Hi if Peter Schweizer, that's Eric Eggers. We're filling in for Sean. We want you to join the conversation, specifically, a question about this new political party that Elon Musk might be forming, the so called America Party. Mark Cuban says he's in the Texas Billionaire and Anthony Scarmucci, the former spokesman for Donald Trump the first term, both say they want to join this political party. Would you the audience, consider joining the America Party. We want to hear from you.
One eight hundred nine for one Shawn one nine one seven two six.
Yeah.
There was a moment over the weekend when the idea of Elon Musk, the billionaire who helped get Donald Trump elected, announcing the creation of a new political party might have been considered the biggest story of the weekend. Uh And then Donald Trump signs this big, beautiful bill, The New York Times outs the you know, mom, Donnie for cultural appropriation.
And then, of course, last night we get this bombshell announcement from the United States Government, or at least from Axio, saying that the United States Government has no evidence of any attempts by Jeffrey Epstein to blackmail people, essentially saying there's nothing more to see here. They are shutting down
the investigation. A lot of people are reacting very strongly to that news, and so we thought who better to discuss that than former Epstein attorney David Shoon, who joins us now the Sean Handy Programs to Shoan, how are you?
Thanks? Thanks for having me on.
We're great. We would love to get just your reaction to the announcement. Last night, Axios gave an excerpt from this memo that has been on Earth from the Department of Justice, saying, quote, this systematic review related revealed no incriminating client list. There was no credible evidence found that Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions, and we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an
investigation against uncharged third parties. Your reaction to a that news and the fact that they're admitting this now.
I'm not surprised by it whatsoever. I never thought that there would be a client list or that he was involved in any effort to blackmail anyone. Remember, you know I knew him pretty well. He trusts me, he said once to his in house counsel who said to me that I was the only person in the world he trusted with his life, and that's why I hired me to take over his criminal case. For about a year before he died, he was asking me to review his
lawyer's work. He had a battery of some of the top lawyers in the country representing him for a long time. So I was very flattered when he asked me to take over the case when he was really facing criminal charges. But you know, look, if he had information to use against other people, logically he would have used it in his case, and that would have been the first thing that would have used because he certainly could have helped himself.
I know that there have been all of these stories, that there must be files out there in a client list, and all that I've never believed it. Frankly, now, listen, that doesn't Meanybody knows he ran with wealthy and powerful people. He entertained them in his home, he flew with them, and so on. Part of what sticks and micro about all this is by the way that those people really
enjoyed their time with him. They used him also, And all of a sudden, when the stories came out and he was charged with a crime, they all cut their ties with him as if they had never known him, and so on. I'll tell you one last interesting thing. I wanted to just mention. He had a very interesting photo array at his home of some of the wealthy people. And so for example, he had a picture there of Bill Gates with a dollar bill in it. So I
asked him, you know, what's this all about. He said, well, he made a bet with Bill Gates, and what was he going to bet Bill Gates? So he bet him a dollar and he won. There's no question he had close contact with these people, but I don't think there's any evidence of, you know, anything further than that, and in terms of any kind of list or blackmail effort.
Yeah, I mean that's the interesting question to me, right, is there's no question that he has these relationships. So you said, whatever the extent of those relationships, we don't fully know. But the fact that there is is the Department Justice as not a quote unquote client list, doesn't mean that there isn't necessarily a problem that some of these people have in terms of what their relationship was with Epstein. We were talking earlier on the show about this.
JP Morgan situation where you know, apparently they admitted that Epstein, over the courses his relationship had you know, drawn I think a billion dollars through JP Morgan accounts. There were claims that this was related to human trafficking. My question for you is, what do you think is perhaps the culpability or the vulnerability that these wealthy individuals have, because, as you pointed out, they clearly enjoy the relationship. I don't think it was coercive. I don't think that he
was somehow manipulating them. It was a friendship. Do you believe that there is any legal culpability or problems not naming any particular individuals with some the people that he was spending time.
