the interesting aspect, right?
So one, not all terrorists have been listed.
I just said it earlier,
almost 350 billion of Chinese terrorists were there
or still in place to this day against China.
Men når vi snakkar om energipolisi, som er separat, men jeg tror at mange mennesker forger det,
mange av det, inallås om det er USA-governmentet, og dette har vært noe som,
og noe, Biden-administrasjonen har fortsatt mange av de veldig aggressiva politikene
for å sikre at Kina ikke fortsätter, og dette er fra Trump,
jeg tror at folk forger det, men Trump-Biden-polisier som er relatert til Kina har mye mer liknande
then dissimilarities like it's it's basically a continuation of those policies because the
Biden administration specifically has been very aggressive of ensuring that China does not buy
foreign property or even in in critical infrastructure in the United States that can
international security specifically around U.S military installations National Security installations
Etc so I just
Like we can maybe onesies or twosies in the energy and the energy is always very interesting because that's a lot of private involved in the government does we don't have like a national oil company or tend to like a national oil policy per se is a lot of it's private driven we just give land and hope that oil companies do it.
Men en av de bipartisan aspektene av dette, og se på det anti-China-kommittet i Kongresset, det er trolig den mest bipartisan kommittet ute.
Men du argumenterer at pga. Biden-polisene ikke har forandrat så mye, det viser at han ikke er korruptet av China.
De meste av dette pengene var givet til Biden før han kom til president i USA.
Det er helt urelevant, det er en kjøp av influens.
Men den influensen ikke får deg noe.
That's one of my argument is ready because if it's a quid pro quo, where's the quote?
Where's the like? That's the thing.
Let's say if Joe Biden would come out and completely undermine our China policy with related to Taiwan.
OK, then we can have an argument. Wait a minute. Is this guy beholden to to China's influence?
I mean, I think the whole Russia gave one of his like, well, why is Trump always praising Putin?
Biden does not praise Xi Jinping.
And I think, and again, we have China and Taiwan policy debates in this space consistently.
And this is something with Mario that always comes back as like, wow, I'm like, if China invades Taiwan, I've always said it.
Like Biden has stated specifically, we will go to war.
Like it would be World War III at that point, or at least a major Pacific war.
Like.
Look at the amount of money, U.S. military deployment to Taiwan.
I mean, like, it's massive.
If you don't mind, I could quote really quickly Peter Schweitzer,
who's done far more research into this subject than pretty much anybody I know.
One thing that he argues, and I just want to quote him really quick.
When Biden came into office 18 months into it, he said,
It says that the United States has had a retreat by a thousand small steps when it comes to American policy towards China. Basically, you now have the administration saying that it's okay for Americans to own shares in companies that are blacklisted Chinese military-linked companies.
You have them get rid of the China Initiative as Department of Justice to crack down on Chinese acquisition of American technology.
You have them getting rid of tariffs on solar panels.
China, of course, produces 80% in the world.
You have them talking about getting rid of tariffs in general in China.
You can look at their treatment of the company Huawei and TikTok.
And he says he can go on and on.
The bottom line, the most stunning thing,
is all of those retreats by the Biden administration on China,
they received zero concessions in return.
These were all giveaways to Beijing.
So, I'm just giving you up his research and his perspective on it.
So, that's why I found your comment about Taiwan interesting.
It is a counterfactual.
Until the bullets fly, I don't know how serious we are about it.
I hope the bullets don't fly, obviously.
But, yeah.
Det er noe som vore viktig å se på, for det skulle være en av Kinas største politiske mål, å holde USA av å forvandle Taiwan.
Så jeg er med på det.
Karl, jeg er bare om å tweete noe.
Ber om du er med med mitt statement nå.
Jeg føler at i USA og andre land, hver en politisk part, en av deres kandidater som blir targett, de kaller det en kvittning.
Det hender allerede.
Problemet er at i noen fall er det politisk motivert, men det som skjer er at de kaller alt for en vitshund.
Noen mennesker, tror jeg, kaller denne Biden-taken en vitshund, andre kaller alle Trump-investigasjoner en vitshund.
Og listet går på, jeg tror det skjer under Clinton, etc.
Hvordan kan vi differensiere når det er en investisjon?
Hvor bør vi tro på det legale systemet, og hvornår er det politisk motivert?
You know, I think that's an interesting question.
I think that what you have to do is, you know, I just try to be...
As concrete as possible.
So if you could tune out all the noise and just, you know, list A, B, C, D, E, like fact pattern, like, you know, like, this isn't a lot of case what you see in the, you know, lawyers do this, right?
You look at the fact pattern and, you know, if you have bank records, you have White House logs, you have text, you have e-mails, right?
If you have something that you could put down on a table and say, this is indisputable, this is what it is, this is where it comes from, and almost like you're submitting evidence in a trial, right?
And it has to be accepted as evidence because it's valid and it's verified, right?
And then we can argue about it.
You know,
the thing about the witch hunt
is, you know,
all of this hyperbole,
you know, it's getting
just to be noise.
You know, so I think that when I write tweets or whatever, you know, sometimes I write opinion and it's clear opinion.
Other times you just want the facts that everybody can agree on, right?
You just want indisputable facts, X, Y, Z happened, you know.
So, you know, you can't call something a witch hunt if it's verified.
If it's verified, it's valid, it's not a witch hunt.
I'll expand my question.
I mean, also, at the same time, we know that...
Hold on, Dan.
This has been going on for a long time.
And you really honestly...
Dan, can you hear Mario talking?
No, no, it's okay.
He can't.
He can't.
I just brought him down and back up.
So my question to you, Carl, now, I'll ask Brian on the other side of the aisle the same question.
Then when should we trust an ecosystem?
When should we go through a legal process and just accept those decisions and...
For if we start poking holes at it, and start saying it's politically motivated, the legal system is flawed, it's corrupt, etc. By the way, Tim, you're having mic issues. There's just a lot of background noise on your end. Keeps unmuting. Just a heads up, maybe it's in your pocket.
Men just go back to the question, because what I'm seeing right now is on both sides of the aisle as well,
especially on the Republican side, because there's been a lot of targets towards Trump,
is that there's been constant attacks towards the US legal system.
And me and Islam went back and forth, because it is warranted in many cases.
We saw the Bragg investigation into Trump, for example, that seemed politically motivated.
But then if we keep hitting, if we keep criticizing the legal system and being corrupt,
and destroying the trust in the legal system.
I'm worried the outcome,
while the intention is positive,
like the intention is good,
it's being done with good intentions,
the outcome could be worse.
