RADIO

CHAOS: Fascism, silenced voices, no free press, genders, progressivism... How do we fix it?

There is chaos everywhere in our nation: there's a lack of freedom...specifically, a lack of freedom of speech -- especially from our mainstream media. We're told we're "child killers" just because we support the Second Amendment, and we're silenced if we don't believe climate change is catastrophic. There are more than two genders now, apparently, and fascism and progressivism are on the rise. Like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, or somebody in an abusive relationship, we've learned we can't help ourselves...that we can't fix it. But we can. IF we start moving in the right direction. We're Americans. So, Keep Calm and Carry On.

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late
RADIO

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned at the Barclays Global Financial Services Conference that the U.S. is "spending money like drunken sailors around the world and that an economic "soft landing" is probably not coming. Glenn reviews the real state of the economy and insists that Congress must stop the spending before it's too late. He also argues that every presidential candidate needs to be asked what they would do to curb inflation. Is any candidate willing to dramatically downsize the government? Glenn and Stu discuss.

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!
RADIO

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!

Real median household income just had its worst decline since 2010 — and the true numbers are much worse than the government is suggesting. But instead of curbing spending to fix inflation, the Biden administration wants Congress to continue spending at its current levels to avoid a government shutdown. And some in the media are branding the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative groups as "extremists" and "terrorists" for demanding LESS spending. Glenn defines "extremist" and "terrorist" and explains why continuing this reckless government spending (which added $2 TRILLION to our national debt) will only hurt American families MORE.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, define the word extreme. What does it say?

STU: Extreme. Reaching a high or the highest degree, furthest from the center or a given point.

There you go.

GLENN: All right. Give me extremist.

STU: Extremist.

A person who holds extreme or fanatical, political, or religious views. Especially one who resorts to or advocates an extreme reaction.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. Extreme, political, or religious views.

STU: Uh-huh. Especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

GLENN: They have any examples of that?

I would like to know what an extreme action is. Is that terrorist?

Look up the word 'terrorist.'

STU: Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Unlawful violence.

Or --

STU: Or? And intimidation, is the way they phrase it. especially against civilians.

In the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Okay.

Here's why I want to bring these up.

And I just -- I want you to remember, if you believe this, I do. Words matter.

If you can change people's words and their language, you can change everything.

That's why they have replaced so much of our language, and we all are just saying. First, let me give you the lay of the land.

What you're facing.

The last time America saw a drop in household income. As large as we did in this last year, Barack Obama was president.

The change, according to the Census Bureau, the change in real median household income, it fell 2.3 percent.

That's the worst decline since 2010.

That means, what you actually are bringing home.

You know, they say, oh, jobs. We're creating all new great union jobs.

And pay is going up. But what you're actually taking home, is down by 2.3.

And that's before taxes.

If you calculate the taxes. And the subsidies, hand it out.

So not only what they take, but what they give.

Household income fell 8.8 percent.

8.8.

Real median earnings, of all workers, which includes part-time and full-time workers. Declined 2.2.

Median workers of those who worked full-time fell 1.3.

Now, they're wondering why Biden's numbers are so low.

Like, it's -- like it's, I don't know.

Like, it's a Cheshire cat, whose stripes are only appearing in a tree once in a while.

It's really easy.

People are getting poorer. Because inflation is eating away at your income.

Family household income fell even more than the median. Dropping 2.9 percent.

Older Americans saw an income decline of 2.1, worse than the 1.4 decline for people under 65. So families and the elder have suffered the most.
Native born incomes. You're born here in the United States. You fell 2.5 percent.

But if you weren't born here in the United States, you edged up .2 percent.

Region that was hit hardest. What a surprise. The Midwest.

Incomes fell by a stunning 4.7 percent.

In the northeast, median households fell 3.8.

In the West 3.2. And in the south, income trickled down to buy -- I'm sorry. By .1 percent.

Why is that?

Why is that?

Why is the South doing so well?