With, I don't think so, quite frankly, And I'll say this about the blackmail effort. Listen. I know people have painted Jeffrey Epstein as his monster and someone from the way I knew him, I don't think he was a kind of person who would blackmail someone had that in mind. He was a different sort of guy obviously in many ways. But he enjoyed their company, they enjoyed his, and he wasn't a guy who wanted to then, you know, get
people in trouble or expose what they did. So much has never come out about the Epstein story because it doesn't play well in the media. But you know, you should be aware of the listeners should be aware. There was a woman who sent young women to him, who gave a sworn statement to the FBI, who said Jeffrey Epstein had one rule, no one under eighteen ever. And so she told these people you better either have a fake ID or be over eighteen, because he'll throw you
out if he doesn't think you're eighteen. Now, nobody who believes the monster story about Jeffrey Epstein would ever believe that. But this is a sworn statement, you know, under oath by this woman. So I don't think we've really seen the full picture of Jeffrey Epstein. But listen, I don't think these people have vulnerability. I was surprised when organizations gave back his charitable donations. Quite frankly. I thought they
should have taken them and enjoyed them. And they were and put them to good use.
So what do you on the question of the suicide. Clearly, Epstein's brother says he does not believe that he committed suicide. He believed that he was killed. FBI is saying conclusively that he did commit suicide. Any thoughts that you have on the interactions that you had with Epstein on that question.
Sure, absolutely, Listen, nobody knows for sure, but I've said all along that I don't believe it was suicide for two reasons. Primarily one anecdotically, I'd met with him nine days before he died. He hired me to take over his case. He also asked me to do some other work for him, not related to not related to the case,
that only had an impact going forward. The Friday before he died on Saturday, the people around him told me he was barking out orders to do the things that he and I had discussed would need to be done to go forward with the case. I said to him, I would take over the case, but the understanding I would have to meet with his current lawyers and either they approved it or I would bring in my own team, and I had already put together another team. All of
that was finding him. We arranged a fee agreement, and so on. That's one anecdotally. Number two. Michael Boden, in my view, is the top forensic medical examiner in the world. He examined Jeffrey Epstein's body with the New York Medical Examiner. During that independent examination, the medical examiner said to him she could not this as an assistant, she could not conclusively say what the cause of death was. Four days later,
they said suicide without any additional evidence. Boden says, in all of the thousands and thousands of cases he's done, he has never seen injuries like this consistent with suicide. Period.
We're talking to you. A former attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, David shown. David, you are the son of an FBI agent. I know he died when you were quite young, but you are you're your father was an FBI agent. What do you make of then the people who run the FBI claiming the opposite and trying to Lea's evidence of this footage of the jail cell showing allegedly no one entering this door that they offer up as proof that he did kill himself.
Yeah, I'm disappointed by it because I don't think they can say with any level of certainty whether it was suicide or not. And I don't like the idea of putting their impromater on the idea conclusively that was suicide. Obviously. You know, I'm a huge fan of the FBI. My dad was one of my real heroes in the world. I have all of his memorabilia. But I don't think in this case that's fair. I think maybe they thought
there was some need for finality all of that. But if Michael Bodden says otherwise, I take him over the oh, the FBI on a forensic matter.
Yeah, the question then, David is and I'm not asking for a list of names per se. But then, if you believe that he did not commit suicide, what's the profile of the person you think that killed Jeffrey Epstein. If he did not commit suicide, who would want him dead?
That's the puzzling part of it. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theory, although many people did. He had a lot of information and so on. Usually in this kind of situation, it would be someone who wants to get credit for killing, you know, a sex offender, that sort of thing, especially a high profile person. That's the odd thing in this case, no one has come forward for credit. You do know,
I'm sure though, that he was in prison. He was locked up there at the MCC with a guy who was a hitman for the Mexican mafia, allegedly former policeman, huge guy. They moved that guy out and then they moved him in with a druggie. Was very upsetting to him. And two weeks before this there was an incident with the first fellow he was in with in which they called it an attempted suicide. It was not, but he
didn't want to get the guy in trouble anyway. The profile, in my view, ought to be someone, you know, who really wanted the publicity from it. No one has taken credit for it. So that's the oddity. That's what I can answer.
That's one of the oddities. In addition to representing Jeffrey Epstein, you also represented at a second impeachment trial form President Donald Trump. His spokes and Carolyn Lovett, was asked about the FBI's announcement today as it relates to the Epstein case. Here's what she had to say. Here's that interaction with a reporter.
So the FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So what happened to the Epstein client list that the Attorney General said she had on her desk.
Well, I think if you go back and look at what the Attorney General said in that interview, which was on your network on.
