Hunter Biden’s Scandals Always Were—And Still Are—About Joe Biden's Corruption. Plus: Congress Nukes Hawley's Stock-Trading Ban | SYSTEM UPDATE #117
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the financial and corruption scandals surrounding Hunter Biden are now rapidly growing, and it's making it increasingly more difficult for Joe Biden's media allies to conceal the core truth that has long been at the heart of these scandals.
Namely, the relevant question has never been whether Hunter Biden is corrupt.
Ultimately, he's just the president's son and has never been on any ballot.
But what has resided at the heart of these scandals from the beginning is the question of Joe Biden's role in the sleazy and legally dubious profit-driven transactions pursued by Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
Now, going all the way back to the emergence of one of the first Hunter scandals, the New York Times' 2019 examination of why a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, It was paying Hunter $50,000 per month and it turned out closer to $80,000 per month.
The lurking question has always been the extent to which Joe Biden knew of and participated in these schemes.
The reporter at the heart of that story, Ken Vogel, one of the New York Times' reporters in the old school and classical sense of that title, was mauled and attacked by his own colleagues for the crime of doing reporting that was incriminating of Joe Biden during the 2020 election.
But the central tactic of the pro-Biden media was to instruct liberal voters and those leaning in that direction that they could and should just safely ignore any scandals involving Hunter Biden by falsely telling them that none of it had anything to do with Joe Biden's behavior, except to the extent that it all proved what a kind, compassionate, and decent man Joe Biden was for standing so loyally and lovingly at the side of his troubled son.
This same tactic was used immediately before the 2020 election when the New York Post used the contents of Hunter's laptop to document numerous business deals he was pursuing in Ukraine and China by trading on his father's name.
The very first tactic...
Was to lie and claim that the documents were forged Russian disinformation.
That's suffice to induce the media to ignore its contents and for Big Tech to censor the story in the lead up to the 2020 vote.
And we will never know the real impact of that suppression.
But the secondary defense to that story was very similar to the one we're hearing now with regard to all these other Hunter Biden scandals.
Namely, who cares if Hunter is corrupt?
That's what Biden's media allies intoned.
He's not a candidate for any office so we really don't care.
We know he's a drug addict struggling with addiction and so there's really no point in focusing on Hunter Biden and caring about whether he's corrupt.
Over and over they deliberately concealed the core of these stories that Joe Biden not only knew of what Hunter was doing but intended to participate in profiting in much of this.
But now, in the wake of hunters pleading guilty to two tax misdemeanors and the emergence of two very credible IRS whistleblowers who are testifying about the political influence invoked to protect Hunter from more serious charges, these scandals really cannot be hidden any longer.
The latest development that one of Hunter's longtime business partners is prepared to testify that Joe Biden frequently was put on the phone to speak to Hunter Biden's business associates in these deals goes to the root of these scandals, not for Hunter Biden, but for Joe Biden.
Undoubtedly the media will continue to ignore these stories, or when absolutely necessary, to mention them only on the way to maligning them.
But with the House Republicans wielding the majority, and thus the power of the subpoena, the ability to hold hearings, and even with the excessively cautious House Speaker Kevin McCarthy today suggesting for the first time that these corruption stories are entering the realm of impeachment investigation territory, It is becoming really difficult to see how Biden's media allies can continue to keep a lid on these rapidly emerging revelations for much longer.
Tonight we'll report on and dissect these latest developments with the goal of demonstrating how these scandals have always been about and continue to be about not the integrity of Hunter Biden but that of his father.
Then, one of the issues in Washington that has genuinely united people across the partisan ideological divide has been watching members of Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi but members of both political parties, enriching themselves by trading in stocks in the very company that they and their legislative initiatives most influence.
The potential for corruption and conflicts of interest are so great while watching this that ordinary voters on the left and the right, Republicans and Democrats, have little trouble seeing it and becoming angered over it.
Senator Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican, just introduced a bill to ban members of Congress and their spouses from buying and trading in stocks during their tenure in Congress.
He is supported in that initiative by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and many others in both parties.
Now, just in the committee vote where Senator Hawley tried to have this proposal to ban stock trading fast-tracked, Most committee Democrats joined with just enough Republicans to vote no and block Hawley's amendment.
We'll show you who did what and how this happened because this one episode really reveals so much about how Washington really works.
As we do every Tuesday and Thursday night, as soon as we're done with our one-hour show here on Rumble, we will move to Locals for our live interactive aftershow to take your questions, comment on your feedback.
To obtain access to our aftershow, simply sign up to be a member of our Locals community.
The red Join button is right below the video player here on the Rumble page.
Doing that gives you access to much of the content we post, including the Tuesday and Thursday live aftershow.
It also helps support the independent journalism that we do here.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can follow us on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms, where you can listen to the episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast live here on Rumble.
And if you rate and review each episode, it helps spread the visibility of the program.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
I don't think it's much of a secret that I have devoted a great deal of time over the last two and a half years to focusing on the events leading up to the 2020 presidential election, and
specifically the treatment that was given to the reporting, what turned out to be the very constructive and intrepid reporting done by the New York Post, using materials taken from a laptop that belonged to the then-Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
Obviously, that story played a big role in what ended up being the trajectory of my career.
I tried to publish a story, as you undoubtedly know, analyzing the contents of that laptop, talking about the media reaction to it, the unification of almost every major power center in the United States to suppress the implications of that story to ensure that Joe Biden won the election.
And when I tried to do that, I was blocked.
By my own media outlet, The Intercept, which I co-founded in 2013 in order to be adversarial to the intelligence community, based on the claim that was being made by almost every major media corporation, and ultimately by the senior editors of The Intercept, that the lies told by the CIA about those documents, that they were not genuine and authentic, but instead were the byproduct of Russian disinformation,
I was told that those claims from the CIA, the agency we were created to be adversarial to, was in fact true, and therefore it was too journalistically unreliable to allow me to published that story, and I would never allow anyone to censor my reporting, much less over something as significant as that.
I ended up resigning from The Intercept, and that created the trajectory of my career over the last three years or so that has led me to this nightly show on Rumble, along with other things.
So obviously, there is a personal stake in the story.
But the real reason I spend so much time analyzing it is because, to me, it really is like the Rosetta Stone for deciphering the complexities of how American politics works in the Trump era, The way in which a coalition of power has formed between the corporate media, the intelligence community, big tech.
American neocons and Bush operatives, all of whom are united in a coalition based on the singular view, the overarching view, that Donald Trump and his movement pose such a grave danger to American democracy that anything and everything is necessary, indeed morally justified, to do in the name of stopping it.
We've reviewed many times the video that justifiably went viral by the philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris because he had a moment of candor much more vivid than most people who are like-minded who know enough not to admit that they think this way in which Sam Harris explained.
His view that he sees Trump as such a grave menace, such an existential threat, that even lying, even censoring, as the CIA and their media allies did in this case where they claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, even doing all of that is morally justified in the name of stopping the greater threat of Trump returning to power that has absolutely become the ethos of the
dominant institutions of authority and power in the United States, and as a result, they have become exactly that which they claim to be combating.
There is no such thing as human power unmoored from principle, unmoored from ethics, that will ever be anything but deeply corrupted.
Once people tell themselves that they are fighting an evil so overarching That there are no ethical limits that can be recognized, and what they do in the name of stopping it, those paths always lead to very dark places.
And in the weeks before the 2020 election, when they were desperate, and I mean desperate, to ensure that Donald Trump was not re-elected to a second term, and they saw this evidence, these stories emerging from the New York Post, That proved, again, not that Hunter Biden was corrupt, but that raised serious questions about whether Joe Biden was.
They panicked.
And they did two things.
First, Politico, through Natasha Bertrand, announced to the world that the CIA claims that the laptop was Russian disinformation.
That led to the corporate media mocking the story instead of investigating it and conveying and describing it, and ultimately led to big tech, not just Twitter, but Facebook, suppressing the story, purposely impeding American citizens who are about to go vote for president from learning about the revelations of this story.
