12/8/23: HUNTER INDICTED: Blatant Ukraine Corruption Revealed, Ivy League Presidents FACE FIRING After Hearing - podcast episode cover

12/8/23: HUNTER INDICTED: Blatant Ukraine Corruption Revealed, Ivy League Presidents FACE FIRING After Hearing

Dec 08, 202319 min
--:--
--:--
Listen in podcast apps:

Episode description

Saagar discusses Hunter's indictments and Ivy League Presidents facing the threat of firing after a hearing on anti Semitism.

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/

 

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Transcript

Speaker 1

Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

Speaker 2

We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.

Speaker 1

Coverage that is possible.

Speaker 2

If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Hello, everybody, Some major breaking news happened last night. Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has been indicted on nine separate charges on failure to pay over one million dollars in taxes in the state of California, but delivered by a federal grand jury.

Now you'll have to recall that this indictment, these charges were brought forward after a plea deal between Hunter Biden and the government collapsed, specifically because IROs whistleblowers came forward to allege that there was political pressure involved in the IRIS investigation into Hunter Biden and they were not allowed to explore his foreign business dealings and the possible connections

to the current president of the United States. After the basically falling apart of the plea deal in that case, in which the judge alleged that it was too sweetheart. The government has now decided to go through with its prosecution effectively after having its hand force and the details in some of this. This is exactly why Hunter wanted to plea, was to make sure that none of this came out, because it is just stunning in terms of its corruption in terms of his.

Speaker 1

Own personal conducts.

Speaker 2

And look, we will leave the personal conduct, I think for a little bit later in this video. We're going to start with what we really need to know about his foreign business dealings. So let's go and put the indictment up there on the screen, and I'm going to

go ahead and read directly from this quote. The defendant engaged in a four year scheme to not pay at least one point four million dollars in self assess federal taxes that he owed for the tax years twenty sixteen through twenty nineteen, from in or about January of twenty seventeen through in or about October fifteenth, twenty twenty, and to evade the assessment of taxes for the tax year twenty eighteen, he filed false returns in or about February

of twenty twenty. So there are three felonies that have been charged, six misdemeanors from failure to pay taxes and failure to file taxes. The indictment also lays out something very important around these business dealings. Hunter Biden hauled in more than seven million dollars in total gross income from

foreign business dealings involving Ukrainian, Romanian and Chinese entities. Quote at times relevant to this indictment, the defendant served on the board of Ukrainian industrial conglomerate and a Chinese private equity fund. He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements for business and legal services that paid millions of dollars of compensation to him and or his domestic corporations. Now, the single most important piece of the indictment, I believe is this. Thus,

go and put it up there on the screen. What you can see here very clearly is that Hunter Biden's salary from Barisma, the Ukrainian energy company of which he was put on the board of while President Obama was president, cut his salary in half just two months after Donald Trump took office. Let me read this quote in or around April of twenty fourteen, the defendant joined the board of the director of Barisma Holdings Limited Company, a Ukrainian

industrial conglomerate. Bearisma agreed to pay the defendant an annual salary of approximately one million dollars, to be paid in monthly disbursements. In March of twenty seventeen, Bisma reduced his compensation to approximately five hundred thousand dollars a year, and he continued to serve on the board of directors until

or around April of twenty nineteen. As a result, he received a total of a million dollars in twenty sixteen, which then dropped to six hundred thousand dollar was in twenty seventeen, and continued to drop between twenty eighteen and twenty and nineteen. So very clearly, the vast majority of his income from the Ukrainian energy company came while Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States and who

was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio. Now, furthermore, and this gets to Hunter's own personal conduct, the Department of Justice was not sparing whatsoever in detailing the vast sums of money that Hunter spent on illicit activities. So I'm going to go ahead and read some of this, and you know, if you've got kids in the room or anything like that, I would recommend that you take them out.

So these are the descriptions of the things that Hunter Biden, according to the IRS and the Department of Justice, did instead of paying his taxes, he withdrew a grand total of one point six million dollars in cash one point six million between twenty sixteen and twenty and nineteen for

payments to various women. He spent six hundred and eighty three thousand dollars in that same period for clothing and accessories, four hundred thousand dollars for what is described as quote adult entertainment, it's one hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars. Now I have a question too, which is why is

adult entertainment not lumped together with various women? And let's also be very clear here that the payments to quote various women were not necessarily girlfriends, or that they're described in the indictment as escorts and sex workers all basically across the world, including and in Europe.

Speaker 1

There also was a.