It could lead to something worse,
which is a breakdown of the legal system.
That's a concern that I'm seeing,
and again, it's being politicized more,
By both sides. What do you think, Karl and then Brian?
That's a valid concern, because, well, I think what happens is you have a domino effect, and you just have a retaliation.
It gets almost, you know what it reminds me of? International relations.
That's where it kind of gets, it reminds me of, where you have tit for tat, right?
So you have almost two sides that are divided in this country.
It's almost like it's not a unified country anymore, right?
We're getting into almost like an international relations, like anarchy situation, and people might be familiar with that, where you just have two sides in a dispute, and they're just tit-tat, tit-tat.
This can be a prelude to some kind of separation, or some kind of...
skism, I don't want to use the civil war term because God forbid, but this is what you see in a lot of countries, you know, like the ancient Greeks, it reminds me of stasis, where we can't talk to each other anymore, we don't talk the same language, we don't share the same values, we don't have the same trust in the institutions that we...
had faith to sort of, these are all, in political science, these are means short of war.
So the legal system is a means of settling disputes short of war.
Elections are a means of settling disputes short of war.
But they only work up to the point where they aren't weaponized by one side against the other.
And then people believe in these institutions as being the final arbiter of disputes. And then we all do what you said, like we throw up our hands like, well, you know, each side argued their case and we had due process. And, you know, that's the way that the outcome came. And we have to accept it.
But you're right, the way these institutions have been politically motivated prosecutions, regardless of the parties involved, can have a really dangerous ripple effect throughout our country.
And, you know, I live in Texas. Trust me, there's no shortage of Texas should just be its own country talk.
Yeah.
So I hope it doesn't come to that.
That's a common narrative in Texas now?
No, no, no, it's not common.
It's time to go.
They teach Texas history in the schools.
I'm just saying, it used to be its own country,
and they kind of played up and everything.
I'm not trying to suggest there's secession talk,
and God forbid, but...
You know, so basically, I think you're exactly right. You're spot on.
I worry about collapse of trust in our institutions, too, because elections, the legal system, the journalism, right?
Standard media, and I hope Twitter continues in the direction it's going.
You know, places like yours, a forum where we can argue and debate in hopefully productive ways, is a good way to try to at least...
å prøve å produktivt løpe disse institutsielle kriser.
Fordi vårt land vil falle bort om vi ikke forstyrrer disse institutsjoner.
Ja, så Brian, vi er i en stånd nå hvor om vi ikke agerer,
systemet er korrupt, jeg tror vi alle er i forståelse av at systemet er korrupt.
Hvor korrupt er det? Det er derfor vi er i forståelse.
Men om vi ikke agerer, og om folk ikke er vokale på de ulike formerne av korruption,
denne korruptionen kan bare bli dårligere.
Men samtidig, om vi er for våkale, og vi vet ikke hva som er korrupt eller ikke,
vi begynner å politisere narrativet.
Ok, systemet er korrupt, alle tror det er korrupt,
la meg bruke det på min vantagelse å forbedre mitt eget agenda.
Når det begynner å hende,
min spørsmål går til deg, samtidig som jeg spør Kyle,
den avkastning av systemet selv.
SÃ¥ intensen er god,
utgjortet blir mye dårligere enn status quo vi har i dag.
I mean, I think there's some truth in that a judge could be partial or slightly biased,
that a prosecutor could be biased.
I think that prosecutors, the way they prosecute in different areas,
definitely does differ, right?
But the American legal system is so strong,
and for the most part pretty damn fair,
because there's so many layers.
protection. First you have the prosecutor. A career prosecutor, they know the legal system.
Typically they're going to follow what the law says, and sure, they're going to have biases to some extent.
But after the prosecutor, you're going to have a judge, and judges are known to be impartial.
That doesn't mean every judge doesn't have their own biases.
And then you have a jury which both the defense, the prosecution, they get to select.
So I think that it's not fair to say that the American justice system is perfect, but it is fair to say that it is one of the most perfect on the planet.
And there's going to be people that are going to say that all these people are biased, and that's why Trump got indicted, and if he got convicted, it's going to be the jury and the judge's fault.
But overall, I don't think that is the case, and I also feel that the right is definitely leaning more in that direction right now, at least historically.
when it comes to politics
and people of power getting
indicted, then the left is.
I think the left leans more on that
when it comes to racial issues.
Like if an African-American
is prosecuted for something
or a cop is prosecuted for
the death of a leftist.
In terms of the left being...
Go ahead, Nicholas.
Multiple people on Trump's orbit were charged with FARA violations.
Now, here you have Hunter Biden and Biden family that aren't registered as foreign agents doing the same exact thing.
We have multiple Democrats that have done the same exact thing.
Not a single one has been charged with a FARA violation.
So to sit there and say that the judiciary hasn't been implicated, it isn't biased, is just completely false.
There's no laws...
had no evidence it came out that they literally it was embarrassing the prosecution they had he
was taking calls necessary to the incoming administration on what his job was do you
think judge emmett sullivan was a road prosecutor or was that a fair trial
Man, that was so long ago. Michael Flynn, he lied to the Vice President, so I think that that's bordering on treason if he's working in the administration and he's lying to the Vice President.
Judge Sullivan, I don't recall that case as well as I probably should.
But you called a three-star general a traitor to the United States.
Well, I mean, he also lied to the Vice President of the United States.
Så det gjør han en kreder?
Jeg vet ikke.
Hvornår sa jeg det?
6 år siden?
Kanskje jeg var en belasning.
Men jeg tror at
å løpe for presidenten
er på vei med
noen av de svåre ting
man kan gjøre som amerikansk kreder.
Right, but it came out that he didn't lie.
Not only did he not lie to the Vice President, but he didn't lie to the FBI either.
Wait, wait, he was fired for lying.
They fired him for lying.
de fyrte ham fordi han ikke utsplittet kallet, og Pence kvarte rådet som var
kommer til å bli, som var gått ned. Han var helt i forhold med FBI, han gav dem
all informasjon de kanskje kvarte. De har engang sagt i deres eget 302 at
han ikke tror at han er løs. Men folk kom ut og kallte denne mannen en tråd.
Föderal regeringen refuset å prosikere kvartet, og Judge Emmett Sullivan tog det på seg selv,
mye som Bragg, å gå ut og bli en råd prosikter. Så å sige at vi går ned en vei,
av people questioning the integrity of our institutions, particularly the judicial system.