Weather? Maybe taxes.

Governments kind of doing what's right for the people. Maybe.

Not so crazy. All the time.

Okay.

Now I want to talk you to about extremists.

I want to talk you to about extreme extremists.

And terrorists.

The House Freedom Caucus and conservative groups held a press conference Tuesday, appointing opposing any deal to continue government spending, at its current levels, hurries before the House reconvened after a week long reassess. To tackle the task of keeping the government open. Past September 30th.

The White House, eager to stave off a shutdown.

Has proposed a clean extension of the current spending levels.

So you know, the spending levels, that we're spending right now, this year, we were supposed to be a trillion dollars over what we had.

So we were going to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

But somehow or another, we spent an additional trillion dollars.

So we are $2 trillion, adding to the debt. That's the current spending.

Do you find that reasonable?

Let me take you back. Why is your income going down?

Why are these things happening?

Why is it that you're looking at the grocery store. And you're saying. You're looking at the price of eggs. And milk.

And you're saying, what the -- now, gas, you can kind of understand. Because that goes up and down.

But all of the stuff in the grocery store.

How come the paper towels and the toilet paper are smaller? I mean, they're even cutting them now so they're not as wide.

So it's not as big. But it's also not as wide. How come that's going down. And yet, the price is going up.

How come I'm getting less for my dollars packaging. I'm not giving the same product I had.

And I'm paying more money.

Because your that are isn't worth as much.

That's why. When people talk about. You're going to understand hyperinflation.

At some point, you're going to understand hyperinflation. And we don't want to learn that lesson.

That's what Venezuela went through. And nobody wants to talk about this.

Nobody wants to think about it. Oh, I know there's somebody in their car right now. Going, I don't want to think about that.

You must think about this.

You must!

Because if you don't, it's guaranteed to happen.

What causes that?

Out of control spending.

So the White House doesn't want a shutdown. But they'll just continue, with a clean -- a clean bill. Exact same spending levels.

Well, with the addition of $40,000 in Ukrainian aid. Some disaster relief. Some border funding.

You know, but other than that, it will be clean.

Okay.

So you're $2 trillion in debt more this year.

And we're another 2 trillion next year.

Hmm.

All in four years.

I'm sorry. All in two years.

The more money they spend, the higher the inflation. The less your dollar is worth.

Now, in story after story, the Republicans who are standing up and saying, no more. We cannot continue this.

We're not going to have a gun held to our head.

We have time right now, to work out a budget.

But that's not what's happening.

The budget is being made behind closed doors.

And then what do those leaders, McConnell, Schumer, McCarthy. Jeffries. What do those leaders do?

Those leaders, who think they know better than everyone else, that you elected, you sent them to Congress.

They get the blame.

But are they to blame on this?

Because they don't have a choice.

Now, they're called terrorists. They're called extremists.

And an extremist, is the furthest from the center.

How many people do you know, that are actually fighting for in budget, to actually -- you know, pencil put to paper. And work this out?

How many people do you know, that are saying, pass it in the middle of the night, and no one read it?

Do you know anybody. Left or right. Do you know anyone?

Because I don't.

Do you know anybody who says, we can continue -- besides the current administration.

We can spend like it's -- it's raining money.

Just keep spending the bomb trillion dollars a year. It should be $3 trillion a year.

Do you know anyone that thinks our current level of spending is good?

I don't. Do you?

If you do feel that way, I want to hear how you got there. I really do.

I'm not going to make you feel stupid or anything else.

I just want to know, how you got to that thinking.

And it would be refreshing to hear. Because I don't meet those people.

I don't know who those people are. I think those people are the ones furthest from the center.

And then, what do they do?

Well, they try to intimidate people.

They are currently telling our congresspeople, you elected to do this job.

Those four people are telling the 431 exactly what they have to do. You have to pass this right now.

This is coming, in two weeks.

You have to pass this right now. We've already worked it out. No amendments. No reading it.

Just pass it right now.

