Joe Biden Compromised plus Huge Ruling by SCOTUS on Affirmative Action and Victory in Religious Liberty Case

has now said, they can connect dots. They've identified these six specific policy decisions that President Joe Biden made that indicate that he has compromised by people that I guess he owes favors to Your reaction to.

this was organized crime. There's no other way to define it. And here's what Comber continued to say. We're going to try to determine how much money the Bidens took and what role Joe Biden played in all of this. It's a huge puzzle. And then he provided some very real specifics. Here's what Comber stated, quote around thirty to forty different

banks and about that many different shell companies. This is an organized attempt by the Biden family to hide the source of money going into these shell companies and to distract from the IRS so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes on it. And that's exactly what the IRS whistleblowers alleged in the transcribed interview with the Ways and Means Committee, that the Biden family never paid money on any of these wires that came into these shell companies.

Comer went on to say that the Biden family businesses of the over the course of several years, received at least ten million dollars from Romania and from China. A total of nine Biden family members received payments, including two of Joe Biden's grandchildren and I don't know about you, but it's pretty typical for grandchildren to be receiving payments from Romania and China. Yeah, totally normal and in fact, and a lot of this. Breitbart has a great article

that lays a lot of these facts out. But Breitbart continues pointing out that Celtic Capri Corps in its twenty seventeen tax returns listed nearly ten million dollars without specifying revenue line items and raising real concerns about who paid that entity, particularly in the wake of Biden's alleged link

to a five million dollar Ukrainian bribery scheme. And I'll point out that Breitbart then quotes from this podcast and says, quote, You're looking at a tax return that has a ten million dollars in cash that came from a mystery source. And I always like when I'm reading for a press story, quoting from the podcast saying that that suggests that what we're covering here matters and it's moving the news forward.

click in so that we ran out of time. In other words, this investigation was a five year investigation, not because there was so much to go through, but because they wanted to make sure that some years that were very damning, that could be major crimes, would just fall off. And that's exactly now what this whistleblower said when he

did the most recent interviews. There's money that was never paid on millions of income that we know of that we can do nothing about now because the statue of limitations. That to me is also a shocking abuse of power. If in fact the DOJ was purposely saying, keep slowing up, keep slowing up, and then oh, well, we can't charge him anymore.

very serious criminal tax violations. And essentially what happened is they slow walked it long enough for the statute of limitations to run on those so that Hunter Biden faces no liability whatsoever. Now, one of the two pieces of new news that has broken is that US Attorney Weiss, who was in charge of this, wanted to bring charges in both the District of Columbia and the Central District

of California, and he was turned down. What we have discovered since then is that the US attorney in DC, Graves, who was appointed by Joe Biden, had been a donor to Joe Biden on two separate occasions. Graves gave to Biden five hundred dollars in April twenty twenty and one thousand dollars in May of twenty twenty. So one of the two US attorneys who said no, we're not going to bring charges against Hunter is a Joe Biden donor.

The other US attorney as strata in the Central District of California was a Kamala Harris donor, and specifically, in twenty fifteen, Estrada gave five hundred dollars to then California Attorney General Kamala Harris. So you literally had donors to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris saying no, we don't want to bring the really serious charges against Hunter Biden that

raises obvious conflicts of interest that the Biden DOJ. It continues to be, sadly the most political attorney general and the most political DOJ we've ever seen.

an axe to grind. But if they are telling the truth, then Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress in response to my questioning, that is a felony with jail time. And if they're telling the truth, Merrick Garland and lawyers working for him are also responsible for obstruction of justice, which is yet another felony. If that is true, I think it is inevitable for any reasonable or rational member of Congress, by which I mean sadly zero Democrats and

some Republicans. I think the inevitable conclusion is that Garland must be impeached. The reason I say zero Democrats it doesn't matter. I don't think the Democrats will vote to impeach him, even if it is proven if they have videotape of the committing felonies, the Democrats are not going to vote to impeach him because it's all partisan politics to them. Whether Republicans vote or not, I don't know, but I think the evidence is becoming more and more compelling,

and I will say so. On Monday's podcast, I called for the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to investigate Merrick Garland and whether to prosecute him for lying under oath and obstruction justice. And I will say that got a lot of folks talking. I know on Megan Kelly's podcast, she was wondering, well, wait a second, is there a conflict between this and impeachment. Let me

be clear, both should be pursued. Absolutely, the House should open an impeachment investigation into Merrick Garland determine whether or not these irs whistleblowers are telling the truth. That absolutely should happen. Simultaneously, the Department of Justice should appoint a special counsel because these are felonies that on the face of it, there is serious, incredible evidence that Attorney General Merrick Garland committed.