We are so far beyond that. We are years and years beyond that.
People have been watching this since the Flynn case, since the Russia investigation,
watching all of this made-up nonsense on a daily basis on television,
and people like you just promulgating this and saying,
wow, these institutions have failed.
So I don't think it's a case of we're going there. I think we're already there.
I can also remind you that Flynn also pled guilty to lying to federal agents as well.
So, I mean, you have that as well.
At the behest of representation that was not in his best interest once he changed representation.
But you have all these excuses.
Let's be honest.
He's really making his own decisions.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
I don't want to derail, I just had that one question.
Yeah, I mean, it's not that relevant to the point.
So basically, Brian, coming back to your point
about the judiciary,
I know you're saying it's almost perfect.
The problem is, it's clearly not.
And if you look at the argument
from both sides, they both say it's not,
but they just disagree on what.
So, for example, as you said, the left say
It's not fair based on certain racial indicators,
maybe certain feminist ideas, whatever it may be,
but there is not a fair judicial system.
And then similarly, people on the right are saying
that basically the judiciary is there to attack the right
and to attack the conservatives,
and essentially we saw that in the Trump case.
So when you put that together, it's quite clear,
like not clear, but from their perspectives alone,
You put that together and it seems like there's highly,
there's significant issues when it comes to the judiciary.
Alright, so Salman, that was a silly, broad, vague comment
while you suck up to Kim, I swear.
That was just such a vague comment.
The left say there's these cultural, ethnical reasons
that it's not perfect, but everyone says it's perfect,
but it's not perfect.
And then the right say it's targeting the right,
because...
points A, B, C, and it's not perfect.
Yes, both sides agree it's not perfect.
Brian didn't say it's perfect.
Anyone that says it's perfect is an idiot.
It's far from perfect.
It's far from perfect.
It's definitely biased.
It's definitely imperfect.
He said it's one of the best in the world.
But I don't know if it is.
But if you have...
Det kan være bedre, men det er bedre enn...
GÃ¥ inn Kim.
I Suleymanes defence, den eneste som suttar på meg er du Mario.
Du sender meg messages og beger meg å komme på dine steder.
Slutt det.
La meg se, la meg se.
Holda, la meg se begingen.
La meg lese ut.
Nei, nei, nei.
Han vil teste meg ut.
La oss se, la oss se.
Han stikker på for deg fordi du suttet på for ham.
Dette er Kims strategi.
Du suttet på Sig, du suttet på Kim, og så har du Kims backing.
Kim har god språk.
La oss gå inn.
Are you doing a space about the coma release of new evidence against Biden at 9am?
I'm like, hey, hey, hey, let me check, because I had no idea that was today.
And then I'm like, yeah, I am.
I'm like, cool.
Love you, Mario.
I'm like, yeah, love you too, Kim.
Hold on, let me continue reading the message.
I get a message.
Love you, Mario.
And then love you too, Kim.
Have a good night.
You too, Mario.
Love you, my nervous.
I had it right.
It says love you, the big lover.
Men, nå jeg forstår hvorfor du har folk som Brian i din område. Du elsker å løpe.
Ok, så å gå tilbake til poenget, Simon, har du noe...
Så du sa at UK er bedre. Ok, cool. Det gjør ikke det US-judicial systemet helt vanskelig.
Nå, jeg har bekymringer med det, men jeg vil ha en lovgiver å forklare det.
Det er definitivt ikke det skitt du sa. Jeg tror bare at...
Jeg har omvendt det. Du har omvendt det 4 ganger. Vil du omvendt det?
Or you want to ask it a fifth time?
The concern, for example, the burden of proof that was discussed,
and again, my legal knowledge is limited,
so that's why I don't pretend to know shit like you do just now.
But when you talked about the case,
you talked about Trump and the allegations against that woman,
I don't have a solution for it,
but it just seemed that the burden of proof was very weak for such serious allegations.
For that one for example, it's something that could be resolved.
Another one would be the political bias.
So Trump, when someone that has the clout that Trump has,
and has that many supporters and that many people that hate him as well,
there's going to be political bias within the jury, and that is a problem.
But then the question is, what is the solution?
Because that bias will be in every state.
Stop that, stop that.
Do you want to just read back what you said?
Just hear back what you said to your brain.
I'll summarize it for you.
You're essentially saying that the judiciary is politically biased.
Correct?
Yeah.
What a revelation, man.
Yeah.
True.
Why is that a revelation?
It's not a revelation, it's not. I'm just making fun of you.
No, no. So this is the problem.
You've accepted this behaviour,
and behaviour you think is acceptable.
It should never be a scenario
where the judiciary is politically biased.
The judiciary should be a separate branch
where you get justice irrespective of your political experience.
I agree, I agree. Okay.
But that's a major issue, bro.
I know it is a major issue.
I know it is a major issue.
I'm just...
Ok, jeg er glad, takk så mye, takk, jeg oppfattar det.
Du har bare gjort mitt punkt, i alle fall jeg har gjort et konkret punkt om en problem i en system.
Ok, det er et konkret punkt.
Nå, hva er løsningen? Ok, jeg er glad jeg har prøvd ditt punkt, fordi ditt punkt var veldig vaksom om det ikke er perfekt.
Jeg forstår at det ikke er perfekt, men argumentet, argumentet som jeg har gjort,
er at, jeg tror også, og det er så Kim vil sterkt oppfatt, fordi jeg har hørt han diskutere dette før i Space,
Men vi kan ikke, dette betyr ikke at systemet, nivån av korruption betyr ingenting.
Dette er en menneskebias. Hva er løsningen? Vi vet ikke.
Jeg er sikker på at du ikke har en løsning, jeg har ingen løsning når det kommer til politisk bias,
når mennesker gjør beslutninger.
Så for USA, du bør ikke ha en scenario hvor basicament prosedukteret er
basically funded or designated
by a political party. You should not have it
where the judiciary is. You shouldn't have a
judge appointed by either political party.
I think that would be a starting point.
That's a fair point. I think anything
that
I think systematic improvements could be made
But at the same time my concern
Kind of my concern is not what you said today
Because I know where it came from
My concern is that painting the US judicial system
As a system so corrupt
And so flawed
And some people may compare it to third world countries
You haven't seen the legal system in those third world countries
Like it is atrocious
But when they're basically going after
The political opposition
Example Trump
Now you're basically almost going down the line
Which a lot of these third world countries are
Jeg sa til deg at om du vil forstå 3rd-verket, Trump ikke skulle være på TV nå.