Or you're going to get the blame for the government shutting down.

Now, you're on the road, you're going some place important.

You love your car. You got to get to the place.

But your car starts to overheat.

And your car blows a tire. Two tires.

Now, you could keep going. But you could blow the engine.

And you'll destroy the rims. So you won't have a lot left, when you get there.

Nobody wants to stop the car. Nobody wants to wait for the tow truck.

Nobody -- everybody wants to go to wherever it was, you were going.

Everybody. But who is the unreasonable one?

The one that says, I don't see any -- I don't see any problem. Keep going. Keep going.

Or the rest of the family, who is like, no. We're not going to have anything left, Dad.

I mean -- I mean, as much as I would like a new car, can we afford a new car?

No. Then maybe we should stop. Even the kids know. Stop.

Stop the car. This is dangerous. And it's going to put us in a very bad situation. And if we do it, we may never be able to make another trip.

Who is the extremist here?

I don't want to shut down the government. But, quite honestly, if you want to save America, it is better for them to do absolutely nothing. Than put us another $2 trillion, in debt!

Remember, if I pay you, what was it? A dollar a second. That's $31 million, by the end of the year.

And it only takes you to get to a trillion dollars. If I pay you for every second of every day, of every year, it only takes you 32 billion years. No, million years. 32 million years.

32 million years.

Okay. Don't -- I'm thinking, that maybe we shouldn't spend that money. Because I don't know how we'll ever earn that money.

And I would like something left for my children.

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?
RADIO

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

Something is very wrong in Texas, Glenn says, and if it's happening there, what could happen in YOUR state? The Texas state legislature is holding an impeachment trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton. But is this a legitimate trial or a RINO Republican hit-job? Texas Scorecard Managing Editor Brandon Waltens has been keeping an eye on the trial and he joins Glenn to explain how shockingly LITTLE evidence - if any - Paxton's accusers have brought.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I'm going to talk you to a little bit about what's happening in Texas. But I'm talking you to about this, because if it's happening in Texas, God only knows what's happening in your state.

I wanted to bring somebody on, who really watches this for a living. His name is Brandon Waltons. He does the Texas scorecard. And every day, he does, you know, headlines. Of what's about to go. And he watches us every weekday at 5:00. YouTube X, and podcast platforms. There is an impeachment going on of probably the strongest attorney general in the nation.

The one here in Texas Ken Paxton.

He's been on this show several times. I know Ken.

But I don't have a horse in this race. If he's guilty of a crime, he should be punished.

But it is really beginning to look, and I stayed off this story, until the testimony was out.

And I have to tell you, something is very wrong in Texas.

And Texans better pay attention to this. Brandon, welcome.

BRANDON: Thank you so much for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: So overall, can you quickly just say, you know, what this is supposedly about? And then let's talk about the actual witnesses?

BRANDON: Yeah. So how did we get here?

Essentially, three years ago, we had this group of employees at the office of attorney general, who accused Ken Paxton of wrongdoing, of abusing his office to help a friend, essentially. And they went to the FBI. They recorded him.

And that sort of set into motion, what we now have three years later. This impeachment process, which many of those impeachment charges are based off of.

Back in May, over Memorial Day weekend. Well, a lot of people were maybe grilling out or at the lake, whatever.

The House met on a Saturday.

They voted to impeach Ken Paxton. Based on testimony that wasn't sworn testimony. Ken Paxton wasn't made aware of their investigation, until it came out. Forty-eight hours before the vote.

And the House members themselves weren't able to actually look at their testimonies. They had to rely on the word of the House investigators.

GLENN: And, Ken, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't allowed to respond in his own defense.

BRANDON: Right. Right. And so you had a lot of these sorts of things, that people will look at this, like, this is odd.

Well, just like DC, you know, the House does the impeachment, goes over to the Senate to determine whether or not they would convict, which would actually remove him from office. So for the last few months, there has been a lot of talk, from those pushing the impeachment. Who are saying, wait until you see this testimony.

Wait until you see the evidence. You will be blown away by what we have.

And yet, this trial happened last week.

And so far. And we're more than halfway through this.

The testimony has really, really been weak.

GLENN: I would say, a little beyond weak.

There's no evidence of a crime. I mean, this is -- let me just read something. This was the third whistle-blower.

The concern began, when Paxton advocated for the AG's office to open investigation, into Nate Paul.

That see his friend and donor. Alleged mistreatment by the FBI. And Texas DPS. During a raid.

Paul's contention was that the Fed did him dirty by illegally altering his search warrants, after the fact to expand their scope, just to get him.

His technical experts theorized that there was altered meta data in the digital versions, that proved the documents had been changed.

Maxwell quickly developed the opinion, that the whistle-blower, the opinion that Nate Paul was a criminal, that we should not be associated with. Accordingly, he had dragged his feet.

And ultimately refused to open a formal investigation, into the alleged FBI and TBS misconduct. Paxton, convinced of the idea, that the FBI was untrustworthy. Well, that's farfetched.

He eventually hired outside counsel, to help explore and adjudicate Paul's claims, an act that would eventually become a primary catalyst for the whistle-blower complaints.

Now, did anything come of that outside investigation?

BRANDON: No. And the thing is, when you see these people testify, I mean, numerous of these former employees of the office of the attorney general has talked about how insane, literally that's what one of these people said. It would be insane to investigate the FBI.

Essentially, they trust them whole-heartedly. That there would been nothing. I mean, literally, one of them was asked, is there anything that maybe happened over the last two, three, four years, that might change your trust in the FBI?

They said no. Of course, that's in odds with Texas voters. I mean, Republican primary voters.

We have a poll after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Shows that 73 percent of Texas primary voters have a negative opinion of the FBI.

GLENN: What a shock.

So I'm reading this. And my first thought was. And I dismissed it out of hand.

And I don't even know why it came at me.

But I'm reading all of the testimony. And I'm thinking to myself, this is George Bush. This is -- this is the George Bush wing of the party, that is -- that trusts the FBI. Is denying that there's a problem in America.

The problem is the Republican voters. All of that crap.

And then I continue to read on. And it looks like the whistle-blowers do have a relationship with George P. Bush. Is there anything to this, that this is a Bush ambush?

BRANDON: You know, there's been a couple moments during the testimony of the past week, where the Bush family has been invoked. And it looks like perhaps they were somehow involved in this.

One of those things, that when the whistle-blowers went to the FBI and reported Paxton.

And, by the way, without even asking him or talking to him beforehand, and then they also said they had no evidence when they went.

But when they were preparing to go to the FBI, on that same day, George P. Bush was reactivating his law license.

He would eventually challenge Ken Paxton and the Republican primary last year.

GLENN: Lose.

BRANDON: Lost in the runoff.

And then you also have the case, where Johnnie Sutton, who was a Bush lawyer. Somebody who was a US attorney under Bush, and very close to the Bush family.

He's been representing some of these whistle-blowers for the last three years, and hasn't sent them a bill. Hasn't been paid, essentially they're representing them pro bono.

So that's just another piece of the puzzle, people are looking at and saying, hmm, it looks like someone else. Some outside force is involved here.

GLENN: I -- honestly, the people who brought this impeachment the way they brought it. Should be impeached themselves.

I don't -- you know, the one thing I do hear about Paxton, is he's just a freight train.

And he's not good at playing the game. And making friends and influencing people, whatever. Well, neither is John Adams. And I'm not comparing him to John Adams.

I'm just saying, temperament-wise, John Adams is not a popular guy. But you do not bend the rules to get rid of somebody, if he is -- if he is a criminal. If he did something criminal, then I am for his impeachment.

But if this is just because he has made the right friends.

Or a Bush wants him out.

Or whatever it is. The people involved in this, because it's been so shady, the way they did this.

I think they should be impeached.

BRANDON: Certainly, there's been a lot of anger. Especially among Republican voters.

You know, it's one thing where we see what's happening with the president. Where we see Democrats going after. Using the justice system.

It's another one, here in Texas. And you have Democrats. And establishment Republicans, going along with it.

GLENN: It's really bad. Really, really bad.

Anything to the thought that this happened the week that Paxton said, you know, hey.

Why -- why is our speaker of the House giving, you know, chairmanship to the Democrats?

We don't need friends like this.

And then it was later that week, that the impeachment thing happened.

Was there any connection?

BRANDON: Well, I think absolutely, there has been a divide.

Dave, the establishment guy, that runs the House, who puts Democrats in power.

He has been at odds, with not only Ken Paxton, but the conservative grassroots, who have repeatedly elected Paxton.

So certainly, there's no coincidence there.
There's certainly been a lot of bad blood between the establishment and Ken Paxton.

It just shows why they worked so hard, to try to essentially overturn the election and get him out of office.

GLENN: And quickly, what do your sources tell you, how will this fare? How will this turn out?

BRANDON: Yeah. So they need two-thirds, to permanently remove him from office.

That vote is supposed to take place, maybe Friday and Saturday, and later this week. You know, it's a little tough. You have to do aftermath. The senators are under gag orders.

I would say, especially after people testifying that they essentially had no evidence, which is what we repeatedly saw this week.

I hear a lot of the senators are getting very, very frustrated that House members put them in this situation that they have to sit through this.

And I think that ultimately, that will be something that they will be considering there, when they make those decisions.

GLENN: But you will get all the Democrats. So how many Republicans do you need?

BRANDON: I think you need ten. Ten, if I recall.

GLENN: Ten weasels.

All right. I hope not.

Thank you so much for reporting on this.

And bringing us the story. I appreciate it.

BRANDON: Absolutely.

GLENN: You bet. Brandon Waltons. He's Texas scorecard. You can find Texas scorecard. Wherever you get to your podcast. And YouTube and X every day at 5 o'clock.

STU: And just one quick thing. In case you missed the show yesterday.

It sort of rolls off the tongue. To say, oh. This was brought without any evidence.

Those remember the words of the people, who brought the accusations.

GLENN: Yeah. We have no evidence.

STU: They were asked specifically, do you have any evidence, when you were brought this case? And the guy said no.

GLENN: The most credible said, no. It's just my feeling.

STU: Right. We thought we had some legal activities we brought to their attention.

Did you have any evidence? No.

Glenn SHREDS Democrats' claims that there's 'NO EVIDENCE' to impeach Joe Biden
RADIO

Glenn SHREDS Democrats' claims that there's 'NO EVIDENCE' to impeach Joe Biden

Democrats and media outlets are insisting that Republicans in the House of Representatives have NO EVIDENCE to impeach President Biden on. But this couldn't be further from the truth. Glenn breaks down the evidence that already exists — before the impeachment inquiry has even begun — and also explains how this investigation would differ from the impeachment inquiries against former president Donald Trump. There's so much evidence of the Biden family's corruption, Glenn says, that either his entire family was somehow making millions behind Joe Biden's back or he has lied to the American people.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Speaker Kevin McCarthy opened up an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Working to appease far right lawmakers who have threatened to oust him if he fails to -- to accede to their demands for deep spending cuts that would force a government shutdown at the end of the month. So the New York Times is saying they're only -- McCarthy is only doing the inquiry because of the spending bill.

Now, that is a possibility. I want you to know. Because McCarthy has said on Fox about a month ago, that, you know, if we don't get a bill, we don't get a spending bill, I mean, we're going to have to cut and shut down everything, including any kind of inquiry or impeachment hearing.

Oh, I get it. Uh-huh. Yeah.

I'm not playing that game. Uh-uh.

You want to shut down the impeachment inquiry? Because you have to shut down the government?

You don't have to do that. But you don't scare me. I don't care. I don't care. I don't expect you to actually do anything anyway. So what do I have to lose? These are empty threats from empty suits. For those of us who aren't playing a game, who actually believe that I don't care who it is, I don't if it's Donald Trump or if it was Joe Biden, I don't care if it was Ronald Reagan, if they break the law they should be impeached or in prison. If they break the law. Not witch hunts. Not witch hunts. And not small little laws that are, you know, like honestly, Bill Clinton, he should have paid some price for perjury.

Now, at the time, I thought, he should be impeached because he lied to the American people.

How much money, did we spend, how much time did we waste on that?

But I -- honestly, I think Hillary missed the biggest chance in the world. You know, she should have just thrown his suitcases out on the lawn of the -- well, that would probably be -- and he's president. So she couldn't.

She should have just packed up a suitcase, left the White House.

And said, I fully support him as president of the United States. But we have our issues with our marriage, and he lied to me. She would have been the most popular person in the world.

But she didn't.

This isn't that. What this impeachment is, all about, and this is not an impeachment proceeding. This is an impeachment investigation.

So now, federal investigators can -- the -- the -- Congress, has the ability for warrants to look into all of it. Where they are boxed in. Now they have the full authority to look into anything they want to look into. That's important. Because we're not just going on some hunt at the impeach with a metal detector.

We know specifically what we're looking for. When you're going in, and taking Donald Trump, what they did was, they found the guy, and then they said, let's find a crime.

This is, there is a crime, going on here.

Now, is the president directly involved?

Well, I don't know how you say he's not.

How do you possibly say that?

We've looked into the business ventures.

Now, I don't say us. The Congress has looked into it.

We've had several whistle-blowers. Investigations have shown that Joe Biden lied. This is the first one.

Well, he's just -- he doesn't know. He lied over and over again, when he said, I have no knowledge of my son's business deals. More specifically, I've never discussed it with my son, ever.

Okay. We know that's a lie. Because now we have eyewitnesses, from -- even the head of Burisma holdings. The Ukrainian energy company.

According to the intelligence, according to eyewitnesses.

He was involved, in -- what was it?

Under 100 meetings. They were saying, under 100 meetings.

He would just pop in with business associates. In the middle of a business deal.

STU: Let's just be safe. Under 1 million meetings.

We can be safe under that one, I think.

GLENN: Yeah. Apparently, Joe can he say key.

He's the guy with Burisma. He has 17 audio recordings of conversations with the Bidens. Two of which purportedly involve vice president Joe Biden.

So that would be a problem.

The WhatsApp message, included in the testimony by the IRS whistle-blower, further indicate Joe's involvement in hunter's business affairs. One message sent to Chinese businessman, Henry Zhao.

Hunter threatened to use his father's political power to exhort unfulfilled promises and assurances from Zhao.

I'm sitting here with my father. And we would like to understand why the commitment made, has not been fulfilled.

Hunter also said, he had an ability to forever hold a grudge. That you will regret. The man sitting next to me, and every person he knows will make your life a living hell. If you don't meet our demands.

Now, maybe, maybe that was Hunter, you know, in a drug rage. And he wasn't sitting next to his dad. That was a possibility.

STU: And they're denying it's even real.

So like, this is a perfect thing to investigate.

We need to find the answer. Obviously, if that's reason, and he was in the room, that's a massive problem.

GLENN: Wouldn't you want that?

Because this is easy. All you have to do is just geotrack the message.

And I believe we know it was in the House. It came from the House.

But they won't tell us if Joe Biden was there.

That's, again, easy. Why wouldn't. If you were innocent. And you weren't there. Why wouldn't you say, yeah. I was over here.

I was at the other house. I was on the beach.

I was at the White House. Why wouldn't you say that?

STU: Easily provable.

GLENN: Easily provable.

GLENN: But still, even if he wasn't in the same house, doesn't mean, he'll be sitting next to each other.

But it's smoke.

Then you have Devon Archer, who testified to at least 24 times that Joe spoke with his son's business associates.

And this has credibility, because the White House changed the narrative after that testimony.

I never discussed any business dealings.

Now I've never been in business with my son.

That's a huge difference.

Also, the vice president used his office to coordinate with Hunter Biden's business partners about hunter's role in Burisma.

There's an FD1023. That's for confidential sources.

Containing Intel from a, quote, highly credible, confidential human source, that is offering further evidence that the then vice president was instrumental in the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor, investigating Burisma.

And he was paid $10 million, the Bidens were for his role in firing the prosecutor.

Okay. We know he fired the prosecutor. We know he lied on videotape to a panel. What?

At the foreign affairs council, or whatever it is. And he was talking about it and saying, look, you know, Barack knew. And Barack was with me.

This guy had to go.

No, that's not true. The White House now has had to produce the records that showed the White House wanted Shokin, said he was fine.

State Department said he was fine.

The EU all said he was doing a great job.

So he lied.

Why?

Then a review of bank records conducted by the House oversight committee, confirmed that at least -- at least nine Biden family members, including children, received millions in diluted payments from foreign companies.

Before, during, and shortly after Joe's vice presidency.

What are the Biden children?

I mean, the children, children.

What are they getting?

And what are they providing?

When they say, there is no evidence, there's lots of evidence. No. That doesn't mean that -- I mean, I believe this is so -- I talked to Megyn Kelly yesterday. I said, Megyn, you're an attorney, I'm not.

If I looked at this, I would say, this is an open-and-shut case just on what we have.

And she said, oh, my gosh, yes.

Then you have the testimony of the IRS whistle-blowers. Federal prosecutors concealed critical documents from tax investigators probing Hunter Biden while officials from the Justice Department sought to undermine the IRS' investigative efforts.

One of the whistle blowers had previously alleged in May, that his investigative team had been removed from the Biden tax probe, at the behest of the DOJ. In addition to the alleged interference in the IRS tax probe, the DOJ also sought to give legal immunity to Hunter regarding charges filed against him earlier this year. It was a Delaware judge who said, I'm sorry. Have you ever done a deal like this, ever before, DOJ?

No.

Not that we can recall.

So you have the lies. Okay.

That's one thing.

Then you have the Biden family. Not just Hunter. They're just trying to make this about Hunter. You have nine family members, having as many as 22 offshore accounts. Some of them held by children. Funneling millions of dollars. We need to know, what those offshore accounts do.

You have now, I think the number is 250.

200 -- I mean, I can't even keep up with it.

Where the treasury was alerted by banks, saying, this is money laundering.

And it was all tied to those offshore accounts, that went to the Biden family.

Now, if grandpa didn't know this, is the whole family in this? And the only one that is clean, is grandpa?

And if that's true, how come the DOJ is doing everything they can to thwart any investigation?

I don't know. Guys, I just this is -- you know, I lied about sex.

This certainly isn't about a perfect phone call. In fact, that perfect phone call, which he was impeached for. Was regarding this. This was the Trump phone call.

What the hell was happening with Burisma?

All kinds of criminal activity was going on.

Do you have any information on that? That's what that was all about. Everything you know about Ukraine is a lie.

Everything you think you know about Ukraine is a lie. The American people need to know, one, are our highest officials and our highest offices up for sale? Can you buy it? Can you buy it?

I hope to God, the people of America say no. Or we become, I don't know. A third world country. We become Venezuela.

That's the number one thing.

The second thing, that you really need to know, is -- is our Justice Department, is our IRS. Is everything just a weapon now of the guy who possibly sold his office?

Can we trust anyone in the White House?

Anyone in the Justice Department?

Anyone?

Is there anyone there?

All of this needs to be decided. And it is really important that we come to an answer, even if Joe Biden walked out today and was hit by a bus.

This needs to be investigated. And needs to be cleared.

Because we must send a message. This will not stand.

If it was done, I don't want any kangaroo courts.

I want equal and blind justice. For all.