Bombshell Evidence: Up to FOUR Biden Family Members Together Getting Over $1 MILLION from Communist China

I'm sorry to say I'm not shocked at all. We keep seeing every day, every week, more and more evidence of Biden family corruption and in particular evidence of the Biden family being in business with the Chinese Communist government.

If you look at it what the House Oversight Committee has released and what the records show according to that committee, it starts with the fact that I'm first twenty seventeen, which is less than two months after Biden Lee's public office, Robinson Walker LLLC, and this fellow, rob Walker is a close associate of Biden, receives a three million dollar wire from State Energy HK Limited, which is a Chinese company. Now,

what does Robinson Walker ll lc do. It then wires one million, sixty five thousand to a company that is associated with James Gillier, who is James Gillier. James Gillier was a business partner of Hunter Biden and was involved in foreign transactions with a Biden family And what happened after that? After that, Biden family members in their companies began receiving incremental payments over a period of approximately three months. How much were those payments one million, sixty five thousand,

six hundred ninety two. So to underscore that, the amount that's transferred to James gill is a million, sixty five thousand. The amount that then goes to Biden family members is a million sixty five thousand and an additional six hundred ninety two dollars. I don't know what the six hundred ninety two is. So that fact is there that about a third of the money that apparently came from China

went to the Biden family. But fact number two, the Oversight Committee mentions is the number of people receiving this cash has grown. So according to the Oversight Committee, James Biden, which is Joe Biden's brother, receives some of the money. Hunter Biden, who we all know, receives some of the money. And then a new person of interest, Hallie Biden, now Hallie Biden was the widow of Joe Biden's son Biden,

She receives some of the money. And then there's a fourth bank account that is identified as an unknown Biden who also received some of the money. And it's not clear from what the House is released, and I don't think they know yet whether this fourth Biden is one of the three already listed James, Hunter or Halle or whether it's someone else entirely. But what we now know is the number of Bidens receiving cash and cash that appears to be funneled directly from the Chinese Communist government

has grown substantially in the last twenty four hours. The question that I think so many Americans want to know right now is, Okay, at what point do we just call this straight up bribery and corruption. And the reason why is there's no indication that James Biden and Halle Biden did business together, and we're talking about legitimate business or the new person of interest with Hunter Biden and

with the President. And at some point you ask, okay, are these people doing legitimate businesses or could they even claim center that they were doing legitimate business when clearly their resumes are completely different. And you put it Hallie in there, and the question becomes, at what point do we just say this is a this is a money laundering scheme in essence to give it to all the family members. Well, it certainly looks like it on the face.

I'm not aware of any facts justifying work that that Hallie Biden might have done for for the Chinese Communist government or for this Chinese company. Um. You know, Hunter Biden led the effort to try to get this money from China, and he received the lion's share of it.

His experience with China seems quite limited other than the fact that Daddy was vice president and China I believe thought it was profitable to send money to the Biden family, including as Hunter Biden's laptop famously says, ten percent for the big guy, that obviously being Joe Biden. We now have multiple witnesses who've testified that the big guy was

was Joe Biden. Look, this is similar to an even greater degree the inference that was raised by Hunter Biden's working for Barisma and getting over a million dollars for Barisma. Barisma is the Ukrainian natural gas company. Hunter Biden does not speak Ukrainian. To the best of by knowledge, there's

no evidence that he does. Hunter Biden did not know a damned thing about oil and gas, and so it raised an obvious question, why would a Ukrainian company pay someone who knew nothing about what they did over a million bucks? Generally companies don't do that. If you pay someone a million bucks, you think you're getting something for it. That raises the inference at the payment. The only thing

Hunter Biden added to the equation was Daddy. That now is made even more likely by the escalating number of Biden family members who for the Chinese Communist government. Presumably we're doing even less than Hunter Biden was doing for Barissma.