Han skulle ha vært i fjell mange, mange år siden.
Den nødvendige korruptionen i de landene deres er galet.
Det tok litt lenger å prøve å få ham der.
Han er ikke der.
Jeg vet ikke om vi er i fremtiden.
Vi prøver å få ham der. Jeg har kjent Mario.
Mario, la meg gi deg en veldig kort eksempel på hvordan Biden spiller med DOJ og justitiet
for å få det han ønsker for sine donatører.
I my case, he appointed his personal lawyer to be a US attorney, who then brought the charges against me, novel charges that never happened before, a new criminal copyright case that they have invented.
And then the judge that they picked was a judge who was representing Disney.
when he was still a lawyer and had Disney as their biggest client.
And then it turned out that that same judge was a shareholder in Disney
while acting on my case and not making that a disclosure.
So he had to recuse himself from my case.
That is how corrupt Biden is in getting things done for his donors.
Pure corruption.
Justin?
Yes.
Hey, good morning all.
Yeah, it's 8am here on the west coast.
Look, Jesse, I have a question for you.
Every time you take the mic, for some reason you want to tell us the time where you're at.
You know what, I think it's a high because I've been doing so many radio shows.
Radio shows, I know man.
Yeah, I think it's just in my brain now.
That's good feedback.
The corruption that we've seen in the judiciary is nothing new.
I mean, you can go back to the 1920s with the teapot.
Dome scandals, you had Operation
Grey Lord in the 80s,
Abscam in the 80s,
20 years ago you had the Kids for Cash
scandal, we're talking about major
corruption across the judiciary,
and that
I 1800-tallet har vi dredd Scott-diskussjon,
impeachment av Samuel Chase,
så kontroversen i det judiske er inget nytt.
Jeg tror det blir amplifierat fordi vi har disse forumene,
så vi betaler på dette mye.
Men se, fra mitt perspektiv,
det er den lefte som prøver å forder korruptere det judiske systemet.
As you look into, for example, how they want to pack the courts, like, this is something that they've been trying to do since Roosevelt, since Woodrow Wilson, which is, if we could just get 20, like, Roosevelt, he basically, I think it was like he wanted 24 to 27 different justices on the Supreme Court.
Of course, that means he would have appointed two-thirds of them, and they would have passed anything he wanted.
And, you know, what happened back then, and this is a mirror because we're going to be going into a big depression here, as we did in the 1920s, is after the depression, they created what was called the WPA, that is the Works Progress Administration.
And this was a massive conflation of the executive branch and the judicious branch, and they basically just converged.
try to create this massive amount of work for Americans.
And then they also had this thing called the Blue Eagle program.
And if your company wasn't on board,
they literally had goons under these administrations,
under Wilson, under Roosevelt,
that would come and beat up your store if you didn't put up
a blue eagle symbol above your store
showing that you would only hire
under the guise of the WPA.
I mean, if you see the posters,
just Google WPA government propaganda posters.
It will blow your mind what we went through there.
And we could absolutely go through that again.
So that's the stuff I'm concerned about is...
Court packing from the left, and what that means in a post-depression.
So when you say it's from the left, I want to dig into this a bit further, about the reasons for that.
I'll give you examples of different, I looked into the three most notable examples of corruption in the judiciary system in the US.
One of them is Operation Grey Lord, was a federal investigation into corruption in Illinois court system.
That was back in the 80s, 15 judges and 48 lawyers and other court personnel.
um we're charged with bribery tax evasion and perjury there's another one
kids for cash that was in 2011 two judges in pennsylvania who received
kickbacks for sentencing children to private juvenile detention centers
And I'm going to end this point and move back to the revelations today regarding Joe and Hunter Biden, the Biden family, because there's some serious points there I want to kind of summarize them for the audience.
But to kind of conclude this point, Operation Lost Trust was a federal investigation into corruption in South Carolina in the 80s again.
So these are the three most notable ones over the last few decades, and that included 28 legislators, lobbyists, and other officials.
NÃ¥, i de tre investigasjonene,
jeg så inn på det litt mer,
og det er jødger og offisielle
fra både sider av jød.
Så da jeg begynte å se på det,
og meg og Slayman har hatt disse diskussioner
privat bak scenen,
hvorfor er det de som er tilbake nå?
Og Slayman...
Han lagde en punkt i disse diskussioner
Slayman lagde også en punkt etter
Mario, om kraften forandrar, så forandrar jeg det samme
fra hverandre. Om den kraften forandrar
til hverandre, om det er mer kraft på hverandre sida
av islen, så vil hverandre abuser
sin kraft. Og i dag ser vi at
den venste har denne influens
predominantly within social media, but also other aspects of our community.
But if the pendulum shifts, we'll see the same thing.
So the issue is, while it is partisan now,
Lange term, det er systematisk, og det er måten å forandre det.
Ã… forandre systemet, du gav to eksempler tidig,
av ting vi kan gjøre for å forandre det.
Så jeg vil ha dine kvite tanker på dette, Justin.
Og så vil jeg ta det tilbake og samarbeide med de uttrykkene vi har i dag
om de allegasjoner mot Biden.
Ja, jeg vil gi deg et annet kort eksempel,
så de som vet meg vet at jeg har en lovstak mot regjeringen.
Jeg har en lovstak mot president Biden, mot Vivek Murthy.
Dette er alt om covid-stuff.
and the censorship that they put against me.
That court, so basically I filed that here in San Diego,
but there basically is this sort of court shopping.
This is a perfect encapsulation of the issues that we have in the judicial system.
So the Twitter and Facebook and the other companies...
vied for to get that court case up to the northern court of california which is much more liberal
much more to their liking so it got it up there and it got assigned to justice breyer no not scotus
justice breyer but his brother there on that court so just yesterday actually we were all set to have
my first in-person court case i was going to do it over zoom on friday so judge breyer issued uh
an opinion denying my Rule 15 motion to amend my complaint,
which was based on all the Twitter files, right?
And there's no reason he should have done that.
There's absolutely, I mean, my lawyers are dumbfounded about this.
And so now I have to go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
And it's basically, there's this thing called, you know, court shopping, where basically you have a case, you want to put it into a place that's going to be very welcoming to you historically.
And so we have this issue where it's a luck of the draw if you happen to get Justice Breyer's brother as my main justice, my chances of getting justice go down dramatically.
So there's a perfect example for you, very personal to me.
Sorry, Paul, jump in and then I've got a question linking you back to the revelations today relating to the Biden family.
