Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

NEW Evidence of Biden Family Corruption Revealed

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 10, 2023 1:10 pm

NEW Evidence of Biden Family Corruption Revealed

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1080 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

May 10, 2023 1:10 pm

NEW Evidence of Biden Family Corruption Revealed.

Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Dana Loesch Show
Dana Loesch

Today on Sekulow, new evidence of Biden family corruption, revealed. 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.

There is plenty to talk about today on Sekulow. We want to hear from you as well at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. First up, Comer makes the announcement that we were waiting for when he said to the Department of Justice, hey, before any charges come down to 100 Biden, you may want to know about what we did research on with 20 different LLCs. All created during the time that President Biden was Vice President and at least $10 million sent to those LLCs.

But, you know, again, when you split all that down, you're talking about keeping those transactions in a much smaller amount and kind of a complicated web. So we know that there was kind of a middleman and that it would go back out to different Biden family members, at least nine different family members. Now, it was not clear today if that ever went directly to Vice President Biden. We know that the whistleblower who's come forward and said that there was a confidential informant and the FBI has a document alleging that, we don't know if the FBI ever did an investigation, that they do allege that there was direct payment to then Vice President Biden here, which would not be unusual if you were Vice President to make sure you never got the check directly. Because you were under some watch, though what it appears here is that everybody was like, you know, Hunter goes on all these trips. They do it pretty blatantly.

And he goes off and then he goes and meets with these people. So it was interesting today Romania came up for the first time. Which is interesting because Romania, which is also noted for unbelievable corruption. Similar to a Ukraine kind of country and how it's wrote. But an ally of the United States. So it's an interesting dynamic.

Let me tell you what's there and what's not there. What's there is 20 LLCs formed, which is not illegal. Okay, let's be clear, you can form LLCs. $10 million, roughly it looks like, came into these accounts over a period of time.

Again, not illegal. The question really is here, and it does not appear to be, there's no evidence, at least that's been presented, that this went directly to the then sitting Vice President of the United States or even subsequently, they don't have that evidence. Is you don't know what was done for those funds. In other words, what was the activity for the funds. And people are making a big deal out of it. I want to be cautious on this, just because, you know, and I said this at our pre-meeting, I'm a defense lawyer by training.

So I'm always looking at what's the defense. Like they say, well, some of the money that went into the LLCs ultimately went to some grandkids. Well, if the money came into the LLC and they pay tax on it, the LLC can distribute it any way they want.

So what we got to be careful is what's the issue? And the issue is what was done for those services? Why was it worth $10 billion to pay those LLCs at all?

We also know that it is probably a smarter move at the time. Hunter Biden paid many of the bills while he was Vice President. So maybe he never had to directly transfer the money to Vice President Biden at the time, now President Biden's account, but he paid the mortgage on the house. So Hunter would pay the mortgage and Hunter would make the payments that were necessary. He kind of took care of the family and the family business so that bills that were getting paid.

And so his dad, it wasn't even on his dad's radar, which is I think how Vice President, now President Biden says, I don't know anything about this because he wasn't even paying the bill. Now he knows that he was bringing Hunter on the trips. He knows that Hunter was going to meet with business people. Take a list of what happened. And again, these are countries that are a little bit off the radar of everyday news.

We'll play it when we come back for the break. But it's always interesting that Hunter goes everywhere, still is going everywhere, and suddenly returns from these countries with a business deal. So he gets there on taxpayer dime. I mean, there's certainly, the other part of this, which would be the DOJ investigation side of it would be, okay, what did Hunter do during those meetings? What did he promise he could get done for that money? You know, that would be the key.

What did he promise his family could do? That's what they'd have to establish criminality. That's what they would have to show, some kind of illegal transaction. Having LLCs, getting money from Chinese businesses is not in and of itself illegal. No, a lot of U.S. companies are doing business with it right now. Exactly right.

So you have to be careful about how far you go, but also you'd have to have a DOJ that's going to investigate it. Well, we want to hear from you. What do you think? 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Sec Hill. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

So Romania came up this morning. This was the press conference by Jim Comer, chairs of the Oversight and Accountability Committee. Here's the actual report they put out. Now, this is an ongoing investigation.

This is just a phase of the report. They thought this time they wanted this out before there was any movement by the U.S. attorney on Hunter Biden. And I think what they are trying to do as Congress is say, you know, when you take action and if you take action on Hunter Biden and it's the gun registration, our gun application and a tax that wasn't paid properly from Burisma, the Burisma days, and you ignore all of this, you better be able to explain why none of this made it into an indictment, why none of this. You know, the 20 different LLCs and $10 million, most of which he was directing. I mean, that was the one key this morning was that Hunter Biden and his buddy Rob Walker played this key role.

