FBI Official Accuses Biden of Serious Crimes

Today on Sekulow, an FBI official accuses Joe Biden of serious crimes, keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We have some breaking news. It came out yesterday, but we're starting to get more information on it. John Solomon from Just the News is going to join us in the next segment of the broadcast. He's talked to additional members of Congress on the committee because there was a letter along with a subpoena sent to Christopher Wray. In the letter, it was sent to both Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, and Christopher Wray, the FBI Director. The letter comes from—and I just want to point this out—it comes from both—you've got Senator Grassley and you've got Congressman Comer. Senator Grassley was the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Congressman Comer chairs the Committee on Oversight. That's why they've got the subpoena power. Let me dive into what it says because this is pretty much a bombshell and we want to get to the bottom of it. They have received—so members of Congress have received—highly credible, unclassified whistleblower disclosures. Based on those disclosures, it has come to their attention that the Department of Justice and the FBI possess an unclassified FD-1023 form—that is, FBI note forms when they're doing an investigation—that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden in a foreign national relating to exactly what we're all concerned about when it comes to Hunter and when it comes to the entire Biden crime family, the exchange of money for policy decisions.

So choosing American policy, foreign policy, based off international money. And this has actually been investigated by the FBI. We don't know how far it went. The members of Congress don't know how far it went, but they know at least there was an investigation of an alleged crime, that they were investigating him when he was vice President for taking money from a foreign national and then enacting U.S. policy for that foreign national. That's pretty close to treason. It's definitely a major criminal offense, if true.

The documents include a precise description of how the scheme was employed as well as its purpose. So the document will also tell us what the policy were, who was involved. Is it China? Is it a Chinese business person or government?

Is it Ukraine? I mean, the list kind of goes—we start talking about international. That was the first two I go to because we've seen so much how Joe Biden walked into Ukraine and said, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you know, we're not going to send you a billion dollars. Pretty close to, again, that kind of a situation, but that was publicly done. This would be privately taking money to then influence U.S. policy. It doesn't get much more criminal when you're the vice President or President of the United States. I mean, this is the most serious charge always, is are you being bribed? Are you being bribed to enact certain policies from a foreign interest against one of the United States? I mean, even if it was a domestic interest, it's illegal.

It makes it that much worse that you'd be selling off policy to foreign interest. Yeah, we've got to make sure people hear about this because I think it's easy to maybe get lost in the weeds on what's happening here, but this could be very bad news for the Biden administration if this is all uncovered publicly. I mean, the ramifications that we were talking about are the ones that people— Just the immediate.

Yes. The immediate ramifications could be—which even the Democrats may choose to do, and they've already wanted to push him out. This could be a reason why they push him out of running for office again because this is even more serious than just what Hunter— It's kind of ties to Hunter in the sense that we know the FBI is investigating Hunter. What I'm going to talk to John Solomon about is, do we think that this came to light because of that investigation, because of all the information they're going through with Hunter Biden to see if he was doing deals like this and kind of was the middleman? But what this accusation is that he's no middleman, that Vice President Biden was selling U.S. policy to a foreign interest with details.

We'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. This is the most serious allegation yet, especially against Biden himself. You're not going to hear about this on the mainstream media, and we're going to encourage you right now. If you're watching—there's a lot of you even watching on Facebook right now—click that share button. If you're on Rumble, hit that thumbs up right now. Make sure you tell people that this is happening because we have to get this story everywhere. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're joined now by a good friend of ours, John Solomon, of Just the News, and they broke down this even further, this allegation that this FBI document exists, detailing a criminal scheme when President Biden was vice President, and it's very specific into this criminal scheme and basically taking foreign money to impact U.S. policy.

I don't want to go to John Solomon right now. John, just right off the bat, I know that you also spoke to Congressman Perry, who's on Comer's oversight committee, who sent the letter as well as the subpoena, and he said it was some of the most serious to emerge in the Biden family saga in years, and they need to verify it. So, I mean, Congress is taking this very seriously.

I mean, this is the biggest allegation yet against Joe Biden. Yeah, listen, and the reason it's so significant is it occurs six months before the 2020 election. It comes in via a confidential human source, a registered informant of the FBI. The FD 1023 form that Congress mentioned in this is a form used for intaking information when an agent meets with one of their confidential human sources or informants. So we know it comes from an informant.

We know it comes in June 2020, and sources have told me that the allegations surround this pay-to-play bribery allegation that Congressman Comer mentioned involving something in Ukraine, a country that Biden's heavy, rich history of because of the old barista-holding saga that we've known about for years. So that's what makes it so serious. But it's also important to realize that informants come in every day. Not everything an informant delivers is true. Informants come in all shapes and sizes. There have been instances I've reported that a journalist was treated as an informant. We know that Christopher Steele was an informant. Some of Christopher Steele's information to the FBI in earlier cases was very credible. The stuff he gave in the dossier in the Russia collusion case turned out to be very lacking in credibility and unverifiable, and in some cases, completely debunked.