It was an incredible, extraordinary act of electoral interference accomplished through a combination of electronic censorship, digital censorship, and just outright disinformation about the contents of the story.
Now, the backup tactic to responding to those revelations that really had the potential to sabotage Joe Biden's political campaign in the case that this didn't work, that it didn't work to call it Russian disinformation, was to tell people, look, even if the story is true, even if Hunter Biden is sleazy and profiting off of his father's name and his influence, Who cares?
It's just Hunter Biden.
No one's asking you to vote for Hunter Biden.
So whether Hunter Biden is corrupt or not makes absolutely no difference.
You should ignore anything that has his name attached to it.
He's an addict.
He was struggling with drugs and it should be deemed commendable for Joe Biden or any family member to stand by a family member who's struggling with addiction.
Something I agree with.
And not a source of denunciation.
The problem was, it was all based on a fundamental lie.
Mainly that these stories were only about Hunter Biden and not about Joe Biden.
And from the beginning, the White House, or the Biden campaign, then what became the Biden White House under Jen Psaki, adamantly insisted over and over that Joe Biden did not know about, did not participate in, and in fact, never even discussed Any of Hunter Biden's international business deals.
And so no matter what you try to tell people about the corruption that caused the story to be suppressed or discredited based on lies, you just got the same answer over and over.
They believe that lie, that propaganda, that Joe Biden had nothing to do with this.
It was only about Hunter Biden.
It was only about Hunter Biden's private life and his sex life and his drug life and nothing to do with Joe Biden at all.
Now, before we even get to the evidence, and there's a lot of new evidence that has emerged in the last week, and the extent to which the media is just ignoring it is remarkable.
No matter how low your opinion is of them, and I don't think it's a secret that my opinion of them is very low, it's still remarkable to watch them just simply trying to ignore this away.
But even without that evidence, it should have been intrinsically unbelievable, stretching the bounds of credulity to its breaking point, to believe that Hunter Biden was getting paid all over the world because of his connections to his father and the influence that his father wielded.
And never once did Hunter Biden ever even try and talk to his father about wielding his influence in a way that would benefit his associates so that he could demonstrate his value to them.
Hunter Biden was making a lot of money by pretending or claiming that he had the ability to introduce his business associates who are paying him to his father and to get his father to take action to benefit those associates.
The idea that Hunter Biden never even once mentioned to Joe Biden the work he was doing in Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, at the same time that Joe Biden was essentially running Ukraine.
After Victoria Nuland succeeded in engineering a coup there, replacing the democratically elected government that the United States didn't like with a government that was much more friendly to the West and to the United States, was inherently ridiculous.
Of course, they ended up having conversations about that.
And from the start, every scandal involving Hunter Biden Explicitly entailed evidence that Joe Biden's role in these transactions was highly questionable and highly dubious, if not outright corrupt.
And yet somehow they just kept repeating over and over, his media allies did, that these stories had nothing to do with Joe Biden and therefore they could be safely ignored.
Now going back to
The emergence of one of the very first stories here was the 2019 article that explored in detail the fact that an Ukrainian energy company was paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month to sit on its board, even though Hunter Biden very obviously had no value to bring to an energy company in Eastern Europe, except for his access to his father, who was vice president.
The New York Times framed it as Biden faces conflict of interest questions that are being promoted by Trump and his allies.
But you see there, from the beginning, even the New York Times understood that the story was, what is Joe Biden's role in Ukraine?
Joe Biden did end up getting fired a prosecutor that Burisma wanted fired.
And the defense was this was a prosecutor who nobody in the EU trusted, who everybody thought was too lax on corruption, and Joe Biden was simply carrying out a policy that he would have done anyway.
It just was a coincidence that it happened to benefit the company paying his son $50,000 a month to sit on its board.
A huge coincidence.
And that was what we were supposed to just swallow.
But Even the New York Times, from the beginning, always, or you see the picture, was of Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden, because that was always what the Burisma story was about, was what was Joe Biden doing to either make Burisma believe he would act in their interest because they were paying his son, or what did he, in fact, do?
And I think one of the things that people have really forgotten is that the very first two New York Post stories that ended up being suppressed and censored and lied about on the grounds that they were Russian disinformation were explicitly clear that they were not about Hunter Biden's integrity, but about Joe Biden's integrity.
They had very little to do with Hunter Biden and a lot to do with Joe Biden.
Here, for example, if you want, we're going to pull up the first New York Times story that was published on October 14th, so just a few weeks before the 2020 election. - I'm not sure.
There you see it on the screen.
The headline is, Smoking Gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to His Vice Presidential Father.
That was the New York Post story, the very first one.
It was not about Hunter Biden.
It was about what was Joe Biden doing in Ukraine to help his father.
This was the story they lied about.
If the materials on Hunter Biden's laptop didn't reveal anything incriminating or questionable about Joe Biden, why did everyone go to such great lengths to lie about these materials and to get them censored?
Why did the CIA sign a letter from 51 of its former operatives calling this Russian disinformation?
Why did their media allies and servants like Natasha Bertrand of Politico trumpet to the world that this was Russian disinformation even though it wasn't?
Why did James Clapper go on CNN and say he was certain, based on his decades of experience in the intelligence community, that this was Russian disinformation?
Why did Twitter and Facebook censor this story?
Why did everyone in the media applaud the decision to censor this story, if in fact the story was just a trivial matter that had nothing to do with Joe Biden?
None of that makes any sense.
You would only go to these lengths to discredit and lie about a story And to get it suppressed and censored if you know that it has incriminating information that could actually jeopardize the candidacy of the person you want to win as president, which is Joe Biden.
And you see in the headline of the very first New York Post story, the debunking of this lie that this is always just about Hunter Biden from the beginning.
As the New York Post said, the smoking gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced the Ukrainian businessman to his vice presidential father.
Here's what this article said.
Quote, Hunter Biden introduced his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by the Post.
The never before revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadim Pazorovsky, an advisor to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter Biden joined the Parismal Board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.
Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spend some time together.
It's really an honor and a pleasure, the email reads.
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pazraski, reportedly Burisma's number three executive, asking Hunter for, quote, advice on how you could use your influence on the company's behalf.
So do you see why?
They were so desperate to get this story discredited, why they so quickly activated the power centers that they control in order to spread an outright lie about these materials that almost every corporate media outlet in this country endorsed, including the one I co-founded to be adversarial to the intelligence community, namely that this was Russian disinformation.
It was always about Joe Biden's role from the start.
That was the first story on October 14th about Ukraine.
The second story from Hunter Biden's laptop by the New York Post that came a day later was about deals that Hunter Biden was pursuing in China.
And again, here you see the headline that makes it clear what this was really about.
Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family With a Chinese firm.
Here's the story, quote, Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China's largest private energy company, including one that he said would, quote, be interesting for me and my family, emails obtained by the Post Show.
In addition, the email outlined a provisional agreement under which 80 percent of the equity or shares in the new company would be split equally among four people.
whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients with H apparently referring to Hunter Biden.
The deal also listed 10 for Jim and 10 held by H for the big guy.
Neither Jim nor the big guy was identified further.
Now, the reason that I was so willing, in fact, eager to publish an article with my name on this story was because I was extremely convinced, not a year later when the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS all came out and not a year later when the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS all came out and admitted that they were able to independently verify the authenticity of the materials, but convinced all the way back
but convinced all the way back in October of 2020, when the CIA and Natasha Bertrand and Politico and James Clapper and the rest were claiming that this was Russian disinformation, I was extremely convinced of the authenticity of the material.
And one of the reasons I was so convinced of its authenticity was because I actually looked at the evidence.
The problem is, if you talk about this evidence, proving that the laptop was real and the materials were authentic, and that that evidence was available all the way back then for those who wanted to know, People who are Democrats, people who are liberals, even people who identify as on the left, will stare at you with befuddlement.
They have no idea what you're talking about.
They haven't heard of any of this evidence.
And the reason is, is because the media corporations that they're told to trust exclusively, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, simply didn't talk about any of this evidence.