And again, he's got another friend who's in trouble too, Devin Archer, who's got money coming in, money coming out. Now, again, a fairer charge up until the Trump days wasn't even really enforced. Then they started putting people in solitary confinement over it. I mean, ask Paul Manafort if he should have registered as a foreign agent. But there was this whole discussion over does everybody have to register? Does only one person at the office have to register? Now people are very careful and they basically all register. So we have a process under our law where some of this you can do legally, especially Hunter, as long as the vice President at the time, who's now President, wasn't actually making policy decisions because of who was paying his son.

If he was, that's where the seriousness of this goes to another level. So, of course, you've got to pay taxes. Of course, you have to comply with the law and the foreign registration laws. But the third part and the biggest part in the United States and in the bigger picture, I think, is to the voter. We want leaders like this who literally have been in public service their whole life and have been enriching themselves through the public service. I mean, it kind of makes sense how members of Congress go in making $180,000 a year and then leave Congress and somehow they've made millions and millions. But most of them will admit they don't have laws restricting them. The biggest issue – The insider trade does apply to them and things like that.

Well, that's true. There are people who want to reform that. They talked about it today at the press conference. Some of the problem is that they have laws that are way too loose on the executive branch. Remember that the basis upon which a subpoena can issue for all this information is a legitimate legislative purpose. The legitimate legislative purpose here is this may well be transactions that happen, but they also may not be illegal criminally or even a violation of civil law. So what Congress has to look at is if this kind of transaction can happen where you've got the family of a vice President getting all of these assets, and you can imagine if this was Trump's family getting all these assets, you would look at is there a law violation here. And the problem that you've got right now is they said it at their press conference that there is not – they don't have a particular violation of law at this point.

They've got questions. I don't think this, by the way, delays the Biden – the Hunter Biden indictment that's forthcoming, which is probably mostly tax charges. I don't think that this – I don't see how this impacts that. Yeah. No. This will be, again, unique to see how it plays out. What we always have warned the whole time is that you don't want to claim that you have more than you can deliver. Did they hear you think?

I think it was close. They admitted today – this is complicated – even to get it out into a press conference because you're talking about 20 different LLCs, eight years that they're focused on when he was vice President, transactions that, again, because there's so many different LLCs, the transactions – each transaction was fairly small on a scale of like – it wasn't like all $10 million came in through two transactions. They came in through thousands here.

I think with one transaction it took three different payments to equal a million dollars over three or four months. So in some sense they were watching how that money was coming in. Well, that's because it's – Obviously they were spreading it out through LLCs, but again, if you're taking advantage of tax law that's legal, that's not a crime. Obviously that's the opposite of a crime.

You're just taking advantage of the law. Let me say something also about these special – these suspicious activity reports. They're called SARs.

You'll see those come up. I mean, remember, they made a big deal about that with President Trump, that there were SARs issued regarding him. Most of you that are listening, if you've got an unusual transaction – one of our lawyers is family in Canada.

They send money from Canada to the United States, maybe a gift. That could trigger a suspicious activity report. So SARs get triggered easily. I'm not trying to diminish this because it certainly raises a lot of questions. I mean, there's no doubt it raises a lot of questions. I always look at this both as a defense lawyer and even as a prosecutor and say what crime – remember when we were representing President Trump, I would go on air and say – you had Anderson Cooper pounding you with these questions, right? And you'd say, okay, Anderson, tell me what rule, law, or regulation has been violated.

And they never could come up with one. I'm afraid that based on the information we have right now, that's still the problem. Yeah, but they even mentioned ethics today.

When I say I'm afraid, it's just where the evidence is. When we talk about ethics, again, you can talk about – listen, I mean, you can impeach over much less, but would you do it? I don't think Republicans should. I think that this whole idea of impeachment is ridiculous that Democrats started impeaching over anything and everything just because you feel like it.

I mean, so just because you can. The second part is I get a little nervous when they start talking about ethics as the first problem because I like talking about criminal activity. Like, if you're going to get rid of people, it better be criminal activity, not just I don't like their ethics. Because, I mean, that standard, none of our guys are getting elected either because, I mean, they're politicians, they're human beings. Well, you have George Santos who's been indicted.

Yeah, what happened to President Trump yesterday? I mean, it's pretty tough stuff. It's kind of a weird charge because half – it's a civil case and they said half of what she alleges is true, half is untrue.

It's weird that the jury kind of did that. But, you know, again, that's all just goes to the voter gets to decide, right? I think this information is more likely for that purpose than it is anybody. But politically, does this move the needle on anybody? I don't think people love the fact that their politicians are taking in $10 million in office and that it's being spread out through their family. I think there's ways to – well, it wasn't ever directly from the Chinese government. It wasn't ever directly from the Romanian government. So that takes out the – Foreign agent registration.

Yeah, I will play this out. This is like what they explained would happen. And I think, you know, some of this is – this just confirmed what we all already kind of thought about Hunter Biden. I mean, Lord, we knew he was on the board of an Ukrainian oil company and the vice President had the prosecutor filed, fired, who was looking into the company. So some of this, I think some of the worst stuff we already knew.