So I think Senator Grassley said it best. We need to verify what this is, and did it get investigated? That's the big question. Were pieces of information coming into the FBI about Biden, and they were just getting kicked into an empty garbage can without people looking at it? That's some of the concern that Congress has, because they've talked to many whistleblowers, the IRS whistleblower, the FBI whistleblower. There seems to be a theme here that maybe things about the Bidens weren't as aggressively investigated as Donald Trump was. Again, I think it was important to point out what Jon just said. From one of his sources, it looks like this is tied to Ukraine. Again, that this confidential informant came to the FBI with this information so that the foreign national that would have been paying Vice President Biden, which is the allegation to specifically enact certain U.S. policy for those payments, looks like that originated out of Ukraine, which is something new.

So I want to make sure people heard that more specific. And as you pointed out, Jon, again, it's an allegation. But what we now know is that Congress has got to get into the fight with seventh floor at the FBI to even get the information. We've seen that dance before and ultimately Congress prevails, but sometimes it turns out to be very slow.

So this could be a long slog and maybe it won't be. I think we're going to learn of other overtures that were made to the FBI in 2016 and 2018, in 2019 and then in 2020. And I think there's a pattern beginning to murve that the FBI seemed to lack some curiosity about what Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were up to.

And I think that that we're getting a little piece of that thing. We also know that the intelligence community wasn't curious. In fact, it was determined to try to take the Hunter Biden laptop and falsely dismiss it as disinformation when it was known that it wasn't. So not only is there a lack of curiosity, look at certain things, in some cases, things that were legitimate were being dismissed as Russian disinformation.

I think a lot of people, some of the lawmakers I've interviewed in recent days, use the word a political protection racket, meaning that there was a political insulation that the Biden family got that others like Donald Trump or other political figures might not have gotten. That is becoming a storyline that Scott Perry and James Comer and others have said. James Comer said on my show the other day, I fear that Hunter Biden will be another story about a privileged Democrat being treated differently in the justice system than everyday Americans. That's something that's very disturbing because we're seeing a lot of signs of that these days. Yeah, that's how it feels.

I definitely know that's how it feels to even a lot of our listeners right now and people watching the broadcast who feel the same way. It's like they know that the information is out there. They're just worried that nothing will come of it.

Not that we don't necessarily report it, not that we don't talk about it, but that there's no consequences. Do you think, John, this came out of potentially the investigation into Hunter Biden? Is there any, again, because you said this is all starting to come out now and there's probably even more people who have been looking at how Vice President Biden, the Burisma stuff, the Ukraine, all of that, and there's an actual investigation of Hunter going on that doesn't seem, again, every once in a while we get a report like something's about to happen that doesn't happen, but that it's related to that? Yeah, listen, I think that the FBI opened up, we know, I don't think, we know this, the FBI opened up an investigation in late 2018.

I've seen some documentation that authenticates that, and it's predominantly focused on foreign lobbying, foreign influence, and then taxes. We are now told, and I've talked to people close to the Hunter Biden legal team and Hunter Biden political world, the Hunter Biden team is resigned to the possibility that he will be indicted in the next few days or weeks. Now, nobody knows what a grand jury is going to do until a grand jury does it, but the Hunter Biden team is bracing for the possibility of an indictment involving taxes and maybe a gun application charge. That's a subset of what the FBI originally began investigating. And here is a very big question. It's a question that Congressman Scott Perry asked in a letter earlier this week.

I call it one of the tensions. I think Scott, Congressman Perry's on to something. There is a question about the body of evidence which suggests that tax problems with Hunter Biden date to 2014 and Ukraine. Let's go back to Ukraine.

Why? Because there's an email authenticated and known to be in the FBI's possession where Hunter Biden told in 2017, hey, Hunter, you never paid taxes on four hundred thousand dollars of income. You didn't declare it from Burisma in Ukraine. And a lot of people say, well, listen, that's in writing.

That's in public. We know there's a tax problem there. And yet that's not being discussed in the current stories about the indictment. And here's a question that Congressman Perry is asking. Did the statute of limitations expire? Did a tolling agreement that would keep the statute of limitations expire and take a lot of that serious allegations off the table at justice? That's just one of the many questions that Congress has to get to the bottom to in the next few weeks. John, as always, we appreciate you joining us and all of your reporting at Just the News and continue to follow them there, just the news dot com and those broadcasts as well. John Solomon joining us.

And Logan, I think again, right there, the fact that they are utilizing even the system. And I think that the way I wrote it down, the the political protection racket, that they would utilize the system, even things like statute of limitations, so that they know they'll be able to say, well, we know Hunter did this wrong and he did he didn't file four hundred thousand dollars in taxes. But there's nothing we can do about now because it fell out of the statute of limitations. There might even be an agreement that, you know, we're not going to toll this.

