Sept. 28, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
47:33
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is what you're fighting for. | ||
| I mean, every day you're out there. | ||
| What they're doing is blowing people off. | ||
| If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians, get total control and total power. | ||
| Because this is just like in Arizona. | ||
| This is just like in Georgia. | ||
| It's another element that backs them into a corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations. | ||
| This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged. | ||
| As we've told you, this is the fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin. | |
| They can't handle the truth. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room, Battleground. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Two hours or so before the government shuts down. | ||
| Is there anything else happening that we're not currently watching on television? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, not really. | |
| There's a couple things that are worth noting, Katie. | ||
| Number one, the Senate is trying its best to cobble together a border security package to ride alongside their short-term Stopgap bill. | ||
| Now, why are they doing that? | ||
| They're doing that because House Republicans say they need border security in a stopgap measure. | ||
| This is going to be a Herculean task, Katie, absolutely Herculean, to find something that could pass the Senate and that could pass the House, because we're not only talking about border money, we're talking about reworking border policy. | ||
| That's very difficult to do in such a short period of time. | ||
| So that's what's happening right now in the Senate. | ||
| The House is voting on four spending bills tonight. | ||
| All of them might go down. | ||
| They might not be able to pass any of these bills. | ||
| And then Speaker Kevin McCarthy will move to pass his own short-term bill tomorrow night, or tomorrow rather. | ||
| That bill might not pass on its own. | ||
| So, we are in an incredibly perilous position just ahead of a government shutdown, which by the way, starts Saturday night at midnight. | ||
| So this is not far off, this is incredibly close, and I don't see at this point, listen, it's a fast-moving story, anything could change, I don't see at this point any way that Congress is going to avert a government shutdown. | ||
| Tell us about the meeting this morning with McCarthy, what he's telling his conference and what he's getting into with someone like Matt Gaetz. | ||
| Yeah, he's getting, quite frankly, he's trying to tell them there's two things happening. | ||
| Number one, he's trying to tell them to pass these spending bills so they have some leverage. | ||
| That is, again, going to be difficult. | ||
| They don't really want to give him much leverage for a host of reasons, both politically and policy-wise. | ||
| Then he got into a fight with Matt Gaetz. | ||
| Matt Gaetz I've given five million dollars to Republicans to protect the majority. | ||
| What have you done? | ||
| about him on the internet. McCarthy said, Matt, I'm not even, you know, I don't even think about you or pay attention to you. And said, I'm trying to, I've given $5 million to Republicans to protect the majority. What have you done? | ||
| Now, listen, we expect Gates will try to boot McCarthy in the next couple of weeks. And I think that is going to be a very high drama and high wire situation. But the tensions, Katie, in the House Republican conference right now are incredibly, incredibly high. | ||
| Bye. | ||
| I think that was a very good overview. | ||
| It is a Thursday, 28th, September year of our Lord 2023. | ||
| I think Jake Sherman at the, uh, at Punchbowl, remember their specialty is Capitol Hill. | ||
| And I think they've done a really terrific job of updating of what, at least on the overview, a couple of notes here. | ||
| Uh, number one, there is a, uh, just a coming across the wire right now, a new, and I want to have the Warren posse. | ||
| Make sure I said there's a lot of good news. | ||
| A sobering reality is setting in on Capitol Hill. | ||
| As of this moment, there remains no viable, clear path to passing any more aid to Ukraine. | ||
| GOP Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina, who wants a multi-year Ukraine commitment. | ||
| Remember, the commitment just for this year is $80 billion. | ||
| That's the number. | ||
| $80 billion. | ||
| They're starting with the 24, the 6, any way they can slide in there. | ||
| Tillis, who wants a multi-year Ukraine commitment, and I quote Senator Tillis, this whole debate, I mean, it's BS. | ||
| End quote. | ||
| We've jammed up the the funneling of money over to the Ukraine oligarchs, and this is also going to get quite nasty They're going to have a separate benefit I think they're having the vote even as we speak on the 300 million just to make sure it's a little complicated We're up there right now on votes on these four bills. | ||
| I don't think the appropriations bills as we've talked about I'm not sure they even pass Why might they not pass? | ||
| They've been either too many too many cuts or not enough cuts Too much de-woke and de-weaponized and de-fanged are not enough. | ||
| The House itself now has a huge fight and these things may not pass. | ||
| But, it's the very process of going through it that has exposed where we are. | ||
| We lost, on an amendment, we lost the vote on the funding, taking your tax dollars through the Pentagon and funding, I think, drag shows With Drag Queen Story Hour on military basis. | ||
| That lost, I want you to embrace it, that lost by 18 votes. | ||
| Wasn't really that close. | ||
| 18, excuse me, 18 Republicans voted with Democrats for that. | ||
| Also in other news, Rand Paul, and I want to, and Rand Paul came out yesterday and said, no way he's even letting a CR come for a vote, I think. | ||
| Because of Ukraine. | ||
| And I want to quote Senator Rand Paul, to avoid a government shutdown, I will consent to an expedited vote on a clean CR without any Ukraine aid in it. | ||
| If leadership insists on funding another country's government at the expense of our own government, all blame rests with their intransigence. | ||