But take a listen. This is how they said like things went down in Romania. 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. So there you go.

That was an interesting one. 17 payments to get to $1 million. So I mean they – I think that they – it feels like the guys knew that they were doing something that they didn't want to – That's why you have all the LLCs.

Although LLCs in and of themselves are not illegal. But I mean you're still paying the taxes on that money so cutting it up into smaller payments doesn't mean you're paying less taxes. It just means maybe you're not getting as much attention.

Here's what I want to – Right? They don't get as much attention. Correct. But let me tell you what I don't want us to be. Adam Schiff. No. We don't want to be – Adam Schiff had the smoking gun on Donald Trump and he had nothing. No evidence. Nothing. So Comer's got more than that.

He's got at least transactions that are suspicious. But let's not amp this up to a level that's not realistic for you, the listener, for our members at the ACLJ. This is not going to result in the removal of – let me be clear. None of this is resulting in the – and you're not going to like what I'm going to say but I'm going to say it because it's truthful. None of this is resulting in the removal of Joe Biden as President of the United States. I don't think this has risen to even a legitimate impeachment. I don't either. Yet. I mean because you have to have the – and the members of Congress I think would agree because they're not moving for impeachment. He didn't say that today. Nope. So don't just take my word for it.

Comer also. What they said was they have the money. They don't know why. I mean they can only speculate on – and again you speculate as the influence peddling. But influence peddling then has to violate an actual law to be criminal. Now on Hunter it looks like it's – where he got in trouble is not paying taxes on some of that international money. And then – so that was the $400,000 per person. That's a clear crime. And then falsifying an application for a firearm which is a federal crime. I mean those are just clear, straightforward crimes.

They're not major. No. I mean the tax woods get bigger and bigger as the money gets bigger so that could be an issue. But I think there's no indication he hasn't paid it back now. So again, what I think we have to look at is what is the next – Congress is going to have a very tough time getting to that next step.

Very difficult. That's why you've got to go to DOJ and it's not going to be – they're not investigating this. You're going to put it in the face of Merrick Garland to do this work.

With 16 months left in their administration. So who gets to decide – ultimately you put this forward so that voters can decide. Well I think that's what this is. They did that about Donald Trump too. Of course they did.

You put him through the rigor and then you say – You decide. What do you think, Americans? And I think, listen, some of it seemed outrageous with Donald Trump. Some of it worked by just piling on. Some of it did work. People said, I can't take this anymore. Now he's been able to turn that around I think with the New York DA and say, look at what they really are doing to me. They make up new laws to try and take me to court.

And then people said, you know what, maybe he was right the whole time. So it goes back and forth. We'll be right back on Secular. Back to Secular.

Second half hour coming up. Tulsi Gabbard is going to be joining us and there is an explosive – I actually think it's more explosive than what Cobra announced today. And that's that the CIA, not just former CIA officials, but now current people who were working at the CIA when they asked about that letter were actually calling other people, former CIA agents, and putting pressure on them to sign the letter.

And not getting your book cleared until you don't. The actual CIA involved in the Hunter Biden letter, not former, current. While they were working for Donald Trump. Yeah. So we're going to talk about that with Tulsi and get into that in the second half hour of the broadcast. I do want to take one of the calls that came into on what Cobra did announce today and his team. Tim from Tennessee Online 2. Hey, Tim. Yeah, guys.

So thanks for the call. First of all, I own companies that work foreign. We take payments from companies, even some governments on foreign work that we do.

And every payment that comes in every transaction, we have a mountain of paperwork that we have to follow to be able to do reporting and what that's for. And so my question goes back, and, Jay, I agree with you, I think this is kind of like, I don't think it's going to go nowhere, but I think it is, smells a little bit like what happened before with the Democrats of really just wasting time and money. But what do we think of, how have they gotten that information from the Hunter? So, Tim, here's what's interesting. There's no allegation that it wasn't properly reported.

No. Right? They did not allege.

I know what you're talking about. Foreign transactions, you file the foreign transaction reports. There's no evidence that they didn't do that here, at least not that's come forward yet.

No, definitely not. In fact, I mean, they got all this from mainstream banks. It wasn't like these were, like I said, briefcases of cash, which is what you think about when you think about corruption in Eastern Europe or in Africa, places in those kind of countries that you think, oh, you're taking the cash, you're not reporting it. Hunter is in trouble over that with Burisma, but that was a specific salary that he was taking there. I think it was about $400,000.

This bigger amount, that was never an allegation today that it wasn't being reported. It was that it was so small and it was done through so many different LLCs that putting it together is a spiderweb. I mean, it's like putting it together.