Fox News, go ahead, and Roberts said, DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? And she said, it's sitting on my desk right now to review.
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Well, that really happen.
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Yes, she was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the Attorney General was referring to. And I'll let her speak for but again, when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars.
Just your reaction to how you feel like the FBI has handled all of this, including since Donald Trump's election and the promises that were made and now the clear shift in tone.
Right, Well, that's part of sort of a rush to go to the media and so on. I think that Karon Levitt's explanation is perfectly plausible. I do think the Attorney General is referring to document they file Jeffrey Epstein file that was on her desk she said to be reviewed. There's no such thing. I don't believe there's any such thing as a client list. And by the way, you can be sure in this day and age, if there were,
it would have leaked out. You know the number of FBI agents who searched his premises, people in the US Attorney's office, including mister Comy's daughter who is on the related case. You can be sure that there would be leaks about this client list and some names on it if there really were client lists. That's my view of things.
We're talking to David Shoon, who is an attorney for Epstein when he was incarcerated, also has represented Donald Trump
in the impeachment hearings. David, and again, I'm not talking about particular names here, but it just seems to me that as you acknowledged Epstein had this let's say, very destructive lifestyle, these relationships that he had with women, it seems to me that based on the stuff that came out from JP Morgan a more than a billion dollars went through that they said was related to human trafficking.
It's hard for me to believe that Epstein kind of did this and kept it to himself, right, that none of the friends that went to the island, no one at all participated in this except for Epstein himself. So that seems to me to raise the question. It wasn't coercion necessarily, as you said, it doesn't have to be blackmail. It could have just been you know, friends hanging out
of friends doing this stuff together. The problem that I have with this case is it seems like you had this massive amount of human trafficing that was taking place just on this one billion dollar figure. You had Maxwell go to jail, But there doesn't seem to have been any other investigation, certainly not any other prosecutions of anybody else that could have been involved in this prostitution slash human trafficking. What's your thoughts on that?
Well, look, you're is a fair and important point, without any question. Look, my personal belief is that many of those wealthy people and so called prominent people engaged in his activities with him at the various places, but there may well not be a sufficient proof of it and so on. You know, I spoke out the other day and I don't talk about any sort of attorney client privileged information, but I spoke out the other day when mister Musk suggested that the reason records hadn't been produced
is because someone was covering up from mister Trump. I can tell you unequivocally as I have said, that Jeffrey Epstein had no information whatsoever about any nefarious activity with Donald Trump, and I thought there was an important point to make. That's what happens these rumors get out there. I'm personally not one hundred percent satisfied with the JP Morgan figure that they can track that money to the
human trafficking and all that. That's a different question. You ask an important question, why haven't there been any other investigations? And you can be sure again miss Maxwell would have spoken about other incidents that she was aware of, and she would have been aware of them. So I don't have the answer to that.
Well, we do know, and David Show, we appreciate your time today. While the FBI is attempting to, I think end the discussion with their memo yesterday. The fact that we are talking about as much as we are a lot of other people are talking about it suggests that the opposite is true. So David showan thank you for your time. He's Peter Schweizer. I'm Eric Eggers. We host the podcast called The Drill Down. You can find at
the drill down dot com. We'll be back with more Sean Handy Show right after this.
I'm Peter Schweizer. This is Eric Eggers. We are filling in for the Sean Hannity Show today. We want you to join the car Conversation one in eight hundred nine four one seven, three two six So interesting. The Epstein bombshell that came out the conversation that we just had with David shown here's the problem. One of the problems people don't trust what the government has to say, even if it is people that they are familiar and comfortable with,
like Cash Battel or like Panbonni. They don't trust the bowels of government. And one of the reasons, of course, is we had another revelation break right before the July fourth holiday, and that was this CIA assessment about Russia Gate and the fact that they were simply pushing product that they did not have confidence in. They claimed that it was high confidence that they had all this evidence that it was Russia collusion, when they admitted that they
only had one source and low confidence in it. That's the problem, Peter Schweizer, that is Eric Eggers. We are filling in for Sean today. We have a podcast called The Drill Down. Please consider subscribing to it. We want you to join the conversation. We're going to get a little political here now right. We talked about the tragedy in Texas and the heroic efforts of the Coastguard. We've
talked about the attempted killing of ICE agents. We've talked about the Jeffrey Epstein ruling from the DOJ and the FBI. Let's talk about the big, beautiful bill. It passed barely passed by a couple of votes in the House. It passed in the Senate because Vice President J. D. Vance had to come in and cast the deciding vote. But it was signed by President Trump, and it's very interesting the tensions that have been created. We want to talk about the details of the bill, but also some of
the reaction the Democrats is kind of predictable. But you also have Elon Musk out there wanting to start the America Party.
