Mark Cuban lays out why net neutrality is so terrible

Mark Cuban joined Glenn for a full hour on TheBlaze TV to discuss the impending decision on net neutrality. Cuban has been an outspoken opponent of net neutrality, and laid out the impact that the legislation could have on entrepreneurs.

Scroll down for a transcript of this segment - Watch the full video on demand now at TheBlaze TV

Glenn: Okay, so I want to start with net neutrality, because you are one of the more outspoken people on this, and you say that it’s going to destroy the Internet as we know it.

Mark: It’s hard to destroy the Internet, but at the same time, I think it’s going to create so much uncertainty that we won’t be able to progress as quickly as we have over the last 20 years.

Glenn: Do you see a Department of the Internet?

Mark: I think that’s what the potential for this rulemaking at the FCC could turn into. I mean, the FCC will have no problem being the Department of the Internet even though they’ll deny that moniker. You know, what it comes down to is that the net has worked. You know, I was writing up something today for somebody in Congress. They had asked me just for something little, and there’s really only two laws that matter for the Internet. One is Moore’s law that says technology is going to double in speed basically.

Glenn: Which it has.

Mark: Which it has, right? And the second is Metcalfe’s law, which says the more devices you add to a network, the more valuable the network becomes, which has been the foundation of the Internet itself and social networking. The more people connected, the more valuable it becomes, and now we’re getting to the Internet of things, the more devices you can connect. Those are the only two laws we need because those have spurred competition. We’re not in an industry where the technology has become stagnant and there’s no more enhancements, and so we need regulation to try to make things happen, right? We’re not there, and so as long as the technology is allowed to advance, we’re okay.

Glenn: Show me where the internet…even with porn…you know, there’s a lot of bad things on the Internet.

Mark: There’s a lot of bad things everywhere.

Glenn: There’s a lot of bad things everywhere. Show me where the Internet has failed. Show me where the problem is.

Mark: They can’t, right? So, if you start looking at the foundation of the net neutrality argument, step number one is well, we’re afraid that the big companies, the big ISPs, are going to prevent access to websites. Well, that’s never happened. There has never been a legal website that that happened.

Glenn: Can I tell you, do you know where that’s happening? That’s happening, and you know this because of your television venture, and I can tell you this because of my television venture. Where that happens is where there’s regulation. In satellite and cable television, you’re blocked, I’m blocked. I could go online and do whatever I want and let the system work it out, let the people decide.

Mark: On one hand, we try to get paid when we’re on satellite and cable. On the other hand, it’s just one for all, and it’s à la carte for the most part over the top.

Glenn: Correct.

Mark: But if you start introducing regulation, then that creates a lot of uncertainty, and the amount of uncertainty will grow not just because the FCC is involved, but because the FCC is involved, there will be all kinds of legal challenges as well, and who knows what direction that’ll take the Internet as well. And so, whether it’s the legal uncertainty, whether it’s the FCC, whether it’s the turnover in the FCC in the future, I mean, we don’t need it.

Glenn: So, tell me why people like Twitter. Tell me why people are coming out and saying we should do this.

Mark: I think the Zeitgeist right now of Silicon Valley, it’s a groupthink that says we need to find somebody to demonize, you know? And it’s always been that way, whether it was IBM way back in the day, then Microsoft. There was always somebody.

Glenn: I don’t buy into that because it doesn’t make sense. The people who are out in Silicon Valley know that the internet works. Why would they be saying…?

Mark: The way it’s presented out there is that we want to keep things the way they are, right? Which makes no sense to me, because the beauty of the Internet is it doesn’t stay the same.

Glenn: It always changes.

Mark: Yeah, it’s always evolving, but I guess if they’re trying to protect your business, if you want things to be the same, why wouldn’t Twitter support it, or why wouldn’t Facebook support it? But in reality, it just makes no sense.

Glenn: Can you make the other side’s case? Make the other side’s case.

Mark: Yeah, of course. You demonize big companies, you know, AT&T bad, Comcast bad, Time Warner bad. Do you like your cable company? Do you like your cable service? Nobody likes their cable service, right?

Glenn: But does anybody really like what government does?

Mark: Well, that’s the tradeoff, but at the end of the day, if there is a utility, and now the Internet has become a utility, so the argument is well, if the Internet’s a utility, it should be regulated.

Glenn: Define utility.