And then you have to say, is it worth putting it together, which is what Tim was talking about. We will see. Politically maybe, but probably not legally. Yeah, I think that there are things that you politically do because you put it forward to the American people. They're not always a crime. You can actually vote for people based off ethics.

You can't prosecute them, but you can vote for someone based off ethical or unethical decisions. So I don't think putting this information forward is a bad thing. They did it to us. You've got to respond and you have to be as aggressive. But I do want to go to some of what's happening around the world, too. Jeff Balaban, who oversees our office, ACLJ Jerusalem, is joining us now. And Jeff, to say it lightly, a barrage of activity today in Israel, specifically out of Gaza.

Yeah, Jordan. So Israel launched Operation Shield and Arrow in response to rockets coming into Israel from Gaza last week. And today there's been a big response. Rockets have flown over so far around 300 just today from Gaza into Israel. They've reached Tel Aviv and the towns and suburbs surrounding it.

They expect the situation to get worse. I'm here in Jerusalem where they've opened up the bomb shelters. And right now, what's interesting is that this is coming from an Iranian proxy. One of America's enemies has launched an attack essentially through a proxy on our ally, Israel. What's interesting about this, Jeff?

I can point real quick. So they've actually, because usually these are kind of on the, I mean, it's not to say, but they're kind of part of the Western Israel. Or Golan. So they don't, and people aren't as nervous about, in Jerusalem specifically. But you just said that they've actually opened up the bomb shelters in Jerusalem.

That's right. I got a call earlier this morning. The building I'm staying in, they wanted to make sure that I knew the access to the bomb shelter, et cetera. And they've opened them up in the Tel Aviv. And I know plenty of people have been using them in areas around Tel Aviv.

So far, we've had no sirens or any reason to use them here in Jerusalem. But yes, they're expecting the situation to get worse. And basically, everyone's on alert. You know, the interesting aspect of this, Jeff, is while that's going on, of course, you've got the United Nations, which is basically at every opportunity they have, whether it's Human Rights Council or these other entities, trying to condemn Israel. You've got the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where we've been on behalf of Israel, been there bad for the United States too, advocating for what I consider justice. I mean, it's the most stable democracy in the Middle East is Israel, yet they're the ones that are condemned the most.

But here's the irony. While rockets are falling, I don't see the United Nations condemning Hamas and Hezbollah for attacking civilians in Israel. No, of course not, because, you know, you saw also there was the news that the European Union, again, our great friends of the European Union, decided that Itamar Ben Gevir, Israel's Minister of National Security, wouldn't be allowed to present at a symposium in the European Union, because he's too offensive for them. Right? But while rockets, as you say, are falling here, there's very little condemnation, I haven't seen any yet, about this, and all the focus is on the fact that it's, you know, the old cycle of violence, Israel's fault for reacting to the last barrage of rockets that fell in Israel.

Yeah. And again, folks, we're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Just to go one more time, Jeff, for our team, just to say you're in Jerusalem, you oversee our office there, this is a live report because of the conflict that's erupting. I mean, 300 rockets in one day. It's hard to put it towards Israel and the small country.

You've had them come in near you. You've had the Iron Dome, the Iron Dome was able to shoot down 60, some are so poorly made they don't even make it all the way, but it's almost like the world, we don't act like how insane this is, that this is acceptable to the EU or the United Nations, that they just kind of shrug their shoulders. Right. You know, Jay pointed out that Israel is a democracy, it's a liberal culture here, it's very, you know, Arabs, Jews live together here in Israel, generally tend to get along pretty well, and then when Israel gets attacked from the outside, all of a sudden it's because Israel is evil and Israel is an oppressor and apartheid, all this nonsense. The bottom line is, it's always justifiable to attack Israel, and Israel's never justified in defending itself. You know, last thing here, Jeff, and that is, we have, of course, our offices in Jerusalem, ACLJ in Jerusalem. You mentioned the European Union issue, it's a big one. The anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of the EU is, I think, in a very heightened capacity, and we're fighting, by the way, folks at the United Nations, at the European Court of Human Rights, at the European, where they have the European Congress, which is the European Parliament.

But the fact of the matter is, this is an ongoing battle, it's a battle we've been engaged in for three decades, but let me tell you the good news. The good news is, the capital of Israel is recognized now internationally as Jerusalem. So when we, Golan Heights is recognized by the United States as part of the sovereignty of Israel, and that's because when we had the opportunity to get the policies changed, we worked and we did it, Jeff.

That's right. And right now, there's a big movement here to extend sovereignty over areas of Judea and Samaria, the Israeli public is supporting it, and I have a feeling that that's going to come up in the United States very soon, and I think we'll have something to say about it, Jay. All right, Jeff Balabon in our office in Jerusalem.