Yeah, we'll talk about Elon Musk, who's been steadfastly opposed to this bill, and we'll talk about his desire to create the America Party. Would love to hear your perspective on it. Give us a call. One eight hundred nine four one seven three two six that's nine four one Sean. Do you support the passage of the bill as in contrast with Elon Musk? I think there's several fascinating things about the past of this bill. Obviously a key tenant
of the Trump administration. You know, it's been a massive priority. They did a whole bill signing ceremony on the fourth of July. They said they wanted to do that. There was and it's a credit to him and his political ability they were able to get it done by these narrow margins. You also, by the way, I think have to give Donald Trump credit just as a branding expert. We were talking about this a little bit earlier. What was the signature policy accomplishment of the Obama administration.
The Affordable Care Act, the Obamacare.
Yeah, they called it the Affordable Care Act. No one calls it that. We all call it Obamacare, and not necessarily in a positive way. Under Joe Biden, his signature policy achievement.
Was what the Inflation Reduction Act.
Right again, they try to do that, but we call it the Green New Deal, the Green New scam.
Right.
But Donald Trump just calling it the one big beautiful Bill, like everyone calls it that.
I mean, what is that? What the name of a bill is?
Now?
I know it doesn't tell you anything about it's just a big beautiful bill. I actually looked on the congressional record and that is literally the name of the piece of legislation. This is not shorthand, that's literally the name of the bill. So you go on CNBC, You're going on these news outlets. They are talking about the big Beautiful Bill.
So it's sort of just genius that Trump has gotten news anchors and everyone to call this thing, which they oppose in many respects, the big beautiful bill. It is big, and according to depend upon your perspective, it is beautiful. It extends the tax cuts, It's got a massive increase in funding for ice and for immigration enforcement. That I
think is the key for many of its supporters. Right, They say, the number one domestic priority continues to be enforcing immigration laws in this country and deporting people who shouldn't be here. This bill gives people funding to do that. It also, then, I think, tries to enact some of the efforts of DOGE bringing more security and credibility to
some of these entitlement programs. What some people will tell you are cuts to Medicaid and cuts to SNAP are in fact just increases in work requirements or more paperwork requirements, more validity to make sure that the people that are receiving these benefits should be receiving the benefits. One thing I very much like you know you and I have spent some time talking about the SNAP program, EBT, the
food stamps and how much fraud is there. A big deal now is that states may have to start in twenty twenty eight paying a portion of the food benefit costs. Previously states have only paid administrative costs. I'll tell you why that's a big deal, because right now, this is just how much Donald Trump has changed the conversation about entitlements and eradicating waste, fraud and abuse in those entitlement programs.
The current setup, or at least before Donald Trump became president, the federal government awarded states who claim to have the lowest air rate in the administration of these foodstamp programs. So guess what states were then incentivized to do not report high error rates and there's been a lot of.
Which is what fraud is regarded as an error.
Rate now absolutely so the states with the most fraud would pretend it wasn't very much fraudulent, and they got paid by the federal government for doing so. We now are trying to reward states and say, no, you guys have to expose root out the fraud, and you guys are going to have to pick up a part of the check on this. So you renounce centivized to make sure your programs are well run.
Yeah, I mean, here's the bottom line question on all of these programs, whether it's Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security, you have to keep them viable, right, You have to keep them viable. And the problem with Medicaid is you had millions of illegal immigrants that ended up on Medicaid program States like California sign them up because they wanted
to take those federal dollars. What this bill basically says is no, if states want to have illegal migrants on their medicaid roles, they have to pay for them themselves. The second thing that they do with medicaid is say, look, if you're able bodied, that's you know, determined by a medical doctor. If you are able bodied, you either have to work eighty hours a week, eighty hours a month, yeah, eighty hours a month, sorry, and that that's two weeks
out of the month. Or if you can't find a job, or you're not looking for a job, maybe you're in a situation where you can't have one, you have to at least volunteer. The point is you have to do something constructive if you're sitting around playing video games, if you're sitting around on drugs and expecting people to just subsidize you. That's how we got to the point where where this program is so expensive and it's not sustainable.