We're not going to stop this. But we know that President Trump is treated the exact opposite. If they've got anything, they immediately indict. Yeah, exactly. We've seen that over and over and over again. And I think with the Hunter Biden stuff kind of piling up and now you have this situation with Joe Biden.

You are right that it is easy to almost breeze past. This is just another story that's going to come across your news feed and nothing's going to happen. I think a lot of that time is back to Hillary Clinton not getting getting prosecuted for what she did. And that whole moment where he walked out and said, we have all these things that she's done.

However, we recommend nothing. You know, that moment, I think, changed changed people's feelings. Yeah, sure. A lot for how they feel like these situations actually will occur. The people's trust in the FBI just dropped. I mean, it was another government agency that feels like it's weaponized against us, the conservatives. And when it comes to the political elites in Washington, D.C., they get protected. And here I think what Jon is concerned about is that even with Hunter, even if there are some charges that eventually come out of this special counsel investigation, the serious charges they're going to say, we can't bring anymore because of a statute of limitations.

So they're going to use their own policies to prevent them. You can be creative, by the way, when it comes to a statute of limitations if you want to be as prosecutors. We saw that by Alvin Bragg. He's making up all these sorts of different ways to get around statutes of limitations in the Trump case, in that situation. But of course, that's that's Donald Trump.

He's going to be treated a lot different than Hunter Biden. In the letter, I just want to say, in the letter to Christopher Wray, it says, based on the alleged specificity within the document, it would appear that the DOJ and the FBI have enough information to determine the truth and accuracy of the information contained within it. And Logan, what Jon said, we don't know yet. We know that there's a confidential informant. We know that they wrote down the information on this form. And they're saying that as well.

What we don't know is if the FBI even did anything with it or just tossed it in a file. Right. Absolutely. Hey, I want to hear from all of you right now. I know you have to have some feelings on this. If someone came to FBI and said this about Donald Trump, they would not just put it in a file. Yeah, he would know what happened.

Guns out, rain houses, all the stuff would start to happen. Impeachments, double impeachments, triple impeachments. Special counsels.

We want to hear from you. Call me right now. 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching, it's right there. 1-800-684-3110. I know a lot of you are watching right now on Rumble and you're like, well, I'm on my phone.

How do I? It's OK. Give me a call. Let our call screamer know you came from Rumble. That's always great.

Or from Facebook or YouTube or terrestrial radio. We'd love to know where you came from. Give us a call right now. We've got five lines open. So this is the moment.

1-800-684-3110. Continue to share this show right now. We have to keep pushing on the FBI too. Every time we've got one of these, this is a way to keep them, hold them accountable. To make that case that we need serious reform, as I've talked about. To do that, we need serious election victories.

We don't want to give up on our country, even though it feels like our institutions are giving up on us or targeting us even. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ.

Donate today at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. I do want to get to the phones.

1-800-684-3110. Tulsi Gabbard is part of our team on the Secula broadcast. He's going to be joining us in the second half hour of the broadcast. We'll get to this as well. We have a letter. It's to Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray. It's from Chuck Grassley and Congressman Comer. There's also a subpoena from Congressman Comer, who is the chair of the Oversight and Accountability Committee. So they are demanding these documents by May 10th, one week from today. So that is an official subpoena from Congress. But in the letter it says, we have received legally protected, highly credible, unclassified whistleblower disclosures. Based on the disclosures, it has come to our attention that DOJ and FBI possess an unclassified FD-1023 form. That is a confidential informant going to an FBI agent, the agent taking notes that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then Vice President Biden in a foreign national.

John Solomon was on. He said that is Ukraine relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions. So enacting U.S. policy for money from a foreign person or foreign government. It has been alleged that the document includes a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose. The first question Congress wants answered is, if you got this much precise information from an informant, that doesn't mean it's 100 percent correct. But if they gave you that much detail, you should be able to go and figure out if it's worth taking the next step of investigation. Was it ever investigated?

And if so, what was determined? Is that why Hunter Biden is being investigated now? Is that why they opened up an investigation? Did they determine he was a middleman?

Is it somehow connected there? But what is the response from the FBI? Because we know if anyone comes to the FBI and has an allegation against Donald Trump or a Republican or a conservative, they take it as truth. They don't even, they would investigate it like the Steele dossier.