clock here. If you're gonna get rid of Joe Biden as the candidate, you better do it quickly because you need to find your next horse. And it seems now like they're saying, Okay, do we get rid of him or do we not?

that's actually willing to actually track down news. Let me just read you the headline from CBS. Quote Hunter, Biden's former business partner was willing to go before a grand jury. He never got the chance. And this is, of course Tony Babolinski, who testified that Joe Biden was involved in the business dealings, the business dealings with China. He testified he came forward and said that ten percent for the

big guy. The big guy was Joe Biden. Now, Biden has flat out denied that as recently as this week. He's told reporters no, wasn't me. I didn't do it. No, no, no, no details. By the way, he just keeps yelling no at reporters. You know, he's kind of like a grumpy old man in his front yard with a shotgun, screaming get off my lawn. He just keeps screaming no, no, no, And that's the total explanation the White House is giving.

But here's what CBS reported, which is that Tony Babolinski was willing to testify before the grand jury, and his attorney affirmatively reached out to the office of Delaware US Attorney David Weiss. Weiss didn't return their calls. So the obvious inference is the order from the Department of Justice is we don't want the big guy. If you've got a witness who testifies about the big guy, we don't

want to hear about it. We're not interested. We want to plunge our head in the sand like an Ostrich because the job of d OJ is protect the big guy. That is yet another example of at best malfeasance, but at worse, active obstruction of justice from main Justice, shutting down investigations into very serious evidence of criminality by Joe Biden because they didn't want Joe Biden implicated, notwithstanding the evidence.

If you're sick and tired of losing money and you want to protect harder and assets, especially if you are close to retirement or in retirement, because there is no time to make up those losses, you need to talk to Augusta Precious Medals.

Augusta Precious Medals dot com. Use promo codverdict and they'll even pay your fees for up to ten years. I Guessta Precious Medals dot com. Senator Back to David Weiss. If he didn't return their phone call, it's probably because he knew exactly what he was going to hear from Tony Bobolinski and he didn't want to admit that he hurt it.

he's not. Every time the media refers to him as Donald Trump appointed US attorney, they're trying to suggest he's a Republican and a Trump partisan. There is zero evidence of that. He may be a Democrat, but we simply don't know. What we do know is that Tony Bobolinsky said at a press conference. This is a quote from Tony Bobolinski quote. I've heard Joe Biden say that he's

never discussed business with Hunter. That is false. I have first hand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden, and CBS News contacted him and baby Lensky says he stands by those statements. And so the fact that when his attorney called David Wise and said, hey, if you want me to talk to the grand jury about this, they didn't call him back, what it tells you is DOJ did not want to

hear that evidence. What we don't know is whether it was David Weis who didn't want to hear it, or whether it was the higher ups a DOJ that were preventing him from going down that line. Because we talked about in both Monday and Wednesday's pods, and I will say, if you're interested in this story, Monday and Wednesday's pods this week are exceptionally important because we do deep dives. We've covered three new major pieces of breaking news on

Hunter Biden in this podcast. But there's a lot in Monday and Wednesday that we went into, including the fact that that main Justice and that the US attorneys actively prevented investigation into the Big Guy. Assistant US attorney working for David Weiss actively prevented investigation into the Big Guy,

into Hunter Biden's father. And so that is consistent with what the whistleblowers told us, which is they didn't want to hear anything anything, anything that implicated Joe Biden in criminality and not calling Tony Bobelinski back is one hundred percent consistent with the whistleblowers testimony, which, among other things, raises the likelihood that the whistleblower is telling the truth.

And Merrick Garland lied under oath to Congress and committed felonies for which impeachment is merited and for which a special counsel should be appointed.

and public policy. But there was two cases that they looked at here. One of them dealt with an Ivy League school. The other one dealt with unc And in both of these cases they said, you cannot give basically extra credit or points or bonuses, or have quotas solely based on the color of someone's skin. Explain this in more detail and specifically how the Fourteenth Amendment applies in these cases.