| Senator Rand Paul. | ||
| Things are heating up. | ||
| It's getting quite nasty. | ||
| There was a verbal confrontation this morning in the conference between Matt Gaetz, one of the architects of this, I don't want to say insurgent movement, but really the movement to set our nation's finances right, and Kevin McCarthy. | ||
| We've got a lot of other news reported. | ||
| There are a lot of votes coming in. | ||
| They're also going to work well into the night, I think. | ||
| Whether these appropriations bills pass or not, Kevin McCarthy is going to bring a continued resolution, a stopgap measure to fund the government. | ||
| My understanding is, as of right now, and the crack team in Memphis and our production team here are feeding me tweets as we go, that McCarthy, as latest, is not going to bring up The Senate bill because the Senate bill doesn't address any cuts whatsoever and even in the interim period and their period is 47 days and I told you this 47 days of the Senate is McConnell and the big money donors exactly linked | ||
| To, uh, Youngkin's, uh, bid to, uh, flip the Senate in the Commonwealth of Virginia, of which they would turn immediately and say, he is the, with all the money will line up and they'll dump DeSantis, they'll dump Nikki Hale, they'll dump all the Keebler elves, line up against him. | ||
| And it's Youngkin versus Trump for the primary. | ||
| So a lot going on. | ||
| Uh, the knives are out. | ||
| Your voice is heard. | ||
| I just want to make sure that a 2-0-2. | ||
| 225-3121 is the House, 202-224-3121 is the Senate. | ||
| Also make sure, please get the, go to birchgold.com slash war room, the end of the dollar empire, go back and get the third installment. | ||
| This was an installment we put out before the debt ceiling in the debt ceiling crisis, the debt ceiling deal. | ||
| But make sure you're totally up to speed on that, on the debt. | ||
| And then make sure you read the fourth one. | ||
| These were establishment republics. | ||
| Couldn't get any more establishment than Arthur Burns and others that were Nixon's cabalets. | ||
| I would think George Shultz, the whole cast of characters. | ||
| And as you read it, the one thing that will strike you as very similar to today is, I want to say, the cavalier attitude in which they went about one of the most important moments in American economic history. | ||
| This was taking off convertibility of the Federal Reserve note into gold and closing the gold window for all the other currencies in the world. | ||
| And they had some great thoughts and some great theories, but you never really got the fact that they're walking through financial models. | ||
| They actually looked at the math and what could go wrong. | ||
| This is what happened here. | ||
| Do you see Garrett Graves, Cosmo Man? | ||
| Do you see Cosmo Man or McHenry with the little bow tie? | ||
| Do you see any of those guys talking about the debt deal, what they call it, some recovery act? | ||
| Do you see any of them bragging about, oh, everything that went great in the deal? | ||
| Do you see them talking about how it was going to be less than a trillion dollars? | ||
| You had historic cuts. | ||
| You were going to have historic permitting. | ||
| You're going to have this. | ||
| You're going to have that. | ||
| You're going to have the other thing. | ||
| Oh, by the way, we're going to have an appropriations process. | ||
| They lie to your face. | ||
| Why do they lie to your face? | ||
| They lied to your face because this work was done as it was supposed to be done. | ||
| As Matt Rosendale said in this very room this morning all the work at the subcommittee level was done by 1 July. | ||
| But we waited for July and they waited through August and they waited to all the way they got back to September. | ||
| The first thing he did he goes oh we can't shut down the government we need a CR that can get us to the holidays and then we'll do an Omnibus so you won't see individually. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because we're going to impeach Biden. | ||
| Oh, Biden's going to get impeached. | ||
| All you yahoos, all the people in Bib O'Rourke, all the MAGA extremists. | ||
| Can't you see that? | ||
| You know, Biden talks bad about you. | ||
| He calls you extruity save day. | ||
| I've got to clip your extremists. | ||
| I'm up against the MAGA Republicans. | ||
| You're the worst people in the world. | ||
| You can go get him. | ||
| We can go impeach him. | ||
| But we've got to keep the government. | ||
| That's called a shiny toy. | ||
| That is a shiny toy move. | ||
| That's a move for idiots. | ||
| And Natalie Winters has had a tremendous education. | ||
| Went to one of the top prep schools in the country out in Los Angeles. | ||
| She then went to the University of Chicago and I believe she graduated in three years. | ||
| She's very analytical and very rational. | ||
| And she's no conspiracy theorist. | ||
| She's the one that got the receipts on Fauci and all those phony groups that you could see at the time. | ||
| Hey, this kind of feels like an Intel operation. | ||
| Hello? | ||
| She didn't say that. | ||
| She built the case brick by brick by brick by brick on evidence. | ||
| And what does Natalie say today? | ||
| You know, Steven, watching this, it kind of seemed like it was set up to kind of fail. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Set up to diversionary tactics. | ||
| Set up that, you know, you got to have the government open to kind of get this thing right. | ||
| It's got to be, it's got to be focused on. | ||
| So we have so much to do there. | ||
| I'm going to pivot to that. | ||
| We got more breaking news about this fight. | ||
| Remember midnight, we're going to be up all weekend. | ||
| We're obviously doing all the four hours tomorrow. | ||
| We're going to do two hours, my favorite show of the week, the Saturday morning show. | ||
| We will be, I will be up on rumble and getter and all of it. | ||
| We'll be putting up information. | ||
| I think we're trying to work it out to maybe even able to have some guests. | ||
| We'll figure this out. | ||
| The crack war room production teams already rolling their eyes. | ||