Sure, Mario.
Ben, that's a perfect segue. I wanted to get back to the Biden bombshells from today.
Yeah, and going back to the bombshells, Paul, my question, can you give us just an overview again?
What are the main bombshells here? I've got a few of them written down.
Just to summarize it again for the audience.
Right. I think the best way to kind of...
approach this, especially if we have any Biden supporters in this room,
is just to ask them, you know,
what do you think the payments from Romania and China
to the Biden family were for?
That's my question.
Who's that question for?
So can you repeat your question, Paul?
My question, I think Brian's a very strong Biden supporter,
Democrat, so him or any other of the Biden supporters here,
what do you think that the payments from Romania or China
to the Biden family were for?
Is it, so, so, Brian, can we make the argument that this isn't corruption?
So, I, I, I can, so that's something, Paul, and, you know, I think that's something that I talked about earlier, right?
And I'll, the Romania is kind of interesting, I'm not tracking that, I mean, US policy to Romania, if anything, has just been like, at least from a foreign policy point of view, it's just, you know, again, but this has been happening since the Russia's invasion to Ukraine in 2014.
14 increase in military presence in romania right so it's kind of interesting i'd have to look in a
little bit more because biden as vice president was kind of in charge of eastern europe account
you know this notion of countering russia's influence in eastern europe but you know the china
aspect i think part of this gets to your point of corruption i mean that's something i've said
multiple times i find it very interesting and i think even some here kind of acknowledge is that
Biden is, you know, from policy point of view, and I'll repeat it again, I mean, he broke five decades of U.S. policy regarding Taiwan, in which we kind of had this ambiguity of a military intervention of China invades Taiwan. It was kind of an unwritten rule, and Biden three times has come out publicly and stated, I will get involved, like, I will direct U.S. military forces to China.
Yeah.
We could kind of go on some of the granular details that maybe he's been less hawkish or more hawkish,
but I think one of the most bipartisan issues, both Republican, Democrat, Trump and Biden administration,
has been this hawkish approach against China and acknowledging China is our competitor and our strategic rival.
And Biden has continued it and shown to be extremely hawkish in that aspect, breaking decades of
av USA policy,
I think Trump was the first one, obviously,
to be a lot more hawkish on China
than previous administrations,
but Biden has continued it,
and if anything, been more.
I find that very interesting,
because to say what did China gain
with these payments,
I would love to kind of hear
a big detail to give it,
because Taiwan, to me, is massive.
Yes.
Taiwan er massivt. Narrativet er merkt for optikk. Det er inge politikk.
Politikk er inge ting som sker i bakgrunnen.
Jeg har ikke tittat på det, så jeg vet ikke om du har tittat på politikk.
Men om du vil bruke denne narrativet, som at vi vil gå i krig med Taiwan,
så tror jeg ikke det er det beste forstået.
I mean, in an email to Gong Wang Dong,
Hunter Biden says himself
he's going to get paid $10 million a year
based on introductions alone.
The chairman changed that deal after we met in Miami
to a much more lasting and lucrative agreement.
They created a holding company, 50% owned by me
and 50% owned by him.
It's debatable who the chairman is,
but consulting fees, introductions, and influence.
I mean, he stated it multiple times
that that's portfolio arrangement.
Ja, ja, så jeg mener, jeg forstår at de fleste jobb han gjorde var konsultering. Han var en Yale-graduator, Yale-Law-graduator,
Folk valuerer hans skuldning. Jeg tror at hans navn definitivt var valuert.
Og det må ikke være valuert fordi han skulle forstå hans far til å gjøre noe han ikke skulle ha gjort.
Men å ha en samarbeid med sønnen av presidenten hjelper en kompani enormt.
Det er en bragging. Du kan si at du blir konsultert av Hunter Biden.
So, but Brian, just one question.
If Joe Biden, just one question for you, and I'll stop.
If Joe Biden is not in office, does Hunter Biden have a business?
Does Jim Biden have a business without Joe Biden being in office,
whether he's in Congress, in the Senate, or vice president or president?
Do they have any of these businesses?
Well, most of these deals were made when Joe Biden wasn't in office.
But to answer that question,
I would say yes, because these deals took place when Biden was not in office.
Do I think that they got these deals because of their name recognition? Absolutely.
And I think you can definitely argue the morals of it,
but just on the face of it, you can't say this is criminal activity,
or Joe Biden was providing something in exchange for his son getting a job.
Brian, if this was reversed, and if this was Trump Jr. who did it,
Yeah, go ahead.
What would you be saying?
Well, I mean, Trump Jr. was traveling the world, making money for his father.
Be honest, come on, you'd be lambasting.
Let me ask that question in a broader way.
So if Hunter Biden got deals using the Biden name, just the fact that he's Joe Biden's son, is that fair? Yes or no, briefly?
Is it fair? I don't think it's fair.
Not fair, sorry, sorry. Should it be penalized for it? Should it be legal?
I don't know.
It's a good question.
Mario, it is legal. That's the issue.
Yeah, I know.
Okay, so perfect.
Because that was an easy one.
And then if Trump's son, let's say Donald Trump Jr.
or Eric Trump, got a deal
just because they have Trump in their last name,
is that...
Is that legal?
That's the issue, right?
That's the conversation that we're having.
If this is the conversation we're having,
that leads to my next question.
Charles, what is the one thing out of the revelations today?
What would you say is the most major that you heard today, Charles?
I don't think there's anything that people that have been paying largely attention to this...
har blitt utveilt. Det er merkt på just det legitimeringa av
hva vi har haft behov av, og håper det blir gjort.
Det er realitetet.
Hvilken behov har blitt legitimert i dag,
som du synes er mest behovig?
For jeg vil bare forstå en viktig punkt.
Relasjonen med CEFC,
Biden-familien som får betalingar
fra kinesiske, litteralt kinesiske spyar, Yixuan Ming,
Hunter Biden working with Patrick Ho, and actually putting documentation pen to paper, and basically news coverage.
We haven't, we've been, you know, this has been kept out, you know, they call this Russian disinformation for the past two years.
Moving away, so that one we agree. I think the way that was censored is not right.
So they received money from who exactly? These Chinese spies. Can you elaborate on it a bit further? Either yourself, Charles, or someone else?
I mean, Yi Zhenming was working with him, Patrick Coe was working with him, and as we said before, Patrick Coe has been convicted for bribing African officials, multiple national officials, but I would maybe go to Kim, I see his hand up.