Speaker 2

Very important point that the IRS and the Department of Justice sought to clarify that they're not prosecuting Hunter for being a degenerate drug addict. They are also highlighting quote, even after he became sober, they say, well after he regained his sobriety and when he finally did file his outstanding taxes quote, the defendant did not direct any payments towards his tax liabilities for each of those years. At the same time, the defendants spent large sums to maintain

his lifestyle. From January through October fifteenth of twenty twenty, he spent as I already showed you, hundreds of thousands of dollars. It appears almost close to a million if you combine the two three quarters of a million dollars on quote, various women and adult entertainment. So the reason why again all of this is important is it opens up a lot of different exploration for corruption. Who do you know that withdraws one point six million dollars in

cash one point six million. Remember this, folks, if you would draw more than ten thousand dollars, that is supposed to trigger an automatic notification to the FBI, to the Treasury Department, and the bank is supposed to report you. This is something that Jeffrey Epstein also did in order to cover a lot of the tracks about some of the things he were doing. Now with Hunter, it appears

the DJ had enough visibility in his finances. They can even itemize the separate amounts that he's spent on hookers and on hookers and quote adult entertainment, as well as his lavish lifestyle including clothing, accessories, vehicles, all these other things. So what did the remainder of the one point six million dollars in cash do who? Do you know again, who conducts business that way? Cash under the table is

the way that all illicit transactions are done. Now, presumably some of that and maybe even a large portion of that was used to buy drugs, but you also don't know who he gave it to. So that's one separate avenue. The second thing on Bisma, and this is obviously verifiable from the DOJ tax indictment. It's very clear that they stopped paying him as much whenever he was no longer

as useful to them. And I mean that in and of itself is outrageous because it demonstrates why he was put on the board in the first place, and the extent to now which many of his business partners have testified to allegedly put Joe Biden at least knowing something or something involve with these. Now the big question for the investigation is did he receive any cash under the table. We have not even really gone into James Biden, the president of Joe Biden, who is long traded off of

his name. And I recommend Ben Schreckener's book called The Bidens that specifically goes into all of the transactions over the decades of President Joe Biden's career that he and Hunter have taken advantage of the Biden last name to the tune of tens of millions. And look, I'll just finally and take a step back, and I want everybody

to think about this. If you were lucky enough to make seven million dollars to accrue one point four million dollars in taxbile income, which is like not which is a crazy sum.

Speaker 1

When we start, we all lean.

Speaker 2

Back and we think about it, and you fail to pay your taxes four years in a row, would you have made it all the way to twenty twenty three without being thrown in jail by the irs and the

doj getting your sweetheart. The judge has to come in and say no, no, no, this is too sweetheart and forcing the government to prosecute you the special treatment that this man got from his drug addiction, to the ability to trade off of his father's last name because of his drug addiction, to avoid jail time, to avoid gun charges, to avoid tax prosecution, and all of that until it becomes a central priority for the opposing party when your

father is president. It's just truly disgusting and it shows you what these people get away with. How many more hunter Bidens are walking around out there, I guess all people who've made or at least a lot of the people who have made seven to ten million dollars from foreign governments who are paying them directly for influence. So that's the summary of the charges as best as I can make them. I encourage everybody to go and read these rod documents afore themselves. As you said, I barely

even scratched the service. Some of the other stuff in there is equally jaw dropping. And we'll see you all later. Hello everybody. So I brought a monologue to all of

you yesterday about these Ivy League presidents. At this point, I'm sure that you have seen the clip somewhere about the three of them unable to immediately say that calling for the genocide of Jews would constitute bullying in harassment under their student code of conducts Obviously that they've been called out for their hypocrisy on the issue, because we all know that if they had been asked about the calling for the genocide of black or trans people or both,

that they would have immediately said, oh, these horrible words, and they would have issued the same fraught language that they did during BLM. Now this has opened up a lot of debate around whether especially within the Jewish community, and I think what most of them have fallen on, Bill Ackman, all the other many who build careers on being free speech absolutists, They're like, no, no, no, no. The thing is is that we're upset that we as American

Jews are not considered marginalized within DEI. Where our objection though, is not to the diverse the equity inclusion, you know,

racial preference regime itself. They just want to also be included as special and I vehemingly object to that, of course, but they have adopted the same tactics, it seems at this point of BLM, which is just full blown cancellation and to try and get these people to issue struggle session type of statements, which is largely what's occurring now and now, including calling for the immediate expulsion of all of these presidents, and they have been successful. Let's go

and put this up there on the screen. So the University of Pennsylvania, the Penn Wharton Business School, probably one of the most important business schools in the entire country, has now asked the president Liz McGill, to resign. Let's go and put the letter please up there on the screen, and I'm.

Speaker 1

Going to read. You can blah blah blah and go read through it.