They just accepted it. Yeah, well, the media goes along with it, too, and they go, well, obviously it's true because I think it was Whoopi Goldberg or somebody who's like, well, because he's a known liar. They go to fights that believe Joe Biden had stolen documents but put them in places that were not good. But we know he's just a fumbling old man. He's not a liar. Trump, we know, is a lying, evil person. That is the line, and that's what permeates through the mainstream media, which is this guilty, like Pelosi said, guilty until proven innocent. I mean, they got FISA awards on U.S. citizens based off that Steele dossier. And in this case, Congress is just trying to figure out if the FBI even tried to investigate this. They said so specific, it would have been easy to investigate, to know if it was true, accurate, somewhat true, or false. That's the first step in these.

But the fact that this much exists on the Bidens, it kind of, Logan, to me, what it does is it confirms the suspicions that this family has just been enriching themselves. And they continue to do that by utilizing their positions of power. Yeah, I think that's illegal, highly illegal to sell U.S. policy for foreign money. While you're in office, probably.

While you are the vice President of the United States, it's nearly treason, and it certainly would be technically impeachable, but it could also be the reason why, you always have to wonder this, why it's coming out now, if Democrats also want Biden gone. Right. They're using this as a moment to say, okay, we think we can maybe win, but maybe there's somebody better here. Maybe that'd be good for all of America. Yeah. To get this guy out. So I think that's an interesting point of view.

And Harris too, please. I think that's an interesting point of view to say we need a fresh restart here and maybe this is what they're trying to do, get this information out there to the American people to say this guy should not be President anymore. And he was maybe doing some deals that were certainly, it seems like allegedly at least, unethical at the very least and impeachable, which we don't, we don't throw that word around here a lot. These are lawyers that you're talking to.

I'm not, but they are. They don't use that word impeachable very often. So you know what we're saying? That's what we're trying to drive this home.

And I can tell. It doesn't need to be impeachable. Yeah. Just the basis. Even under the normal standards, not even the Trump standards.

Yeah. I mean, Congress comes up with that. They get to define what all of that means and this would certainly rise to that. I mean, if part of this is true, if it was your son doing it and you knew it, it's impeachable. And it's also a reason the Democrat party could say, you know, he's already not very popular with him. We got RFK Jr. getting 25% of the vote, who's someone who, by the way, has such policies that are against their policies. And so if that's a problem and you're worried about the election, this is a way you can move them out.

You say, you know, you're just mired in controversy and we can't have someone, even if it doesn't, you know, they don't go any further. You have to wonder that. But it does seem like when it comes to actual consequences, John Solomon's right.

There's two systems of justice and there's what he called a political protection racket going on for these D.C. elites. Yeah, it feels that way. And I think that's what disenfranchises voters, what disenfranchises the American people.

You think that there's no way that this is going to come of anything. Now, I can tell you right now is we're having a very big show right now. A lot of people are listening, a lot of people are calling. Yeah, and I think you can't give up on that because if you do have a pile on of information. And you get the right people in office. The FBI can't just ignore it.

Yeah. You do have to have these brave whistleblowers coming forward. I mean, Lord knows they had so many whistleblowers coming forward. I mean, President Trump was in peace over a phone call.

A phone call. That now we know the more we learn about the Bidens in Ukraine, the more we know that was so appropriate to ask, what were they doing in Ukraine? What were they doing to your country? Because take a listen to this, Joe Biden. I mean, we know he was having people fired in their country based off and say we're going to withhold aid if you don't fire this specific person who you appointed as an independent country.

Take a listen. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against a state prosecutor, and they didn't. So they said they had they were walking out to press conference and I said, I'm not going to we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the President. The President said, I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.

I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm going to be leaving here. I think it was what, six hours.

I look as I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, so. Got fired. OK, so we know that occurred at the time.

Think about this. There was no war in Ukraine. Why was he so involved there? Well, why? Well, Hunter was on the board of the company and that prosecutor was investigating charisma for corruption. I mean, we already know that.

That's already known. Hunter was on the board of Ukrainian gas company. That Ukrainian gas company was being investigated by a state prosecutor who Joe Biden had fired. If they could prove that he was also getting money, personally enriching himself to have that person fired, not just his son being on the board, but money to Joe Biden himself, that is serious criminal conduct. And that rises to the level, if you're in office, it's an impeachable offense. If you're thrown out of office, you can be, like it says with impeachment or not, you can still be prosecuted for those crimes. To me, it's not even so much that about prosecuting Presidents. It's about whether they should be there. Yeah, I think that this is this is another one of those situations where you kind of you're kind of peeling the onion back and we're seeing a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more. And you're right.

The timing seems to be maybe intentional. And it is interesting if the tide is turning at this point against the Biden administration and if they will potentially use this as some sort of way to have him not run. I mean, because the odds right now, if you're a betting person, pretty soon would be him and Trump. And that's what's going to happen. There's not going to be anything new, anything fresh.

We're going to be a rematch from the last time. Yeah. And maybe the Democrats think that they need to shake that up. Maybe they want to do something because they don't know who's going to be potentially four years from now, who they're going to run.