| Assuming that they, I used to do this in the Navy. | ||
| We sit there, you know, when I was a gang officer and you would, you would, you would sit there and the guys, they worked all week and I said, okay, everybody's got the weekend for it. | ||
| Take one. | ||
| Everybody's got the weekend off. | ||
| Take one step forward. | ||
| Not so fast. | ||
| We got to get this done. | ||
| It sounded better at the time. | ||
| It sounded funnier. | ||
| We got a lot of work to do. | ||
| And this could be a historic moment. | ||
| Why is it a historic moment? | ||
| He got in July. | ||
| Why did they slow walk it? | ||
| Why did they tuck it? | ||
| Why did they not address it when they had two months to address this? | ||
| We didn't need to do it in the middle of the night. | ||
| You didn't need to stay up till two and three in the morning and see Andy Biggs going after Sisa. | ||
| And if Natalie knows CISA better than anybody and going after Jen Easterly and want to take Jen Easterly's salary and all of Jen Easterly's team and to talk about defunding CISA. | ||
| You didn't just stay up to 2 in the morning to do that. | ||
| You didn't need to stay up to see MTG going after General Austin yesterday and the wokeness in the Pentagon. | ||
| You didn't need to see Boebert. | ||
| You didn't need to stay up to see Rosendale. | ||
| This all could have been done in regular order. | ||
| All could have been done during the workday. | ||
| Why didn't they want it? | ||
| It's obvious why they didn't want it. | ||
| They treat you like idiots and like morons. | ||
| They don't want you to see it. | ||
| And they don't want to have these individual bills. | ||
| And they don't want to have the detail and the amendments. | ||
| Remember there were 400 amendments just to the bills we had the other day. | ||
| 400 amendments. | ||
| We're not going to win all those, but they were all enlightening. | ||
| In the debate that went on around him, it's very enlightening. | ||
| I now start to understand any Republican that sits there and uses the word limited government that's not on our side of the football here now is a liar. | ||
| Not that they're too dumb, they know exactly what they're doing. | ||
| Don't lecture me on limited government. | ||
| Don't lecture me on being a constitutional conservative and we're the, you know, Danford, we're the grubby, sharp-elbowed, divisive, angry, nasty populist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right? | |
| We're not conservative, we're populist. | ||
| We're fighters and we've done more for limited government in the last couple of days and quite frankly this audience of driving this than you have done forever and rolling over because since 97 you've rolled over every time and what do we do? | ||
| We pass a CR because it's not ready? | ||
| Then it's one omnibus bill. | ||
| And what are you talking about all the broken weaponized? | ||
| You think we arrived here overnight? | ||
| You think this just all magically happened and what the destruction of our country? | ||
| This has been decades and decades and decades in process on people that you rang doorbells for, that you gave your 50 bucks to, that you work phone banks for, that you went to rallies for. | ||
| That's how we got here. | ||
| You think we'd have gotten here if you had this kind of fight 20 years ago or 25 years ago? | ||
| No, you would not. | ||
| But that's what, remember, you're the problem. | ||
| It's not just, what Biden's saying is nothing. | ||
| You ought to see what they're saying behind closed doors. | ||
| You're the agents of chaos. | ||
| What did Garrett Graves, Cosmo Man, Cosmo Man who gave, never had a job in his life, been Vitter's body man, Cosmo Man, And I don't want to say he's, you know, trying to be Steve Bannon, but hey, who knows? | ||
| Walking around in his work shirt and his ball cap and not shaving on a Saturday. | ||
| He's a working man from Louisiana and he is with you, brother. | ||
| He's with you down in those parishes. | ||
| He walks around Garrett Graves and calls you arsonist! | ||
| He said, these are arsonists, they're trying to burn it down, and then when they finally put it up, they're going to want the credit. | ||
| No, no, no, no, Garrett. | ||
| The original sin is with you, and with McCarthy, and with McHenry, and you are taking orders from the wealthy. | ||
| Let's go back to what happened. | ||
| You made a deal that will destroy the country because it will lock this in in perpetuity. | ||
| In that deal, you gave a two-year deal to spend $15 trillion in unlimited. | ||
| If you spend more, are there lower tax revenues? | ||
| It's unlimited what they can spend, the deficits they can run up. | ||
| That was you. | ||
| And we now know from the people at the White House, they said, hey, we were looking at the one-year deal. | ||
| We weren't happy with it. | ||
| We're taking it. | ||
| They walked in. | ||
| The first thing McCarthy offered was the second deal to go past the 2024 election. | ||
| Now, why would he do that? | ||
| Why would he do that? | ||
| Let me think. | ||
| The donors got to him and said, hey, if all of a sudden this deal comes up in next spring, it's a one-year deal, and it comes up, and you've got a 1.5 cap, and you blow through the cap, which they're smart enough to know you're going to do, because guess what? | ||
| It's going to be $2 trillion now. | ||
| What's it going to be by next spring? | ||
| Eventually, we're going to have to have an adult conversation and say, hey, look, we got all these cuts, but people are not going to be in housing, and you're not going to have this, and the working class is not going to be able to have babies. | ||
| All these cuts have got to come out of health and human services and labor, and this, we've got to cut defense, and we've got to do all this, and the cuts have to be made. | ||
| And these are tough cuts, and there's going to be tension and fights, and you're terrible, and you're terrible, and you've got to go bing, bang, bong, but you've got to get there. | ||
| But you can't do enough cuts. | ||
| You can't cut your way To fiscal sanity. | ||
| You can't do it. | ||
| Not right now. | ||
| Not the way the structure is. | ||