All of which gets back to something we've discussed on this podcast before, which is the Department of Justice has appointed a special counsel that is investigating number one, the classified documents that Joe Biden had littered around seemingly every home he owns, and we've talked about in this podcast before that special counsel's investigation and also the DOJ's investigation into Hunter Biden that they have leaked vigorously to the press.

Both of those, we will know whether DOJ is shilling for the White House by answering one question, do those investigations examined directly corruption by Joe Biden, the big guy, the president, or do they do everything they can to shield off the big guy and stay focused on potential crimes committed own down river Biden family members. If DJ turns a blind eye to the big guy, that means the Biden Department of Justice is an active participant in the cover up, and we're going to know that sooner

rather than later. There's another aspect of this, and that is it's not even clear with this wire transfer, with this three million dollars and an over a million going the Biden family, what goods or services? And I say this, everybody listened to this. If any we're provided in exchange for these payments. Before we go through that, I want to tell people about Patriot Mobile real quick. Patriot Mobile is the only Christian conservative cell phone company in the US.

And if you're sick and tired of what companies that you pay money to every month and then they actually go against your values, You've got an option now in the cell phone industry, you can actually switch to Patriot Mobile, and it's easy. You can keep your same cell phone number. You can keep your same cell phone or switch to a new phone. Maybe you want to upgrade, you can

do that. The other great thing about Patriot Mobile is when you pay your bill every month, they take a portion of that bill and they give it back to conservative causes and organizations that actually stand for what we believe in. We're talking about First and Second Amendment right organizations standing up for the rights of unborn children, and

even helping people with adoptions. If you're ready to have a company stand with you and what you believe in, you're gonna have a cell phone anyway, you might as well support what you believe in. When you pay your bill, call them age seven eighth Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot eight seven eight Patriot. Use a promo Verdict you'll get the best deals of the day. Patriotmobile dot com

slash Verdict now center. When this hit, it obviously spooked Hunter Biden's team because they usually don't put out much and Hunter Biden's legal team issued a statement claiming that he had engaged in a quote legitimate private business venture with a Chinese company. As part of that jointure, Hunter received his portion of good faith seed funds, which he shared with his uncle James and Hallie Biden, with whom he had he was involved with at a time, and

sharing expenses quote unquote. They're not even saying what the company would have done. You would assume and you're again you're you're a lawyer, you would know this. This is a statement that I think opens them up to even more problems because they can't tell you what they actually did. Well, I think that's right, and you would think that they would want to put their best story forward, They would

want to explain something. And look, I just asked folks to ask yourself at home, have you ever had anyone pay you a million bucks? And if so, and there's some people who have, did you have to do something for it? I mean, in your experience, do people usually get paid a million bucks for doing nothing? Now, let me ask a second question, when was the last time you got paid a million bucks from the Chinese Communist government or a company owned and controlled by the Chinese

Communist government. Does that raise a different set of questions?

And on top of that, if you happen to be Maybe we've got a podcast lister who has received a million bucks from the Chinese Communist government, although I doubt it, but if they have, it's worth asking was your father at the time or had he recently been the Vice President of the United States and making public policy decisions directly impacting China at some point, If the Chinese Communist government is essentially dropping off paper bags filled with rolls

of fresh hundred dollar bills to every Biden family member they can find, if that doesn't start to look like bribery, I don't know what does. But I am glad that the House Oversight Committee is examining this. I'm glad they're putting out the facts. I assume the core media will utterly ignore it because the corporate media no longer engages in journalism. They no longer report on facts. If you want to learn facts, you have to listen to sources

like this podcast that just lays out the facts. You can also watch Fox News or Newsmax to get some of these facts. But I'm going to hold my breath for CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC to cover these facts because it's inconvenient to their political narrative. You know, I pulled this clip up center because it was you were speaking. It made me remember something that Joe Biden said in an Axios on HBO interview back in two thousand and nineteen when he was asked a question about

Hunter Biden. This goes back to Barisma. This goes back to him on the board, and the President said this. We now know that his statement here is not accurate and or correct. Another way of putting is he lied to listen. I don't know what he was doing. I know he was on the board. I found out he was on the board after he's on the board, and that was it. And there's nobody has a lot of time. Isn't this something you want to get to the bottom of. No, because I trust my son. I trust my son, Senator.