We got a lot more ahead, we're going to take calls, too, coming back in a break. 1-800-684-3110, Tulsi Gabbard is going to be joining us about the CIA. Again, we talk about the weaponization of our government against us, and it's one thing people have always joked about, or even serious, take it seriously, the CIA getting involved in other countries' elections, about right here in the United States, where they're supposed to have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

They're not supposed to be doing anything. But what we do know now is that they'll approve a letter in less than a couple of hours, and they'll also start asking other former CA who happened to be calling that day, who they're holding up their book for review, and they say, you know, hey, about to approve your book. Will you sign this letter that says Hunter Vine's laptop is Russian disinformation? We do, you know, just over the phone. No research done.

And people feel like they had to. I will take your calls on that, too. 1-800-684-3110. keeping you informed and engage now more than ever. This is secular.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. They don't know the crime that was committed. There was no allegation of that this morning, and I always get nervous. Look, you don't want to, again, end up like Adam Schiff over and over again saying you've got evidence that you don't have, making serious accusations against people and not being able to deliver. Now, some of that is because Congress, that's not really their role. They don't really get to be the ones who then do the second part of the research to see if the crime has been committed. That's supposed to be investigated by Department of Justice. I mean, I think there's certainly enough there to open investigation because of all the different LLCs and the money. But again, we will see where that goes.

Covers says there's going to be more. We'll see where that goes, and we'll see again if it does impact at all Hunter Biden's indictment, which he asked there to be no movement on that until the press conference and release of the document today. There's another document, though, out. This is from the House Weaponization Committee, which is part of the subcommittee that's part of the Judiciary Committee. And here, the Hunter Biden statement.

This is, again, how senior intelligence community officials at the Biden campaign work to mislead American voters. We knew about all the former officials, Mike Morrell, I mean, literally former CIA directors, who were putting together the letter. They said for political purposes to help Joe Biden get elected so he'd have a talking point in a debate three days after the letter came out.

So the letter goes out October 19th. We actually talked about with Rick Grenell that Morrell was going around telling people he was going to get preclearance. And the general assumption was, even at the meeting, it was like, no way he could have gotten that because he didn't go to them in time. Well, now we know the CIA was clearing it in a couple hours, it looked like. And not only were they clearing it in a couple hours, because that's one thing, if they went through the letter and said there was nothing in here that was actually classified, there was just opinion.

Even if you believe that, okay, the second part, there's testimony from a former CIA officer. He was getting his book reviewed, which is a pretty normal process. You're a former intelligence official, you want to write a book. So he put his book through that same committee. And on the same day, he gets called about his book and says, hey, we're about to approve it. He gets asked by a CIA staff member who oversees their preclearance office, will you sign this letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was misinformation? So now we know that there were people actually working at the CIA, not just signing their names in the letter, not just former CIA, but recruiting people to sign their name to the letter, Deb.

And if you get the letter, by the way, if you sign the letter, we're going to get you through this pre-publication clearance quicker. To me, that's a bigger story than the Comer stuff, because this entire narrative ends up being totally wrong. So you know what I want to say to those 51 security officials, intelligence officials? You got it completely wrong. So none of them have ever yet said, you know what, we got that one wrong. They've acknowledged that they didn't have real evidence. They've acknowledged that they didn't backtrack anything. But they filed a FISA warrant against an American citizen based on this nonsense. Then they go after the laptop that comes out and they say that's Russian disinformation, more Russia stuff. None of that was true.

None of it was true. That's the problem. Our intelligence officials can't get it right.

That's dangerous. Yeah, at first it's like, are they just incompetent? And now you start realizing they're playing pure politics.

Unbelievably so. You add those things both together and you have a really ineffective agency. We're going to talk about it with Tulsi Gabbard, because again, talk about trust in institutions and the CIA should not be messing with our elections. The fact that you can just say that as a fact right now, not as a conspiracy theory, but as a fact, that the CIA is meddling in US elections. As we've been on, I get a red alert whenever rockets go off in Israel, while we've been on. I'm talking about in the last minute, there has been 10, including where you and I were, where we were under a rocket attack. Ashkelon.

Just now. And we've got our office in Jerusalem working on all this, folks. That's right. Support the work of the ACLJ.

That's We'll be back with Tulsi Gabbard. You know, it's one thing to say we all expect that government institutions can be up to no good, right?

I mean, I think that's pretty common, and especially I think all Americans. I think that's pretty bipartisan, is that sometimes you question, especially even the intelligence community, their involvement in activities internationally, in elections. But I don't think we've ever been able to say directly here, which you can now today, and say that we know that there were CIA staff recruiting people to join a letter that would directly impact a Presidential election of the United States of America. So we now know that there was a person in the preclearance office at the CIA, and that person was the same person who they sent the letter to to get it cleared, which they sent to him same day.

That's a little bit questionable. But they also clear CIA agents, former agents, like their books, if they write a memoir. And someone who actually was calling in about their memoir was asked by a CIA staff member in that office on the same day to sign the Hunter Biden laptop letter. So this wasn't a former CIA agent. This is not a former intelligence community official. This is not just someone inside the CIA signing the letter. This is actually someone at the CIA recruiting people to sign the letter.