Ja, jeg vil bare korrektere en ting som Brian sa,
en av de fleste løsningene som han sprøyter i dine områder.
Han sa at de ikke fikk noe penning da Biden var i offis,
og Koma gjorde det klart i dag.
Jeg sa ikke det, Kim, jeg sa ikke det.
Alle har hørt deg si det, Brian.
Alle har hørt deg si det.
Ok, så jeg tror, så Brian, hva sa du igjen?
Det jeg sa var at de fleste av de dealene som var gjorda var da Biden var ut av offis.
Og det er truen, det er ikke en løgn, jeg er ikke skreddende løgn, Kim.
Ok, so that's bullshit.
Comer today in his press conference
has made clear that these payments
took place when Biden was still
vice president.
So for Brian to come here and spread
this bullshit
is just another case,
another example once again
of him coming here
and trying to whitewash
this criminal behavior.
Is that exactly what you're trying to
spread misinformation yourself?
This is the question I was asking.
I was asked if it would be,
if Biden, if Hunter got these jobs
because his father was in office.
And what I said was most of the deals...
were done when he was out of office.
Therefore, I think that it's fair to say
that they took place not because his father was in office.
That's what I said, and that is true.
But did he get paid when his father was in office?
I think you listened to his press conference, right?
And he said that Joe Biden was vice president
when most of these deals took place.
All the payments from Romania...
All the payments from Romania came while Joe Biden was vice president in charge of Romania.
All the payments from Ukraine came when Joe Biden was vice president in charge of Ukraine.
So shut the fuck up, Brian. You're full of shit and you're lying.
I think if you guys meet face to face, you guys are lying.
Kim, all the payments for Ukraine and Romania did not come when Biden was in office. The Ukrainian payments were out when Biden was out of office. So don't tell me to shut the F up and that I'm full of shit, because you're literally peddling lies trying to discredit me.
You're lying. It was all in the press conference today. We all listened to the same thing.
Show me the clip where they said that all the payments from Ukraine were when Biden was in office.
I'll ask Censored Man. Censored Man, you've clipped the whole video, so maybe you can find that clip, Censored Man, and then send it through to me, and I can forward it to both Brian and Kim.
While Censored Man is doing that, Slim Man, I've got a question for you. What do you find most concerning? You've covered it all in the thread.
that you nicely tweeted on my account,
probably full of false things, false facts,
but what would be the most concerning part
of the press conference today that you heard slamming?
I mean, from today, probably not as much,
but when you combine it with what happened last time,
and basically you've got a scenario where
The Vice President of the United States is clearly getting these...
I mean, you can blag it how much you want.
I get people need to go on to this.
No, no, let's go.
Sorry, I'll give you the mic.
Sorry.
Just one example.
I want to dig into one.
I really want to go deep into one.
Let me give you one example, Mario.
When Joe Biden was Vice President,
he traveled to Ukraine,
and he put...
You know, a threat on the then Ukrainian president Poroshenko,
and said if you don't fire the prosecutor that is investigating Burisma,
where his company was working,
then you're not going to get USAID worth one billion dollars.
We're going to cancel it.
And he was bragging about that at a news conference.
So, you know, for Brian to come here and say these payments did not take place while Biden was active as vice president.
I did not say that, Kim. You're putting words in my mouth.
I said most of the elected people.
Look, there are thousands of people in this.
Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim
When Joe Biden was vice president, traveled to Ukraine, and then he threatened the then president,
and said, I'm going to paraphrase what Kim said,
if you don't fire the person investigating Burisma, we will cancel aid to Ukraine.
Is there more context on your end also? Have you looked into this at all?
Yeah, so the specific prosecutor general, right?
So let's make this clear, I think, when we're talking about this specific reason.
For this one, sorry, the reason I'm digging into this, this one sounds significantly more serious than, hey, Biden has Biden in their name or Trump has Trump in their name.
This was not only an Obama administration policy, a U.S. policy,
it was a European Union policy, and it was the International Monetary Fund policy.
It was a widespread policy around the West against this Attorney General,
because this specific Attorney General was highly corrupt,
and he was not investigating under the Poroshenko government,
he would not investigate corruption, and so the idea was if the Ukraine wants to be
and receive Western aid,
you need to fire this guy
because he's not prosecuting any corrupt officials within Ukraine.
So this wasn't a Biden,
this was Obama, US, EU, IMF,
across the board Western policy.
And that's important context and information to that as well.
Det var en narrativ, det var ikke det Shoken sa.
Det var en narrativ, det var exakt rikt, og det er ikke bestemt av noen evidens.
Evidens er at Joe Biden var vicepresident da han gjorde disse trevlinger,
og at under den samme tiden, Hunter Biden fikk penger fra Burisma,
den kompani som var bestemt av denne regjeringsadvokaten.
Ingen av dette andre stoffet er relevant.
and victor so keep in mind he came out personally and refuted that i mean he gave an interview
where he said he was fired because of investigations of barisma now left pornis has come
out and said oh i have audio evidence i have secret secret recordings by the way who's
who's currently under investigation.
I don't know why he would come into these spaces
and make any allegations like that,
but he said,
oh, the testimony that Shoken gave,
actually that's false testimony.
I have secret recordings
where Giuliani was pressuring him to say that,
and maybe in the future that'll come out
testimony in front of Congress.
Charles, quick question to you Charles.
What evidence do we have,
so again, paraphrasing, if you don't fire the person investigating Burisma,
we will cancel the aid.
So what evidence do we have on this?
Both sides of the argument.
Mainly what evidence do we have to prove this?
What has been shared so far, Charles?
Mario, there is another piece of evidence
that I think is quite important
in the context of the firing of that prosecutor.
There's also a leaked audio that the Russian intelligence agencies have recorded about Joe Biden having a call when he was still vice president with former president Poroshenko, and he threatened his economic security.
and physical security unless they cover up the Privatbank payments that were made to Hunter Biden.
So this is something that you can find on Rumble.
Anyone who's in here can find this recording of Biden and Poroshenko.
Just search for it.
And all of that ties together to these corrupt payments
that were made to Hunter Biden
while Joe Biden was vice president
and providing favors to Burisma.
So, I just, so...
I gotta jump off, but maybe Patrick, bring Patrick up, he's spoken well on that.
So, Shokin, Victor Shokin, it is well documented,
cross-press reportings, when this all occurred.
The EU despised him.
Like, this was not a, like, people say it's a narrative.
There's well documented reporting on this, when this all occurred.
This guy was widely despised.
across the West because of the notion that Victor Shokin was just a corrupt, anti-corruption official.