Mark: Utility is something, is a service, a product that is ubiquitous in need. Everybody needs it. Everybody who has a home of some sort needs electricity. We’ve decided that. Everybody needs water. We’ve decided that those are utilities. The Internet and providing data is a utility, and I’m fine with it being called a utility, but unlike those where the product is what the product is, right? Electricity, which drives everything, hasn’t really changed all that much. The grids have changed some. The security needs have changed, but how you receive electricity and how you plug in, when was the last time it changed, you know? Same with water, when was the last time it changed? There is no change there, and so regulating the need, and they also have finite resources that they’re consuming. We can always create more bandwidth. There’s 100 ways to create more bandwidth, whether it’s fiber, whether it’s copper.

Glenn: I read somewhere in England they just finished an experiment, and now they believe they can increase the speed where you can download 18 movies in one second through light.

Mark: Yeah, that’s nothing. That’s peer-to-peer, right? That’s line of sight, right, for fiber, and then there’s the thing called P-wire or P-ware where it’s a reutilization of cell towers where they can increase just using traditional-type cell towers the way their networked together an increase wireless speeds by 1,000 times.

Glenn: Even this idea that somebody could choke down Netflix, which, by the way, was resolved and not resolved to get back to the way it was. It actually worked out better for Netflix.

Mark: Well, it was even worse than that, right? Netflix went cheap, right? Look, and let me just be clear, I’m a big shareholder in Netflix, and I’m a big proponent of Netflix stock, and to me it’s not a conflict to say I’m against net neutrality and for Netflix, because Netflix doesn’t need net neutrality. They wanted to find a CDN, a content distributor, and they went the cheapest way, which was Cogent, and that created their problem with Comcast, which they worked out, like you said. That’s what businesses do, they have conflict, they work them out.

Glenn: Right.

Mark: You don’t need to legislate a business conflict.

Glenn: So, that worked out, plus we have Moore’s law that demonstrates, I mean—

Mark: It’s going to keep on getting better.

Glenn: It’s going to keep getting better and better and better, and there’s nothing that says the future to me anything better than the Telecommunications Act of 1933.

Mark: Yeah, or ’96, right? They’re there, and I’ll give you another reference point in terms of the uncertainty of FCC chairmen. I forget the guy’s name, but I was reading something that Tom Wheeler, the current chairman, wrote about when he first came in about his vision, right, and what he saw, and he talked about the networks of the past, correctly. He talked about the telegraph. He even talked about railroads connecting the company, and then he started talking about and referencing wireless to a certain extent, and what he said was if the FCC hadn’t aggregated the spectrum, we wouldn’t be where we are with wireless, and he was right, but what he also said was the FCC chairman at the time called wireless frivolous. So, all that spectrum was there to their credit, but it took 15 years to do anything with it and put us behind.

Glenn: Look at what happened when we broke down Ma Bell. Everybody fought and said you can’t stop that regulation, that’s going to be bad for the phone system, you can run your truck over a phone, which you could at the time because they owned the phones, and that’s the only thing that was good about it. It was dependable and indestructible, but there was no leap of technology.

Mark: Okay, let me contribute a little fun fact, right? This building, right, there was a company called Printronix that was the first tenant in this building at the communication studio here who was the company that sued that broke up Ma Bell.

Glenn: Oh, you’re kidding me?

Mark: Nope, that’s the honest-to-God truth.

Glenn: Man, I love that.

Mark: Because I ended up buying that company for my first company, MicroSolutions and taken a part of it, so there’s a little fun fact.

Glenn: So, it broke up. As soon as we got regulation out, look what happened to phones.

Mark: I don’t want to pretend that I’m an expert in the ’33 law, even the ’96, even though I’ve talked to commissioners for the last 15 years about it. To me, the foundation is you don’t know how politics—look at current chairman Wheeler’s approach, right? He had one approach to net neutrality which was very light, you know, don’t really need to do a whole lot, we don’t need to pass anything. Then all of a sudden Verizon sues and wins, so that opened the door, but he didn’t change his position. Then President Obama comes in and says here’s my position on net neutrality, and now all of a sudden Commissioner Wheeler changes his position and says it’s because these 4 million comments came in, the point being not that he doesn’t have the right to change his mind, not that the president doesn’t have the right to say something. That process is going to be repeated with the next chairman and president and then the next chairman and president and then the next chairman and president, because the Internet is going to continue to evolve to some extent. We don’t need that uncertainty.

Glenn: So, are you for…because I heard you kind of backed down a bit when you were pushed and said well, would you be for Congress doing this?