So maybe they need to get ahead of it because you can have a brand new President, have another eight years. There's some interest. There's always that stuff in play. Remember in politics, it's never as clear as it seems. It's never as clean as it seems.

There's never good guys and bad guys. It's people working to ensure their candidate or not. So give us a call. We do have another half hour coming up on secular. So if you want to join the broadcast and you're not on one of our social media platforms or in somewhere where you get the full hour, join us right now. We are broadcasting on YouTube, on Rumble, on Facebook. Find us there or just go to ACLJ.org very easily.

ACLJ.org will be the first thing you see if you're watching us live or you can watch it later on as well. Phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. We'd love to take your call today on secular. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Next segment of the broadcast after this shorter segment, Tulsi Gabbard is going to be joining us. She's part of our broadcast team on Sekulow as a senior military and political analyst.

We're going to ask her about this right off the bat. Also, Russia blaming the United States for that drone attack and kind of the talk of escalation. It feels like we're being dragged into that conflict deeper and deeper by Biden officials who are just throwing their hands and saying, oh, it wasn't us. But we also don't know who it is. Well, I mean, can't we have a more definitive and say it's not us and we know it's not Ukraine, that we're not paying for assassination attempts on Putin?

That would be nice to know. 1-800-684-3110. Again, we're talking about the whistleblower allegation that a FBI form exists, which is a confidential informant form that clearly details. I mean, I think this is interesting because they say that there's enough information to determine the truth and accuracy of the information contained in the 1023 form.

It has specific – the document includes a precise description of how Joe Biden was involved as vice President in an alleged criminal scheme that was an exchange of money from a foreign national. We know John Solomon has reported that would be a Ukrainian foreign national for policy decisions of the U.S. government. We'll take your calls too. We can go to those calls right away.

1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Mike. Mike's calling in Texas. You're on the air, Mike.

Hey, how are you all this morning? Thanks for taking my call. You know, I was always suspicious of why Obama was not supporting Biden for running for President. And he – I think there was even a comment he made, Joe, you don't have to do this. And I just think Obama's a lot smarter than Biden, and he figures, hey, we don't need all these investigations going on. I think Obama knows a lot of this stuff, maybe even involved in some of this stuff, but it all makes sense now.

Well, here's the thing, though, I would say is that he never got rid of him either. So if he was that – if President Obama really believed he was going to get him in criminal trouble, I think he would have gotten rid of him. Now, unless he was just so tied to him because Biden is a power player, because you said that, you know, you think – and I do think Obama was a more effective politician. But Joe Biden got into office for running his campaign from a basement.

What's easier? Obama had to go work it to get elected. That guy sat in his basement.

Filling up stadiums. Seems like he doesn't even know where he is half the time, and his family is still – I mean, some of this are allegations. Some is we know that while he was vice President, his son took a board seat on a foreign company, a foreign gas company in a country that is rife with corruption, Ukraine. I'm not saying you can't do business in those countries, but if your dad's the vice President, you might think twice before taking money from a foreign company in one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

Certainly in the developed world. And then you have a prosecutor get fired because he was going to investigate that company, and you brag about it. So in a sense, you try to say it's all public to say, see, there's no – I didn't make any secrets about this.

I told you directly that I had a guy fired who was going to investigate my son's company. Yeah. I don't know, man. It's a lot to deal with.

There's a lot of take-in. It's a lot to – So I think – oh, the Biden's – what I was going to do is the Biden's, I think, are way more into the decision-making power than even – I don't think Obama got this deep into the – he wasn't around that long. I've always said this about the Hunter Biden situation, and it's true because I've read some books on it and I've looked into it because, again, he's always portrayed in media as kind of this drug addict son who gets him in a bunch of trouble. Really what you have is a guy, sure, he has clearly a lot of personal problems, but a guy who is operating on a very high level with, like I said, foreign governments, foreign officials. He's emailing. He's calling. He's doing all these things.

Yes, he's doing a lot of other things. But you can't take away from the fact the guy was pulling off crazy deals, and I think this is maybe part of that as well. You'll see that this at least has some seeds in it that feel like it comes from that playbook. It is the Biden crime playbook, if you will. You know, the scam that they're running, it's pretty interesting to see how it all has unfolded over the last – and, again, we don't use those words loosely.

I'd love to hear from you. Give us a call. We've got a couple calls. And then Tulsi Gabbard's coming up.

Yep, she's going to be joyous as well. We're going to talk more about this and also this kind of push – feels like a push into more conflict in Russia. They don't want you to pay attention to that. And, of course, the drone attack and the Russians are blaming us. We're saying it was us.

That's wonderful. We're not saying it wasn't Ukraine, which I wish they could definitively come out and say. We'll talk to Tulsi about that when we get back.

