'Well Son Of A ...' Why Impeaching Biden May Backfire On GOP
With Hunter Biden's business partner Devon Archer expected to testify to the GOP-controlled House on then-Vice President Biden's involvement in Hunter's very suspicious business dealings in Ukraine, House Speaker McCarthy is even starting to use the "I" word - impeachment. Would a House impeachment of Biden bring justice? Also today...the US occupation of a large part of Syria - the part with the oil - is getting more dangerous. Is it time to pull out?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Very well, thank you.
Should the president be impeached?
We better decide that.
It's a pros and cons, even though I would say that my first year of experience in Congress, or as I was running for the first time, way back in 1974, that was a big issue.
And that was the Nixon deal.
Of course, he didn't get impeached.
He just got the wisdom of the Congress at that time was a lot different.
And you had people agreeing and bipartisan, you know, and Goldwater led the Republican delegation over and look, Mr. President, it's not going to work.
But then when you think, well, they were more dignified and took care of things differently.
But when you think about it, if you compare the charges made, I would think the charges are astronomical today compared to Nixon's Nixon stuff was really just some dumb things that they were doing.
But anyway, we survived that.
But now the big issue is should the Republicans now impeach Biden?
And there's a couple positions you could take there.
The first thing is I don't think it should be hard for anybody that is outside the inner circle of Biden that ought to be investigated to find out the stories coming out now.
And the Republicans who are arguing now that there's been a tremendous benefit by the Republicans, even with a narrow margin, maybe narrow margins are a good way to handle things, getting control of the Congress and looking into this.
So the evidence now in the hearings, I think in many ways this past weekend was a big deal, but it continues to get big.
And there's more talk of having an impeachment.
I'm sort of reserved on impeachment.
I don't think impeachment, they say they wouldn't have to do a whole lot more.
We have the evidence next week, this vote on impeachment.
I think that that's not going to work because one thing for sure is impeachment has been grossly distorted compared to 1974, 1974.
Just the thought of a possible impeachment, it's just the thought that the evidence may lead to that.
It's just the thought that Republicans were agreeing with Democrats.
Big difference.
And they were much more civil.
But now, now, there seems like there's plenty of justification for a real investigation.
So why doesn't the DOJ do that?
Well, who believes in the DOJ?
And the people that need to investigate the FBI right now.
You know, this whole thing.
So it's not easily done.
And an inquiry, looking into and getting more evidence, whether it's done in six days or six weeks or whatever, I think long term, it's the truth that we want.
There's a pressing reason to do it in politics.
But overall, these inquiries and sometimes our commissions are cover-ups.
But I do know that opinions change.
And I think there's much more evidence out on the table about the 1960s with the three major assassinations that went on.
And the assassinations then were covered up or they tried to, but it was shifted for everybody, you know, in the first week, two, or month.
And gradually the truth came out.
And, you know, the culprits were identified, although they weren't punished for it.
You know, in some way, it worked out.
This is a little bit different.
So I wouldn't, I think the investigation is great.
We want the truth.
I think that the one hazard we have is that the importance and the dignified way of handling this kind of thing has been grossly distorted by the craziness of impeaching Trump twice.
And the people who seem to be smart enough to say, well, I don't agree with him so much, but impeaching the guy twice and they didn't get one Republican a vote compared to what was happening in 1974.
So this is a different situation.
But the more information we get, the merrier that's what our business is, is trying to dig it out and find who's telling the truth.
Yeah, and it's, I mean, it really is in the past few days now that we've seen this kind of increase in chatter about impeachment.
We've heard the lone GOP members of the House from the very beginning talking about it.
But the storm clouds seem to be to be gathering for Biden on this.
Let's put up this first article because we both read this from the Federalist, and it's an interesting article by Margot Cleveland.
She's their chief legal reporter.
The title is, Only an Impeachment Inquiry Can Unravel Biden Family Corruption and the Fed's Role.
And I think she's making the case that you're making because I think what you're saying, Dr. Paul, is boom, boom, impeachment and done is really not going to do the job because what we need to know is we need to find out exactly what was going on in a nonpartisan way.
That's not what we got with Trump.
As you say, it was totally 100% partisan.
Ironically, some of the things he was accused of, it looks like Biden may have actually done.
We'll talk about that later.
So I think she makes a very, very good case that, as you've said many times, can't trust the Department of Justice.
And there are so many questions now about Merrick Garland.