It only appeared in the right-wing press.
One of the most convincing pieces of evidence proving not only that these documents were authentic, but that Joe Biden played a role, a key role, in the deal that Hunter Biden was pursuing in China was that Hunter Biden's business partner, Tony Bobulinski,
Was able to, A, show on his computer the emails he got in real time and was able to prove that they match, word for word, the emails that appeared in the Hunter Biden archive.
And as somebody who had to, in the past, verify very complex, large archives, such as I did when I worked on the Snowden story, and was given this massive archive by a source and had to ensure that it was authentic before I published it or it would have ruined my career,
And as occurred in 2019 and 2020 when a similar source gave me a huge archive from the top prosecutors and judges in Brazil that I had to report on, but first had to verify the authenticity of, otherwise it would have ruined my career had I published it and it was false.
And as I've done many times in working with WikiLeaks on its publications, One of the key ways that you can prove the authenticity of an archive is if some third party can show you in real time that the emails they got match word for word the emails in the archive.
And Tony Bobulinski was a key witness because he was able to do that.
He was the person who proved that these archives and the reporting about Joe Biden were authentic before the 2020 election took place.
And along with demonstrating and proving that the archive was authentic, he also stated explicitly that the 10% of that deal of the equity in that memo reserved for the big guy referred to Joe Biden.
He stated it over and over and explained it in very credible ways, including in this interview that he gave with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, then of Fox News, in October of 2020.
Just listen to what he said.
If you ask, just go find a liberal friend and ask them if they know who Tony Bubulinski is.
I promise you they don't know.
Or if they do know, they'll never be able to tell you what Relevancy had because their media outlets ignored them this in favor of Convincing them that this is all from Russia Or secondarily that none of it had anything to do with Joe Biden.
So they couldn't let them hear from Tony Wobulinski because he debunked the lie that was so urgent to convince as many Americans to believe as possible so that the story didn't reflect on Joe Biden.
Listen to what Tony Vomalinski said, talking to Tucker Carlson in October of 2020.
Joe Biden referenced that you've seen my tax returns and there's no money from foreign enterprises and that.
I want to simplify this for them.
Joe Biden referenced that you've seen my tax returns and there's no money from foreign, you know, enterprises in that.
I want to simplify this for the American people as much as I can.
On May 13th, that email was sent from James Gilear to me.
I didn't generate that email.
James Gilear generated that email.
And in that email, James Gilear goes through intimate detail Of what each individual's requests were from a compensation perspective, and how the equity in the enterprise would be divvied up.
Very important.
May 13th, that email was generated by somebody else to me.
In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity.
Jim Biden's referenced as, you know, 10%.
Doesn't say Biden, it says Jim.
And then it has 10% for the big guy held by H.
I 1000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden.
That's crystal clear to me because I lived it.
I met with the former vice president in person multiple times and I had been meeting and talking with Hunter Biden and Jim Biden and Rob Walker and James Gilliar.
And then he goes on and explains how many interactions he had with Joe Biden, how often Hunter Biden talked about his father's participation in the deal.
The problem was Joe Biden was never required to answer any questions about this because any reporter who asked him about it was vilified by his colleagues in the media.
The only journalist who actually tried to ask Joe Biden about this was Bo Erickson of CBS News on a tarmac.
And the entire media swarmed on Twitter that night accusing him of trying to be the linchpin of a Russian disinformation campaign.
For asking Hunter Joe Biden whether that deal memo actually described the expectation that Joe Biden had that he would receive 10% of this business deal that Hunter Biden was pursuing in China by promising favors from his father.
Who had been vice president, who was now running for president, and who was leading many of the polls with the large expectation that he would be elected president.
All of this was completely out in the open and evidence for anyone who wanted to see it.
And it was one of the most surreal experiences of my life.
Watching people who I at least thought were operating in good faith tell me That these materials couldn't be verified, that they were likely Russian disinformation, and that even if they were real, they had nothing to do with Joe Biden.
Because all of this material, like what we just showed you, was simply suppressed.
It was censored off the internet, the media refused to talk about it, he only went on Fox News and spoke to right-wing media because that was the only people interested in hearing what he had to say.
And so all of these questions about Joe Biden's attempt to work with his son, not to support him as a loving father in his battle with addiction, but instead to help his son exploit and profit off of Joe Biden's influence in places like Ukraine and China for the profit of the entire family, including Joe Biden, is something most American voters simply never heard.
Because in its place was a huge mountain of lies that came from the intelligence community and the corporate media.
And if that doesn't make you angry, even to this day, I don't know what will.
Especially because these media outlets never once confronted what they did.
They never once retracted what even they acknowledged as a lie.
That this material was Russian disinformation.
Joe Biden was never forced to this very day To talk about any of this.
Anytime people try to get him to answer, either Joe Biden would say, that's Russian disinformation that you're helping to spread, or he would say, I love my son, I'm proud of my son, and then people would go and write disgusting columns about how anyone raising these issues was stigmatizing addiction.
Even though Joe Biden is a lifelong advocate of imprisoning addicts and drug users for other people's children, suddenly we were presented with the image of Joe Biden, the compassionate, decent, empathetic man who understands that addicts aren't bad people, who are just people who need help.
And that any attempt to ask any questions about these business deals was an attempt to invade this beautiful relationship between a father and his son, and to degrade and malign the love that a father has for his son.
To this very day, that's the strategy that the media uses, hoping to protect Joe Biden from having to answer these questions into the 2024 election, even though The primary lie that they told for the last election, that this was all Russian disinformation, has all been revealed to be a lie.
Even though they don't acknowledge that as such, even though they won't confront it, they don't use that lie anymore, so they need another tactic.
And the tactic is, don't worry, none of this has anything to do with Joe Biden.
Now, as it turns out, there are a lot more scandals than just this one.
Including one that might seem trivial, but I'm going to go over it anyway because I don't think it is trivial.
I think it's highly representative of the way in which all this money is flying around the Biden family through Hunter Biden to enrich Hunter Biden in order to gain and curry favor with the President of the United States.
It was revealed a couple of years ago that now that Hunter Biden is no longer on the board of Burisma, now that he can't practice law, one of the ways that he was going to support himself Was he going to become an artist, a painter, like George W. Bush?
And as it turned out, miraculously, Hunter Biden is apparently a deeply visionary and creative painter.
So much so that his paintings, despite never having any previous market, were commanding as much as $500,000 per painting.
Just massive amounts of money flowing to the president's son under the guise of buying his art.
And the idea was that this was not something that we should worry about because we were told that Hunter Biden was not going to know Who was buying his art?
It was all gonna be segregated and kept secret, and therefore, Joe Biden wouldn't know who was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to his son.
Either hear from the New York Times in August of 2021, when this issue first arose, you see the headline, a gallery sells Hunter Bidens.
That's what they're called now, Hunter Bidens.
Like Picassos, Van Goghs, Hunter Bidens.
A gallery sells Hunter Bidens.
The White House says it won't know who's buying.
Hunter Biden's works are being offered for as much as $500,000 a piece.
His art dealer said he would follow ethical guidelines that the Biden administration helped to develop.
So no worries.
Extreme sums of money were going to be flowing to Hunter Biden's bank account with his father in the White House.
But there was no need to worry about any of this.
There was nothing disturbing about it because it was all going to be behind a wall of secrecy.
So whatever generous, decent, magnanimous, compassionate person was going to be paying Hunter Biden a half a million dollars for his paintings, there is no danger that person was going to ever curry favor with the president because nobody would ever know who was buying these paintings.
And that was the end of it.
As it turns out, you'll be shocked to learn, that ended up being completely untrue.
There's a investigation from Business Insider published earlier today that unveils the fact that Hunter Biden's gallery sold his art to a Democratic donor quote, friend, whom Joe Biden named to a prestigious commission.
Look at how close And how much influence this person wields with the Biden White House, who apparently just discovered the genius lurking in Hunter Biden's artistic creativity.
The article reports, quote, on the campaign trail, President Joe Biden pledged that there would be, quote, an absolute wall between his official duties and his family's private business interests.
The Biden White House repeatedly made reference to that wall when responding to questions about the fledgling art career.
Of Hunter Biden, the president's son.
Are there any examples besides Hunter Biden of somebody who discovers their immense hidden artistic talent at the age of 50 and suddenly starts with their very first paintings commanding half a million dollars or more on the art market because just instantly this genius is recognized?
In 2021, when a New York art gallery debuted Hunter Biden's paintings with asking prices as high as $500,000, the White House said his team had a process for carefully vetting buyers and that their identities were known only to the gallery and not to Hunter Biden himself.
The messaging seemed to suggest that the art patrons came from a rarefied universe of collectors who had nothing to do with the hurly-burly of politics.
These were just people interested in visionary art of the kind that Hunter Biden, unbeknownst to everybody, is apparently capable of producing.
Neither of those things has turned out to be the case.
Hunter Biden did, in fact, learn the identity of two buyers, according to three people directly familiar with his own account of his art career.
And one of those buyers is indeed someone who got a favor from the Biden White House.
The timing of their purchase, however, is unknown.
That buyer, Insider can reveal, is Elizabeth Hirsch-Naftali, a Los Angeles real estate investor and philanthropist.
Hirsch-Naftali is influential in California Democratic circles and a significant Democratic donor who has given $13,000 to the Biden campaign and almost $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, which are the legal limits.
In 2022, she hosted a fundraiser headlined by Vice President Kamala Harris.
So this is some extremely wealthy socialite who basically uses her time to funnel huge sums of money to the Democratic Party.
And lo and behold, she just so happens to be the person who decided that Hunter Biden's artistic genius merited close to a million dollars for a single painting.
Quote, insider also obtained internal documents from Hunter Biden's gallery showing that a single buyer purchased $875,000 worth of his art.
The documents do not indicate the buyer's identity, which is also unknown to Insider at this time.
In July 2022, eight months after Hunter Biden's first art opening, Joe Biden announced Hersh Snaftali's appointment to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.
It is unclear whether her purchase of Hunter Biden's artwork occurred before or after that appointment.
Did Hunter Biden weigh in with his father about the appointment of Hersh Naftali?
And did Hersh Naftali buy Hunter Biden's art before or after she was appointed?
Neither the White House nor Hunter Biden's counsel could offer an answer.
What we know for sure from this investigation is that the assurances we were given that nobody would ever know the identity of the buyers turned out to be an absolute lie.
The article goes on, quote, In the past, Hunter Biden has privately suggested that he could arrange to have friends seated on this commission.
Eric Schwerin, Hunter Biden's longtime business associate, was appointed in the same post by President Barack Obama in 2015.
An email apparently from Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop written that year suggested he had sway over Schwerin's appointment.
Quote, Eric asked me for one of those the day after the election in 2008.
He wrote to a cousin who had written inquiring about the possibility of a similar appointment for her mother.
Neither Hunter Biden nor Schwerin responded to a request for comment on the email's contents. - Yes.
These are all things we could have learned about and investigated before the 2020 election had the CIA not convinced the corporate media, and it didn't take much work, that they should tell the American people that this laptop was nothing more than Russian disinformation and therefore inherently unreliable.
And that any stories that came from it would be censored By Twitter and by Facebook.
Now, as it turns out, this person who purchased Hunter Biden's art at these very large, I was going to say inflated prices, but who knows?
It's a subjective market.
Maybe Hunter Biden really is the Van Gogh of our generation.
But the person who's purchasing this art, transferring enormous sums of money to Hunter Biden's bank account for these paintings, is someone who has visited the White House over a dozen times.
Here's the Free Beacon reporting on this from July 25th, which is today.
Elizabeth Hurf Naftali secured a private meeting with a top Biden advisor.
She has visited the White House at least 13 times since December 2021.
According to the Washington Free Beacon Review of White House Visitor Logs, Naftali attended several large events at the White House, but has also had several more intimate visits.
She met White House senior advisor Neera Tanden.
On March 21st, the Visitor Log Show.
Remember Neera Tanden?
She was the longtime head of the Center for American Progress, a real Twitter warrior, who endorsed the conspiracy theory that the winner of the 2016 election was not Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton, and that Donald Trump was certified as the winner only because Russian hackers invaded the election system and converted Hillary Clinton votes to Donald Trump votes in key swing states.
The media that hates conspiracy theories and questioning the integrity of elections love Neera Tanden.
They were outraged when she couldn't get confirmed to the post for which Joe Biden originally selected her, mostly because Republicans were offended by her Twitter insults, not for any substantive reason.
But now she has risen to a higher rank than she would have been had she been confirmed in the first place.
And so she's meeting with the art dealer Or the patron who is sending Hunter Biden huge amounts of money.
All of Natali's White House visits occurred after Hunter Biden's first art show opened in New York City in November 2021.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Do you see what contempt they have as well?
They just don't answer these questions.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we get a column from Nick Kristof or Jamal Bowie or some New York Times op-ed writer Denouncing all of us for asking these questions because all we're really trying to do is malign the inspiring love that Joe Biden as a father has for his son.
Quote, despite little experience in the art world, Hunter Biden has sold at least $1.3 million of his works, including $875,000 worth of paintings to a single anonymous patron.
Those art purchases have likely provided a lifeline to Hunter Biden as he faces a series of legal and financial problems.
Indeed, he lost all of his sources of income.
He faced a sweeping, complex criminal investigation into his taxes that ended up only with two misdemeanor counts, but it's expensive to hire those lawyers.
He had enormous tax debts, all of which have disappeared.
He's now paid off his tax debt.
And the question is how, and it turns out the answer is because people are giving him Millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands, now into the millions for his scribbles.
And we were told it would be impossible for people to curry influence with the White House by doing that because nobody would know who was buying them and that turned out to be a total lie.
Now, in the last month, we have learned that there is a lot more evidence.
Proving that Joe Biden not only was aware of what Hunter Biden was doing in these business deals in Ukraine and China by invoking the family name, but that he was actually participating in them.
Directly contrary to what the White House has been claiming for several years now, emphatically.
We covered this story when it first emerged in June of 2023.
You will recall that there are now two IRS whistleblowers, senior IRS investigators, who participated in the investigation of Hunter Biden's criminal problems when it comes to his taxes.
Mainly, he didn't pay his taxes.
He evaded taxes by falsely reporting income as business expenses.
And one of the messages that he sent to a business associate in China explicitly threatened that Joe Biden was very angry that their money hadn't arrived, and that he would start to extract vengeance on these Chinese associates if they didn't immediately pay.
That was one of the things that emerged from this whistleblower that a WhatsApp message that they obtained, the IRS did, contained that threat about Joe Biden being directly involved in these transactions.
The Times at the time reported, quote, the lead IRS agent investigating whether Hunter Biden committed tax crimes told Congress his team uncovered evidence that Mr. Biden had invoked his father Who is then out of office while pressing a potential Chinese business partner in 2017 to move ahead with a proposed energy deal.
House Republicans said, In testimony made public on Thursday, Gary Shapley, an IRS agent since 2009 who supervises the tax agency's investigation into Hunter Biden, said his team used a search warrant to obtain a July 30, 2017 WhatsApp message from Mr. Biden to Henry Zhao, a Chinese businessman.
In a summary of the message provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by Mr. Shapley, Mr. Biden told Mr. Zhao that he was sitting with his father and that, quote, we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.
This is Hunter, quote, tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand and now means tonight, Hunter Biden wrote, referring to other participants in the deal.
And Z, if I get a call or a text from anyone involved in this, other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me, and every person he knows, and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following my direction.
With great understatement, the Times said, quote, taken at face value, the message would undercut President Biden's longstanding claims that he had nothing to do with his son's international business deals.
Now, none of this evidence is mathematically dispositive in the sense that it is proof positive.
You would need, say, a video of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden talking about Joe Biden's participation in these deals to get that kind of mathematical certainty.
But it's basically one small level short of that.
How credible is it that sophisticated businessmen in Ukraine would be paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month based on illusory promises that Joe Biden would exert his influence and they never once asked for any evidence?
And remember, the New York Post reporting shows that Joe Biden actually got on the phone and met with Burisma executives.
And now we have this WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden threatening the Chinese that his father would take vengeance on them if they didn't immediately come up with the cash that they had apparently promised.
And I guess you're supposed to believe that the Chinese just believed with no evidence that Joe Biden was a participant in this deal.
This is not how sophisticated international business people operate.
That Hunter Biden just goes around making claims about his dad.
And nobody ever wants any evidence, any proof that it's true.
They just believe it based on nothing.
But you have this mountain of evidence of Joe Biden's involvement in all of these deals, something the White House has emphatically denied.
And now you have the emergence of what I think is arguably the most convincing evidence yet.
First reported by the New York Post on July 23rd.
Which says Hunter Biden put then-Vice President Joe on the phone with business associates at least two dozen times.
Hunter Biden's ex-partner, Devin Archer, is going to testify.
So, Devin Archer is a longtime business partner and associate of Hunter Biden, just like Tony Bobulinski was.
And he's evidently reportedly prepared to testify that on at least two dozen occasions, Hunter Biden put his father, Joe Biden, on the calls with his associates, including when Joe Biden was vice president, to demonstrate what was clearly the case That Joe Biden was trying to demonstrate that Hunter Biden really had value because he could and would get Joe Biden to take action to benefit these companies that were paying Hunter Biden.
Quote, Hunter Biden would dial in his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, on speakerphone into meetings with his overseas business partners, according to testimony expected before Congress this week from Devin Archer, the first son's former best friend.
Archer, 48, Who is facing jail for his role in a $60 million bond fraud, is scheduled to testify to the House Oversight Committee about meetings he witnessed that were attended by Joe Biden either in person or via speakerphone when Hunter would call his father and introduce him to foreign business partners or prospective investors.
One such meeting was in Dubai late in the evening of Friday, December 4th, 2015, when a board meeting of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which was paying Hunter $83,000 a month as director.
When they were sitting outside, originally that figure was $50,000.
It's been discovered that, in fact, it was significantly higher.
He was getting paid $83,000 a month.
$83,000 a month.
A full-time job.
month, $83,000 a month, a full-time job, basically a million dollars a year, despite knowing nothing about the energy industry and specifically Ukrainian energy, obviously because there was value being provided by Hunter obviously because there was value being provided by Hunter Biden, which could only have come in the form of access to his father.
And yet the media has been insisting for years that you're supposed to believe that at no point did Joe Biden ever speak to Hunter about any of this, even in the face of all of this evidence, which they've been lying about for years.
The article goes on, quote, while they were sitting outside at the bar, Vadim Pozarovsky, a senior Burisma executive, phoned to ask where they were because Burisma's owner, Mikhail Zechevsky, needed to speak to Hunter urgently.
Hunter Biden's former business partner, Devin Archer, is expected to testify to Congress this week about how Hunter Biden would call then-Vice President Joe Biden during meetings with foreign business associates.
Soon afterwards, the two Ukrainians joined Hunter and Archer at the Four Seasons Bar, and Pozovsky asked Hunter, quote, can you ring your dad?
At the time, it was early afternoon Friday in Washington, D.C.
Hunter then called his father, put him on speakerphone, placed the phone on the table, and introduced the Ukrainians to Joe Biden by name as Nikolai and Vadim.
He also said words to the effect that the Burisma bigwigs, quote, need our support.
Vice President Biden greeted the Ukrainians but spoke only in vague pleasantries during this short call and in other such interactions with Hunter's overseas business partners.
Archer is expected to testify.
Congressional investigators are expected to probe the reasons for Zelensky's requesting the urgent phone call with Joe Biden.
Three days after the speakerphone call, the then-Vice President, who was the point man for the Obama administration for Ukraine, was due to fly to Kiev to address the Ukrainian parliament, known as the Rada, on December 9, 2015 about, quote, the poison of cronyism, corruptionism, and kleptocracy.
He was going to lecture the Ukrainians, Joe Biden was, on the poison of cronyism, corruption, and kleptocracy.
Ten weeks before that call, on September 24, 2015, U.S.
Ambassador Gregory Pyatt had given a speech about corruption in Odessa, in which he targeted Zelensky by name.
By then, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption, and within two months, on February 2, 2016, Which basically is what Donald Trump was impeached for also doing.
belonging to Joe Slefsky, who was living in exile in Dubai.
A month later, Shokin was fired after Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in USA to Ukraine, which basically is what Donald Trump was impeached for also doing, threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainians cooperated in the investigation threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainians cooperated in the investigation to determine whether or not Joe Biden was engaged in corruption in Ukraine by helping Hunter and the
Quote, Hunter performed the same party trick as many as two dozen times in Archer's presence.
The Long Island business born father of three is expected to tell congressional investigators under oath.
Another former business partner, Tony Bobulensky, recalls Hunter offering to get his father on the phone during a meeting by the pool at the Chateau Marmar in LA.
Quote, I am also aware of other Biden family business associates confirming that Joe would take phone calls from Hunter in the middle of business meetings and would weigh in via speakerphone, said Bobulenski.
Now, Joe Biden, before all this emerged, publicly boasted about the role that he played in getting this Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
The reason that Burisma decided that they needed to pay the son of a politician to help them with their legal problems and chose not a son of a Ukrainian politician but the son of an American politician was because ever since that 2014 coup engineered by Victoria Nuland in Ukraine, Joe Biden was basically running Ukraine, micromanaging it to the point of picking and choosing which prosecutors
They could appoint and had to fire.
Imagine some other country involved in American governance on that level of demanding that certain prosecutors be fired.
That's the extent to which Joe Biden had his fingers in the governance of Ukraine, which is why it makes sense for a Ukrainian Energy company to pay Hunter Biden close to a million dollars a year just to sit on his board because the only value that he had was access to the person running Ukraine.
And Joe Biden openly boasted about how he blackmailed the Ukrainians into firing this prosecutor.
Here he is in 2018 where he, I believe we have this video.
Yes, we do.
Talking about the role that Joe Biden played in getting this Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
I'll give you one concrete example.
I was – not I, I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got.
I got all the good ones.
And so I got Ukraine.
And I remember going over convincing our team, our brothers too, convincing them that we should be providing for loan guarantees.
And I went over I guess the 12th, 13th time to Kiev, and I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee.
And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn't.
So they said they were walking out to the press conference, and I said, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said it.
I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
I think it was, what, six hours?
I look, I said, leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a bitch.
Got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Just independent of everything else that we're discussing, just think about this for the moment.
This is somebody who was elected By the American people to be an American political official.
Go back and look at that 2012 campaign where Barack Obama ran with Joe Biden for re-election against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
And they talked about all the things they were going to do for the American working class, for American companies, for the unemployed.
And then they get into office and Joe Biden, look at how much time he's spending Micromanaging Ukraine.
He said in this video, just kind of in passing, this is the 12th or 13th time I went to Kiev.
Why is the United States so obsessed with and fixated on the internal governance of Ukraine?
It didn't just start once Russia invaded in 2022.
The United States has been governing Ukraine on such a granular level
But you see Joe Biden laughing about the fact that he forced them to fire a prosecutor they didn't want to fire that he wanted fired that again helped the company paying his son close to a million dollars a year even though Joe Biden and his media allies claim he was just carrying out EU policy that wanted this prosecutor gone because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption.
But this is exactly the sort of thing that Joe Biden and his family have been doing forever.
And they're making enormous amounts of money by doing it.
And there's a mountain of evidence that Joe Biden has been heavily involved in every step of these transactions.
The idea that Hunter Biden has been going around the world invoking his father's name in all these very explicit and aggressive ways and his father never got wind of it, had no idea that it happened, is laughable.
It does not pass the laugh test.
And yet this is the version of events that the media insists It's true.
That's the extent to which they're willing to lie for Joe Biden.
These are the same people who just decided randomly to claim that that laptop was Russian disinformation and relieve Joe Biden of the opportunity or the obligation to have to address these questions prior to the election because they were so desperate to make him win.
And they're so desperate to ensure his re-election again.
And they're going to do all of these same things all while they're telling you that it's you And the independent media that you consume, and social media, that is the real menace when it comes to disinformation.
These are the people who lie constantly.
And the reason they're so obsessed with censoring the internet is because they don't want shows like this, or any other, to be able to have a platform, have a megaphone, to question the lies that they're telling.
That's what the whole game is about.
Now, as I indicated earlier, if you call up a liberal who's your friend, who's a fan of Joe Biden, who's a fan of the Democrats, it's almost certain that they have heard about very little, if any, of this.
And that's the reason because the media simply doesn't report it.
Here is Greg Price, who is a very smart, conservative media analyst.
If you don't follow him on Twitter, I highly recommend that you do.
He's at Greg Underline Price 11.
He's a source of very reliable and diligent information.
And here he makes the point in this tweet from today that you see on the screen.
Quote, yesterday we learned Hunter Biden's former business partner and friend will be testifying that he put Joe Biden on the phone with his business associates from Burisma at least two dozen times.
If you get your news from anywhere other than conservative media, you would have no idea that this even occurred.
You would have no idea that that happened.
I always consume as many different kinds of media as I can, precisely to avoid this problem.
But huge numbers of liberals have been convinced that there's never anything of value on Fox News, on right-wing sites like the Daily Caller, or the Washington Free Beacon, or the Washington Examiner.
And they immediately block out anything that appears in that media.
And if it doesn't appear out of the mouth of Wolf Blitzer, or Chris Hayes, or Joe Scarborough, or Lawrence O'Donnell, they automatically ignore it.
It doesn't register in their world.
And so all these things that I just got done documenting to you, including this new evidence about Hunter Biden's business partner testifying under oath soon that Joe Biden was heavily involved in these business deals, are things that, as Greg Price says, are something you would have no idea about unless you consumed conservative media.
Because liberal corporate media outlets just don't talk about it.
And here he Demonstrates from the Washington Post, here are the top stories.
None of them have anything to do with Hunter Biden, despite the emergence of this evidence.
Here from the New York Times, exactly the same thing.
You have stories on the global economy, tons of think pieces on Barbie and its meaning.
Stories about essentially everything other than Hunter Biden, even though this evidence is pretty damning.
about not just Joe Biden's role in these deals, but the fact that the Biden White House has been lying consistently and for years.
Here from CNN, same thing, room for lots of sorts of things.
But there you see Kevin McCarthy's most direct impeachment threat yet against Biden.
They frame it as kind of Kevin McCarthy threatening impeachment.
And yet very little about what any of the substance of these claims were.
There's a story there about Joe Biden's dog biting secret service agents for the second time.
They replaced their first dog because he was doing it, now the second one as well.
But nothing about that story.
And then here from MSNBC, same things.
Of course, they're prominently featuring Donald Trump, and particularly Melania Trump, that her beluga whale tweet is just right for this indictment watch moment.
But nothing about any of the things we just reported.
So if you relied on these media outlets, you would have no idea that this has been taking place.
Now, as I said, the claims from the Biden White House for years, you can go back and watch the press briefings with Jen Psaki and then with Karine Jean-Pierre, is that Joe Biden has never spoken to in any way Hunter Biden about any of this.
That claim was never credible.
It is now unsustainable in light of all this evidence.
And so now the White House is subtly but clearly redefining their denial because their original denial that was so sweeping and emphatic is basically now debunked.
So here is law professor Jonathan Turley detailing an This article, which I believe is on his blog, there you see the headline, the White House is now changing their longstanding position of President Biden on Hunter Biden's foreign deals.
And here's what Professor Hurley writes, quote, as a virtual mantra, Biden and the White House staff have categorically maintained that he has no knowledge of any foreign dealings of his son.
That has been proven to be a lie.
But Biden continued to maintain the position.
Yet, on the eve of the testimony of a key Biden associate, the White House has changed its position.
Now the president is only claiming that he was, quote, not in business with his son.
No longer claiming that there was never any discussion about these deals.
Now it has become simply that he is not in business with his son.
That's a very different kind of denial.
Biden has repeatedly said exactly this.
Here is Biden on the campaign trail in Iowa in September of 2019 and you can listen to what he said here when asked about all this by Peter Doocy.
Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
And so how do you know?
Here's what I know.
I don't know why he's babbling about Trump.
The question was very specific.
How many times did you speak with your son about his international business dealings?
He first said, I never spoke to my son about any of that, which is unbelievably preposterous.
He's now babbling about Trump.
You should be asking him the question, why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader, if that's what happened.
That appears what happened.
You should be looking at Trump.
Trump's doing this because he knows I'll beat him like a drum.
And he's using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to do something to smear me.
It's really unbelievable what he was talking about there.
He's denouncing Trump for intimidating a foreign leader.
He's talking about Zelensky.
This was the first impeachment.
He's saying that Trump acted incredibly inappropriately by trying to intimidate Zelensky by threatening to withhold aid unless the Ukrainians cooperated with the attempt to find out what Joe Biden did in Ukraine.
I just played you the video of Joe Biden boasting Of how proud he is of himself that he intimidated Ukrainian leaders by telling them they weren't going to get the aid that the United States had promised them unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
It's just amazing sometimes when you realize these people who have been working in politics for their entire lives, he's never done anything else, Joe Biden.
He was elected to the Senate at the age of 29.
For decades, this is what he's been doing, and they're pathological.
Just, there's no part of their brain that is even aware that they're denouncing somebody for exactly what they do.
I know a lot of you think, no, no, he's very Machiavellian, he knows exactly what he's doing.
It's not true.
They create these psychological substructures in their head, but it's just like the same thing where they condemn Trump for meeting with tyrannical leaders like General Sisi of Egypt, even though Joe Biden has spent his whole career sending money in arms to the Egyptians, to the Saudis.
There's no connection in their brains.
They're so sociopathic that they can say anything and convince themselves of its truth.
Let's just watch the rest of this. - Everybody looked at this, and everybody's looked at it and said, "There's nothing there." Ask the right question. - Mr. Biden, you've never spoken to your son.
- Can you be impeached for this? - Depending on what the House finds, you could be impeached, but I'm not making that judgment now.
The House should investigate it.
The House should investigate it.
- All right, so it's like an old man screaming, That's always what he does when he's asked about Hunter is he shows offense that someone would dare ask about his son, but he was pretty emphatic there that he had never spoken with Hunter about any of these international business dealings.
Here is the White House press secretary who was asked a similar question today, in fact, and you'll see how this has now morphed into something completely different as a denial.
Chairman James Comer today says that the Oversight Committee has evidence that the president in the past communicated directly with foreign business associates of his son, Hunter Biden, many times.
Curious if the White House and the President still stand behind his comment that he's never been involved and has never even spoken to his son about his So I've been asked this question a million times.
The answer is not going to change.
The answer remains the same.
The president was never in business with his son.
I just don't have anything else to add.
It's amazing!
That has never been the comment.
And the question correctly observed that the White House has emphatically and repeatedly said what we just showed you, Joe Biden telling Peter Doocy in that video, we could show you a hundred more videos like it, that The denial has always been that they've never even had conversations about these deals that Hunter Biden was pursuing by trading on the influence of his father.
And then she just pretends that she's saying the same thing she's always said.
I've told you a million times, they've never been in business together.
Because they know what this testimony is that's coming.
Now, I just want to preview something very quickly for you, just kind of setting the stage for something that we're going to examine, which is the way in which Wikipedia, even though it is connected to Google, the biggest company in the world, the most important search company in the world, it's like the official encyclopedia for Google.
If you search someone's name in Google, you're going to find their Wikipedia page.
has become, like so many other things, a very degraded, weaponized arm of the liberal establishment.
The co-founder of Wikipedia, not Jimmy Wales, his name escapes me at the moment, gave an interview two years ago urging the public not to trust Wikipedia, saying that it was so pervaded with bias to promote liberal ideology that nothing on there was trustworthy any longer.
And anyone who I know who has a Wikipedia page, and that includes myself, who is now perceived as being an enemy of the liberal establishment, knows that your page is going to morph into something unrecognizable on Wikipedia the minute they declare you to be an enemy to their faction.
There have been things on my Wikipedia page about events 20 years ago in my life that have been on that Wikipedia page unchanged for 10 years.
And ever since I began questioning Russiagate and just in general seeing the Trump presidency differently than most of the liberal and left establishment in this country, almost every sentence of my Wikipedia page, there's a war over how every word is Appearing there, and every sentence, including ones that have been up forever, about positive accomplishments have been diluted and degraded.
Every part of my life has been described in a way that's designed to spread negative innuendo.
And so you can see it on every page of every person who becomes an enemy of the liberal establishment.
And here, I just want to show you how Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a ideology-free encyclopedia, treats the Biden-Ukraine Story that Burisma was paying Hunter Biden secured favors from Joe Biden.
They call it, there you see it, the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory.
This is an encyclopedia.
They're not saying some people believe this.
This is Wikipedia describing This story as a false story in exactly the way that the White House would or an MSNBC host would.
And here you just see the very first paragraph, quote, the Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the US engaged in corrupt activities relating to his son, Hunter Biden.
Who was on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma as part of efforts by Donald Trump and his campaign in the Trump-Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment.
These falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign.
It just goes on like that.
It's like a DNC statement masquerading as an encyclopedia entry.
I've done a lot of research into how this is accomplished, into the deceit used by Wikipedia to empower its liberal editors to justify all of this.
It's been something I've been planning on reporting for a long time because I said Wikipedia is something that has a great deal of influence as a result of its connection to Google.
Was something that could have been and should have been the best of the Internet, a kind of collective way of gathering knowledge and information, relying on crowdfunding that would use the collective consciousness and collective knowledge of humanity to inform the world about every single conceivable subject matter, but like so much else.
It has been put through the sewer of ideology and partisanship and it has become a really degraded tool and the fact that they can take this scandal which has a mountain of evidence behind it as we just walked you through And just label it at the top and in every paragraph a series of lies and falsehoods spread by Republicans to try and damage Joe Biden's reputation.
I hope that gives you a sense of just how extreme Wikipedia has become in this regard.
It is something that we definitely intend to report on and we most certainly intend to report on what are the upcoming House hearings looking at all of these transactions to finally find out
Free of the lie that this is Russian disinformation, free of the falsehood that this has nothing to do with Joe Biden, to finally find out what Joe Biden has been doing when it comes to these transactions, what role he's been playing in helping Hunter profit in all sorts of ways, and the lies that the White House and their media have been repeatedly telling the public, which they know is finally coming to an end, as you see from the changing denials.
So we don't expect much of the media to report on these stories, but we Absolutely intend to.
Thank you.
As I've explained before, our program does and will rely on sponsorships, but I have full autonomy to only speak for the products in which I genuinely believe and to reject any that I don't.
And our newest sponsor, which is CB Distillery, is one about which I'm genuinely excited.
It pertains to some of the most important developments right now in the West.
There are all kinds of data showing that the indices for mental health problems, for anxiety disorders, for depression, for addiction, for suicide, for alcoholism are off the chart, growing every year.
And for people who are diagnosed with those problems or who simply know that they're experiencing them, they typically get one of two equally poor options.
Either they're given hardcore prescription drugs by psychiatrists or other doctors that are far heavier and just more intense than people need for this level of pathology, or they end up treating themselves through illegal narcotics on the market that also causes all kinds of problems.
And what CBD Distillery offers is something that's really right in the sweet spot for exactly what people need.
It is CBD, which is a derivative of the hemp plant.
So it's completely organic, completely natural.
There's no psychoactive ingredient to it.
It doesn't make you high.
To the contrary, what it does is it treats people who are suffering from kind of the daily grind of insomnia or stress or various kinds of anxiety by bringing tranquility, bringing relaxation, bringing peace.
It can treat pain.
It can treat insomnia and make it much easier to sleep, make the sleep much more satisfying.
It can even help with people who have become addicted to pharmaceutical products or to narcotics.
And they really have made an incredible offer that is genuinely for tonight only.
I'm not just saying that to get you active and then come back next week and repeat it.
It is genuinely for tonight only for their debut appearance on our program, which is 50% off for every product that they offer, which you get by using the code RUMBLE.
So you can choose from a range of very carefully formulated CBD products that are plant-based solutions designed to treat stress or sleep disorders or pain or addiction or problems with focus.
I have used several of these products.
A lot of my friends have as well, and the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.
I really encourage you to try it, especially for people who are suffering from these kinds of daily problems and finding the two options I outlined earlier, either inadequate or just way more intense and harmful than the problems really require.
The only states in which the offer is not available are Idaho, Iowa, and South Dakota, where the legality is less than clear, but in every other state, Idaho, I really hope you will go to cbdistillery.com.
They're a new sponsor for our program.
Patronizing them helps our program, and I really think it will help you as well.
Just go there, use the promo code RUMBLE, and for tonight only, you will have 50% off of every product that will be promptly delivered to you.
I really feel good about this product, and I think the results will be very positive for those who decide to buy them.
So it doesn't happen often, but it does happen occasionally, that there are certain practices in Washington that enrage and infuriate people completely independent of which that there are certain practices in Washington that enrage and infuriate people completely independent of which political party they belong to or with which
Such has been the case for the practice that has become increasingly visible over the last several years of very wealthy members of Congress, while they're legislating, and pressuring regulatory agencies to act in industries, buying and selling and trading in stock, and profiting and enriching themselves greatly in the exact industries and on the exact companies that they are simultaneously influencing with their legislative and profiting and enriching themselves greatly in the exact industries and
The idea that this is corrupt and creates all kinds of conflicts of interest is so obvious and so visible that it is almost impossible for anyone to be willing to justify The person who got the most attention doing this is Nancy Pelosi.
She's an incredibly skillful stock trader, as is her husband.
They are lavishly wealthy.
And they have an incredible ability to pick stocks, to know when to buy stocks, to know when to sell stocks that maximize the profit for the family.
And this has led, and she's by far not the only person doing it.
There are members of both parties who are extremely wealthy, who are trading in stocks as they legislate.
And this has created bipartisan anger.
And there is a bill designed to ban stock trading for members of Congress and their spouses, people who are in the executive branch and their families.
That is co-sponsored by the Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, the New York Democrat Kirsten Gilliprand.
And it has received a fair amount of bipartisan support in the Senate because, as I said, very few politicians want to be seen justifying a practice that is so visibly corrupting.
There's just no reason why members of Congress, in exchange for the power and privilege they get, can't refrain from trading in stocks until they leave Congress.
There's just no reason why this corruption should be tolerated.
And so here you see from Josh Hawley's site, he is touting this bipartisan bill that he has introduced and there you see the description of it.
In a hearing, a committee hearing earlier this week, Senator Hawley tried to fast track the approval of this stock ban by offering it as an amendment to a bill that was pending before a committee.
We're going to show you a brief excerpt of what Senator Hawley said in defending the need for this ban and the reasons why he was using this legislative maneuver to try and facilitate rapid enactment of this ban.
And here is Senator Hawley explaining the bill on July 24th.
I welcome the discussion about ethics reform.
What I noticed is that... And just the video was sped up.
We tried to find one that was at a normal rate because that distorts his voice, but I think most of you know what Senator Hawley sounds like.
So here is the sped up version of him saying this.
...about ethics reform, what I notice is that this body has a habit of prescribing rules and standards for other people, and then not looking to its own problems.
whether it's Obamacare or initially it was you all follow these rules, something different for us, or whether it's what's happening right now, where, for instance, in the last Congress, one in seven members of the House and the Senate, one in seven, that's a big number, violated current laws on the books, the Stock Act, by failing to report their stock trades properly.
Ninety-seven members of Congress, House and Senate, or their spouses or dependents, traded on companies that were directly affected by the committees they sit on.
More than one in five of senior federal officials in the executive branch currently hold stock in companies that they were supposed to be regulating.
And there has been a series of reports in the press recently about the Department of Energy in particular, where a huge number, I think it's two-thirds or more, members can look to make sure that I'm getting the statistics right.
A huge number of senior officials in the Department of Energy currently own stock and trade actively in stock on companies that DOE has direct oversight of.
That includes the Secretary of Energy, who represented to Congress under oath that she had no individual stock.
It turns out she did have stock.
She was trading that stock.
It included companies that DOE has direct oversight of.
Now, Senator Welch mentioned earlier that Americans are surprised at some of the ethics requirements that are or are not in place at the U.S.
Supreme Court.
This is one when I talk to people at home about members of this body owning and trading an individual stock or members of the executive branch owning and trading in stock of companies that they're supposed to be overseeing.
People are shocked that it's even legal.
So my proposal is a simple one.
If we're going to talk about ethics reform, let's make sure we're looking at ourselves as well.
So I'm proposing here to amend this provision, this bill before us, to include a ban on stock ownership and trading for members of Congress and senior executive branch officials.
It's a bipartisan bill.
Senator Gillibrand and I have introduced it as a standalone bill.
I've converted it here to an amendment.
And it would impose across the board ethics reform and make this uniform in the sense that we would be addressing ethical lapses that are real and pressing in our own body, in our own house, as well as the executive branch.
And I ask for a roll call vote.
So, So the context there was that was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing exploring the need to reform ethical rules governing the Supreme Court in light of the reporting about several of the justices receiving favors or financial benefits from very wealthy people.
That too does raise the potential that That kind of influence can be brought to bear in a corrupt way in the Supreme Court.
People who are very wealthy who have business before the Supreme Court in one way or the other could be using their access by lavishing Supreme Court justices with all kinds of gifts.
And Senator Hawley was saying, look, it's very easy to look at other people and their ethical problems.
We should look at ourselves while we're doing this and so we can pass reform to the ethical guidelines governing the Supreme Court, but we should also ban what has become a clearly corrupted practice.
Where members of Congress buy and sell stock, and he wanted to make it part of that process in order to make the point that it shouldn't just be the Supreme Court, but also members of Congress.
Now, you will probably be unsurprised to learn that the amendment failed.
And what's more interesting than the fact that the amendment failed, and it doesn't mean the bill is never going to pass, it still could pass as a standalone bill.
Is exactly what happened, which in particular, the Democrats, every Democrat except one, on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted no.
The Democrats are a majority.
As a result, the fact that they all voted no, except for Senator John Ossoff of Georgia, who voted yes, voted in favor of Senator Hawley's proposed ban, meant that as long as they got one or two Republican no votes, The amendment from Senator Hawley was going to fail.
So here you see every Democrat, Senator Durbin, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hirono, Cory Booker, all of them just voting no.
And then John Cornyn and Tom Tillis, the Republican from Texas, the Republican from North Carolina, joined those Democrats in voting no.
And that right there, you see it on the screen, that formed a majority of no votes that ensured that Senator Hawley's amendment was going to fail.
As soon as it became obvious that there were enough no votes to ensure failure, that was when all these brave Republicans stepped up to vote yes, knowing that there was no chance that it could actually succeed.
So you have Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Senator Hawley, Senator Cotton, Kennedy, Marsha Blackburn, and then joined by John Ossoff.
Now some of these people are actual genuine supporters of this ban.
That obviously includes Senator Hawley, it includes Senator Ossoff, but what so often is done is so much of this is theater, Where you get very safe, senators from very safe blue states, who are never going to be primary challenged by the Democratic Party.
They don't primary challenge anybody.
And who are in states where their seats are very safe.
So they can vote no on anything, including something as popular as banning members of Congress from profiteering off stock trading.
And then once it's safely defeated, Other people who aren't quite as safe in their seats can come up and pretend to vote yes, pretend to support it, knowing that, in reality, its failure is already guaranteed.
That's exactly what happened here.
Probably the most extreme example I ever saw of that was when Nancy Pelosi wanted $2 billion in additional spending for the Capitol Police.
To expand its surveillance capabilities, to let it function in different states outside of the Capitol.
And there were a lot of left-wing anti-police, anti-authority activists who were aghast that Nancy Pelosi wanted to spend $2 billion more on the federal police at the Capitol.
And the squad, all six of them, promised these activists they were going to vote no.
And they were so happy, these activists, they announced it.
The squad promised they were going to vote no.
As it turned out, the vote was scheduled and it came up for a vote and the squad thought they could vote no and it would still pass because they thought Nancy Pelosi could get enough Republicans to vote yes that would make their votes unnecessary.
As it turned out, no Republican was willing to vote yes.
Every Republican united state with their caucus and voted no, which meant that had the squad maintained their promise to vote no, the bill would have failed.
And as a result, at the last minute, three of them, AOC, I want to be careful because I don't remember exactly who it was.
I know AOC was one, but it was clearly a coordinated effort.
I believe Jamal Bowman and Ayanna Pressley were the other two, but I'm going to just go ahead and make clear that I don't recall the exact votes, but three of them decided to abstain Which meant that their votes were unnecessary, and so Nancy Pelosi got her bill passed.
Had the squad fulfilled their promise to vote no, it would have failed.
So it was a perfect case where the squad thought that they could cast some brave, dissonant no vote, show the left that they're up there fighting, but they were only willing to vote no to the extent that their votes were unnecessary.
As soon as it became clear that Nancy Pelosi needed their votes, They abstained in order to make sure that Nancy Pelosi got what she wanted.
It was all theatrical.
It was complete bullshit.
This promise to vote no.
It was all contingent on the expectation that it would fail anyway.
And the minute it turned out their votes were necessary, they changed their votes at the last minute, violated their promise to these activists who denounced this, but of course nobody cared.
So this is exactly what happened.
These people waited to see who voted.
There was enough no votes to ensure Senator Hawley's bill failed.
And then they walked up and said, I vote yes.
Let's ban stock trading.
So we will see how this bill proceeds.
There's obviously a lot of members of Congress who feel too scared to oppose a ban on stock trading.
But they want to trade on stocks because that's how they profit for their families.
Imagine how much information you have That other people don't have being a member of Congress.
It's a huge advantage to be able to buy and sell stock.
That's why so many of them do it so successfully and profitably.
But the politics here are difficult because of course the public doesn't want to see people voting to preserve their right to trade stock.
And this is the kind of complicated theater we're going to be treated to.
We'll see whether or not this passes.
We'll continue to report on it.
But we wanted to just show you what happens because so often you look at these votes and you might say, oh wow, good for Lindsey Graham.
He voted yes.
Or whoever.
Marsha Blackburn.
When in reality their yes votes were cast only once they knew that it wouldn't make a difference.
That's so often what happens in Washington.
Where so much of this is scripted to deceive you into believing that one thing happened when in reality something completely different was the truth.
So that concludes our show for this evening.
As always, because tonight is Tuesday, Tuesday and Thursday, we move to our live interactive show on Locals, which is for our subscribers only.
To become a subscriber, simply click the Join button, the red Join button, right below the video player on the Rumble page.
that entitles you to not only access to our after show where we take your questions, comment on your critiques, listen to your suggestions about things we should cover and people we should interview.
We also post exclusive content there, and it also helps support the journalism that we do here as well.
We rely on both sponsors and people who subscribe to our show in order to keep this show funded and able to do the sorts of journalism that we want to do.
As another reminder, System Update also is available in podcast form.
You can follow us on Apple, Spotify, and every other major podcasting platform.
These shows, each episode posts there 12 hours after its first broadcast live here on Rumble, and if you rate and review each episode, that helps spread the visibility of our program.
For those who have been watching, as always, we are very appreciative.
We are very energized after our one-week break last week.
We are now back at our regularly scheduled time, so we hope to see you tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