| Particularly, we're not going to touch Social Security and Medicare. | ||
| And you can't touch Social Security and Medicare right now. | ||
| When Chris Christie and Mike Pence are on that freaking stage talking about that, that's the coax talking. | ||
| That's a coax. | ||
| Because you know what drives them crazy? | ||
| That you, after working your entire life, In back-breaking labor, get $1,000 a month out of Social Security or you get a little bit of Medicare. | ||
| It drives them crazy. | ||
| And so, no, it's the entitlements we've got to get into. | ||
| Do you honestly think the American people are going to back anybody on looking at any type of restructuring or entitlement reform, whatever you want to call it? | ||
| When they haven't been truthful about the discretionary part and they've lied and misrepresented, why would you trust these people? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| They're not worthy of trust. | ||
| Until through their action, not their rhetoric, through their action they show that they're adults and we have a possibility of actually starting to cut the spending. | ||
| And maybe then you have to look at the other part of the equation. | ||
| The revenue side. | ||
| The revenue side. | ||
| And this is what the donors told them. | ||
| You cannot have this thing expire in April or May. | ||
| That's the beginning of the general election season. | ||
| You're going to let these people all of a sudden, this gap, and eventually they're going to sit there and go, hang on, hang on. | ||
| I do the cuts. | ||
| I've got to cut, but I don't have enough cuts. | ||
| And I can't do them quick enough. | ||
| So what else do I do? | ||
| Revenue. | ||
| Oh, well, I get revenue by keeping the same tax structure, but the economy's got to grow. | ||
| If I get 3% or 4% or 5%, I can do the math. | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| More revenues come in. | ||
| We're saved. | ||
| Hello! | ||
| But the economy can't grow. | ||
| Why? | ||
| We're crowding out in the capital markets because we're borrowing too much freaking money and paying the interest on that. | ||
| That's the refinancing of the $8 trillion that was almost at zero interest rates. | ||
| The original sins of 2008 and the bailouts of 2008 have now come. | ||
| The hungry ghosts of 2008 are here and they're eating your lunch. | ||
| So it's not, you can't put the things of growth, because they're nowhere at 1%, 1.5%, 2%. | ||
| That doesn't make it. | ||
| That doesn't grow tax revenues enough. | ||
| So then what do you have to do? | ||
| Well, maybe I have to look at the tax structure. | ||
| And maybe the tax structure is not right. | ||
| And maybe we start in Wall Street. | ||
| And maybe we talk in carried interest. | ||
| Maybe we talk about these things that have been in your face for decades and decades and decades that have allowed the wealthy to accumulate. | ||
| And I'm not talking about you making a couple hundred thousand bucks. | ||
| I'm talking about people that control this country. | ||
| I'm talking about the billionaires and the oligarchs that control this nation. | ||
| Until you're prepared to have that conversation. | ||
| Oh my gosh. | ||
| All the tax guys, they were up seeing Trump the other day and leaking to Jeff Stein at the Washington Post. | ||
| As soon as they're out of the meeting, we had a presentation talking to President Trump. | ||
| We're going to cut corporate taxes to 15%. | ||
| And Grover Norquist said, no, we're going to cut to 14%. | ||
| Isn't that a great idea? | ||
| The most woke part, the most woke part of our economy, the C-suite gutless Woke managerial class. | ||
| Let's cut their taxes down to 14% and I'll tell you what, they can use the money anywhere. | ||
| They can do stock buybacks, they can play all their financial gains to jack up their warrants and their options. | ||
| Boom, the stock price, they cash out, fare thee well. | ||
| That's brilliant. | ||
| That is not going to happen. | ||
| President Trump's original tax cuts, which I can make the argument, it actually gave us the $5 trillion in revenue. | ||
| But even in the first years, you've got to be able to bite the bullet until they kick in, until you get the growth, until you get the additional revenues. | ||
| And I didn't love everything about it, but generally the architectonics of it worked. | ||
| They are up for renewal. | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| In the first 30 days that he's back in office in 2025, he's not going to have the playing field, he's not going to have the options, he's not going to have the alternative. | ||
| Guess why? | ||
| Because we're going to be at $35 or $36 or $37 trillion, and we're going to be refinancing, not issuing government bonds at 0.1%, but at 5% or higher. | ||
| And that structural refinancing, you don't even need the Fed to kick it up anymore. | ||
| I kind of explained all this. | ||
| If you go to Birch Grove, you get the debt trap. | ||
| You get that. | ||
| Okay, and there's a lot going on here. | ||
| We're going to get to all of it, but I want to get to Natalie. | ||
| Can I play the cold open? | ||
| I've got a couple of minutes. | ||
| I'm going to play a cold open. | ||
| I'm going to bring Natalie Winters in, and then Natalie's going to hang through. | ||
| Natalie's going to stick with us through the break, and we're going to bring her back. | ||
| Let's play the highlight reel or the low light reel from today's circus that is supposed to be the impeachment of a sitting president. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Biden has no specific corporate governance expertise, and we don't believe he speaks Ukrainian or Russian. | |
| We don't believe he moved there. | ||
| So he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? | ||
| The Washington Post wrote at the time of Biden's appointment to Burisma's board that it looked nepotistic at best, and the Washington Post said, the Washington Post, nefarious at worst. | ||
| According to the Wall Street Journal, anti-corruption activists in Ukraine also raised concerns that the former VP's son received money from Zochevsky and worried that that would mean Zochevsky would be protected and not prosecuted. | ||
| Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted Hunter Biden's role on the board and how it presented, at minimum, a conflict of interest. | ||
| Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that Hunter Biden did not appear qualified to serve on Burisma's board. | ||
| Witnesses testified that Hunter Biden's role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise. | ||
| In fact, George Kent explained that in 2015, he raised a concern to the office of former Vice President Biden. | ||
| Last week, the Attorney General told us that Weiss had the authority because I promised him he would have the authority if he asked it. | ||
| That seems to me to be something different. | ||
| He said to the Senate, he's got full authority, no problem. | ||
| Last week, he told the House Judiciary Committee Well, there is a concern. | ||
|
unidentified
|
because I promised if he come talk to me I would give him the authority. That I already told the Senate he had. Do you see a concern there with false statements coming from the Biden Justice Department? Well there is a concern. You don't have to prejudge the evidence to say that obviously this is part of the inquiry and what I don't understand is the opposition to the inquiry itself. | |
| It seems to me the test is, would the alleged conduct, if proven, establish impeachable offenses? | ||
| And is there a credible basis for those allegations? | ||
| I think the answer is clearly yes, that there is a basis. | ||
| to look at the president's conduct without prejudging whether that qualifies at the beginning of that inquiry as an article of impeachment. | ||
| And let's be clear, you don't need a full vote of the House to proceed in an impeachment inquiry phase of our constitutional duty to do oversight. | ||
| In fact, the Democrats did it. | ||
| Four years ago, I was in an impeachment deposition run by Adam Schiff in the bunker in the basement of the Capitol and I went to the floor. | ||
| So I'm in an impeachment deposition and I went to the floor to vote on opening an impeachment inquiry. | ||
| They did the same darn thing because you have that authority as a Congress when the Speaker of the House makes that designation. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, did in fact initiate the impeachment. | |
| In some cases, then you have a later vote. | ||
| I've said in my testimony, I consider that the best practice, to have a vote of the House. | ||
| But the court that was referenced earlier looked at this And said that the Constitution does not require resolution. | ||
| Actually said if you look at all the impeachments, often there wasn't a resolution. | ||
| That doesn't mean it's not a good practice, but the Constitution itself does not require such a resolution. | ||
| We are having here, isn't it? | ||
| Right? | ||
| I mean, listen, as a former director of emergency management, I know a disaster when I see one. | ||
| I mean, by the way, you don't believe me? | ||
| Just ask Steve Bannon. | ||
| Steve Bannon, your guy, just went on and said, you know, perhaps... Who's guy is Steve Bannon? | ||
| Yeah, well, you know who Steve Bannon is. | ||
| Steve Bannon just went on and said, perhaps the Republicans shouldn't have started with a witness, he was talking about Professor Turley, who was going to say right off the bat that there wasn't an impeachable offense. | ||
| I quote, he says, perhaps we should have put him on the maybe list for one of our witnesses. | ||
| So your other witness, Ms. | ||
| O'Connor, gave a complete recitation of the last nine Okay, there's more to that. | ||
| We're going to take a short break. | ||
| We got more to show, and Natalie here for her observations and commentary. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're going to be back in the war room in just a moment. | |
| Today we are going to bring the evidence. | ||
| In 2017, the Joe Biden family teamed up with Chinese company CEFC to make millions off of granting access to Joe Biden. | ||
| Hunter even arranged for Joe Biden to share office space with the CCP-aligned company CEFC. | ||
| My Democrat colleagues say none of this is relevant because Joe Biden wasn't vice president while his family did these shady deals. | ||
| Turns out that's complete and total bullshit. | ||
| It's a lie. | ||
| Hunter Biden referred to access to his father as the keys to his family's only asset. | ||
| Those words are going to come back and haunt Hunter Biden and his family forever. | ||
| Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee released an FBI memo on the interview they had with Tony Bobulinski, a former Biden partner in crime. | ||
| I'll read a bit of that right now. | ||
| The work conducted by CEFC, Gilear, Walker, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Yee over the preceding two years was discussed in detail. | ||
| In particular, CEFC was closing significant investment deals in Poland, Kazakhstan, Romania, Oman, and the Middle East during this period of time. | ||
| Period of time is in reference to the years 2015 and 2016 when guess what? | ||
| in 2015 and 2016 when guess what? Joe Biden was vice president. As an aside, Rob Walker in previous testimony also confirmed that Joe Biden attended a meeting with the head of CEFC. | ||
| So now we know CEFC was working with the Biden family while Joe Biden was vice president. | ||
| And I'll continue reading from Tonya Bobulinski's report. | ||
| Which says, and I quote Bobulinski, Hunter Biden and James Biden did not receive compensation because Joe Biden was still vice president during this time period. | ||
| There is a concern it would be improper for payments to be made to Hunter Biden and James Biden by CEFC due to its close affiliation with the Chinese government. | ||
| Hunter Biden and James Biden both wanted to be compensated for the assistance they had provided to CEFC's ventures. | ||
| In particular, they believe CEFC owed them money for the benefits that accrued to CEFC through its use of the Biden family name to advance their business dealings. | ||
| The Bidens, coincidentally, were paid over a million dollars by CCP-affiliated Chinese company CEFC shortly after Joe Biden left office as vice president. | ||
| Now we know why. | ||
| Because it was back pay. | ||
| I'm going to show another image. | ||
| This is a text message between Hunter Biden and Gong Wen Dong, an agent of CEFC. | ||
| Hunter says, my uncle will be here with his brother, in all caps, who would like to say hello to the chairman. | ||
| He goes on, Jim's brother, if he's coming, wants to say hello. | ||
| His uncle's brother. | ||
| Hmm. | ||
| I wonder who that could be. | ||
| I can't quite figure it out. | ||
| Hunter puts BROTHER in all caps, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but since I'm not always dealing with geniuses, and Washington, D.C. | ||
| has been illustrated today, I'll spell it out. | ||
| The brother of Hunter's uncle, Jim, is Joe Biden. | ||
| Why was Hunter so secretive about his father? | ||
| I'm going to tell you why. | ||
| It's because Joe Biden didn't want the American people to know he and his family were getting paid millions and millions of dollars from a company closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| CEFC knew paying Biden family members was bad, so they covered it up. | ||
| Hunter knew Joe Biden hanging out with CCP businessmen would be a bad look, so he tried to pull a genius move on us with this whole my uncle's brother bullshit. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| I'm going to bring in Natalie. | ||
| Natalie, just tell us who that was, that was one of the best parts of the whole day, but why that even is not good enough as kind of sharpened as focus is that. | ||
| Natalie Winters. | ||
| Yeah, that's Nancy Mace. | ||
| I think she probably had the best line of questioning of the 47 or so people who were asking those four witnesses a variety of questions today. | ||
| But like you said, Steve, You know, even that didn't really cut it. | ||
| In other words, it's just sort of old news. | ||
| And I just don't really think that this method of conveying information really made a concise or even coherent case, right, even having to jump back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. | ||
| And I think if you sort of take a step back, And you look at this through the lens of narrative building, which we know Republicans are not good at, whereas Democrats, because they control the media and all these institutions, and frankly, half of the Republican Party, they're very good at creating these narratives. | ||
| But I think in this instance, you've sort of seen the Democrats play the same game that they have, whether it's election fraud or the origins of COVID, where they sort of withhold a lot of information that we would need to really have some of those smoking gun moments, those true bombshells. | ||
| But then they, you know, play the game of, oh, well, you don't have any evidence. | ||
| And it's like, well, yeah, because you're withholding it from us. | ||
| But in this case, obviously, there are some true, I would say, you know, smoking gun pieces of evidence. | ||
| But I just think there's this sort of Whether it's whiplash or deja vu, I don't know how exactly to categorize it, but there's just so many competing timelines here. | ||
| Not only because this information has been publicly available for so long through the Hunter Biden hard drive, but, you know, as you said in your opening, you know, I'm a very analytical person. | ||
| I always pay attention to syntax and diction. | ||
| And if you really listen to a lot of the statements from Republicans today when they're talking about, you know, evidence and Turning it over to the American people. | ||
| They didn't say the words, you know, we just obtained this evidence last night. | ||
| They said, we just released, we just revealed this evidence to the American people last night. | ||
| And I think this sort of speaks to what, you know, Congressman Tim Burchett has always come on this show and said, which is, it seems that, you know, every two weeks there's a new drop of information from oversight that has to do with Hunter Biden text messages. | ||
| Or emails, but I sort of think we've hit the point where they just need to lay it all out there and stop with this sort of piecemeal dropping of information where it's not the whole picture. | ||
| And then, frankly, Steve, the weirdest part of the whole hearing is it then concludes with Comer saying, well, I'm going to subpoena Hunter Biden's bank records. | ||
| Well, you should have done that before you held the hearing. | ||
| You know what I mean? | ||
| Unserious people, like I said, on War Room. | ||
| And I will stand corrected because I think if we bring back War Room impeachment, we need to bring back War Room impeachments, plural, for Mayorkas and Garland and whoever else is in the crosshairs. | ||
| But I think, too, Steve, the other reason why the narrative building was so off today, and like I said, it was sort of, you know, ADHD trying to watch and really understand where they were going with this, It's because I think a lot of the focus on this and the ramifications on the Joe Biden front of things, even when you take Hunter Biden out of it, is focusing in the past, right? | ||
| It's focusing around the years of 2015 and 2016. | ||
| And yes, that's important, particularly on the Ukraine front. | ||
| But I think if you really want to make the case that this isn't just political and that it matters to American people, you really can link and trace this all the way to the gasoline prices that people are seeing, to the runaway inflation that we're seeing, because so many of the deals that Hunter Biden struck had to do with energy, particularly green energy, particularly with the Chinese Communist Party run energy companies that Energy Secretary Granholm was on the phone with the former CEOs | ||
| of the companies that were very closely linked to Sinopec, which enjoyed billions of dollars of investment from BHR partners. | ||
| The same firm that the CEO sent the $250,000 wire to Joe Biden's house to, that was just revealed a few days ago. | ||
| So I think that element of the storytelling, how it is currently affecting Joe Biden's policy, you know, this of course also coming on the heels of leaks that Iran was able to basically infiltrate the Biden regime and affect Iranian policy. | ||
| I can tell you this, if Iran's doing it, The Chinese Communist Party is doing it because that's probably where they learned it from. | ||
| And I just think fundamentally, Steve, today, it goes back to what I think we did when we were, what we said when we were doing the pregame on this hearing was that this is just to lend credence to Kevin McCarthy's point, moot point, I would say after today, that if we shut down the government, we won't be able to impeach Joe Biden. | ||
| I mean, if this, if what we saw today was the best case, the best, you know, lineup of hitters that they could put forward to demonstrate why the grassroots, why the war room policies should be, you know, against a government shutdown. | ||
| Then I say, you know, tongue in cheek, but I say bring it, bring on the shutdown because what we saw today was so reprehensible. | ||
| They would have been better off just playing six hours of Hunter Biden's, you know, audio recordings and voicemails instead of doing this weird weaving in and out of narrative building and just really getting trounced. | ||
| By Democrats, and not even the best and brightest of the Democrats. | ||
| There's some great clips that I'm sure people have seen on Twitter of just some curious lines of questioning and interesting fashion choices. | ||
| But I will leave it at that. | ||
| Now, Natalie just took about eight minutes. | ||
| That is a more succinct summary than anything that's come out of there today. | ||
| Now, Natalie Winters, From her teen years in college has been one of the lead investigators on every different aspect of this. | ||
| So she knows the receipts, she knows the details. | ||
| But then she needs to step back and summarize and kind of give everybody a picture of exactly, not just what the stakes are, but really what the important touch points of this. | ||
| That's what, when we say they're not serious, Natalie can tell you years and years and years under Rahim first and then here at the War Room, the laborious work of going through the documents, of actually getting down into the original documentation to get what we call the receipts. | ||
| And when you, you have to understand in starting out in a process like this, it's like starting out in a process With what we're trying to do and to change the financial direction of the country. | ||
| You have to have muzzle velocity, you have to be united, you have to know kind of what your objective is, and you have to think two or three moves down range because the establishment is going to be trying to chop block you, as McCarthy's guys are, plus the Democrats. | ||
| On something like today, you're trying to impeach a sitting president of the United States. | ||
| There was no need that we had to have this hearing today on the 28th of September in the year of our Lord, 2033. | ||
| The only reason we had it, the only reason you had to have it, is because McCarthy has held it as a shiny toy, not realizing how important this is for the nation to do this, because you can show | ||
| That a sitting president of the United States knowingly and willingly took bribes and changed policy against, definitely in favor of our most existential threat we've ever had, X to the country, the Chinese Communist Party, and then again | ||
| The oligarchs in Ukraine and everything that's happening in Ukraine, this incredibly corrupt country in Ukraine, which today we're talking about another 80 billion dollars, which they're going to try to, if they possibly can, because they don't want to get into a thing of not doing any funding, of having any kind of gap, even put it in a CR. | ||
| They'd even risk shutting down their own government, their own regime. | ||
| They gotta get the Ukraine money. | ||
| That's why you have to be And they understand that Biden's now dropping in the polls. | ||
| The crosstabs are terrible. | ||
| You saw what happened in Michigan yesterday with President Trump. | ||
| Biden's out there with 20 people on a picket line. | ||
| Nobody even showed up. | ||
| That they are an extremist and they will do anything. | ||
| Because not just has this destroyed Biden, this is the type of thing, when we prove Biden's crimes, that this will impact the Democratic Party for decades to come. | ||
| For decades to come. | ||
| But that's how you have to be that serious about it. | ||
| Natalie, given everything else that's going on on Capitol Hill that you're following and all the other, you know, these monumental breaking news of things that are happening right now in this budget fight, how do you turn this around? | ||
| If you could go get a cup of coffee with Kevin McCarthy and Comer and Jordan, what would you tell them? | ||
| What would you say? | ||
| Hey, you know, it's free advice. | ||
| I've worked on this for a couple of years. | ||
| Here's my recommendation. | ||
| What would you tell them? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Well, I feel like I've been uncharacteristically pessimistic on today's show, so I will give what I think is a very important signal of hope and happiness from this hearing, which is that the facts are on our side, and even as incompetent as we are, the only reason that we were able to get to a point today where we can somehow piece together a hearing where there is still piecemeal pieces of evidence that indicate and that really do show corruption on behalf of Joe Biden. | ||
| The fact that Democrats spent, I think, most of their time, at least in Jamie Raskin's opening statement, talking about Trump sort of proves that Joe Biden wasn't the hill that they wanted to die on, right? | ||
| That's the signal, not the noise. | ||
| They weren't really out there defending Joe Biden. | ||
| There were a few members who talked about how Joe Biden is just a great father, but most of them weren't actually engaging with any of the evidence, right? | ||
| Trying to dispute the SARS, trying to dispute the bank records. | ||
| trying to normalize what would have transpired if you take Republicans at their word. | ||
| And given that Democrats operate under the axiom that, you know, accuse your enemy of what you're guilty of, I think the fact that they're trying to accuse Trump of what Joe Biden did in a roundabout way sort of proves that Joe Biden is guilty of what Republicans are alleging, of course, circumstantially. | ||
| But I think that's sort of the takeaway, right? | ||