I mean, this isn't like Biden woke up one day that said, oh, they're investigating Burisma, let me fire.
The problem with Victor Shokin is he wasn't investigating anybody because of corruption,
and the West was giving money.
This was a Western policy of unison between the European Union and the U.S.,
and it's well reported on this.
Yeah, but it was not specifically against Viktor Shokin.
It was the general corruption in Ukraine amongst the entire political class.
Don't just make this about this one guy.
The person who made the threat against that prosecutor to be removed was Joe Biden,
and he did it in the context of his son being on the board of Burisma,
a company that this prosecutor was investigating.
But why was Biden the one who did it?
These facts by itself
look extremely suspicious,
and anyone who argues against this by saying,
yeah, but the EU was also not happy with this prosecutor,
is missing the point.
There's additional context to that.
And I put the evidence of this inside of the link.
I put the evidence of this inside of the thread.
This is actually a government document,
and it shows that by his own account that he did that.
So, Kim.com is on point.
So what Alstor said, there's additional context there.
So when people say that's the narrative, that's true.
So the defense was, when people...
This started before the Ukraine call and everything.
This is what spurred the Trump-Ukraine call.
When this first originally came out with him on stage,
Biden on stage telling this story.
So...
The immediate response from the media and the establishment was,
Victor Shokin was dirty, and everybody, including the Monetary Fund and the European Union,
and everybody wanted him out, and this wasn't just a Joe Biden position.
Okay, even if we accept that all is true,
first of all, the immediate response to that is,
well, the U.S. drives policy.
It's very easily arguable that we told the European Union and the IMF
Hey, we have an issue. We could have even started that problem with him and facilitated his ouster by getting everybody else on board, and that way we can then say, oh, well, everybody else was on board. But the key part, even if we accept that as true, that everybody wanted him out...
He said he was investigating Burisma.
The argument from the media was,
no, the problem was that he wasn't investigating Burisma,
and he wasn't pushing these other investigations,
and he wasn't going after corruption,
so that's why he was out, because he wasn't doing those things.
Well, he's come out, and not only has he said that he was indeed investigating them,
but his replacement was Yuri Lutsenko,
who he was put in to replace Shokin.
He cancelled all the ongoing investigations, including into Burisma.
And then he was eventually ousted as being too corrupt and not actually doing anything.
So his replacement, you know, who was handpicked by Biden,
closed down the investigation in Nibirisma and didn't investigate anybody.
And just to add to what you said,
there is no evidence, there is no evidence that, basically, about Shoken.
The only evidence is that Lev claims, and he doesn't claim he has a recording,
he just says, like, trust me, I'm the witness.
Like, there's no evidence.
Shoken har gjort en klart bestemmel
at han var på utforskning av Burisma,
og det som Darth sa er korrekt.
Den nye prøveren som var anvendt
etter at Joe Biden intervenerte,
droppet denne utforskningen.
Så når du prøver å snakke om direkte...
Men du har ikke informasjon.
Bare en sekund. La meg finne det.
Når du prøver å snakke om direkte, konkrete evidens
of influence peddling for money,
it doesn't get any closer than this.
And even more, Obama officials complained
about conflict of interest with Biden in Ukraine.
So let me just go to Alsos, Nicholas.
Alsos, so just to you, I know you want to respond,
but in addition to that,
why was the investigation dropped by the prosecutor
that replaced him?
So let me get this.
This is the important information.
The reason why Biden was the one leading this
is that after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea,
because Biden had extensive experience in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
President Obama appointed Vice President Biden to be the lead
av Ukraina,
as like the US representative, right?
The Tsar of Ukraine,
or whatever the term you want to come up with.
He was the administration figure
in charge of Ukraine.
And I know Mickey is here,
and he has extensive experience,
a lot more than me on Ukraine,
so I will defer to him a lot more on this.
But this idea that Viktor Shokin has,
was some, or was...
an anti-corruption like oh he claimed he was investigating defies all the public reporting
we had prior to this any coming out of the light of u.s and eu administration officials despising
this man because of correction but i know mickey has a lot more than me on this yeah let me go to
mickey mickey i'm gonna ask you the same question that asked also because also didn't answer it
um and the question is this mickey um and they make because of kim
and darth are making a fair argument and the argument is this that
The prosecutor that replaced Shoken, he dropped the investigation to Burisma, so why did he do that?
First of all, I'm a proud
Sheik Suleiman subscriber. Everyone
subscribe. I think it's fantastic
so everyone subscribe to his Twitter.
And I think
I agree with you. Everyone's making excellent
points.
Let's just take a step back and I will answer your question
Suleiman. And I think Kim is also
making excellent points.
Everyone knows he's extremely pro-Ukraine,
worked in Ukraine during this time
in 2014 up
until 2019.
late 2018. I was in Ukraine quite a lot working, and we did hear rumblings about President Biden having sort of meetings, deep meetings in Ukraine, and I think these are problematic. I think we can all agree it's problematic, and any investigation of corruption, at least a conviction, should lead to jail time, certainly. And
You know, I think it's possible that Biden used his influence to drop investigations.
I would just say that it's also probably true that Shogun is corrupt,
and it's also probably true that having your son on the board of Burisma is a giant problematic thing.
So I think we shouldn't get stuck into this either or thinking that either...
You know, on the one hand, either Biden is corrupt, or Biden is pure, or Shogun is corrupt, or, you know, or Poroshenko is pure. It's like, you know, these are complicated issues. And I think we can all agree that corruption is a bad thing, and we don't want it.
Yeah, I think the media thing is also, that's something that's really key here,
is what I was saying to all sources,
even if I were to concede everything that you're saying,
that Shogun was corrupted, everybody in the world wanted him to go,
even if that was true, if we take all of that and set it aside,
the fact is, he was fired, there was an investigation into Burisma,
he was fired, it was pushed by Joe Biden and bragged about publicly,
and then his hand-picked replacement dropped him.
drop the investigation, and then was fired for not pursuing investigations himself.
Also very important to mention that Poroshenko rejected Biden's advances to fire his prosecutor,
and only after Biden threatened that a due payment for a billion dollars from USAID
would not be made to Ukraine, only then did Poroshenko change court and fired him.
Exactly, yeah. And the reason I bring up the media is, and this is something that goes back to the topic of the day.
We had people in here earlier that were talking about whataboutism, you know, well, this was Trump and blah, blah, blah.