So these are really common sense remedies that are being pushed, and of course what Democrats are saying is no, they're cutting everybody's program, which is ridiculous.
And you know, there's this truism that the federal government programs never get smaller, and unfortunately that's continued to be true. We saw massive increase in these spending programs during COVID, and it took years, even after the pandemic ended, for some of these programs to start to come back down. And now you're hearing the screams and the worst case scenarios. You know, this is always the case with Donald Trump. Doesn't matter what he does, we're presented with the worst
case scenario. And the thing with Donald Trump is those worst case scenarios never proved to be true. We didn't invade Iran. We're able to just go after them and take out the nuclear capacity. We're able to you know, we didn't start world a civil war here by enforcing immigration, despite the best efforts of Gavin News and Karen Bass, right, And so now it's like, oh, well, you're gonna you're
gonna kill people. You heard Larry Summer suggests that one hundred thousand people will die over the next ten years because of this bill. By the way, those work requirements can be waived if state unemployment goes above ten percent. Do you know what state has the high Do you know what the highest unemployment rate is of any state?
Now, California.
It's California's close, But even the highest unemployment rates right now are still in the fives. It's actually Washington, d C. Interesting highest. California is like the fifth highest unmployment rate. But so the point is, these work requirements are going to be implemented because unemployment is not anywhere near where
you'd be exempted from it. So yeah, if you are someone who currently is receiving these benefits, you will have to prove that you are attempting to do something to contribute to society.
Yeah, and why is that unreasonable? I don't understand. We know why it's being done for political reasons, but it's really an eminently responsible reform that ought to be supported by the way it used to be supported by Democrats. It was after all, Bill Clinton who back in nineteen ninety six set up a work requirement to be on welfare to receive food stamps. So this used to be the position of at least some Democrats.
And that's just one portion of the overall big beautiful bill structure. It's attempting to do three things as we understand it, right, They're trying to, okay, lower taxes for many individuals and so not, in addition to kind of making the tax that's from twenty seventeen, continue them in place. They lower to stay tax, they have lower tax on a number of other things, including corporations. So they wanted
to do that. They wanted to cut some spending, which they're trying to do with getting rid of the waste, the fraud and abuse, which is what they're attempting to address in these financial programs here with the entitlements, and then with the tariffs, which we're expecting more news on that any day. They're a tempting to bring in new revenue. So like, those are the three streams they're trying to do at one time, which they think will ultimately benefit the economy.
Yeah, and it's all going to come down to revenue and growth, right because all these estimates are ported by the Congressional Budget Office, they assume a low level of growth. Oh, this is going to explode the debt. The fact of the matter is if you have a high growth, it brings in large amounts of revenue. That's really going to help on the debt and on the deficit. And here's
the interesting political jiu jitsu that's going on here. So you have, on the one hand, Donald Trump's big, beautiful bill comes and barely passes, but it does and he signs it. It's got all these good things in it. You have Democrats who say, oh, the cuts are horrific, it's going to kill all these people, and these tax cuts are responsible. And then you have Elon Musk and some members of the House of Representatives and in the
Senate who said the cuts don't go far enough. In other words, Trump didn't go far enough in this direction. So you have these three sort of points of politics. And Elon Musk has said he apparently took a survey of his followers on Twitter x and they came out i think two to one saying they would support the formation of a third political party. And this is all based Musk says on the fact that the cuts did
not go far enough. He argues that joj was disrespected, that all the efforts they took in doage to slash all of this waste and abuse has now been gutted by this bill.
Yeah, I think it's interesting to see people who would support the idea of a third party. Yet, like in concept, I could see you being into it. But how many of the people who support Elon Musks creation of a third party would support that party being even more aggressive in terms of cutting government programs and entitlements. I suspect
not very many of your pro cutting government spending. You're probably much more conservative, And I wonder I don't see a space in which a third political party is more conservative, although obviously Republicans haven't been great in terms of fiscal management. But you know, you get so much criticism, so much pushback,
and it doesn't make sense. It's actually hypocritical, or at least it's contradictory because on the one hand, people say that this bill explodes the deficit, while at the same time people say the bill cuts medicaid for people who rely on it. You kind of can't say both.