| It's not like Democrats mounted their defense by saying your evidence is not legitimate. | ||
| They just said your evidence is not legitimate because Trump bad, Trump did this, which I think is an interesting tell. | ||
| But in terms of speaking to Comer and McCarthy, I mean, honestly, Steve, I don't even know if they're salvageable. | ||
| The way that the status quo is up on Capitol Hill, leadership, the, you know, incestuous circle that that is, these people, all they care about is keeping their seats. | ||
| All their staff cares about is their member keeping their seat. | ||
| They fundamentally are opposed to any existential threats to the system, which is You know, metaphorically speaking, blowing up the system by exposing the corruption that the Biden family personifies. | ||
| And I think the real black pill of this whole situation is that the Biden family is not really even unique, right? | ||
| All of these families, establishment Republicans, Democrats, every side of the aisle, have sold out this country for money and profit, right? | ||
| Managed decline is bipartisan. | ||
| Managed decline is omnipresent in Washington, D.C. | ||
| And I think these people know, whether it's Comer, McCarthy, their staffers, the people who are running these investigations, which, by the way, I'd love to get the identities and the names and just any idea who's actually investigating these crimes, getting these documents, running investigations for Comer. | ||
| As far as I'm aware, they're just low-level Hill staffers. | ||
| But it just goes to fundamentally what Washington D.C. | ||
| is, right? | ||
| Just like Kevin McCarthy every year, or I guess this is his first year as Speaker, but just like House Republicans or the Uniparty has waited to pass single-subject spending bills so they have to ram an omnibus through, they have to ram a CR through. | ||
| They're not going to expose the grift that is the Biden family because that would be Sort of just kneecapping and really, I think, shutting down what is the institution of Washington, D.C., which is all about selling power and selling access, selling the brand, as Hunter Biden said. | ||
| So if I were to get coffee with them, I don't think I would be invited for a second date because I would probably tell them that they need to get ready for a motion to vacate and that commerce should not be allowed anywhere near House Oversight. | ||
| But yeah, and lastly, you know, if you look at the witnesses that they had, I mean, the only reason Jonathan Turley mattered in the Trump impeachment inquiry was because we were surprised that he was marginally on our side because he was so establishment, right? | ||
| So I don't really know why he's the witness, not just that we're going to bring in as one of three, but the witness that we're going to start off with, whoever came up with that decision. | ||
| I mean, I don't even know how you say that that is anything better than intentional is most incompetence. | ||
| But I think the witnesses that they should have had, it just shows you. | ||
| Even, you know, I was looking at the RNC Research Twitter account the other day. | ||
| All they post is clips from Fox News. | ||
| They don't post clips from War Room. | ||
| They don't post clips from Jack Posovic. | ||
| They don't post clips from Charlie Kirk. | ||
| It's just fundamentally a different mindset that we're playing with that is the establishment Republican Party. | ||
| And what you saw today were witnesses that the old Republican Party chose, right? | ||
| These sort of establishment, just people who don't, who are out of touch when you should have had people like John Solomon up there, when you should have had actual investigative reporters up there. | ||
| I would argue you should have had Hunter Biden up there, but they're just approaching it from the wrong angle with people who I'm sure are good people and love this country. | ||
| But these are the same people who are going to look you in the eyes and say they're fiscal conservatives and they care about tax cuts and they think Ronald Reagan is great, while simultaneously telling us that we need a CR and $33 trillion in debt is okay and okaying more money and funds to CISA is okay, but oh, the weaponization of the federal government. | ||
| These people are just fundamentally unserious and it's just, it's the old guard. | ||
| So thank God we have Donald J. Trump. | ||
| But what you saw today really was, I think, you know, the Republican Party sans a Donald Trump figure, sans really the populist mentality to actually fight and to just sort of roll over and take it and try to get some soundbites. | ||
| But honestly, I don't really even think they got many soundbites today. | ||
| Breaking from CBS, by the way, you can't certainly see the soundbites up there. | ||
| CBS News, we're going to leave you with this. | ||
| Speaker McCarthy says he'll bring up a Republican stop-get measure, a CR, for a vote on Friday ahead of the September 30th deadline, but it appears to lack enough GOP support to pass. | ||
| When asked if a shutdown can be adverted, Representative Byron Donalds, who is the author of the CR from Florida, tells CBS, I can't guarantee that. | ||
| You've been fantastic today, and I want to have you back on tomorrow to talk about CISA and Jen Eastley. | ||
| I think it is, right? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And everything about defunding her that didn't quite go through. | ||
| Natalie, real quickly, what's your social media? | ||
| How do people follow you overnight? | ||
| Well, until CISA blacklists me overnight, you can find me at Natalie G. Winters on all platforms. | ||
| Trust me, if they weren't on top of it, they would. | ||
| By the way, we're going to be up all night. | ||
| Go to Grace, go to Mo's account right now. | ||
| A ton of stuff is going to play throughout the night. | ||
| I'll be coming in and out with updates. | ||
| We'll see you back here at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in the War Room. | ||
| I want to thank Memphis, my crack production crew here. | ||
| Also, Natalie G. Winters. | ||
| Okay, we'll see you tomorrow, Moet 10, and I'll be up on Getter tonight putting up breaking news. |
Export Selection