How many handcuffs did he put on investigators and whistleblowers, not allowing them to get into this investigation of Hunter Biden?
What else did he do?
Now, we know the FBI has been shown to have been less than on the up and up in this whole thing as well.
We've got whistleblowers from the FBI talking about it.
So the question is, can we trust the federal government?
And I think the answer is pretty obvious right now.
So there needs to be an inquiry.
So when we're saying it may backfire, we're not saying, hey, just let it go, just drop.
We're saying that be careful because this is some dangerous ground.
And the one advantage now, the way the Republicans are looking at it, I think properly, is it's broad.
It isn't just one person doing something.
And they'll be looking into information more on Garland and both Lil Bilans and Weiss and Christopher Ways, the whole thing.
So that is the most important thing that I think happens if it gets to, it could get to the point where the Democrats may come around and say, oh, no, let's get rid of him for a different reason.
Maybe right now, you know, they are really squirming because, you know, the first thing they'd say right now is, if you get rid of them, you know, we're going to have Harris as the president.
And it looks like, boy, I've saw a few things lately on the mainstream media that really come and dying hard on Kamala Harris.
I mean, they're really blasting it.
Is that like throwing somebody under the bus or something?
Something like that.
No, the young kind of make a good point.
Maybe the GOP wants to keep Biden in because he's so unpopular.
The corruption is so tawdry.
Now, I like some of the things that Taylor Green has done, but I think showing some of those photos on the House floor really got me, hit me the wrong way.
I don't think you should be doing that.
However, he's shown themselves to be less than upstanding citizens.
Well, I think here's the other thing we were going to talk about if we put the next one on.
So even McCarthy, Kevin McCarthy, who's, despite how he would like to style himself, is really not a radical bomb thrower by any stretch of the imagination.
Even he is saying he's comparing Biden to Nixon and saying a congressional probe will rise to impeachment inquiry.
And if you go to the next one, he actually is telling the truth here.
And here's what he says.
We would know none of this if Republicans hadn't taken the majority.
He said, Congressional Republicans have been probing Biden since they took over the House in January.
McCarthy said amplifying the probe of Biden to an impeachment inquiry would give Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed.
And I think to that, not to put words in your mouth, you would say yes, but be cautioned.
Yes, cautioned.
When I think about this in the big picture of money being stolen and corruption and money under the table, and then you compare it to what we have made legal.
You know, just think of all the illegalities that go on and the redistribution of wealth, how they can take it and move it from one group to another group because another group either wants it or demands it, or they have a political clout to do it.
And a lot of people refer that, and I do too, is it's plunder.
And yet that isn't okay because it was done by a Democratic Congress.
They voted for this.
And this is the one reason why this dictatorship of the majority doesn't work.
But they have done that for years.
But that is where the big thing is.
And if we looked at the current events right now, the currency event, or what the military-industrial complex has done, the pharmaceutical industry, the social media, what they've accomplished, and the collusion with government.
These are big things, and so much of it they consider perfectly illegal, especially the transfer of wealth.
I think people are starting to feel it and understood it.
It never seemed to hurt me when I was campaigning, is that poor people suffer because there's a monetary system that is corrupt.
So you can say, yeah, there's a lot of corruption here, and it's bad.
And I'm not going to ever belittle this because people can see this.
But I would like to see a time when people see the immorality of a transfer society that is using the dictatorship of a majority.
And all you have to do is have a loud voice to say, oh, we need people.
We need help for people.
And if you're not for it, if you're not for the military and complex or if you're not for the pharmaceutical companies, then you're un-American.
You're an evil person.
So we have a long way to go with the big picture.
And this is something that is not going to be attended to this year.
But it is a time that people, if they believe that way, it's an opportune time.
It should be brought up in the campaign, the ongoing campaigns right now, especially the presidential campaign.
And I always think that someday people are going to wake up.
Central banks don't last forever.
And there's more articles now appearing.
Maybe this they're not willing to blame the system.
They're blaming the chairman.
He's not distributing the money fast enough or something like that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
I was just going to, here's the, I mean, here's a couple of other big factors, I think.
The first one happened, I think it was yesterday, because if you remember when Hillary's server information came out, and she's having all these emails in her bathroom, highly confidential.
Remember what Bernie Sanders did?
He didn't say, hey, let's get her.
This is bad.
He said, I don't care about Hillary's emails.
He basically gave up on that.
Well, RFK Jr. Not do that yesterday.