That's his statement. He said he didn't even know that he was on the border Barisma until after he was on the border Barisma. We know from the emails laptop that's not true. And he basically says, I trust my son, So everybody else in America should trust us as well. Well. Now with the Biden family money expanding to these other people with the last named Biden. How does the present still stand by that statement, and how damning could that

be if we look at at the actual issue of impeachment. Look, it can be very damning. And I want to be clear, there's more than one way that the Chinese Communist government or Barisma, the Ukrainian Natural Gas Company can funnel cash to Joe Biden. One way to funnel cash is with cash going directly to the big guy, directly to Biden. But another way is just sending cash to various family members.

I know, imagine for a second. You know you've got little kids, but imagine you had an adult son who had serious substance abuse problems, who had been a serious financial drain on your bank account because you were supporting him,

You were having to provide for him. He was a troubled son, and suddenly a foreign government begins sending him millions of dollars and taking the burden off you, even if you never deposit a penny in your own bank account, removing a burden that you previously had providing for your troubled son. That is, money is fungible, that that is, in effect, giving money directly to Joe Biden and it

certainly would have been received, is that. And I'll say that was a point that was made to me by someone who was a former very senior official in Washington, who had served in very senior positions in previous White Houses. And I think it's a point that is exactly true. One of the things we know about China, and we know this from our own you know, internal reporting from the Deep State when they've talked about this, China has a clear desire to compromise and to have influence over

American policy. We've seen this at the universities that's been that's come up with a Biden Center, for example. We've seen this with the money that they've given the Clinton Foundation to others. But they want influence. And China having this desire to have influence, you couldn't have hit a bigger grand slam than this amount of influence over the most prominent family in American politics right now, in real time.

And that is the other thing. If Joe Biden is compromised, can you impeach somebody center going backwards, and I'm sure the Democrats say, well, this stuff happened when he left the vice presidency. The payments came in after he left. So there's there's you can't go back and look at what he did in the past. But if it is influencing his what he's doing now and what he's saying now, and he's still doing favors for these countries, now, is

that an impeachable offense. Well, I think that is an open question, but the Constitution itself is silent on it. Here's what the Constitution says. Article two, Section four. The Constitution reads as follows. Quote, the President, vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery,

or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, notably, in that constitutional text, there's no provision that that is treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors that must have been committed while in federal office. And ultimately, the interpretation of whether the crimes had to be while in federal office would be an interpretation that would fall to the House and Senate. Now, the way impeachment works, it's the House

of Representatives that brings impeachment. Impeachment is not removing a president from office. Impeachment is the effectively the same thing as an indictment. An indictment is when a grand jury returns an indictment, it is bringing charges against you. So if a majority of the House votes to impeach the president, then the president is impeached. We've seen in modern times Bill Clinton be impeached and we've seen Donald Trump be impeached twice. Both of them were impeached because the majority

of the House voted to impeach them. When that happens, it then goes to the Senate, and the Senate conducts a trial for the president of the United States. The trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, and in order to convict, it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict, and with the case of Bill Clinton and in both instances Donald Trump, of course, there were not the two thirds to convict. It is

only upon conviction that a president can be removed from office. Now, the interpretation of what the scope of the impeachment clause is is left to the House and Senate. The House in determining whether to impeach, the Senate in determining whether to convict. In the most recent presidential impeachments. It's been a major issue of contention whether the particular misconducted issue

qualified as high crimes or misdemeanors. This podcast launched on the very first day of the first Trump impeachment that night, and we've discussed at great length the meaning of the phrase high crimes or misdemeanors. We did not discuss the question of whether the conduct could precede the time as president, but I can tell you it's come up a couple

of times. So Number one John C. Calhoun. So, John C. Calhoun was Vice president in eighteen twenty six, and at the time, John C. Calhoun requested that the House conducted impeachment inquiry regarding allegations that he had profited from a contract during his tenure as United States Secretary of War. So it was for conduct that preceded his service as vice president. But he asked and his request was granted. A House Select Committee conducted an impeachment inquiry, and after

several weeks found that Calhoun was innocent of wrongdoing. And so you might argue, and I suspect if an impeachment were proceeding, people would use the Calhoun case to argue on both sides. Some might say, well, the fact that he was not impeached shows that that perhaps you can impeach for conduct prior to being in office. Others might argue, well, no, that just showed that he was innocent of the conduct. A second example is in nineteen seventy three Spiro Agnew.

So Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixon's vice president and on September twenty sixth, nineteen seventy three, Spiro Agnew asked the House again to launch an impeachment inquiry into him, and that request was denied by the Speaker of the House, Carl Albert Now. At the time, the reason Agnew wanted the impeachment inquiry was there were charges that he had received bribes from construction companies during his time as a Baltimore County executive at his time as governor of Maryland.

And actually, Andrew cited the John C. Calhoun president as a basis for the impeachment inquiry, and he hoped that the impeachment inquiry would serve as an alternative to the grand jury investigation that was ongoing. What ultimately happened was the grand jury investigation moved forward and on October tenth, nineteen seventy three, as part of a plea bargain relating to charges of tax of Asian Vice President Agnew resigned.

So there now, I will say some of the allegations of corruption concerning Agnew also extended to his time as vice president. So again I would expect the House and Senate to argue that precedent on both sides. But the short answer is the House of Representatives is given the authority under the Constitution to impeach under whatever circumstances the House determines meets the standards of high crimes or misdemeanors, and nothing in the Constitution the text of it, limits

it to only crimes committed while in federal office. Last question on this, and so many people have thrown around this word, and I want to be cautious when talking about it, but I think you can explain what it actually means and what it's supposed to mean. Is the word treason if a president, any president, is acting on behalf of another nation. Before I get your thoughts on that, though,

I want to tell you about chalk. If you're a real American man and you want to maximize your masculinity by boosting testofs from levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. You can actually do it with the Chalk Male Vitality Stack. Now, if you're a guy and you just feel like you've us a little bit of that edge, you're getting a little bit older and you don't feel like yourself anymore, you can fight back again that war on masculinity, and you can do it with Chalk Choq.

They are here to help real men just like you and I maximize our test Outstrom levels by boosting them up to twenty percent over ninety days. If you are ready to get that feeling back, then you need to check out Chalk. Go online tochoq dot com use the promo code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life plus you can cancel Anytimehoq dot com promo code Ben for thirty five percent off. Now, because they have been bribed because of these business deals, is

that a treasonous offense? Because we see that as a word now that I think is overused way too much. But would that be would that fall under that category? Well, that question is interesting. Treeason is actually the only crime that is defined not just by statute but in the text of the Constitution. Article three. Section three of the Constitution provides, quote, treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to

their enemies giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. And so it's the only crime the Constitution specifically defines leving war against them. Let's take the first part of that. I think it would be very difficult to argue that Joe Biden has levied war against the United States. I think that part clearly would not apply.

Or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort, one could make that argument. I think it would be a high standard. The long and short of it is, as as a criminal matter, I think you would be far more likely to get a conviction for bribery or official corruption than for treason. The standard for treason is really really high. But you don't have to prove treason for impeachment, and bribery is another ground explicitly laid out

in the Constitution for impeachment. So I would say the more relevant inquiry here is simply the inquiry was Joe Biden corruptly benefiting in effect being bribed by the Chinese Communist government and these facts. As you have more and more Biden family members getting paid substantial sums of money, it raises the inference more and more strongly. Final question on this because it is such an important topic when

it comes to law and not overstepping. We've also had a lot of people say impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, and we've seen that and abused when Donald Trump was the president.

With that being said, is there enough here do you believe for the House with a good conscience to say we need to go through impeachment or do you think they still need to wait and see more intel and more information come out of the Suspicious Activity Report, etc. Well, I think they need more evidence to successfully impeach the president. I'm glad the Oversight Committee is engaging in this investigation

of every confidence they will continue engaging in this investigation. Look, one thing to remember, there's only a vote majority in the House. Unfortunately, the chances that Democrats would vote to impeach President Biden are very close to zero. They've demonstrated that they will be hard partisans and holding the entirety

of the House. I believe the first place impeachment should start is impeaching Alejandro may Orchis for the Secretary of Homeland Security for his utter dereliction of duty, for his refusing to follow the law, for his allowing into the country five point five million illegal immigrants. I think that should be the first impeachment. I will point out it's not even clear the House can get a majority to

impeach him. There are Republicans in the House who are publicly saying they would be hesitant to do that, and so that should be the first starting point. I think the second starting point should be impeaching Merrick Garland, the Attorney General. We've talked at great length about how Garland has been the most political attorney general in our nation's history, and in fact, if we see DJ refusing to investigate the mounting evidence of official corruption against the Lighthouse, that

becomes yet another grounds for impeachment of Garland. If the evidence continues to build, I think the House should very seriously consider impeachment of the president, but I think they need to build more evidence before going forward, because they're not going to get the votes if they went forward today, I don't think they would get the votes. If the evidence continues to be laid out at some point in

the future, they might. Well. I want to get people an update on another story that we talked about and really broke news on here on Verdict, and that is you have now moved forward and we played that audio earlier of the judge, a federal judge that went to go speak at Stanford and was ridiculed and heckled and mocked, and it was pretty disgusting. You've now asked Stanford to punish the students who heckled that federal judge, and you've also now called for the Texas Bar Association to do

something as well. Give everybody an update on that. Well, sure, two follow ups. I've said to let her to Stanford Law School, asking what steps they intend to take Stanford, the president of Stanford, the dean of the law school have publicly apologized. So. Federal Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan was invited to speak at Stanford Law School by the Federalist Society. He came to speak and a group of left wing activist Stanford Law students began heckling him.

Began screaming at and began cursing at, and began yelling obscene insults and expletives at him, and shut down his speech. And the Dean of d EI at Stanford Law School came and instead of enforcing Stanford's free speech policy, she stood up and gave a six minute condescending lecture to the judge, essentially siding with the protesters and attacking the judge. And Stanford has already admitted in its written apology that she was not implementing their free speech policy. She was

violating that policy. So I've written to Stanford saying, well, if you mean to protect free speech, then the question is what are the consequences? How will you enforce it? And I've asked Stanford two things. Number one, what will the disciplinary consequences be for the students who engaged in this conduct? And mind you, this is all videotapes, so you don't need to be a Sherlock Holmes to figure out who they were. It's all on videotape. They know

who the students are. And number two, I've called on Stanford to fire this dean, this dean, to have the school official side with the violent not violent the angry, profane protesters who were shouting down a several sitting Federal Court of Appeals judge in violation of Stanford Law School policy. I think is and should be a firing offense. And if if she gets off with a slap on the wrist,

you can be sure this will happen again. This will not be the last time that left wing activist feel free to shut down events that Look, there were other students there who wanted to hear what the judge had to say, and Stanford has yet to respond to my letter. I expect that they will, but I can tell you the dean of the law school has already had a bunch of left wing protesters show up outside of her

class dressed in black, dressed like Antifa protesters protesting her. Now, they did not shout her down and silence her, so they have a right to do that. But they are already I think, trying to intimidate the dean because she dared apologize for what happened. And in my view, if students believe they could engage in this conduct without consequence,

we will see more of it now. I sent a second letter to the State bar of Texas and The letter that I sent to the State Bar of Texas asks the State Bar to investigate to take any students who are graduating from Stanford Law School in the years twenty twenty three, twenty four, two twenty five, and ask the students graduating in those years to answer in writing a very simple question, did they participate in the shameful