I want to go to our senior political and military analyst, Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi, just right off the bat, to me, that is the kind of shocking part of even saying it without even, it's not a conspiracy at all. We now know as fact that someone at the CIA was recruiting people to sign the Hunter Biden letter.

Jordan, I would venture to say that if there's one, there's likely more. You know, there's so many issues to address here, the most dangerous of which you're talking about very correctly, which is how Central Intelligence Agency, these former intelligence community officials essentially stole our democracy. The irony in all of this and this letter that they were recruiting people to sign in the days leading up to a Presidential debate, the weeks leading up to a consequential Presidential election was essentially claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop could have been Russian disinformation. No facts, no evidence, nothing to to say this. We see now, you know, this this CIA employee read the letter, took a few minutes to read the letter to the guy on the phone saying, hey, do you want to sign this? So there there clearly wasn't any research done or hey, show me the evidence.

Why do you guys think this may be? They were trying to help Vice President Joe Biden give him a good talking point in the debate claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop could have been Russian disinformation when in fact what they were engaging in with this letter. Was a very clear manufacturing of disinformation to sway the outcome of an American Presidential election.

You know, yes, this this active CIA employee clearly violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal civil service employees from engaging in political activity. That should be one of the many levels of accountability that should take place. But here we are now, we're heading into yet another Presidential election next year. And yet these very, very serious issues that we assume happen in banana republics and authoritarian countries and in other parts of the world, we we we would hope that this would never be an issue here in the United States of America. And yet here we are. And this is an issue that the American people, those who are watching, those who are listening need need to understand the seriousness of as we head into this next election and to hold our elected leaders accountable to bring about action to make sure that this cannot be allowed to happen again.

So you've got the situation. David Carians, he is a former CIA analyst. He he's got he's he's an author of a number of books if you go on Amazon to look him up. So he's got a book and he's got to get it pre cleared through the pre publication classification review board. That sounds like a process that would take some time.

And if you were David Carians, I bet it did. If you were Morrell and you just sent it in as Mike Morrell did on the same day and basically said, this is good to go. We just need you to rubber stamp it.

They rubber stamp it for you. Now, he's a former CIA director. So again, all of those politics going on there. But he David Carians says he's on the phone about his book. And while he's on the phone with the book, a staff member affiliated with the pre publication classification review board informed him. And these are the people that are going to green light whether or not his book gets to go out of the existence. So they say, hey, there's this Hunter Biden laptop letter. Would you sign it?

And he ends up signing it. And I mean, I wonder, too, if the inference there is because he felt like he had to since they were the ones deciding if his book was going to come out. But one of the things Tulsi, we're trying to get to as well and we're going to we're working on the FOIA right now. And it's always a war when you go to a FOIA with the intel community, but it's worth fighting is how far up the chain. Who else knew at the CIA? Did Gina Haspel know that she had staff at the CIA asking people to sign this letter? You know, Jordan, I have friends who have tried to send their or have sent their books through that review process. And the common literally every single person I know who has done that has complained about how long it takes and how arduous that whole process is. Even if it comes out the back end saying, yeah, OK, there were no issues here.

Nothing needs to be redacted. So the timing of this obviously seems pretty suspect. I think there were some questions, as you mentioned, whether or not it even got approved because it happened so quickly.

And the letter was published the very next day. We need to know the truth about this. We need to know the truth about exactly who was involved from top to bottom, recognizing the serious consequences of the weaponization, the politicization of not only a federal agency, but the Central Intelligence Agency to sway an American election. The former deputy chief of the CIA said very directly that when asked, why did you do this? He said, well, it could have been Russian disinformation. And I wanted to help Vice President Joe Biden. He wanted to give him that talking point that he could use in a debate that was coming up.

That's why this was such an urgent request. The abuse of power, the flagrant abuse of power in the face of the American people is is one of the most deeply concerning things here because it shows they just don't care. They don't care about the Constitution. They don't care about the American people. They think that they can get away with anything. And unfortunately, in this case, we're seeing so far as they are getting away with this.

That's why accountability and consequences are so important, because if nothing happens, what's to stop anyone else in any of these different federal agencies from saying, hey, look, these guys got away with it. They helped sway, potentially sway an election. We should do the same on any one side.

It doesn't matter. Democrat or Republican or which candidate you're trying to help. This is wrong and it undermines the American people's faith and trust in our democracy and that their votes that their votes will be the ones that actually decide elections. This is something, again, Congress plays as a former member of Congress. They have a really important role to play when they learn this kind of information, because they've got the power to basically force reforms of these because of the financial power that Congress has. But it seems like every time that you push an intelligence agency, what they come back with, and I'm sure you experienced this as a member of Congress, even when it was things like the Patriot Act and, hey, did this go too far for too long and maybe we need to reform things like the FISA court. They come back and basically say, you're going to put too many people's lives, you're putting America at risk so you can't reform us. Don't question us, basically.