Welcome back to Secular. We're joined now by our senior military and political analyst Tulsi Gabbard, who's a former member of Congress and Presidential candidate as well as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. Tulsi, I want to go to you first because I'm very concerned about what's happening in Russia with the drone attack. And, again, it's still very questionable about who was responsible for it. The U.S. has said it wasn't us. The Russians are accusing us. But what the U.S. is not willing to do – neither Secretary Blinken or John Kirby – neither is willing to come out and say it wasn't the Ukrainians. And we're funding them. So I would like to at least know that we're not funding Ukrainians to try and assassinate a world leader with nuclear weapons. And just your thoughts on that right away, that they won't even come out and directly say, not only was it not the U.S., but our money didn't go towards this.

Jordan, there's I think two very important points here. First of all, we have seen how this administration is willing to lie directly to the American people. We saw how this whole Nord Stream pipeline issue played out with that main infrastructure attack really being denied by the U.S. government. But then we also saw through the leaks that came out most recently, once again, how the government, our government is lying to us about what is happening in Ukraine, about how our money is being used and how this war is not going nearly as well as they say that it is. This brings us back to what was released in the Afghanistan papers.

Once again, how we saw generals and people in the State Department and people in the administration, multiple administrations lying to us, the American people, meanwhile taking our money and continuing to throw it at wars that are counterproductive to our interests. And in this case, as we see as escalation, attentions continue to escalate with Russia, the country that has the most nuclear weapons in the world, how this poses a great existential threat to the American people and to the world. So they have no credibility, number one. And number two, they are understating the risk that this situation has. When they say, oh, you know, there's not going to be a nuclear weapon, Putin will never use nuclear weapons. Well, Putin and his government are actively talking about using tactical nuclear weapons. And we hear talking heads and people in our own government saying, well, you know, maybe that's not such a big deal. Basically, I'm paraphrasing, but not stating the true risk to the American people were either intentionally or unintentionally. When tensions are as high as they are and increasing, it takes just one spark, one spark that could light off a war, a nuclear attack that would destroy not only us, the American people in our country, but the world. Yeah, I wanted to play this from Secretary Blinken, just so that people can understand, because this is what concerns me the most is we're being told, and you brought it up, Tulsi, that things are going so great there.

And then my follow-up question, let me play his first by eight. Russia's already failed in the sense that what they were trying to accomplish initially was to erase Ukraine from the map, to subsume it into Russia, to eliminate its existence as an independent state. That's failed, and it's not going to succeed. We know that the Ukrainians are contemplating a counteroffensive in the weeks to come.

Let's see what happens with that. And ultimately, its success on the battlefield is the best way, and probably the quickest way, to actually get to a negotiation that produces a just and durable peace. So there's a lot to unpack there, but the first is that he says it's basically the Russia failed. Why are we talking about funding counteroffensives instead of coming to an agreement and getting this conflict over so that kids stop being killed and apartment buildings stop getting destroyed and we don't have to worry about tactical nuclear weapons being deployed? If we really do believe that the Ukrainians pushed back and the Russians weren't able to accomplish what they wanted, shouldn't our Secretary of State be focused on bringing this to an end instead of talking about these never-ending counteroffensives into Russia? You're exactly right, Jordan. This administration, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, they should have long been working towards this just and durable peace that he's talking about, but they have not.

They've been doing the exact opposite. They have been further escalating this war and using our American taxpayer dollars to do it, and who is suffering the most? It is the people of Ukraine, the people that they profess to want to help, the people they profess who they are fighting for. It's interesting when he says this counteroffensive by Ukraine is the thing that Blinken thinks could bring about a just and durable peace. It's so shortsighted and frankly shows such a basic lack of understanding of the situation there, so even if Ukraine wins another battle or two or more, then what happens? What happens in a year?

What happens in two years? What happens when Russia decides to come back and try this again? Are they committing, the American people and the United States, to a perpetual proxy war with Russia via Ukraine and a perpetual propping up of Ukraine and the Ukrainian military, spending our taxpayer dollars to continue to send them more weapons and weapons systems for an undetermined period of time? That appears to be the position of this administration, President Biden, who says he'll do whatever it takes for as long as it takes. They are not speaking on behalf of the American people, and they are committing us and those who will come after us to this perpetual war that places us at further risk.

There's more tying. It seems like the Biden family, they just have been obsessed with Ukraine, their involvement sitting on companies and boards. We talked about Ukraine more even in the Trump administration than we ever talked about Ukraine I think ever in our history, and now we have got a full-scale war going on there. And a new allegation that not only is it Hunter Biden who was sitting on the board, but we've got someone who's come forward to members of Congress, and they've now sent a subpoena to the FBI, that a confidential informant came to the FBI and said, I know that President Biden, who was vice President, was being paid by foreign nationals in Ukraine to enact certain U.S. policy, and all members of Congress are asking for you.

You've been in that position. All they'd like to know is, did you actually investigate these serious allegations, or is there—and John Solomon, he used this term, and I'll ask you about it too—it feels like to the American people that there's a political protection racket for certain individuals in Washington, D.C., and they can do no wrong. They can commit no crimes, but if you somehow fall out of that protection circle on either side of either party, you're indicted, you're pushed out, you're kind of internally destroyed, externally destroyed.

It just feels like you've got the full weight of government and politics coming after you. Jordan, that is exactly what's at the heart of what's wrong with Washington right now, and it frankly is bigger than just Washington. It's bigger than just politics and these examples that you're citing, the double standard that we are seeing, but also the example that you led into this with Secretary Blinken outright blatantly lying once again about his role in instigating this letter of 51 senior intelligence officials that essentially stole our democracy. By claiming, hey, this laptop is potentially Russian disinformation and therefore should not be seen by anyone in weeks leading up to a very consequential Presidential election, and even now at this point Blinken lying about his role in instigating this and unwilling to tell the truth to the American people about how this was in fact Hunter Biden's laptop and that information should have been seen by American voters prior to that election. And so when you look at people in our own government willing to lie so blatantly and directly to abuse their positions of power, weaponizing the national security state and other law enforcement agencies and institutions to benefit them either personally or politically, and also working hand in glove with their friends in the mainstream media and in social media big tech to be able to achieve the effect that they want. Whatever the specific objective is, that objective ultimately serves their own personal political interests and undermines the fundamental foundation of our democracy and the interests of the American people, causing people to lose trust in government and these powerful institutions as a whole because they don't care.

They don't care about the Constitution, they only care about getting power, maintaining and growing power at any and all costs, and that is a very dangerous thing. But of course all this starts to come out now because timing is everything in politics and we're seeing a lot of this stuff start to happen as what we head into the real beginning of the 2024 election campaign, whether that is the Trump town hall next week or whether that is Biden kicking off his campaigns and all the other candidates. This is the kickoff to that, so always be aware and always be watching because timing is everything. It's so serious because we all understand how serious these issues are, how the big picture is we're not just failing in our own country, we're failing our own allies who are now questioning whether or not it's worth being an ally of the United States, which makes us a much more dangerous world if we're a lone actor. And it feels that way, I mean when countries are saying, even with Russia's war with Ukraine right now, and countries are saying, you know, I think it's a good idea to economically side with Russia, that tells you a lot about how they think the United States, they have a much longer view of history than we do. And I think some of us are looking at us like Rome, basically. This country is involved obsessed with social issues, right, and what you want to call yourself, even in our military, instead of focusing it on putting America first and American policies first and protecting Americans. We'll be right back on Secular.

Welcome back to Secular. I mean, you can't, all these issues tie together. I mean, Ukraine is kind of at the center of all this, right? It's been at the center of all of our minds, Lord knows from our position with the impeachment of President Trump, remember it was Russia, Russia, Russia until it was Ukraine. And it was based off someone whose parents immigrated from Ukraine, Vindman, and he was a whistleblower, went to Congress with his transcript that we found out wasn't really the right transcript, it wasn't actually correct, it was kind of what he wanted to hear from it. And we went through this entire impeachment as a country, and Adam Schiff kept saying he has got direct evidence of all this collusion, all this, there was no evidence of it, there was nothing, and we had a special counsel to look at all this, there was nothing. Second impeachment over, again, bad actors getting out of control, and that's directly the President's fault somehow because of talking, that's bizarre. But Ukraine has been in the heart of all of our minds.

Question that for a minute. Before this war started, why? It was because the Vice President of the United States' son at the time, Biden, was making hundreds of thousands of dollars, so maybe millions of dollars combined, for sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. You can't get much more corrupt in the developed world than sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. It's just the truth. If you are a specialist brought in to make them less corrupt, maybe you can make a case to me that you're brought in so that they can do better business.

That I would understand. Bringing in a Vice President's son while he's Vice President, that just looks like more corruption, having the prosecutor fired. And now we've got an allegation from a whistleblower to Congress that there's an FBI form with all this information laid out that says Joe Biden himself took money… Right, let me clarify. President Biden, that's not another Hunter story. That President Biden, when he was Vice President, took money directly from a foreign national to enact US policies that that foreign national would have done. It's definitely borderline treason, right?

If not, I mean it probably is. It certainly would be impeachable. And you know, the sad part is, Congress right now is just asking the FBI, we know you have it, what did you do with this? Because when it came to like the Steele dossier, you ran wild.

You got FISA's, you spied on Americans, you said they were foreign agents who had basically given up their US citizenship and their constitutional protections as a US citizen so you could spy on them and tap their phones and get into their data. And yet, this exists. And what, did it just get thrown and put into a file?

Or did the phones get wiped? I mean, how many of those situations did we encounter when you just realize that all of this is likely true? And that there's, but that political protection racket, I mean, Tulsi Gabbard experienced it herself as a Democrat. She didn't walk their line on every issue, you know? Being 65% of the way there wasn't acceptable, especially if you were going to take, I feel like she was one of those candidates that could have taken at least 25 if she ran independent. Or inside the party, if you get to 25 or 30%, you can win a primary.

We're seeing that right now with the sort of boom of RFK Jr. And that's sort of happening with that. With inside Democrats. So that means there are people who are like-minded in some ways who are at least willing to make some moves. Because a lot of people aren't so heavily just, I'm always going to vote Republican, I'm always going to vote Democrat. They may lead a certain way. And I think there's probably some Democrats left, that person is probably there, who would like to see a correction. They don't want the corruption. They don't want the old man and the son doing the business deals that make them look bad.

And they probably didn't like Fauci in some of those moves. Yeah, absolutely. I do like we should bring up in that letter from Grassley, there's a statement in it because you talked about the political biases. There's actually a moment in it where he calls out the FBI starting to become a political entity.

And it says in there, you want to read it? It says, this significant public interest in assessing the FBI's responses information, as well as the growing concern about the DOJ and the FBI's track record of allowing political bias to infect their decision-making process. So I mean, that's just, that's right there. This is from serious members of Congress.

I want to underscore that. This is not from people who have been in Congress for one term. This is Chuck Grassley. He is not someone who wants to go and take down the FBI just to take down the FBI or do it just because he didn't like what they did to Donald Trump.

He feels like there's an infection of it. And that again, we all believe this is, it's a country worth fighting and dying for if you can keep it in the sense of the basics of why it is willing to do that. The basic freedom and liberty. And also there has to be a trust in our institutions. You have to trust that your democracy is not being stolen from the secretary, by the secretary of state who says he's not a political actor, but was working on a campaign.

They just lie to you. Just if they were just honest and say, yeah, but if I was a political actor, this letter was going to help us politically because we didn't want people to think the Hunter Biden laptop was true. So I did it as a political actor, but guess what wouldn't happen if you said that you probably wouldn't get confirmed as secretary of state. Right. And we're seeing that kind of act like they're above politics. Yeah. He was a campaign hack. Yeah. I am a campaign hack myself.

Yeah. Takes one to know one. If you look at it though, that statement, the fact that they're even willing to put on paper that we know the FBI is starting to become, not even starting to become, has significant political bias. That's not coming from Fox news, as you said, that's not coming from a news station or from a report. This is coming from people who have been in office for, I mean, a very long time.

A guy who's pushing 90 with Grassley, right? So, I mean, this is someone who has been in office for a very long time, calling it to question really the fabric of the way our country has run and the security of our country has run. You know, up until fairly recently, no one treated the FBI with disrespect. No one thought to question the FBI as a, not a fully reputable entity.

I'd say maybe not everyone, but a lot of people. It was not known as a political arm of the government. Yeah. I mean, you know that there's like, it's human run, so it's not going to be perfect.

No. But you thought big picture they would try to be, right? I mean, that's what we want from our institutions. They can't, they're not going to be perfect.

The Constitution doesn't, when you have freedom, true freedom and liberty, things won't be perfect. In fact, it will be pretty messy most of the time. But what you hope is that your officials are trying to get there. It's kind of like religious faith.

It's not that you can be Jesus Christ, but you aspire to it. You try. And that's what these, it feels like with these officials is they're not even trying anymore. They've just totally decided we're going to turn this into a political, another political machine. But this is not just politics. These are people, you're going to jail or not being going to jail.

That's serious. You're being investigated or you're not being investigated. You're getting the position of power or not. And if you do get the decision of power, you get to decide on who goes to war and where we send troops.

I mean, so it's not like you're not, when you become a vice President or President of the United States, you have serious immediate power right away. If those institutions are saying, well, we just want them politically, so we'll just look the other way on all of their wrongdoing, that's when people stop voting and they kind of give up. But if people give up on our country in mass, we don't survive. So we have to keep fighting. And I think that these are moments where we say, let's come together, let's fix this problem.

Yeah, let's actually come up with solutions. That's what we do here also at the ACLJ. We're not just here. We're not just talking heads giving you the news every day. We actually go out there and do the work. We have lawyers on staff. We have incredible team members on staff.

You just heard from Tulsi Gabbard. You heard from connections like with John Solomon, people like that who are willing to come on this broadcast and talk to you. But it's not just about the broadcast.

It's also about the incredible work done by our amazing team here. So I want you to do. Go to ACLJ.org. Play around. Look at all the video content.

Look at all the documents. Look at all of the things we provide you there for absolutely no cost, but also consider supporting the work of the ACLJ by making your donation today. We'd really appreciate it. We'll be back tomorrow with more on secular.