harassment of Judge Duncan on March nine, twenty twenty three. Now, I would assume the vast majority of Stanford graduates would answer truthfully, no, I did not participate in that. If they answer yes, here's what I said in my letter. I would leave it to the considered judgment of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Board of Bar Examiners what the proper remedies should be A remedial training course, a letter of apology, or the like for those that

respond in the affirmative. Now, some commentators online have said, well, calling for the students to be disciplined, calling for the dean to be fired, that that censorship, that's cancel culture, and let me talk for a minute about why it's not. Because it's important understand this number one, a member of the bar, that is a unique responsibility. It is something. Every state has a bar exam. There's an extensive process.

To become an attorney is someone who is admitted to the bar in the United States at a state, at one of the states in the United States. So I'm a member of the Texas Bar. I'm a member of the District of Columbia Bar. To be admitted to the bar, you got to take the bar exam in Texas. It's a three day exam. So I sat and took that three day exam. You have to have graduated from an incredited law school. I did that as well. But they

also engage in an examination of character and fitness. So generally speaking, if you, for example, have a felony conviction, generally speaking, you can't be admitted to the bar. Remember, an attorney is someone who handles client money, who represens the interest of a client. And if you're a litigator, an attorney's job is to appear in court and represent your clients. And so every state bar handles bar admissions

looking to character and fitness. And I got to say, listen, if you're just a jerk, if you're an obnoxious protester, and let's say you come and scream at a random lawyer, like the Yale law students did when Kirsten Wagoner, who had just won a major religious liberty case, spoke at the law school. If you're doing that, that's obnoxious, it's uncouth, it's problematic, and it was contrary to Yale's free speech policy. But it is qualitatively different if you scream at a

public official. If you come scream at me, and I've had many protesters scream and curse at me, you know what, that's part of being in public life. It is qualitatively different if you're screaming and cursing and hurling expletives at a federal judge. An attorney owes a duty to the court, and whether you like the judge or not, if you engage in that conduct at a courtroom, you will be held in contempt and they will put handcuffs on you and send you to jail. There are judges with whom

I disagree strongly. There are justices on the Supreme Court with whom I disagree strongly. I have to say, prior to what happened at Stanford, I have never once seen a federal judge treated like that like these law students did, and so I think it is an important inquiry for Stanford Law School if its policy means anything to implement its policy. And I think it's an important inquiry for the state bar I hope, not just of Texas but

of other states. And let me finally mention another thing that the Supreme Court has long said with respect to free speech, that you don't have a heckler's veto, which is, it was entirely within the rights of the students at Stanford to protest Judge Duncan or anyone else. And actually, if they had stood outside the event, like they stood outside the Stanford Dean's con law class and silently protested his speech, that would have been consistent with Stanford's free

speech policy. But they didn't do that. They tried to aggressively disrupt the speech. They succeeded. He was not able to give the speech he had planned to give. And the heckler's veto is someone saying I'm going to prevent you. Ben Ferguson, maybe you attended this speech and you want to hear what the speaker has to say. Somebody else doesn't have the right to shut down an event, And as a heckler say I'm vetoing this person's right to speak and this person's right to hear. That is not

protected free speech. That is disruptive conduct, which is qualitatively different, which is why Stanford Law School has a policy that says you cannot disrupt a speech. And look, the question I asked on the pod a couple of days ago is very simple. If the identical thing had happened, but instead of a conservative Court of Appeals judge, it had been Sonya sotobayor, or it had been Steve Bryer, it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was still alive.

If students law students had shouted and cursed and yelled profane expletives at any of those justices, do you doubt for a minute that the students would have faced immediate disciplinary reaction, and for that matter, that any dean who sided with the students engaging in that conduct would have been terminated. I think the odds are one hundred percent. And now Stanford can demonstrate whether it actually means what its policy says, or whether it in effect condones this

rather astonishing conduct. It's going to be very interesting to see how they respond, or if they respond. It all directly to your letter. Will obviously keep vertical listeners up to date on that. Finally, Senator three years ago to day, everything changed fifteen days is to stop the spread. Right, Well, we're now that the three year anniversary of that. Before we go through that, I want to tell people about the Gusts of Precious Metals. They're different because they even

tell you if a gold Ira isn't your answer. There's no pressure with August of Precious Metals, just the facts about how it could work for you and your retirement. Now, if you have an IRA or four one K, and you've saved more than one hundred thousand dollars, and you know how crazy economy is, and you know how important it is to protect your assets, especially if you're close to retirement, because there is no time to make up losses,

call a Gust of Precious Metals. Not only will you get their free guide, but you will also get a web conference. Now, the web conference is amazing. I've done it, and you'll sit down and chat with someone one on one about your goals. Call them age seven seven four the number four gold Ira eight seven seven the number four gold Ira or online augusta Precious Metals dot com. Use my name Ben and you will actually get fees for up to ten years for free. Augusta Precious Medals

dot com. Now Fauci, doctor Fauci and Burns. What they had to say three years ago, Take a listen. Oh yes, go ahead. He was my mentor, so I'm going to have to let him speak. The small print here, it's

really small print. In states with evidence of community transmission bas restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed, should be closed there it is three years ago, centator where I mean, I gotta get your reaction to how joyful they see now that day my mentors here, We've got all this power, it's amazing, and we're gonna shut down everything in this country. And they basically were able to

do that successfully. Yeah, look, that's exactly right. That was Deborah Burkes and Anthony Fauci. That was at a White House press conference. And the sort of smug gleeful of this in which they're laughing, in which they're they're casually you know, he's reading, just shut them all down, shut down your businesses, destroy your businesses, not my concern I've said before, and I believe Anthony Fauci is the most

destructive bureaucrat in the history of this country. That the damage he did to millions of lives, the damage he did to millions of children who had their schools shut down in many instances for more than a year, and who will face serious learning gaps for the rest of

their lives. And by the way, that disproportionately impacts low income kids, African American kids and Hispanic kids who bore the brunt of the callous disregard that he implemented, the jobs those restaurants and bars that he's referring to, those stores, all of the jobs family small businesses that were destroyed, many of which never opened again, and he casually flicked them away, and not to mention the restrictions that were

put in place. You know, I think of all of the people who all of the seniors who died alone because policies were put in place that their loved ones couldn't be with them and comfort them. You know. I mean, it's just that those are heartbreaking tragedies. And we now know that Anthony Fauci was repeatedly lying to Congress in the Americ people. He was repeatedly lying about COVID having its origins in a Chinese lab. We now have two Biden agencies that have concluded it as likely that COVID's

origins escaped from a Chinese lab. This podcast laid out the evidence for that three years ago. In fact, almost exactly the time Fauci and Burkes were doing this press conference, Verdict was laying out the evidence that COVID likely came from a Chinese government lab. Fauci was more than happy to mislead the American people about that. He was more than happy to ask big tech to censor information about that.

He was more than happy to lie to Congress and insist that the federal government had not funded gain a function research. And he also repeatedly was all over the place on policy issues such as whether or not a mask is effective in stopping the spread of the virus. He had said previously that it wasn't, and then under political pressure, he flipped his position. And he was quite willing to lie to the American people as the politics dictated.

And I'll point out when it came to school closures, Fauci was also very willing to respond to political pressure from the Biden White House and from the teachers' unions to keep schools closed and to urge that schools be closed, and to urge also that even young children be given the vaccine, to give arguments that we're used in support

of oppressive and morally wrong COVID vaccine mandates. Three years ago today is when they started this high handed, wrongheaded policies, and the country will never be the same because of them, no doubt about it. And we're also going to make sure that we keep all of you updated on the latest breaking news with this hunter Biden and these suspicious

activity reports as well. So make sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button wherever you're listening to this podcast so you do not miss an episode, and we will see you back here in a couple of days.