Speaker 2

But in the call for resignation, they say this quote, in light of your testimony yesterday before Congress, we demand the University claif its position regarding any call for harm to any group of people, immediately change any policies that allow such conduct with immediate effect and discipline all offenders expeditiously. Call for punishment of any person that calls for harm of any group of people. Okay, so that might sound good,

but let's think about it for a second. So if you're calling for the genocide of Jews, Okay, that's what they want. They want to make sure that that would make sure that you're kicked out. But what if you're pro Israel and you're calling for retaliation on Hamas. Hamas is a group of people, So now what wouldn't that be harm on a group of people with that result in your expulsion or we could say obviously both should

be allowed. And if it then goes into the realm of harassing, bullying an individual student and crosses the line into violence or somewhere within that, then yeah, that person would be expelled because it would translate into individual and it would translate into pervasive and or it would be violence. But the speech itself should be protected. Now, obviously, that's what I think it should be. That's what a lot of people used to think until they switched on a

dime after October seventh. Again, I think their core objection is that they previously considered themselves marginalized and or do so now and are very upset that the DEI people don't also consider themselves as marginalized, and that's what they want to rectify. They basically want to be the new BLM, even if they disagree with BLM, and if you want to see this on If you really want to see this,

put this up there on the screen. The new president of Harvard, Claudine Gay of BLM or herself, has now issued a new clarification to the Harvard Crimson and the way that she talks is exactly the way that all these university presidents and CEOs talked in June of twenty twenty.

Speaker 1

Let's listen to some comments.

Speaker 2

Okay, she says, quote, I'm sorry words matter when words amplify distress and pain. I don't know how you could feel anything but regret, she says. I got caught up and what had become at that point an extended combative

exchange about policies and procedures. What I should have had is the presence of mind to do in that moment, was returned to guiding my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community, threats to our Jewish students have no place to Harvard, will never go unchallenged substantively.

Speaker 1

I've failed to convey what is my truth.

Speaker 2

When the committee invited me to the hearing, I didn't hesitate to agree. It was an opportunity to convey the depth of my personal commitment and institutional commitment to combating anti Semitism, And she says she has now heard wrenching testimony about how much pain students are in and to contemplate something I amplified that pain.

Speaker 1

That's really difficult. It makes me sad.

Speaker 2

Okay, So once again we basically have the same type of BLM nonsense that we all heard from the commanding heights of American culture for the last couple of years.

Speaker 1

So let's actually just think about that. Is this a good thing?

Speaker 2

Is this a net good result that you know, if you were an American Jew and you're somebody who's cheering this on, I would really urge you to think about the precedent that's being set here about whether it's a good thing to just be able to brute force your way into compelling people to make statements that you know are obviously half hearted and fake, and to just now slot yourself in to a group that's able to compel these types of statements, get people fired, get people canceled,

get people pearl clutching.

Speaker 1

I don't think this is a good thing.

Speaker 2

And I hate all these university presidents, but for very different reasons, because they themselves are the product of the racial preferences regime, of the HR bureaucracy, of the speech police. And what I'm watching instead are the people who created such a regime just incorporate a new group into it.

They're not changing their practices, they're not changing their curriculum, they're not changing fundamentally their ideology about actually getting to a point where we could have free speech on campus. Conservative views, liberal views, Palestinian views, Israeli views.

Speaker 1

I think everything should be allowed everything.

Speaker 2

And for those people who say about safety on campus, the language of safetyism is the road to hell. That's how the COVID regime happened. Masks all of that, you're doing it not for yourself but for somebody else. That's how the safe spaces on campus. All of it came back to the idea that your emotional fortitude or is so low that you need to be removed entirely from a place where you're not around people who don't agree

with you. And in my monologue that I did, I actually played some videos of some of these Jewish students who the House of Representatives came forward and they were saying things like you got to walk to class and look at posters where people have scribbled things on them that I find offensive. Does that really make you feel unsafe or does it make you feel upset? Feeling upset and unsafe for very different things. Safety is a physical condition.

Now I understand or there's a big conversation about mental health and all that, and of course, and I feel bad for these students, but the precedent has to be such that in a society, especially in an American society, we get to disagree with one another. And actually the reason we have our first Amendment, the reason that we really free speech is something that we've always tried to defend in this country is that other countries don't have free speech.

Israel does not have free speech, Gaza Hamas, West Bank.

Speaker 1

They don't have free speech.

Speaker 2

We don't want to import these third world attitudes into our country and to enforce these types of regimes. That's actually why the Dei regime itself, it's illegitimate, it's un American. And to have the robust debate, to have the ability to make sure that people aren't getting fired for the wrong reasons, even if you may not like them, and I don't, but I want them to be fired for the right reasons. I want people who are pushing this to say, Okay, let's not donate to the universitymore if

they're going to have DEI. But unfortunately that's not what's happening. Instead, we're living in a more censorious in America today in elite higher institutions than we did before October seventh, and I think that's a net negative. So anyway, it's something that I felt like I wanted to speak out on and obviously give you guys the update. Thanks to all to the Premium members who make all of this possible, and we will see you all this weekend if something crazy happens, and otherwise on Monday

Transcript source: Provided by creator in RSS feed: download file