And what the court concluded is that the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects grants every citizen the equal protection of the laws, that under the fourteenth Amendment, the government cannot discriminate based on race. So every government school, whether you're talking about UNC, whether you're talking about University of Texas, whether you're talking about University of California, if it is a government school, they cannot discriminate based on race.

That's a landmark ruling. The other case was Harvard University. Now, Harvard University is not a government school. It is a private university. The fourteenth Amendment does not con strict what a private university does. The fourteenth Amendment applies only to government. So the ruling about Harvard University concerned Title seven, which is the landmark civil rights decision, and also Title six.

It's actually Title six of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, which governs university, and it concluded the same standard applies that under the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, at likewise under the Fourteenth Amendment, that

racial discrimination is illegal. The consequences are massive. Two days ago, under existing Supreme Court precedent, it was permissible for UNC and for Harvard and for every other school to say, if we like your race, if it's a race that we want to favor, we can give you a benefit, we can give you a plus factor. We can favor you entirely because of your race. And if we don't like your race, we can penalize you, we can harm you, we can reduce your chances of admission entirely because of race.

The Supreme Court, by a six ' to three vote yesterday said that is unconstitutional with state schools, that is illegal with private schools. Discriminating based on race is wrong.

some universities with incredible qualifications. They're saying, this is also going to destroy this country in businesses and private sector as well. Put that into perspective.

discriminate based on race. And the bizarre thing is, look, one of the parades of horribles that you will see leftists, whether Democrats or corrupt corporate media voices or university administrators say, is without discriminating based on race, we will get lily white schools. That that's the specter that they put forth. Now, they are a host of ways that you can ensure sure that you have a diverse student body without discriminating

on race. The most obvious one that some universities do is to give a preference for low income students, a student who is from a poor family, a student who has struggled to overcome adversity. And I think there's a very reasonable and principled argument that a student who is

overcoming adversity, that that's a real sense of accomplishment. That if you grow up with enormous privilege and enormous advantages and you do well, great, But if you're a single mom in a really tough environment and you excel academically, that reflects something positive or beneficial. That will produce student bodies that are racially diverse. But what it will not do.

So the existing university racial preferences benefit African American students and Hispanic students whose parents are rich, who go to a fancy boarding school, but yet they just view it as race. And so if you happen to be a minority student with very significant socioeconomic advantages, you get an enormous boost. And if you happen to be a poor

white student. Let's say you're growing up in Appalachia and your parents no one in the family has ever gone to college, and you work your tail off, well, they don't recognize that, and so if universities want to, they can number one create a preference for low income students to give an additional benefit to overcoming adversity. They can number two create a benefit if you're the first person

in your family to go to college. That's another way that we know will statistically produce a more racially diverse student body. They can number three create a preference if you grow up in a household where English is not the first language. All three of those are non racial

proxies that result in a racially diverse student body. Now here's the amazing thing, ben most of our universities don't care even if they can get the exact same damn student body they had yesterday in terms of racial breakdown. They affirmatively want to discriminate on race. It shows them I am woe care me roar. And so you're going

to see a couple of things happen. Number one, there's a portion of this decision where the majority says, look, nothing in this case means that universities cannot consider overcoming adversity, overcoming discrimination, overcoming hardship. What's going to happen is in university essays, the schools are going to try very hard to replicate exactly the affirmative action and quota system they

had before. And by the way, if someone is a minority student, every student is going to be coached that they're opening sentence is going to be as a Hispanic kid growing up in hardship, here's the adversity of as an African American. Here's all of the hardships I overcame. That will be the game to get around the system.

And here's the second piece, Ben. You may have noticed universities all aroun across the country in the past year announcing that they're eliminating the SAT and the ACT, announcing that those tests are optional. And you may have wondered why. I mean, look, when you and I went to school, we had to take either the SAT or ACT. It used to be every school required that. Why have they suddenly started getting rid of it in mass And the

answer is simple. Most of the universities anticipated yesterday's ruling. The writing was on the wall. They knew where this was going, and so they knew that come June of this year, they were not going to be able to discriminate based on race. And these radicals and universities they

want to so much that they said, oh crap. If we have SAT school scores, if we have ACT scores, and we keep doing the same thing, we keep admitting people of races that we want a preference whose scores are one, two hundred and three hundred points lower than students of different races, well then it's going to be obvious and we're gonna get sued, and we're gonna get nailed, and we're going to pay judgments. So the way we avoid it is we just won't collect SAT scores or

ACT scores, so there won't be that objective metric. The entire reason the schools are getting rid of these scores is because they want to defy the Supreme Court decision and they want to keep discriminating even though they could get the identically diverse student bodies without racial discrimination. These leftists believe racial discrimination is an affirmatively good thing.

our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you're sick and tired of giving your money to WoT companies, WoT corporations that are actually fighting against your values when you pay your bills, you've got an option now when it comes to your cell phone. For years, big mobile companies have been dumping millions and millions of dollars into leftist causes. Many of them have given millions to Plan Parenthood, and that's just one of the many radical groups they've been supporting.