And so, first of all, I would say this, you know, as a conservative, if there was proof that Jared Kushner did something wrong, the difference and the big difference I know between me and a lot of liberals I know...
I would say, by all means, investigate it and throw him in prison if he did something illegal.
I don't pretend that Trump or the people around him can't do any wrong,
and there are some conservatives who do, but for the most part,
most of the people I associate with are very open-minded and would say,
I don't care if he's somebody on our side.
If it's something ludicrous, like what's happening with Trump in New York,
of course we'll say it's nonsensical.
But if it's something like influence peddling at the head of the federal government,
then obviously that's significant and has national security implications.
But the aspect of the media that people weren't considering is, with Trump, if something like that was happening around Trump's circle, you wouldn't just have a little ragtag group of congressmen in the Freedom Caucus, or in this case the more liberal caucus, investigating the situation.
You would have every single investigator and journalist at every single media outlet investigating.
pushing every source, and using every contact,
and spending millions of dollars
to do whatever they can to find and dig up
any dirt on any of the people
involved, because it involves Donald Trump.
Conversely, you have the same
media going to bat to protect
the left and the Biden administration
as they were doing throughout the whole thing
with Ukraine and the phone call. That's just
one example. They were pushing and did
whatever they could to malign
and to investigate Trump to try to
justify an impeachment that was nonsensical
to begin with, while conversely
you have the same media pushing that the
laptop was Russian disinformation.
So it's not just like
it's not even.
You have an entire media establishment
backing up the Uniparty and the establishment
to try to destroy Trump
while protecting Biden.
So that's important to consider.
Okay.
Kan jeg si noe før jeg går inn på den andre siden?
Sry å forlå Niklas.
Jeg vil si at det er viktig at vi ikke blir kjøpt inn i dette
eller- eller binære tenkning, for trutten er at det ikke er så enkelt.
Jeg kan forklare til deg hva jeg så i Ukraina på den tiden,
fordi jeg jobbet med Ukrainske Energi Gruppe,
hvor vi prøvde å bygge klare energisystemer i Vest-Ukraina,
And at that time, the big sort of political issue of the day was sustainable energy for Ukraine,
and a sustainable energy source.
Basically, what Russia would do every winter is they would cut off gas supplies to Ukraine,
basically to negotiate better terms, or to put pressure on Ukraine for one reason or another.
So, you know, normal Ukrainians would deal with the fear of their grandmothers freezing in the wintertime,
it would create a lot of instability, a lot of negative weather,
a will towards Russia, so people in Ukraine were looking to develop their own energy sources
to be energy independent from Russia at the time.
That was the number one thing, and to do that, a lot of them felt they needed support from the West
because they were concerned about, you know, basically Russian companies having deep influence in Ukraine,
not only with Yanukovych, but with Poroshenko as well,
so they were looking to the West, they were looking to the European Union,
and the United States for support.
So, probably this happened with Burisma,
but the project ourselves, they reached out to
some, basically they went
to the United States, they met with like lobbying
groups at the time, from Republican
lobbying groups, who basically promised
them they were going to be their friends, they had them pay them
hundreds of thousands of dollars,
they introduced them to, you know, very
well-known politicians, they all took photos, they had dinner,
and then basically they did fuck
Og det var en grift og en måte å lign på pakkene av disse politiske og de lobbygruppene, og ukrainiske ble faktisk råpt.
Og jeg har tittat på dette meg selv.
Og så tror jeg at det er en grift, det er det nummer en problem med USA, det er ikke klimatforandring eller noe, det er korruption, det er vårt nummer en problem.
And it's a grift that both parties do, and we need to put a stop to it.
But I think, you know, the thing about Hunter Biden specifically and Burisma,
we don't know if, you know, they did anything illegal,
but we do know that we should block, we should definitely prevent anyone's children
from being on the, you know, having influence, which I think is fair.
Yeah.
Mikki, jeg har en beskjed fra Slayman om at det er Trump Town Hall i dag 8.00 omkring EST.
Vi har en stedplan for det.
Jeg tror Al Space begynner på 6.00 omkring ET.
Jeg og han har ikke sovet enda.
Jeg har redd for å kaste før jeg slå ut mikrofonen.
Vi må få litt rest.
SÃ¥ jeg vil gi mik til Kim.com for sista ordet,
for han har alltid bevært denne historien
for en lång tid nå.
Kim, om du ikke vil gi oss sista ordet,
Mario, kan jeg säga en ting før du slutter,
så kan du.
Sure, go ahead and we'll give it to Kim.
Sorry to interrupt like that.
And this actually supports
what Kim was saying before.
It was about the payments from Romania.
The oversight committee
tweeted this morning that the Bidens
received over $1 million for
the Romania deal with 16 of the 17
payments made during Biden's VP term.
The money stopped flowing from
Romania soon after Joe Biden leaves office
establishing a pattern of influence peddling.
So the
The majority of the money came while Biden was VP, so I just wanted to clarify that.
Ja, og det består ut av det jeg sa om Brian som kommer inn her som en misinformation.
Jeg ville si at det ikke var personlige attacker, men jeg forstod å si det.
Ja, men det er faktisk at denne personen kommer inn her og sprider lurer.
Du må fortelle Elon å stoppe å reprisere hans tweets om du gleder ham så mye.
Vi må få din barn til det.
Nei, det handler ikke om glede, det handler om å være trøft, og at du er med til å få folk som dette til å komme inn i disse områder.
You can't attack me, Kim. It worked before, Kim.
You can't attack me.
Elon engages with him.
You want to attack me, you have to attack Elon, which I know you want.
That doesn't give him any credibility.
Elon is trying to be nice to both sides, you know,
and he should be as the head of Twitter.
But for you who's running a space...
Where a guy has been caught multiple times over and over again spreading lies from the Hunter laptop to now the vice president not having been vice president while these payments were made.
You just need to be a little bit careful with not losing credibility. I mean I see your numbers going down. Maybe it has to do with you inviting the wrong people to your spaces.
Cool, that's a great way to wrap it, Kim, as always.
It's a pleasure to have you.
Look guys, we're going to get some rest.
Really appreciate everyone, really appreciate Mais and Kim for making this space happen.
Really appreciate Slamman for moderating it,
and the team for tweeting at the same time.
We'll see you again in a few hours for the CNN Town Hall with Trump.
And yeah, we had a great finance space earlier,
for anyone that was listening to that one with Peter Schiff.
So it was a hell of a day. Let's get some rest.
Thanks everyone, love you all. Bye bye.
Take care, Mario.