Just keep signing the checks. We're doing the right thing. And now we're finding out they are not only are they not doing the right thing, it's not just being bad at their job, but doing the worst thing, which is trying to sway U.S. elections. Jordan, we've gotten to this point where the perception and in some cases the reality is that the intelligence community believes that they are above the law. And that in a democracy is a very, very, very dangerous thing. We've heard the Chuck Schumer soundbite that he made when warning Donald Trump against messing with the intelligence community because they will screw you 10 times through Sunday or whatever it was he said along those lines.

But you're right. As a member of Congress, even when we'd ask questions, it asked to see information, get more details on a specific foreign policy issue or an issue related to national security. Very often we were given vague answers or no answers at all, giving limiting Congress's ability to actually hold the intelligence community accountable. And so as we look at this this path forward, as we look at the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that is coming up here very soon as members of Congress are looking at this, we're seeing data and information that's showing the FBI's warrantless surveillance of Americans happened at an incredibly high level. Mistaken surveillance is the word they're using. 30 percent of the searches that they did in one year were on American citizens. This is against the law and with no warrant.

This is against the law. Is there any accountability? I have yet to see any accountability on those that abuse and that illegal activity. And yet again, now, as they're going before before Congress for this reauthorization, the intelligence community is saying, hey, don't worry, guys, we've fixed it ourselves. We recognize there were some problems.

We fixed it. There have been problems with with this abuse of power and the violation of civil liberties in the Patriot Act and these secret FISA courts almost since its inception, always in the name of national security. And don't you dare ask, don't you dare question, don't you dare challenge these authorities, because if you do, then you obviously don't care about the safety, security of the American people. And and that that is that is the the arrogance of those who continue to perpetuate these problems as they ultimately they don't care about the Constitution and our civil liberties. They care about their unbridled power and doing whatever they can to protect it. Always appreciate your insight. I think the good part about this coming out, if there's a good part about it, is that it does lift that facade of don't question us. We're always doing the right thing. And if you don't always agree, keep writing the check and that you can be patriotic and still ask that question.

You can you can love your country, love the Constitution and ask those questions to the intelligence. Come back to secular. Yeah, I really do think we were told that we had to leave with the COVID news because we know everyone's leading with that COVID news. I think people are trying to think, OK, what did he exactly say? What did he not say? We always want to be fair and honest with you here. The ACLJ.

How far did he go? How far are they away from alleging actual crimes and the specifics? And they were they were honest about that. They said, you know, we we know that there's all these financial transactions. What we don't have is what they were for and what they were for would be the important part to know if the influence, you know, directly where is the influence peddling? Did the Romanian business person pay you not to go after the DOJ, not to investigate him, even though he was being investigated in Romania? Stuff like that is what would, I think, lead to the next level. And I don't know that Congress can get to there. I think that a good DOJ could expect Merrick Garland to know. So you've then got to leave it to the voters. Right. And I think that's that's what you're ultimately doing with a lot of this information, because, well, law works on actual laws and not just ethics and what seems right or wrong.

And that's good for all of us. Elections don't. You can decide not to elect person because you think, you know what, they're just too shady for me.

You can say I don't really like the way that they're handling things. You as a voter just get to make your decision. Now, we hope that when we make that decision, it's not going to be influenced by the CIA.

And we know it was in the last cycle. So when they say that, like, you can't be almost like an election denier, you can't question the election, I think you certainly can. If the CIA is getting involved in your elections, I think you can question whether or not we have an election integrity in our country. Yeah, I think, look, if you look at one of the most the top list of things that are concerning our audience right now, it's one of the studies we've done. Election integrity is in the top five. It's sometimes in the top three of issues of importance. The economy usually is pretty high up there, as well as election integrity, because regardless, there's been so much conversation around it. Even if you're not someone who's a, what you would say, an election denier, someone who thinks, maybe you think Biden won the election fair or square or whatever, you've at least had the question now.

You've at least been around that topic enough to at least have the conversation. People are asking those questions, and that's okay. It's okay to not just go in blindly, vote, and assume everything is going to be taken care of. You do have to vote first. You do have to do that.

You do absolutely have to, but you know what I'm saying, it's okay to ask questions. Bigger put questions, like who is influencing how people are voting. Yeah. That's what we're saying the CIA, the CIA was. That's pretty just shocking to say just outright on a broadcast. I don't know if I ever thought I would just say, be able to say 100%, CIA is influencing our election to the United States covertly.

Yeah. I mean, that's a huge statement, so we're paying them with our taxpayer dollars to tell us who to vote for? Yeah, and it's just not, again- And tell us what information, you're going to ban media outlets based off that letter, which they did?