Mark: We’re different, right? I don’t necessarily, and I said that because from what I’ve heard from what Congress is doing from the couple people looking at doing something, it was a very simple reconfirmation of what everybody already agrees on, that no website will be blocked, no legal website will be blocked, right, and just basic 1-2-3-type stuff that’s just like saying two plus two is four. That’s why. So, based off of what I’ve heard, I don’t have the problem. Now, if they go into all new territory, yeah, then that brings up a whole different set.

Glenn: I’ve been concerned that once you open the door, I mean, I was under the Telecommunications Act of 1933 when I first got into radio. I got into radio when I was 13 years old, and I had to take a test to be able to be on the air. I mean, it was nuts. We already have people in Congress, we have people in the administration questioning who’s a journalist, who’s not a journalist. Once you open this door, isn’t it possible and probable over time that they decide who gets to open up what websites, who gets to call themselves journalists?

Mark: Yeah, to a super extreme, yes, that’s always possible, right? I think at some point then, the people’s will will come in, and democracy takes over and capitalism takes over, and we go from maybe an open Internet to a closed Internet where people have access to something that’s not considered Internet.

Glenn: What does that mean?

Mark: Meaning that if I wanted to use wireless and create my own network, right, my own private network by dropping nodes all around Dallas, Texas and then connecting that to a whole ’nother network and then connecting that to another network and not connected to the Internet at all, I could, right? It’s expensive, but that cost will continue to drop.

Glenn: That would be like what cable did until they started to regulate cable.

Mark: Well, in some respects, yeah, but it would be a private network, and there’s lots of smaller corporate private networks that government doesn’t have access to, and you could open those up or create your own. So, if they took it too far, then I think there would be a marketplace reaction.

Glenn: So, what’s your biggest concern about this then?

Mark: The uncertainty.

Glenn: What does that do?

Mark: So, here’s some what I think are logical conclusions that aren’t too extreme, right?

Glenn: Do you dismiss the extreme that the government, I mean, you’re really outspoken on privacy. Look what the hell the NSA is doing that they told us they weren’t doing. Five years ago, wouldn’t you have said that would be extreme?

Mark: No, because I know.

Glenn: You knew five years ago? Ten years ago?

Mark: Yeah, ten years ago, maybe, right, because yeah, we weren’t already there. So, if you go to the technological base, right now one of the big concerns is video, right? Netflix is an example. Are people going to be able to get Netflix or video or streaming video or are the incumbents, the big bad guys, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, going to slow it down because it’s competition to their content? Well, if you think about the technology of television because it’s pretty much all digital right now, this show, you’re taking a source with all the cameras, you’re going to go through an encoder, right, and you’re going to ship some to your cable and satellite partners, and you’re going to ship some to your Internet subscribers. It’s basically the same technology in both directions, right?

So, what net neutrality says is you can’t give an advantage to any one type of delivery, right? So, you can’t advantage your cable subscribers or satellite subscribers over your Internet subscribers. You’re a perfect test case, and so if net neutrality is taken to its logical extension and it’s against paid prioritization, then providing your bits to cable and satellite is the equivalent of paid prioritization, which means you should not be able to do that.

Glenn: Wait, because like Home Shopping Network, they pay to be on that channel.

Mark: They pay to have their bits delivered in a prioritized manner over the open Internet so that they don’t buffer, right? So again, if you think about your cable coming from big, bad, nasty cable provider, and it’s one pipe and it’s all digital, it’s all bits, they take a segment of that, and they allocate it for your TV channels. Those are, let’s just say six megabits per HD channel times however many channels. That’s a lot of bandwidth allocated to television versus just 10, 25, 50, 100, even a gigabit for Internet. It’s not inconceivable, and I would tell you that someone will sue and it will become likely that they will say you have to combine all that bandwidth together. So, if you’re getting 100 to make it easy six megabit channels of HD, that’s six gigabytes. That’s six gigabytes if you say you know what, you can’t just deliver all that for television, we want to open that up to the Internet so all the Glenn Becks and Blazes can deliver their over-the-top video in an equal manner, now all of a sudden you have 6.1 gigabits available in this example.

Glenn: And you have to fracture it to everything.

Mark: Yeah, and it’s just open Internet. Now all of a sudden your traditional television, so if I’m getting Blaze on my big bad cable provider, it might start buffering, and I probably need new equipment in my home that maybe the government is going to force you to buy, but it gets worse, right? So, now if all video delivered could be perceived as television, right, because it’s all in the same pipe…bits are bits. No matter what anybody says in government, no matter what any technologically savvy person says, bits are bits. They don’t care if it’s text, data, or video, whatever it is, it’s just a bit, and you have your pipe that’s allocated in different ways through a lot of different mechanisms, but net neutrality at its base says all that data should be delivered together, and no one should have priority. So, if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television watching the evening news, it’s over, right? Either (a) you’re going to have to get new equipment in order to make it all be part of one pipe.

Glenn: I’m actually for this in concept. I hate the way it’s being done, but it would force you actually, wouldn’t it force the cable companies to allow me to do everything à la carte? There’s no reason I have 500 channels. I don’t want to pay for 500 channels.

Mark: Yes, you do. You may not want 500, but you want it in bundles. Otherwise—

Glenn: The money.

Mark: Yeah, it gets very expensive, and look at the music industry, right? So, when everything is à la carte, the expense doesn’t come in creating the content, right? The expense comes in marketing the content. So, we could take a phone and you and I can sing Sinatra, and maybe it’s just the best song ever, but in order for it to get heard, we have to compete with everybody. And when you’re in an open market like that and it’s à la carte, sure, a couple songs sneak through and become hits, but the big four music labels still control 70%. I saw something in Billboard that it was a higher percentage of record sales or music sales today than it was in 1998 because the cost to stand out is so much more expensive.

Glenn: Right, but doesn’t Comcast, Universal, NBC already control, I mean, the big four already control most of the content?

Mark: Well, yes and no, right, because I would tell you that Netflix subsidizes all that content now, and without Netflix, that same content isn’t being created and there’s a unique dependency on Netflix. You look at the turnover, you know, I’m on a show that keeps on growing, Shark Tank, right, because it’s a great show.

Mark: On ABC, yeah, and they put us on Friday nights because they thought we were going to die because it used to be Friday nights was the day to go, the point being that it’s hard to know which content is going to stand out and rise to the top. But let’s keep on going on the conclusion. So, if everything is funneled through the open Internet, and let’s just say it’s à la carte, right? Now, all of a sudden you see a different set of rules potentially being applied. I guarantee you that the FCC met the same organization that fought for eight years over Janet Jackson and her wardrobe malfunction, eight years to enforce that. There’s going to be somebody that comes along and says you know what, we need decency standards applied to all the content on the Internet because now that is coming through the same pipe, and it’s open to everybody. We need education requirements. Remember Bill Clinton said you had to have a certain amount of educational content?

Glenn: You have the Fairness Doctrine again.

Mark: In a lot of respects, yes, applied to the Internet, so this goes into the law of unexpected consequences or unintended consequences that you don’t know what’s going to happen when all of these things change. You know, you talk about Twitter, you would think companies like Twitter and Facebook have thought through the technological aspects of it. I don’t think they have, and so all of a sudden if there is no such thing as a prioritized bit, then all of that digital television going through the same pipe, all those voters who like to get FOX News or MSNBC, they’re going to freak out because you’re going to have to go to their website to get it or you’re going to have to have a special box that identifies the channels and brings it to you.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on subpoenas to compel Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on alleged censorship and bias across their platforms. But that all changed when Republican committee members "expressed reservation about the maneuver," Politico reports.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, was definitely not one of the committee members with cold feet. On the radio program Tuesday, he told Glenn Beck that he's fighting "vociferously" to ensure Dorsey and others testify before the November 3rd election.

"Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are both going to testify. They're are going to testify in person. They're going to testify before Election Day. That's what I think should happen," Cruz said. "That's what I'm fighting vociferously to happen. Right now, the companies are negotiating with the chairman's office to discuss terms to come voluntarily. I don't give a damn whether they come voluntarily or under subpoena. They need to testify in person and answer questions for the American people about why they are trying to steal this election, to suppress the free speech, and to censor the press."

The subpoenas would require Big Tech leaders to testify on the alleged "suppression and/or censorship" of two consecutive blockbuster stories from the New York Post. The first story was about emails that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's computer which are currently being investigated by the FBI, and the second was based on additional emails that allegedly showed communist China directly offering millions of dollars to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

"Big Tech stepped in, and they've done something they've never done before," Cruz explained. "We know that Big Tech has been censoring individual conservatives, trying to suppress conservative speech. But the step they took here is, they blocked if any individual user tried to share either of the New York Post stories, [they] were blocked ... Sharing a news story, from a major media outlet is part of democracy, part of free speech. And not only that, they blocked the New York Post itself. Right now, today, the New York Post is not being allowed to post its own damn stories on corruption. This is ridiculous. It's a threshold that's never been crossed before, of Silicon Valley oligarchs declaring the authority to determine what the press is allowed to report, and who is allowed to see it."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

If we learned nothing from the media over the past 4 years it's that colluding with a foreign entity to either win an election or for personal gain is absolutely grotesque. Well, that depends on whether you have a (D) or (R) before your name anyway. President Trump was impeached on rumor and innuendo yet Joe Biden has all but skated on his corruption up to this point.

Below is a timeline that shows the level of corruption and the lengths the Biden's went to in order to build that family's wealth and influence internationally.

2009

In 2009, Joe Biden was the brand-new Vice President and John Kerry was a U.S. Senator. Just five months after Joe was sworn in, his son Hunter, and Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, formed an international private equity firm called Rosemont Capital. It had several different branches, including one called Rosemont Seneca Partners.

2010

Just nine months after Rosemont Seneca opened its doors, Hunter Biden went to China for meetings with executives from China's biggest banks, and its sovereign wealth and social security funds. That's unheard-of access for a brand-new firm. Was it just coincidence that at the same time Hunter was meeting these Chinese bigwigs, his dad was meeting with China's then-president Hu Jintao in Washington DC at a nuclear security summit?

2011

In May 2011, Joe Biden met with Chinese officials for the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue conference in Washington. Just two weeks later, Hunter Biden went to Taiwan for meetings with the same Chinese financial giants he'd met in China in 2010, plus some new ones.

2013

By December 2013, Joe Biden was enjoying his second term as VP, and John Kerry was now Secretary of State. That's when Joe traveled to Beijing on an extended official trip and Hunter traveled with him on Air Force Two.

During their stay, Vice President Biden met with President Xi and Hunter was mostly out of sight. We don't know exactly what he was up to, but the deal finalized between Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China just ten days after the Bidens' trip pretty much gives it away. The most powerful financial institution in China formed a joint venture with tiny Rosemont Seneca to create a giant new investment firm called Bohai Harvest RST – the "RS" stands for Rosemont Seneca.

The firm is often called "BHR" for short.

Hunter Biden was a member of the Board. Remember, the Bank of China is government-owned, which means its business is completely intertwined with the goals of the Chinese Communist Party. BHR also got the freedom to operate in the newly created Shanghai Free-Trade Zone where, over the next six years, it would use $2.5 billion of Chinese government money to invest in China, as well as in other countries, including the U.S.

During their Beijing trip, Hunter also introduced Jonathan Li to his dad. Li is Hunter's business partner – he's CEO and Director of BHR.

Hunter arranged for Joe to meet Li in the lobby of the hotel where they stayed during their Beijing trip.

2014

In 2014, one of BHR's first major investments was in the China General Nuclear Power Corporation.

CGN is a Chinese government-owned nuclear power company that sold off a stake of the company to outside investors. Problem is, CGN was under FBI investigation for paying informants in the U.S. to steal nuclear secrets.

In 2016, the FBI arrested the ringleader of this nuclear espionage, a man named Allen Ho.

When they arrested Ho, he was using a random code generator to access funds being provided to him from – where else? – the Bank of China.

Yet while this FBI probe was going on, the son of the Vice President owned a stake in the company being investigated. And even after arrests were made, Rosemont Seneca did not alter its relationship with BHR, nor did it divest from CGN, even though it was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets.

2015

In 2015, BHR partnered with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to buy an American company called Henniges for $600 million.

AVIC is a gigantic military contractor in China – think Lockheed Martin – that makes fighter jets, bombers and drones. BHR bought 49% of Henniges and AVIC bought 51%.

Henniges is a precision parts manufacturer specializing in anti-vibration technology. The stuff they make is known as "dual use" by the U.S. State Department, which means the technology can also have a military application.

Because of that, the deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) since it could have national security implications. The thing is, the American side of BHR – meaning Hunter Biden and his pals – had to know there were serious national security implications with AVIC.

The year before they formed a partnership with AVIC, the Wall Street Journal reported how AVIC stole technology related to the U.S. Air Force's F-35 stealth fighter and used it in its own stealth fighter for the Chinese.

How the Committee on Foreign Investment approved that deal remains a mystery. CFIUS does not publicly disclose any information regarding its decisions. Their findings are not publicly announced.

Interesting that China accounted for the largest share – with 74 transactions – approved by CFIUS during Obama's second term (2013-2015).

Under the umbrella of Rosemont Capital was a real estate company called Rosemont Realty. In 2015, a Chinese company called Gemini Investments bought a 75% stake in Rosemont Realty. The company was renamed Gemini Rosemont

Gemini brought $3 billion to the partnership with Rosemont, with the aim of buying "Class A institutional-quality commercial office properties in U.S. markets."

Red flag (literally) – Gemini Investments is a subsidiary of the China Ocean Shipping Company, a.k.a., "COSCO."

COSCO is a Chinese government-owned company. Its headquarters in Beijing is actually next to the headquarters of the Bank of China. COSCO is well-known for its close military ties. It's essentially a branch of the Chinese Navy.

2017

In 2017, BHR invested in Face++. That's the facial recognition phone app built by a Chinese company that is incorporated in a separate app built by the Chinese government. Police in the Xinjiang [Sin-jong] region of China use that app to keep tabs on citizens, and track and detain Uiguhr [Wee-ger] Muslims.

The app allows police easy access to data about Chinese Muslims including things like religious activity, blood type, and even the amount of electricity they use.

2018

In March 2018, a spokesman (Chris Bastardi) for Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's stepson) emailed The Hill to say that Heinz had "no operating role" in Rosemont Seneca, and that he was not involved in any of Rosemont's deals in China (which contradicts Schweizer's report in his book Secret Empires).

Chris Heinz was involved in Rosemont Capital. Rosemont Seneca was established under the same GP as Rosemont Capital, but Chris Heinz had no operating role in it. Chris and his family have no financial interest or investment in Bohai Harvest RST, he has never traveled to China, and he has never met with the firm's Chinese management team or investors.

2019

In October 2019, Hunter Biden's lawyer, George Mesires, said Hunter did not conduct any business on that 2013 trip to Beijing with his Dad.

Mesires said the timing of BHR's business license getting approved was purely coincidental because the paperwork had been submitted months before the Bidens' China trip.

According to Hunter's lawyer, the approval " was not related in any way, shape or form to Hunter's visit."

Hunter Biden finally stepped down from the BHR board last October (2019), but he DID NOT give up his 10% stake in the company.

When Bevan Cooney — the former "junior" business partner to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer — went to jail in 2019, investigative reporter and New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer thought he'd never gain access to the damning emails Cooney had promised. That all changed three weeks ago when Schweizer was given complete access to Cooney's gmail account.

Schweizer joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to describe just some of the business deals revealed within these emails — like Hunter working with an alleged Russian criminal and with Chinese communists to secure their assets, or to secure one-on-one time with his dad, then-Vice President Joe Biden. And all of this new information is completely separate from the emails allegedly discovered on Hunter Biden's laptop recently reported by the New York Post.

"So, I want to make this clear. This [Cooney's emails] has nothing to do with what's on the laptop … It didn't come from [Rudy] Giuliani. It didn't come from anybody else, right?" Glenn asked Schweizer.

"That's absolutely correct," Schweizer confirmed.

He briefly explained how Cooney, a former Los Angeles nightclub owner, is currently serving a prison sentence for his involvement in a fraudulent business bond scheme with Biden and Archer. From prison, Cooney gave Schweizer written permission to access his Gmail account.

"This is really important," he noted. "We're not looking at printouts. Not looking at PDFs. We're actually in his Gmail accounts themselves, sifting through these emails. And there's a shocking amount of information about deals involving China, involving Russia, involving all sorts of things they were trying to pull off."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The king of "No Spin" and bestselling author of "Killing Crazy Horse," Bill O'Reilly joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to talk about the latest developments in Joe Biden's Ukraine and China corruption scandal. Now that some of the details are finally coming out in the open, does the average Democrat care? Maybe, but the Left doesn't seem to.

O'Reilly argued there's more hatred for President Donald Trump now than in 2016, and that some people hate President Trump so much that they'd rather vote for the "senile, corrupt" Joe Biden.

"Hunter got tens of millions of dollars from Ukraine, from Russia, from China because his father was vice president. I have no doubt in my mind," O'Reilly said. "But the hatred for Donald Trump overrides that in the minds of millions of viewers. They're saying, 'You know, we'd rather have the senile corrupt guy than Trump.'"

Asked by Glenn if any other Republican running for president would be met with the same level of vitriol, O'Reilly answered, "The Left is the Left. They don't like America. The want to redo the Constitution. They want to take some of our freedoms, like the Second Amendment and the First Amendment, and change them. And they want to destroy capitalism and replace it with a big centralized government in Washington that controls the economy … but I'm talking about the folks. I have liberal friends and I say to them, 'Do you not understand that when you vote for Biden, you're voting against your own self interest?'"

Watch the video clip from the full podcast below, or find the full episode HERE:

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.