Now you have a choice. You don't have to give your money to them. Patriot Mobile America's only Christian conservative

wireless provider. Not only do they offer you dependable nationwide coverage where you get to keep your same cell phone number you have right now, many times you can keep the same cell phone you have in your hand, and they give you coverage on all three major networks, so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda that the leftist companies are pushing on you.

When you switch to Patriot Mobile, a portion of your bill every month actually goes back to support free speech and religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, our military, our veterans, our wounded warriors. And that is why I want you to switch. It costs you not a single extra dime when they do that every month. They have one hundred percent US based customer service team that can make switching easy. And if you have a business or a small business, they have a division just

for you. Call Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot, use a promo code vertic. You'll get free activation and the best deals of the year eight seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash Verdict center.

a damn. These are the same people Merrick Garland, leading Biden's doj sits by refuses to enforce federal law while violent radicals protest in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices that he disagrees with that. Joe Biden disagrees with They're threatening violence, and the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce the law because they would tear the court down,

they would burn it to the ground. Chuck Schumer stood on the floor on the steps of the Supreme Court and said, you will re the whirlwind if you issue rulings we do not like. I think it is shameful what Biden is doing. And by the way, the decision that he says is not normal is that discriminating based on race is wrong and illegal. And let me tell you a different aspect of this decision that is really important, which is many most of our universities in this country

today actively and aggressively discriminate against Asian American students. The Ivy League schools, Harvard is quite shameless and naked in this. And sadly, I'm an alumnus of Harvard, and so I'm embarrassed of the school. I went to law school. But they say, look, if we admitted students based on merit, there would be too many Asians. Asian Americans do really well in school, they have great grades, they get great

test scores. We don't want too many Asians. So we're going to use racial discrimination to prevent Asians from getting in at the numbers their academic results would merit. It is shameful. And by the way, Harvard has a long history. You go back to the nineteen fifties, Harvard had what was called the Jewish quotas, where they capped Jewish students and it was the same argument, if we let students in based on merit, based on their scores and grades,

we'd get too many Jews. This was how Harvard put it, too many Jews. We don't want too many Jews, so we're going to put a quota because we don't want merit to produce outcomes we don't like. That's what these schools are doing. And I got to say, you know, during the Trump administration, the Democrats voted on what they called an Asian American Hate Crime Bill, and it was based on a fairly ludicrous conceit, which is they said there has been an increase in violence against Asian Americans.

That's true, and they said the reason for that is because Donald Trump said that COVID nineteen came from Wuhan, China and called it the Wuhan virus. That's absurd. But they're playing politics. They wanted to say, Haha, the reason there's violence against Asian Americans is because Donald Trump accurately described the source of COVID nineteen. Well, when the Senate voted on that, I authored an amendment, and I forced to vote on the Senate floor. And my amendment was

one paragraph. It's very simple. You can go and read the amendment. My amendment said, and I'm paraphrasing. I don't have the language in front of me, but my amendment said, any university that discriminates against Asian Americans in admissions or in scholarships shall be ineligible for federal funds that the federal government is not going to pay you if you're engaged in racial discrimination. That's all it said. It was one paragraph. You know what. The vote was a straight

party line vote. Every single Democrat voted no. The author of the ridiculous political bill, Maisie Herono, who is herself Asian American, she happily voted no. And you know what, I am convinced, to my knowledge, not a single Democrat has ever been asked by a single reporter, why did you vote in favor of universities discriminating against Asian Americans. And I got to tell you, Ben, in these two Supreme Court cases, I filed an amicus brief in the

US Supreme Court. I did it jointly with Michelle Steele. Michelle Steele is a Republican from California. She's an Asian American. The two of us together filed an amicus brief along with eighty of our colleagues in Congress, urging the Supreme Court to do exactly what it did yesterday. And because the Court said you can't discriminate based on race, Joe Biden and the Democrats are trying to tear the court to the ground and delegitimize it.

religious accommodation. He said, as an evangelical Christian, he wanted to observe the Sabbath on Sunday and not work work, and the Post Office said no and in fact punished him. He received quote progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He eventually resigned in twenty nineteen, and he filed a lawsuit saying that under Title seven that the Post Office could have accommodated his request to observe the Sabbath without

undue hardship on the conduct of the Post Office's business. Now, in this instance, there was a really bad Supreme Court decision, an older decision called trans World Airlines versus Hartisan, where the Supreme Court has said you don't have to accommodate someone's religious faith if there is quote more than a deminimous cost. In other words, if there's more than just even the tiniest costs of the employers, Nope, you can ignore the employees say screw you. Your religion doesn't matter.

You have to violate your faith. Well, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of growth. Ruled in favor of religious liberty. Justice Alita wrote that Title seven requires employers who are denying religious accommodation to show that the burdens of granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs. This is a great victory for religious liberty, and the fact that every single justice agreed, even the liberals, is really important. This is another case where I led the

amicus brief. I led it along with Senator James Langford and along with Congressman Mike Johnson and ten other members of Congress, urging the Court to rule exactly as they ruled. And I got to say, if you're a person of faith, or if you even just care about religious liberty, you want the First Amendment interpreted to protect your religious liberty, not to have your employer be able to just trample

on your faith willy nilly. This is a great victory for religious liberty and it's reason for everyone to celebrate. And I got to tell you so, my in laws, Heidi's parents are Seventh Day Adventists. Seventh Day Adventists worship on their Christians and Protestant Christians, but they worship on a Jewish Sabbath, so they worship between Friday sundown and Saturday sundown, and they take the Sabbath very, very seriously.

I have to admit I had great joy texting my in laws and telling them about this decision, which they were very happy with because they want their religious liberty rights protected, whether it's worshiping on Saturday or Sunday or whatever your faith is. The Constitution protects religious liberty and this unanimous Supreme Court decision is a big victory for that.

lot of Christians that have been perscuted. We've seen people's homes that have been rated, We've seen have been arrested and harassed by the government. They say it's their right to be able to protest, for example, but it really does come down to your faith in your religion. There's Christian groups that have been attacked and there's a concern that the government's getting so heavy handed. Is this going to be a step in the right direction for these

other issues? And before you answer, let me tell you about our friends of chalk real quick. If you're a guy and you feel like you are losing your edge, you feel like fatigue is setting in, you feel like you're just tired all the time, you just don't feel like yourself. Well, chalk choq dot com is here to help you maximize your masculinity by boosting your testosterum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days now. I've been taking the Mail Vitality Stack and I can tell you

it works. Those days of just feeling like I've got complacency and weakness are over. I feel basically like I'm my old self again. That strength and Vitality is back now. If you've never tried Chalk, do it now, and I'm going to save you over thirty thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. Yeah, you can boost your testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Go to Chalk choq dot com and grab the Mail Vitality

Stack right now. Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood.

hardship on the employer. And this ratchets up the standard for what constitutes an undue hardship. It used to be the case that your employer could basically say, well, tough, your your faith doesn't matter, We're not going to work to accommodate you. After this decision, there's going to be a lot more lenient see a lot more willingness to

recognize that faith is legitimate. Look, ben, there is a reason that religious liberty is protected literally in the first clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The framers of our constitution believe that every other limit liberty begins with the first liberty to worship God Almighty with all of your heart, mind, and soul. That is

an incredibly valuable protection. And by the way, multiple religious organizations engaged on this issue, including organizations representing Jews, representing Muslims, representing Sikhs, representing Seventh day Adventists that they've engaged saying the deminimus test has denied even minor recommodations in the workplace, things that would have been easy for employers to give, but they just said, well, tough, no, we're not going to let you that this is a great victory for liberty.

And I will say there are a lot of areas in which this Supreme Court has been really, really strong, but religious liberty may have been the strongest. Consistently. You've got six justices who care about religious liberty and have been vigorous and defending it. And I'm really encouraged that all nine agreed on this, that that's a good thing today, yesterday was a good day for liberty, and a good day for religious liberty in particular.

for that coming up. Don't forget Monday, Wednesday and Fridays and Monday's episode. Like I said, you can also watch on YouTube. We'll see you back here in a couple of days.