The FBI, the CIA, these are things that were, up until fairly recent history, you should kind of universally praised. There was obviously always some controversy here and there. The human stuff goes wrong, but it didn't seem like there was a top line agenda.

Maybe RFK Jr. is right. There maybe was agenda from individual people, but it didn't feel like as much as there was top line agenda. Right.

You know, agenda coming from everyone. Yep. So, yeah.

I mean, then you go into like what RFK Jr. said, who says, you know, you ask a lot of times the Kennedy family members, what do you think involved with your uncle's assassination? And he outright said it, CIA, this week. Oh, I didn't see that. I mean, yeah. I mean, so you start questioning, don't you say, okay, that's always been around. Like when I was at GW, I had a professor that seems 100% on that. People talked about it.

Yeah. That was not really a partisan thing to say that, by the way. Then it kind of became like Democrats became the government and it's like a partisan thing to attack government. And so the Democrats, like, like Tulsi was bringing up, who was a Democrat, Chuck Schumer is defending the intelligence. That's not their job. Like a member of Congress should be holding them accountable, not saying they're going to take you down, take a US President down who questions whether or not what they're doing is right.

I'd want to hit this too, because I think it's going to be the massive story. Yeah. In the next 48 hours.

Yes. And we now know that this affects not just border cities, right? The immigration problem, Title 42 coming to an end, and President Biden admitting what is going to ensue.

Take a listen. Is the United States ready for the surge of people that's going to come across the border starting later this week? I spent close to an hour with with the Mexican President today. We're doing all we can. The answer is, it remains to be seen. We've gotten overwhelming cooperation from Mexico.

We also are in the process of setting up offices in Colombia and other places where you can, or someone seeking asylum can go first. But it remains to be seen. It's going to be chaotic for a while. It remains to be seen. Yeah, if you're admitting it's going to be chaotic, you're prepping people for a disaster.

A win right now for them would be if it's not a complete disaster. Yeah, but he's now said it's chaotic. He set the bar at chaotic.

That's what I'm saying. So what does chaotic look like? Is the withdrawal of Afghanistan with chaotic and 13 people dead? It's pretty chaotic at the border already. How many people have to lose their life before it's not just going to be chaotic for a little bit? I think it will get dramatically worse. Maybe their idea is make people's expectations that it's not going to be that bad.

Or that it's going to be horrible, and then when it's not as horrible, they'll back off. Listen, we know that they want a surge. They're long-term players that they think this is going to help them politically. So you put up with the bad actors that come through.

You even put up with the drugs, because long-term, electorally, if you can legalize this community, long with Joe Biden's gone, but this is the Democrat view. It's obvious through Mayorkas. They're not getting rid of him. Now, he might go after the next administration.

Maybe if it gets bad enough, it's chaotic. But so far, they have it because they agree. They want to fully transform the electoral base. They think this is the way to do it by bringing people here illegally. And then one day, they'll be legalized, which, by the way, has never happened for all these people living in the shadows.

So you can almost call that a pipe dream. And then they'll be so thankful that the Democrats did that that they will vote Democrat. That is a pretty, again, it's a long-term political play, but it is a real political play. And that's very sad when we have members of Congress. It's not usual with Republicans, but we have Republican members of Congress.

We have Bill Hagerty on. He's put forward the legislation four times to extend Title 42 because of Fentanyl, saying that, okay, we got through the pandemic, but there's an epidemic. And then the same problem is that it comes through the southern border. So we want to give you, the federal government, that removal power, and the Democrats say no.

We don't want it. So when they blame this on the Title 42 power coming to an end, Republicans have been willing to extend it for them. And you can hear in that clip just the, when you saw those poll numbers come out saying people don't know if he's fit for the job, if he's able to keep going, you can just tell the exhaustion in his voice from just this moment. And this is a moment where you're going to really need to project strength. And what you're projecting is, and I mean this even physically, weakness.

Yeah. And Borkus blames Congress. Congress who is saying, here, here, you can have more power.

Take a listen. I cannot overemphasize that our current situation is the outcome of Congress leaving a broken, outdated immigration system in place for over two decades, despite unanimous agreement that we desperately need legislative reform. It is also the result of Congress's decision not to provide us with the resources we need and that we request it. You know what, the ACLJ, we support a strong border. And listen, should we have immigration reform?

I think we'd all agree. That's not the problem at the border. The problem at the border is border security. They stopped building the wall. They stopped Remain in Mexico. And they're giving up the Title 42 power, which was very effective.

Not great, but effective. And when Congress is trying to extend it for them, Borkus is ignoring that because they don't want that removal of power. That means they have to take the illegal immigrants out of the country.

They don't get to stay here and wait ten years for their case. We're going to be filing a FOIA on the CIA. Support the work of the ACLJ.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-10 14:15:37 / 2023-05-10 14:37:05 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime