Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein dissect Hunter Biden's federal investigation into Chinese business dealings, arguing corporate media and big tech suppressed the story to protect Joe Biden's election. They contrast this with Trump's Ukraine inquiry, noting the irony of secret investigations versus public leaks, while analyzing how 17 states supporting Texas's lawsuit erode trust in the corporate press. Ultimately, the hosts suggest courts will likely avoid overturning results due to negative optics, implying that genuine political change requires cultural shifts rather than legal maneuvering or judicial intervention. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hunter Biden Investigation Details00:14:58
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am the most consistent motherfucker you know, the libertarian Tupac, the big picture, Dave Smith.
He is the king of the caulks.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
What is up, my brother?
How you living today?
I'm fired up for Friday.
It's fire it up Friday.
None of this Wednesday or Monday bullshit.
That's what everybody knows that Rob brings it on the Friday episodes.
Monday, hit or miss.
Wednesday, he phones it in.
Friday, he brings the fucking fire.
And that's what we got for you guys today.
A fire episode.
Quick announcement.
I am later on this evening, I will be on the Lions of Liberty podcast doing another one of these debates.
You can watch it live if you are a patron of or a patron of Lions of Liberty.
It'll be live at 8 p.m. Eastern tonight.
So if you're watching this live stream now and you happen to be a patron of Lions of Liberty, you can switch on over to that at 8 p.m.
If not, you could join or you can wait and it'll be out for everyone for free.
I'm not sure exactly when, probably sometime in the next week or so.
But yeah, so I'm doing another one of these debates over there.
I think people enjoyed the last one.
I'm going to be debating Archie Flower, who is the state chair for Vermont, the Vermont Libertarian Party.
And he left the Mises caucus and we are going to be discussing entryism and maybe finding out what that is and racism and whether the Mises caucus is guilty of any of these things or not.
So that should be fun.
I'm looking forward to that.
And yeah, go check that out if you want to.
I also just recorded an episode with Pete Quinonas of his podcast, which just got released today.
So if you want some more content, go check that out.
All right.
That's the business.
Now let's get into the news.
So story that caught my eye, I thought was quite interesting, and I'm sure you did as well, Rob, is our good old pal, Hunter Biden, the bad son of Joe Biden, former vice president.
I think the president.
You don't hear the good one too much.
Huh?
You don't hear from the good one too much anymore.
No, no.
Joe Biden got his good son killed, and now he's stuck with the bad son.
And so he's just got to deal with this crackhead getting foot jobs and taking Chinese money.
So anyway, Hunter Biden was in many ways an October surprise.
This was a story that had been around for a while.
However, new revelations came out just a few weeks before the election.
We covered them pretty extensively on this show and tried to give you guys all of the information that we knew and what this pointed to.
We talked quite a bit about it to recap.
There was a laptop that was given to Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon.
It came from a laptop repair shop in Delaware.
And it became pretty clear pretty quickly that this was Hunter Biden's laptop.
There were signature verifications.
There were verifications of the email chains.
Even the Biden administration didn't deny, or I should say the campaign at the time, didn't deny that this was Hunter Biden's computer.
And there was some pretty troubling stuff on there and not just the, you know, salacious, you know, nude pictures and, you know, kind of seemed like some sex tapes and stuff like that.
But there were all types of emails between Hunter Biden and foreign companies, kind of getting into how he was getting all of the, you know, ridiculous amounts of money off of his last name, off of being the former vice president's son, which is certainly a story.
Yeah, I mean, you can debate whether it's the biggest story ever, but it's news.
There's really no debating whether or not that is newsworthy.
Then the story took another turn when there was actually an eyewitness account that Joe Biden was well aware, contrary to what he had told the American people, that he was well aware of his son's business.
And in fact, that he was in on it and he was getting money from it as well.
This Bobolinski guy, there's no question, was a business partner of Hunter Biden, was involved with these deals.
He claimed that he had met Joe Biden and discussed this stuff with him and that Joe Biden was taking a cut and that he was now.
That is not proven.
We don't know that for sure.
But there's an accusation.
Again, it's news.
And don't think for a second that if there was an eyewitness account, let's say Donald Trump Jr.'s business partner came out and said, I've discussed Russian business deals with Donald Trump and he's getting a cut of the money.
That certainly would have been deemed newsworthy.
However, that's not what happened.
Because this was a couple of weeks out from the election and the corporate press had a very naked agenda and that was to get Joe Biden elected.
They not only ignored the story, ridiculed people who brought up the story, claimed it was Russian disinformation and pretended that it didn't exist.
So that's more or less what happened.
We can get into some more details because there's more to it of that, more to it than just that.
But the news that just came out the other day is that Hunter Biden is under federal criminal investigation.
And he's confirmed this now.
This has been widely reported.
We now know that Hunter Biden is under a federal criminal investigation and has been for years.
So this is a real vindication for the people who were talking about this story.
Now, don't get me wrong.
This does not prove every accusation made is correct, but it certainly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was newsworthy.
I mean, there's a much higher standard for something being worthy of a federal criminal investigation than something being newsworthy.
And so if this is worthy of a federal criminal investigation, then there's no question that this should not have been something that was ignored by the corporate press.
What did you think when you saw the news?
Yeah, so the first thing that caught my eye was there was a Politico article about it.
And in the Politico article, they were actually saying that this goes beyond just being a tax investigation, but they're also looking into bribery, fraud, and other stuff.
Now, I find Politico to be very left-leaning.
So just the fact that they were reporting on that and saying it's actually worse than just tax was interesting.
And then on the same note, there was a New York Times article today where they were kind of saying, hey, this might be a real problem for the Biden administration.
It's not clear if Biden's going to be tied into this.
So just the fact that the left-wing media is priming people to go, hey, there might be a substantial issue here makes me wonder if this is actually going to stick.
Yeah.
Well, it's being widely reported that, as you said, this is much more than much more than just like a tax investigation.
This even, let's see here, even at CNN, the article they read was federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings in China.
So that seems to be what this investigation is about.
It's not simply, you know, was some minor tax fraud committed here.
This is his relationship with a competing country run by a communist party that throws, you know, Uyghurs in, you know, concentration camps.
That's literally just kind of, you know, cramped down on clamped down, I should say, on freedom in Hong Kong.
These are some bad people.
And so, yeah, this is a big story.
And yeah, it potentially could be huge, hugely problematic for the Biden administration.
And from what I understand, this investigation predates the election.
And even Barr made efforts, according to the Wall Street Journal, made efforts to keep this from being disclosed to the public.
Well, that's right.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
So just the most important part is the fact that everyone knew, like when they said, hey, what you were saying, this is just Russian disinformation.
Don't even look at this.
There was an active investigation into whether or not Hunter Biden.
And so yes, that is something that should have been reported on.
Now, for us, in order to not be hypocrites, because we were saying during the whole Russia collusion thing, the fact that there's an investigation does not mean guilt.
But what we're just trying to say here is it does become newsworthy.
And so to throw away the news story and say, hey, this is just wild accusations, conspiracy theory talk, and it's Russian disinformation while you're actively our justice departments and doing an active investigation.
So that was a false clarification and the censorship's insane on that basis.
Oh, absolutely.
And this is what's really interesting about the story.
It's not just so much what Hunter Biden did.
It's not even if Joe Biden was involved, which don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying those stories.
They're both big stories, particularly if Joe Biden was involved and collecting money.
Then that's a really big story.
But to me, the even bigger story is what we learn about how this whole system, how the whole cathedral came together and how they squashed this, suppressed this story, and what exactly they did, like very specifically what they did.
So it's not, and by the way, just one more point that I wanted to make to what you said.
Yes, it's also been reported that Barr, as you said in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that Barr did his best to keep this from the public, which is an interesting little piece of information.
It's also reported that this investigation goes back to 2018 before Barr was the attorney general.
So it's not as if the angle that like, well, this is just Trump's politicized justice department really falls apart with those two pieces of information.
Number one, they weren't putting this out to the public.
And number two, it predated Barr.
But what happened here was not simply that the corporate press suppressed a story so that Joe Biden could get elected or suppressed a story that could hurt him potentially.
That is one aspect of it.
And that certainly happened.
MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times.
And by the way, NPR, the news organization that you're robbed to pay for.
They also said they wouldn't be talking about the story because it was beneath their listeners or something like their readers.
So yes, it was wildly suppressed by the corporate press.
But there was more to it than that.
There was also the big tech companies.
That was a big part of it too.
They crossed lines that they've never crossed before.
Certainly they have kicked people off of their networks and things like that.
But this was quite a bit different.
This was a situation where they not only were booting people off of social media for talking about the story, they banned the link so that people could not share the article to the original New York Post story, and they froze the New York Post's Twitter account.
They actually silenced one of the biggest newspapers in the world, top five biggest newspapers in the country, because they were running a story that was going to damage one of the political candidates.
Okay.
So that is, and the story, by the way, has not, not one hole has been poked in the story.
It's just gotten stronger over time.
The more that's been verified, the more we verified that what they were saying is in fact correct.
And so that is, that is a really big story.
The fact that the corporate press and the big tech companies are in on this together, working together, cooperating, colluding, that's a big story.
But here's one that might even be bigger than that.
And that's the role of the deep state and the intelligence community, as they call it, the intelligence community, unelected bureaucrats and spies, in other words, is that they were all in on this too.
Joe Biden stood up on the debate stage.
You've got to think for millions of Americans, this was their only exposure to this story.
I mean, if you read the New York Post, then perhaps you knew this story.
If you watched one of three shows on Fox News, or you watched like, you know, Newsmax or like some other, you know, independent news organization, like, okay, you might have known all about this story.
But for millions of Americans who don't watch, you know, who don't consume that media, probably the first time they ever heard about this story was on the presidential debate stage.
And what Joe Biden said to the American people was that this is all nonsense.
And in fact, that I believe he said 40, 40 former intelligence officials, including heads of the CIA from both major political parties, have come out and said that this was Russian disinformation.
That is what the president-elect, I think, think he's the president-elect.
CIA Disinformation Claims00:13:32
That's what the president-elect said to the American people that, hey, I've got dozens of CIA men who will tell you right now that this is Russia, Russian disinformation.
What did they say?
It has all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.
So that's what's said to the American people.
So, you know, understand what's going on here, that CIA heads are quite comfortable going to the American people and lying through their teeth to the American people, telling them that a very real story is in fact a Russian plot, a Russian plot against them.
No concern about lying to the American people, impacting an upcoming election.
No holding back over the idea that maybe we're stoking up tensions with a nuclear-armed country over nothing.
We're just making it up.
Now, that happened.
And if we had any type of honest press, they would right now be like, I want that list of former intelligence officers who claimed this was Russian disinformation.
We are going to question every single one of them and say, why would you say this?
Why would you lie to the American people?
What about this?
We now know how many of you knew that this investigation was going on.
But of course, there'll be no effort for this, but at least we can all look at it and recognize like, wow, here's what you have.
The corporate press, the big tech companies, and the CIA all working in lockstep together for one mission, all working together to protect one political candidate over the other one.
Now, if that's not a big story, nothing is.
I don't know what is newsworthy if that story isn't.
And it's really, it really says something about the state of journalism that you don't have like tons of journalists out there just salivating like, oh yeah, I want that story.
I mean, literally the way we just laid it out right now is that that's a fucking great story.
Oh my God, I want to get on that story.
Collusion between the CIA, Twitter, Facebook, the corporate press, the New York Times, like all these organizations together with a clear agenda to elect one candidate over the other one.
Now, that's a fucking story.
And to me, that story is actually a much bigger deal than anything having to do with Hunter Biden or Joe Biden, even if they're guilty of the worst things that they've been accused of.
That's not nearly as big a deal as this other stuff.
All right, guys, let's take a quick moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear.
Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn in my life.
If you're sick of boxers that are too loose or briefs that are too tight, Sheath is for you.
I am wearing a pair right now.
They're the only underwear I own.
I got nothing but sheath.
I've chucked all my other underwear out.
Best pair of underwear I've ever owned in my life.
The stretchy fabric is made out of moisture wicking technology.
They feel super soft, keep everything cool, comfortable, and right in place.
It's the perfect underwear for working out.
Plus, the most unique thing about Sheath Underwear is they have these dual pouches that keep your man part separated and prevent stickage and keep everything right where it's supposed to be.
Unbelievably great for being in hot environments or working out.
If you're a little skeptical of the pouch, as I was too, you don't even have to use it.
You can just wear them like normal underwear and it'll just be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you've ever worn.
But if you check out that pouch, it's a game changer.
Anyway, go to sheathunderwear.com.
They're run by a libertarian.
They're big fans of this show.
It's a great company with a great product.
Go support them.
Use the promo code problem20 and you'll get 20% off.
One more time.
That's sheathunderwear.com promo code problem20 for 20% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
One more quick piece that you might notice, which is really pretty remarkable, right?
Is that there were no leaks.
No, no, none of this came out to the press.
Even Barr, who's sitting there knowing, right?
Well, this whole, you know, for all of the accusations that Barr is doing Trump's bidding and that Donald Trump has politicized the Justice Department, his guy is sitting there while all of this stuff is being debated.
While Donald Trump is accusing, you know, Joe Biden of, you know, his son and his family being involved in shady business and they're, you know, that you have the corporate press and all these other people saying, no, no, this is all Russian disinformation.
And Barr is sitting on this ace up his sleeve.
Not only does he not come out and talk about it, but he doesn't do what anyone with anti-Trump news would have done, what we already know that James Comey did.
What did James Comey do?
Fucking leaked it.
Okay, so he won't come out and say this, but he'll make sure that someone at the Washington Post is writing a piece about this.
Was it the Washington Post?
I can't remember.
Anyway, no leaks.
All of a sudden, every day through the Trump administration, we had all of these leaks come out.
Donald Trump couldn't do anything without it being leaked to the press.
Hunter Biden has been under federal criminal investigation since 2018, and it doesn't come out until, you know, a month and a week after the election.
That's when it comes out.
Now, that's fucking crazy.
I think, I mean, you laid it out perfectly.
And the insanity is also, you would think at least the news organizations would have to go, well, we got that story wrong at a minimum.
Hey, guys, we got that story wrong.
Remember how we said that this shouldn't even be covered because it's so scandalous and outrageous?
It's not like, don't they owe people an apology for not letting them know that there actually was a really important news story prior to them making a decision?
Yeah.
And it's not as if they, you know, it's not just like they said, eh, we don't really think this is a news story.
We don't think there's much there.
It's that they said this was Russian disinformation.
And there's no, no one gets held to account.
No one goes like, okay, so let's look back at this.
What evidence did you have?
Because you're clearly wrong about this now.
I mean, unless you're saying Russia has also taken over the FBI and the Justice Department, you know, maybe it's all Russia or something like that, right?
But since now it's pretty clear that this wasn't Russian disinformation, what led you to say that?
Why did you say that?
Why is that the go-to?
How is that acceptable to just say, oh, it's Russia?
Anyone we don't like is a Russian agent, a Russian asset, a Russian, you know, whatever.
So, you know, something.
I mean, this thing is so rotted to the core.
If you took away the entire Russia thing altogether, don't you think that I don't know if the president's running and his kids being investigated for possibly being charged by a foreign government, that alone would have gotten into the news?
Like, how is that not something that's you would think that be brought up in the Democratic primary where it's like, hey, I'm not sure if you can run.
Your family's currently under investigation.
And part of that is whether or not they leveraged your political ties.
How does that not come up till after the election?
That means even like Breitbart, no one knew about that?
How the hell does that happen?
Yes, no, absolutely.
It's a very good point.
Like, how the hell is this not something that would have to be dealt with?
And look, you could make the argument that you're like, hey, Joe Biden's not connected to this.
This is his son.
But again, it's still a news story.
Now, here's one more element to throw into this.
And this is why this investigation is such an interesting story.
Okay.
Here's one more element to throw into it.
Now, 2020 has been a pretty wild year.
A lot of crazy shit has gone down.
So some people might not remember that in the very beginning of 2020, something was happening that was a pretty big deal.
Kind of out of our memory now.
No one's really, you know, it probably wouldn't be one of your top 10 stories of 2020.
But for the third time in American history, the sitting president of the United States was being impeached.
He was in the middle of impeachment proceedings.
And what was Donald Trump being impeached for?
He was being impeached for asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden and his connection to Joe Biden and what their business dealings were.
And if anything was wrong.
So it seems, so it was an impeachable offense to ask the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden.
And yet now we find out that our own Justice Department is investigating Hunter Biden.
Now, this has a lot of different elements to it.
I mean, it really shows you how much the deep state was working against Donald Trump throughout this entire thing.
But it also shows you to something we've been talking, just how ill-equipped Donald Trump was to really wield the power of the presidency.
But this was going on.
Don't you think that would have been a really relevant piece of information that would have just stopped impeachment in its tracks if anyone had been like, oh, by the way, Hunter Biden is under federal criminal investigation right here in our country.
So the idea that you're asking other governments to also look into this is like, yeah, we're looking into this.
If anything, they'd be aiding the federal investigation that's currently ongoing.
And yet there was not a word about this.
None of this came out.
Donald Trump didn't have one person on the inside who would leak this information for him.
Who knows if Donald Trump even knew about this?
My guess is no.
My guess is he didn't.
I don't think there's any way that Trump is capable of having that information and not letting that slip out while he was being impeached over this, right?
I mean, can you possibly imagine?
It's crazy because there's a part of me that would think that this story is going away fast, except that the left is reporting on it.
So the only thing I can think of is that they really wanted Kamal in.
And so now they're flipping on Joe and Joe might be going away quicker than we thought.
It is possible.
It's also, it seems to me that it's just, if not that, I mean, that's a possibility, who knows?
But it's also possible that it's just like, well, in their mind, the election's over and this is over.
This was, you know, it was what they were motivated by a few weeks out from the campaign was to make sure they did not help Donald Trump in any way.
And now they see that is over and it's like, okay, we'll report on it now.
You got a lot of talk about whether or not you'll get a special, whatever Mueller was now on this Biden counsel, a special counselor.
Because what's interesting, they gave a special prosecutor or whatever.
Yeah, they gave Trump shit basically that he couldn't fire the special prosecutor and that we needed and others that there's some.
So now that's starting to turn, even in the left press, even in the New York Times article in Political, it was saying it was appearing like because of the conflict of interest, they're going to have to assign a special prosecutor prior to the new, you know, the new attorney general coming in.
That's going to be really interesting if you actually, because in my opinion, you stick a special prosecutor on anybody.
If like they're really doing their homework, you're going to get the dirt.
Like, and that's kind of, you can throw them on anyone.
You're going to come up with something.
If they actually throw that on a Hunter Biden and then they really do the investigation, which they might not, it might just be a thing where they pretend to do it and don't.
It would be really interesting, though, if they actually do unwind some of that story.
I'd bet against it, but it could be cool.
Yeah, it's such a weird thing.
So there's been several Republicans who have called for a special prosecutor, which has got to be, I don't actually know this, but that's got to be the quickest anyone's ever gone from being elected to them calling a special calls for a special prosecutor.
Even Trump, who they were already investigating at the time, there wasn't talk of a special prosecutor until he was in for a little bit.
I think it was like, you know, almost six months he was in before Mueller got appointed.
But yeah, that's what they're calling for now.
It's a weird, you know, you see where we're slipping into this completely just unworkable system where you already go, like, wait, so now this is just, so this is this just what it's going to be now from now on.
Every president is going to have a special prosecutor sicked on him, and this is going to completely slow down the, you know, all this shit.
Not that I'm against that, but it just seems like an unworkable system.
So you already see kind of these calls from the Democrats to be like, look, guys, we can't fall into this.
But from the Republican perspective, you're like, well, I don't know.
I mean, you guys just did it over bullshit.
So why can't we do it over this legitimate scandal?
And so we'll see.
We'll see what happens with that.
Now, the truth is that, and this was always the case, that it's going, if what Bobolinski said is true and Joe Biden was involved in this and is getting money off of this, it's probably going to be incredibly difficult to prove that.
You know, there's like the response is like, well, we've showed you Joe Biden's tax records and look, there's no money from China.
But of course, if his son is, you know, extorting money from Chinese companies to get back to Joe Biden, they're not claiming it as earned income on Joe Biden's taxes, obviously.
Corporate Press Ideology Wars00:09:35
Even the Bidens aren't that stupid.
So how exactly would you prove that?
I mean, you know, if Hunter Biden bought a vacation home that Joe Biden's using a lot, that doesn't really prove that Joe Biden took the money.
You can just be like, it's my son's house.
You know, there's like, there's lots of ways to get out of this that would make it very difficult.
And I imagine, again, even Joe Biden, I think, was probably smart enough to not send an email himself or make a phone call himself.
If you're talking about business dealings with his son, he probably had private conversations with his son and then his son went out and did it if he was involved in the stuff, which I don't really know.
And I don't really care that much, to be honest.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blue Chew.
If you like sex, you will love Blue Chew.
Blue Chew.com offers men a performance enhancement for the bedroom.
At bluechew.com, you can get the first chewables with the same active ingredients as Viagra and Sialis.
Chewables can work faster than pills, up to twice as fast.
The chewables from Blue Chew.com can be taken on a full or empty stomach.
The online physician consultant is free, so it's substantially cheaper than those other two.
It only takes a few minutes to connect with a Blue Chew.com affiliated physician.
And if you qualify, you get prescribed online quickly.
So that means there's no in-person doctor visit, no awkward conversation, no waiting in line at a pharmacy.
It ships directly to your door in discrete packaging.
The chewables from bluechew.com are prescribed online by a doctor and made in the USA.
Blue Chew gives you the confidence in the bedroom every time.
You and your partner will love it.
And here's a great deal for you guys.
If you visit bluechew.com, you'll get your first order for free when you use the promo code problem.
So I don't know what exactly would be revealed by an investigation.
And as you kind of alluded to, I also have very little confidence that there would be a serious investigation against Joe Biden.
It would be for show if they had one.
I think the fact that, you know, as I was saying before, the fact that all of this shit would get leaked about Trump every single day in the press and that this was kept tight-lipped for over two years, That seems to tell you everything you need to know, that this system is not working against Biden the way it was working against Trump.
Again, this isn't to say you have to like Donald Trump or prefer him to Biden or any of that.
That's a whole separate question.
But we can objectively recognize that the system is working against Trump in a different way than it is with all of these other guys, all of them.
All right.
So the other thing that's kind of interesting with all of this, right, is that the hysteria has been over Russia and Russian interference in the election of 2016.
No Russian interference in 2020, by the way.
That's pretty cool of Russia.
No one on the Democratic side seems to be concerned about that at all.
In fact, now, if you question anything about the voting being suspicious, you're just a crazy person.
It's not, you know, as soon as they won, that whole story disappeared.
But what you're seeing now is almost this kind of like a competition of ideologies.
And if you remember, when there was that, there was that testimony, the congressional testimony that got released earlier this year that was about the origins of the Russia investigation.
And Susan Rice testified under oath.
And what she said, the reason why she was so suspicious of Flynn, what Flynn did, that was such a crime that indicated that he might have, you know, be working with the Russians was that he said, Russia is no threat to us, but China is.
That was his position.
And this has been at the heart of the kind of Bannon-Trump worldview.
And it's something that really pisses off the neocons and the neoliberal democratic establishment types.
They really hate this idea.
To them, it's like, no, no, no, China is nothing.
Russia is everywhere.
And to these Trump guys, they were like, no, look, Russia's not a threat.
Russia's got a tiny economy.
They can't do anything.
China is this, you know, like growing power.
That's their growth is outpacing us.
They're going to be the biggest economy in the world.
They're investing all over the place.
They're, you know, like that's their.
Now, personally, I don't fall into either camp.
I kind of feel like, you know, the China and Russia and the United States of America were all nuclear-armed superpowers in a sense.
There's no option of a hot war with any of them because we would destroy life on the planet.
And truthfully speaking, I don't think that Americans need to be overly concerned about how China is ripping them off by, you know, selling us cheap consumer goods or something like that.
The truth is that the American people are so much more ripped off by their own government than they ever could be by China or Russia.
And I just think that's like, that's where my focus is.
However, if you're making a competing argument over who is a bigger threat to the United States of America, Russia or China, I don't see how it's even debatable.
It is so obviously China.
Like they're just, I mean, forget the fact that I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been a little virus that came out of China that's wreaked a lot of havoc, nowhere near as much as our own government's response to it, to my earlier point.
But China now, we're getting these reports out that they're actually the ones who have been sending these spies in.
Did you see this thing about Eric Swalwell, who was all tied up with this Chinese chick who was a spy and that they noticed it?
And this also seems to be what triggered the investigation into Hunter Biden, that he was doing business with all of these people who counterintelligence noticed were like, oh, no, these are like spies.
These are people trying to bring down the United States of America.
And it's pretty interesting to have seen this guy, Swalwell, who is now clearly was involved with this Chinese spy.
We don't know exactly what the details of it were, but this is somebody who sits on the House Intelligence Committee who's involved with a spy.
That's a story.
Now, he's the loudest voice out there claiming he made the most wild accusations about Donald Trump.
He didn't claim that Donald Trump was a Putin asset.
He claimed that Donald Trump was a Putin agent, that he was working for Vladimir Putin.
This is somebody who sits on the House Intelligence Community Committee claiming that the sitting president of the United States is working for Vladimir Putin.
These were his claims.
Of course, just completely absurd.
No evidence to back that up at all.
I mean, there's a million things you can fucking criticize Donald Trump for, but being a fucking agent of Vladimir Putin was like the most ridiculous.
But think about this.
While he's out there saying this publicly, this guy is actually in a relationship with a Chinese spy.
That's pretty weird, man.
You gotta be careful with these hot Asian chicks.
You know, they come out of nowhere.
They come to our college.
They recruit you early.
You think you got a hot girlfriend?
Little did you know.
Russian, I mean, Chinese spy the whole time.
You can get me that way.
Oh my God.
Some hot Chinese lady in my life.
It'd be so easy to compromise Rob and turn him against me.
If you guys wanted to bring me down, the blueprint is laid out there right there for you.
Send some Chinese chick Rob's way.
I'll be like, what?
We're really into each other.
I don't know.
She takes notes a lot when we talk, but she seems cool.
I would never sell you out, but dude, that's a long con from China.
I've heard that before.
I mean, you start going into the racist towards Chinese camp, but they say like a lot of the college students are actually Chinese spies, specifically like the ones who are taking particular courses like in physics or whatever.
I don't know.
I'm not saying that when you go to school, but they also colleges love them because they pay full tuition.
And that's where the allegations come that it's all coming from the Chinese government.
But dude, that's a great long con.
You send them over here to college, get them cozying up with people you think are going to be in politics.
Hopefully they end up being their girlfriend.
And who suspects someone from 20, 30 years ago, you know, that they met in college is actually a Chinese spy, but they got the money for that.
I'm not saying that's true, but I'm saying send some hot Asian puss my way.
Thank you, Chinese communist government.
That's one.
And two is fucking, that's pretty cool of him.
We're going to just notice like little shifts in Rob's positions.
Like he's just going to be like, I mean, those Uyghurs were kind of asking for it, right?
I mean, it's like you guys can just shut up.
Oh, who's the lady cooking in the kitchen?
Nah, don't worry about her.
She's cool.
Sweetie, sweetie, off camera, off camera.
Chinese Influence Allegations00:02:18
No, no, no.
But I'm just saying, like, I get where the Chinese Communist Party is coming from.
They make some good points, just little by little over the years.
Yeah, look, who the fuck knows how deep that actually goes?
Of course, there's all type of espionage that goes on, but, you know, and our government partakes in that as well.
But it is interesting to see somebody directly implicated who was the loudest voice accusing others of doing this.
You know, it's there's something Freudian about that.
And, you know, like that you, you know, you project, that you accuse others of what you are most guilty of.
So there's something there.
Anyway, yeah, let's see.
Let's see what happens with this Hunter Biden investigation.
It's pretty crazy for this to already be coming out.
It's very interesting and noteworthy, as you pointed out, that the corporate press is reporting on this.
And saying it's going to be a big deal.
They're actually saying, like, look at every other thing when they go, ah, this outrageous.
It's not a thing.
Like, they just try and sweep it under the rug and laugh in a way that it shouldn't even be looked at.
This one, they're saying, hey, this might turn into a big deal and this might be a problem for Joe as they're looking into the family stuff.
Yeah, it's also important to kind of remember that Joe Biden was not really the corporate press's ideal pick for candidate.
You know, that's important to remember that they did not swoon over him when he first announced he was running or when it was floated out there that he might be running.
They really tried hard to push several other candidates.
They really tried to push Elizabeth Warren.
They really tried to push Kamala Harris, Beta Wa Rourke, but all of them fell flat with the voters.
None of them picked it out.
Joe Biden was always, you know, up there polling in number one or two, kind of consistently stayed there.
And then when Michael Bloomberg came in, a lot of them tried to push Michael Bloomberg.
And he had just the most embarrassing debate performances you could imagine, got destroyed.
And then they were kind of left in a spot where it looked like Bernie Sanders, who was completely unacceptable from their perspective, was going to end up winning.
And they were like, all right, well, we can't have Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden's the only other one who can beat him.
And that's when the corporate press got way behind Joe Biden.
And then, of course, when it was a one-on-one on him versus Trump, they were all in for Biden.
Election Coverage Shifts00:03:31
But now that that's over, or at least they think it's over, I do too, but we'll see.
Now that that's over, there's an interesting question.
Okay, so how exactly do they feel about Joe Biden?
I think that there's some hesitation on whether or not they need to protect him so much now.
I think that they might realize that, look, Joe Biden, we were able to make it through this campaign with him basically staying inside, answering very few questions.
He got through his debate performances.
He got through, you know, what he needed to do without having the moment of ruining it all.
But they might realize that this is pretty much going to be impossible to protect him going forward.
If he's going to be the president of the United States, he's going to have to be seen out in public.
He's going to have to answer questions.
He's going to have to answer some even, you know, seemingly tough questions.
We have to pretend that we're still being a press corps, you know, and that they just realize like we're not going to be able to protect this guy forever.
So let's get off of that train now so we're not caught with our pants down when something, you know, when the other wheel falls off or whatever, you know?
So we'll see.
I definitely think they would prefer Kamala Harris in there.
So to the point you were making before, perhaps that's part of it.
Or perhaps they know something that we don't that we're not, you know, that we don't see right now that's going to come out about Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.
Maybe there really is something there that's going to be impossible to cover up.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Infinite CBD.
Love them.
They're a longtime sponsor of this show and a lot of shows on the network.
I love the freezing point topical cream.
I have really personally benefited from it so much.
If you have muscle pain or aches, try this out.
It's effective, at least for me, unlike anything else that I've tried to use.
I had a pinched nerve last year.
Neck and shoulder pain was driving me crazy.
Nothing helped like the freezing point topical cream from Infinite CBD.
They also have a freezing point stick, which I used a lot.
The move with the stick is you put it in the freezer and then you can kind of massage out sore muscles.
If you've been a longtime fan of the freezing point cream, you got to go check out the stick.
It's basically like it has the same effect and in some ways, even better.
If you've never checked out Infinite CBD before, go give them a look.
They have a bunch of great products.
They do everything in-house to maintain high quality and have the most cost-effective prices on the market.
They were ranked the number one CBD company by herb.co.
Infinite CBD has a wide range of products, including gummies, lube, nano products.
Of course, my personal favorite, the freezing point topical cream.
Check them out at infinitcbd.com.
Use the promo code P-O-T-P and you'll get 30% off your order for the holidays.
Instead of the usual 20%, we're giving you 30% off your entire order.
That's infinitcbd.com, promo code P-O-T-P for 30% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
If there turns out to be for real, like there really does turn out to be something there, I think the corporate press and the Democratic Party are going to get punished severely.
I really, I'm not saying that you're going to turn out with something, but if something ends up being there and Joe Biden needs to step down, firstly, everyone's going to be furious, going to be like, okay, this was clearly covered up and this is terrible that anyone could do this and you guys stood behind that.
Supreme Court Technicalities00:15:57
They're going to be mad about that.
But then also, everyone hates Kamala.
Let's not forget how absolutely, and she will just laugh and go that thing where, well, I'm a black lady, so you got to listen to me.
And that will be the most disliked thing where we continuously get preached to by someone nobody liked to.
That's going to, it's going to fall apart on them.
So hopefully that happens.
Yeah, I tend to feel the same way about Kamala Harris.
I'm not nearly as worried about her as some people who I've heard express their opinions on what a disaster she'll be as president.
I mean, she's awful.
Don't get me wrong, but you're going to have somebody with zero charisma, with zero likability who was not elected in there.
That's a great person to form a strong opposition against.
So I, you know, I agree with that aspect of what you're saying.
I would just say, I don't know that this will be a disaster for the corporate press.
I've just watched so many times this happened.
I mean, you would have thought, you know, like the war in Iraq would have been the one.
Like, oh my God.
I mean, they just lied about everything and got, you know, hundreds of thousands of people killed.
This disaster just destroyed the whole region, destroyed our whole foreign policy in the 21st century.
And they all still have their jobs.
They all still have many of them have promotions since then.
And again, with the Russia stuff, I mean, you would have thought that there would have to be a day of reckoning after that whole story fell apart.
I mean, they pushed this so hard for three plus years.
Such a wild accusation that Donald Trump is, the president is in bed with a hostile foreign power.
Such a crazy accusation.
And it turned out to all be bullshit.
And no one's been fired.
I don't even think we've gotten an apology yet.
So with this Hunter Biden thing, I don't know.
I mean, it's a big deal.
I don't think it's as big as either of those two.
So if they could skate with that, I mean, I guess the true ramifications from, you know, the weapons of mass destruction hoax, from the Russia hoax, has been a steady eroding of trust in the corporate press.
So that is a real thing.
It's not like there's nothing.
It's more and more people not only distrust the corporate press, but use those examples in doing it.
You know, the corporate press, you'll see it all the time on social media that if just that, you know, the press could claim anything.
And even if it's right, sometimes they say things that are true.
There'll be people that are just like, I don't believe them.
Who's that?
The WMD guys?
I don't believe them.
And, you know, there's, it's a pretty powerful argument to be like, okay, well, you have zero credibility.
It's just like, you know, when in a trial, When once you find out, like if you find out a witness has lied several times, that pretty much destroys their credibility.
Doesn't matter if they come out and say something next.
It's like, yeah, but we already caught this person in multiple lies.
So there, you know, there's a, well, there's a legal term for it.
I can't remember.
Anyway, yeah, we'll see.
And we'll keep you, we'll keep giving you guys our take on it.
All right.
Let's see.
What else is going on that we should be talking about?
All right.
So this is a story that also is being reported in the corporate press that I guess they just can't ignore this one.
And I will say that, you know, we talked about this briefly on the last episode, or not even so briefly.
We talked about this on the last episode, but I will say that I am still of the position that Joe Biden is going to be installed as the president of the United States on January 20th.
Now, I just can't see how that doesn't happen.
I can't envision a scenario where we actually overturn the results of this election.
That being said, there's been a lot of things that have happened this year where I just couldn't have envisioned this happening.
So who the fuck knows?
But as of right now, 17 states have told the Supreme Court that they support Texas's bid to reverse Biden's win.
Now, however, you, again, this is this is being reported.
I'm reading from a CNBC article.
It's being reported by the corporate press.
It does seem like Trump's lawyers, you know, bringing something to, you know, some preliminary hearing or, you know, some hearing in front of state senators or something like that is a lot easier to ignore than 17 states.
You know, over, what is it?
A third of the states in the union are now on board with a lawsuit to overthrow the results of this election.
I mean, I don't know.
That is, that's something, right?
Like, what do you think about, I mean, we talked briefly about it last episode, but what do you think about all these states that have gotten on board now?
No, I hadn't thought about that, but in terms of secession, like you can't really get upset at the states if they're like, listen, we were looking for a fair process and we came to you guys to go, we need to have a discussion about the fact that this wasn't a fair process and all you did was throw it out.
That would be reason to go, well, then why the fuck am I in the system?
Yeah.
You don't pay no attention to me.
I want out.
Well, that is true.
There's probably never been a better time to talk about secession than right now.
I mean, if you're a red state and you're, you know, believe that this was fraudulent and this wasn't a legitimate election, well, then, yeah, why the hell should you have to be ruled over by a party that hates your guts that's coming in to punish you if you don't think the process was legitimate?
Now, of course, me and you don't ever think the process is legitimate, but it is pretty interesting.
And it's also much like the, you know, the federal investigation of Hunter Biden, it gets to a point where it's impossible to ignore.
So you can't, you know, if you're, if you're any type of, you know, press outlet, you can't pretend that that's not a story.
Like that's not, you know, you can try your best to dismiss it, but 17 states on board, that's a lot.
That's not, it's got, from, from my opinion, and I'm not talking about the legality of it or anything like that.
I'm just purely talking about the optics of it.
It's one thing when it's Texas.
Even though Texas isn't as red as it used to be, it's still Texas.
It still just feels like the reddest state, even though it's not the reddest state at all anymore.
Um, but and you're like, oh, Texas has a problem, like, okay, Texas.
But now you've got not like one or two other states on board with it, 17 states.
That's 18, including Texas.
That's something that's impossible to ignore.
Yeah.
Also, we, or at least I was taking a little bit of shit on Twitter from a random fan saying that we lacked an understanding on the Texas case.
And so, what they were trying to clarify is that, or at least what random people on Twitter were putting forward to me, was that this case has absolutely nothing to do with fraud.
It's just that these other places broke the law in creating these new standards.
And so, they're putting forward, throw the fraud out.
It's got nothing to do with this.
They're just creating a case about whether or not since the law was broken, it needs to be undone.
Yes, it's about the constitutionality of the way they change the voting system.
Now, here's why that's just really dumb to me.
Okay, first is imagine that there was zero fraud and nobody was claiming fraud.
Like, let's just throw that out and imagine that we were in a climate right now.
There was no claim of fraud.
Texas is upset about the election, and they put forward this strict legal case of, hey, these other states broke the law, and so all of their votes should be thrown out.
Do you think for one second that would be seen or heard?
Absolutely not.
At the end of the day, the more crucial element here is whether or not there was fraud.
Like, and guess what?
The voting public is not going to accept like that you're throwing out legitimate votes because of a technicality.
And the Supreme Court will not stand by the optics of that.
It's not happening.
And there's also, like, I'm not a lawyer, but they talk about severability in these cases all the time.
That, like, essentially, um, if there was one aspect that they knew that was unconstitutional, but like the rest of the thing could still stand, can you just remove that one piece?
I don't even know if I'm explaining that correctly.
But in this case, where you have all the votes being mixed in together and some of them are clearly legitimate, the Supreme Court is not going to want to have to throw out those votes.
Like, it just, I don't buy it for one second.
Yeah, well, look, I mean, there's almost, um, there's almost two separate questions.
And there, there is, there is the legality of it, but separate from that is, like you said, the optics of it and the practicality of how this would exactly happen, which I think that people tend to, and libertarians are guilty of this quite often, as well as lots of other people, is there tends to be a feeling that we're ruled by laws, when in reality,
we're much more so ruled by precedent, by accepted procedures and commonly accepted norms.
And the truth is that even if there is a law on the books, you still have to be able to enforce it in some way that's going to be accepted by the people.
And this is what I really just have trouble with: is that, you know, short of, as you were saying, I believe on the last podcast, short of something wild, like some high-level Democrat coming out and being like, yes, this was an operation.
We stole it.
This is how it worked.
I just can't understand how this would logistically happen in this country.
How you would actually tell the American people, we're overturning the results of this election.
Yes, a lot of people voted and their votes are going to be thrown out.
We're undoing that and we're going down this whole new path.
I just can't envision it, as I said before.
And so that is a separate issue.
I also just don't, you know, I don't trust anyone in this system.
I don't, I don't trust that the Trump appointed justices are just going to rule in favor of Trump or even in favor of the truth or what's right, which I don't know.
I really don't even know what the fuck is true and right in this situation.
But I don't know.
It just seems like impossible to imagine.
You know, it'd be like when they would talk about every time, you know, there's a Supreme Court justice up, they talk about Roe v. Wade being overturned, which I, you know, personally would support.
But I've just always said, like, it's just, it just can't happen.
You just can't see it happening.
You can't see like Roe v. Wade being overturned.
It just seems like it would like this country would flip the fuck out over it.
And much more likely, it's going to be kind of like a grassroots, bottom level up thing where we kind of like, you know, change the culture on abortion.
And then maybe someday we could overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states.
But I mean, it just, it just, it's hard for me to envision that happening.
I got a weird analysis here, and that's that, in my opinion, the Supreme Court is somewhat lazy and they're actually opposite of the other branches of government where they don't want to make the decisions.
They would like to defer as much as possible to other places and actually impose as a little bit of their own take as much as they can defer.
They will defer.
And the reason I say, I just read the Supreme Court, I read the decision on that religious suit that they said like they had to reopen the churches.
And so first is by their own admission, you can read it.
One of the justices even said like, we can put a pause on civil rights, but like we can't like throw them out.
It's like, well, no, you can't.
That's not the law.
But that's the point.
They don't want to make a decision on law.
They don't.
And then on that case, they were only looking at the religious one when they shouldn't.
They should be looking whether or not government has the authority.
That's the real case to have.
Does government have the authority in the face of a crisis?
And by their own admission, they go, we don't think they do, but we'll put it on pause because we think that they're even in the name of like, we don't care about the law.
In the name of danger, we'll put it on pause, but we can't throw it out.
And we're not even going to rule on that because in this case, we only have to rule on the religious part.
So let me tell you, when it comes to this case, and they have to decide, they're going to say, like, they're going to want to try and do as little damage as possible and decide on as little as they possibly can.
So they will put forward, even if the strict standard of the Constitution is that they should redo the vote, they're not going to do that.
They're going to say it is our duty to preserve a fair election process.
And there's millions of people that voted legitimately.
And we can't override what they had done, even though there was a break in the Constitution.
And since you can't differentiate between the two, we have to let it stand because it's not the Supreme Court's power to undo the people that voted legitimately.
I just promise you, bring every lawyer in the world on here to tell me I'm wrong.
They don't care about what the real law is going to be.
Half of them even fucking say, hey, we're here for the real world decisions.
Their blatant political philosophy is not that we interpret the law the way the law is supposed to be.
We interpret it the way that we think it should just be applied.
That's what, or a quarter of the justices say that blatantly.
And then the other ones, I've read some, they're lazy.
They don't want to have to decide on anything that can affect us unless they absolutely are pinged to do it.
And this is not that.
Listen, I think you're right.
I think you're right.
And I think that's the way it's going to go down.
But wouldn't it be fucking crazy if it didn't?
Yeah, I mean, can you just imagine?
Can you imagine what the fuck?
I mean, holy shit.
You want to talk about ending 2020 with one more just incredible fucking turn of events?
Just imagine that they fucking, that somehow Texas wins this thing and they overturn the results of the election.
Holy shit.
I mean, honestly, it's going to be pure chaos if that if that does happen, but it would be quite a show.
But just saying, I don't think it's going to happen.
I'm just saying.
Okay, let's say, so you totally go by these people's logic.
Totally remove the fraud element, and there's zero conversation in the Supreme Court case about fraud.
Or someone even messaged me that you don't even need to prove harm, just the suspicion of that it could have been harmful or the potential for harm, which I don't understand how that could be, the potential for anything.
I don't understand how that could be a legal standard.
But so, fine.
Let's just go with the simple thing.
This isn't about fraud.
This is about the technicality.
So, the technicality is that certain states expanded stuff without the procedure that they were supposed to.
And so, based off of them not following their specific procedure and states were throwing out the elect, does that what I just described to you?
Does it does that make sense?
Is anyone going to accept that?
It's not going to happen.
It's no one against technicalities enough for the general public.
Well, whether or not it like to me, legally, there is an argument there.
Um, but I agree with you that I just think I can't imagine people accepting that.
And I can't imagine the Supreme Court having the stones to do something so consequential that would be so incredibly viewed unfavorably by so many people.
So, so, you know, it's impossible for me to imagine that happening.
But, you know, I'm trying to in 2020 get used to like anything is possible that it could happen.
Public Acceptance of Law00:00:19
But, you know, as always, we will keep watching and we'll keep talking to you.
And that's our episode for today.
Go follow Robbie the Fire Bernstein at Robbie the Fire on Twitter.
Go check out his other podcast, Run Your Mouth.
Thank you for listening.
Check me out on the lines of Liberty later on tonight, going in beast mode.