Right, right, And I would say to Elon Musk, there already is a third political party. It's called the Libertarian Party. They want to slash government extensively. But here's the thing. I mean, Elon Musk says it's over principle if it's overcuts. But let's keep in mind the bill, the Big Beautiful Bill, did a couple of things that are not great for
Elon Musk's businesses and not great for his bottom line. So, for example, one of the things in the bill is after September thirty, if it's ending the seventy five hundred dollars tax credit for evs for electric vehicles. Tesla produces large amounts of electric vehicles. The bill immediately scraps the highly profitable zero emission credits. Other automakers would buy these credits from Tesla so they could meet the admission requirement, sorry,
the emission requirements from the federal government. In the first quarter of this year. Tesla would have actually lost money except for the fact that they were able to get these, you know, monetize these credits. And then finally the issue of tarifts. Tariffs are going to dramatically increase the cost
for the Chinese batteries that Tesla actually uses. So maybe it's partly principle, but there's no question in my mind that he cannot be happy with some of the details of this bill and how it's going to affect his bottom line.
So you're keeping score at home. Elon Musk is against the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. The Big Beautiful Bill passes. You just mentioned three things in that bill, it will be very bad for Elon Musk. The bill passes, he says, he's going to start his own political party. That's essentially it.
Yeah, and he's got Mark Cuban and Anthony Scarmucci are two of the people who've said they're interested in joining this political party. It's interesting, by the way, he announced this new political party and then people put up documents from the Federal Election Commission saying that the party had been formed. They were fake. Elon Musk said, no papers have been filed, so sounds maybe like a little bit
of a paper tiger. The other thing that's happened is Tesla stock is down eight percent with the announcement of this new political party. So maybe the people that have invested in his business are a little tired of the politics for Melon, and they're probably saying, get back to work and build those great businesses that you built in the past instead of trying to change the party system in the United States.
It's you know, just like Donald Trump, it's probably impossible and not fair to try to put Elon Musk into a box. You know, not everybody fits as neatly into a box as something like oh, I don't know, mister mom. Donnie's race. As we found out over the weekend with the new York Times coverage is the African American. We're gonna talk about the New York mayor race, this push to make Democrats more socialists, what it means for the future of Democratic Party. We've got a lot more to
get into in the Shawan Handy program. He's Peter Schweizer. I'm Eric Eggers. We host a podcast called The Drill Down, which you can find at the drill down dot com. We've backed with more Sean Handy. Right after this. Eric Eggers and Peter Schweitzer are filling in for Shawan Handy. We'd love to have you join our conversation. It's one eight hundred and nine for one, seven three six nine for one Shawn. We're gonna talk about the pending disaster
about to impact New York City. That is the Zoron Mom Donnie mayoral campaign and on the other side of this break. But first, we've got some interesting news about one of the people connected to one of the people, Zoron Mam Donnie beat former aide to former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Peter Schweizer is a Chinese agent.
Yeah, well, this is Linda Son. She's charged by the Department of Justice for acting as an unregistered agent for the Chinese government. That was a case filed a couple of months ago. They are now accusing her just recently, alleging that she directed New York government contracts worth approximately thirty five million dollars to Chinese companies controlled by her husband and second cousin in exchange for large kickbacks. The question was she worked for the State of New York.
Her husband was an unsuccessful businessman, but they had a four million dollar house on Long Island, a two million dollar condo in Hawaii, and a ferrari and they couldn't figure out how they made it. This is the explanation. Son, through an attorney, is denying the charge. But this happened during COVID, remember when there was a scramble for PPE supplies. Linda's son now has been charged with taking kickbacks in addition to acting as an agent for the Chinese government.
Linda Sun, by the way, was the chief Diversity officer for Governor Quovo's office. And what I like is that when the New York Office was trying to get PPE equipment from China, they decided to reach out via Linda Sun.
Yeah, we're going to pick the Chinese aide. She's the one to do it. Uh So, in the next hour we are going to talk about the political tsunami about to hit New York. Join the Conversation one eight hundred nine four one seven, three, two six