He said, we need to investigate the Bidens and find out what's going on.
That's a big change.
It says a lot about his character, but also says a lot about the realities in the Democratic Party right now.
And the other thing, Dr. Paul, I would say the other shoe to drop is Devin Archer.
And this was Hunter's business partner.
They were involved with Burisma Energy in Ukraine, this oligarch company that was paying the brilliant Hunter Biden, great painter, humanitarian.
They're paying him $80,000 a month because he was so brilliant.
The partner is now facing serious jail time for some of the other stuff that he's done.
So it sounds like he's going to go and testify before Congress to give some information and try to keep himself out of boiling water.
I would hate to beat him right now because it might be dangerous, but I think that really is the other shoe to drop because, you know, we had, was it Bobolinski, his name was, and he got a little bit of info, but everyone knows Devin Archer.
Everyone knows he was the main partner.
So if he comes out with some serious information and he suggested and he's teasing that he has some big stuff, it could be really bad.
You know, I was listening to a report the other day of a poll, and we find polls interesting.
And this poll, the question was, you know, who do you respect the most in the Democratic circle?
And it was the people who were running.
There's a couple running for president, of course, RFK, and there's a woman running, and there's people running, you know, who are well known in the Democratic Party.
And they wanted to know who was the most respected.
And they did the poll, and the results came out.
And the reporter was dumbfounded.
He says, and RFK wins about landsliding.
You know, that's the whole thing.
They just don't know, like, even country music are finding out who's really, what the people are thinking.
That's a great move that's going on now, whether it's Bud Light or whatever.
You know, people want to, if they have found this as a way to say something instead of just one individual saying it, all of a sudden they speak as a group and they don't want to be like just one or two people.
And so these types of movement, especially since I agree with what they're complaining about, it's been going well.
And, you know, Miranda Devine, she writes for the New York Post, and she has been dogged about this.
She reminds me of what journalists are supposed to do.
Now, maybe she's partisan.
I don't know.
I don't care.
But she has dug to the bottom of this and she's been relentless.
Put this next clip up because this is what's going to happen here in a few days and it's going to be big.
Because you remember what President Biden said.
I never spoke to anyone that dealt with my son in business.
I had nothing to do with his business whatsoever.
He's just relying on his inner brilliance.
Well, it doesn't look to be the case.
Here's Miranda Devine's piece in the post.
Hunter Biden put then VP dad Joe on the phone with business associates at least two dozen times, ex-partner Devin Archer, to testify.
He would repeatedly get his dad on the horn, put him on speakerphone.
Obviously, his dad is the acting, is the vice president of the United States.
That is a little bit more than just Joe Blow.
Put the next one up because this is the detail from Miranda's piece.
Hunter Biden would dial in his father, then VP Biden, on speakerphone into meetings with his overseas business partners according to testimony expected this week from Devin Archer.
Hunter Biden On Speakerphone00:02:55
Archer, as we mentioned, is facing jail for his role in a $60 million bond fraud.
He's scheduled to testify to the House Oversight Committee.
He's trying to keep his bacon out of jail, which one would understand, no question about it.
But the main thing, and I'm just going to paraphrase it about the barisma thing that's so important, is that this company was being investigated by their prosecutor, their chief prosecutor in Ukraine, and the interference was made after some bribes were paid.
These are the allegations.
Some bribes were paid by the owner of this company, by the head of this company, a fellow called Zlachevsky.
$10 million is the claim.
And Senator Grassley released this information.
Here's $10 million.
You got to get rid of this guy.
He's looking into our corruption.
We don't like this at all.
And so not only did Biden make sure the guy was gotten rid of, he actually bragged about it in this famous clip that we should show.
It's a minute long if we can put it on.
Now, there is one bad word in there, but that's typical of Biden.
But if put that first clip on in here where he basically he's so dumb that he admits that he committed something that's way worse than anything Trump has done.
You might want to put your earplug in here, Dr. Paul, and listen to what he's having to say.
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 others, to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees.
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kyiv, 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 press confidence and said, no, I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, 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.
And I think it was, what, six hours?
I looked at, I said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Well, son of a bitch.
You got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid.
Two funny things about this.
First of all, I think that laughter among the other two was kind of nervous laughter because this is a case where he's admitting to a crime.
Like, what should be quiet?
You know, he's literally saying, if you don't call the dogs off of this company that my son's working for, you don't get a billion dollars.
And here he is just admitting it.
It's almost like he self-indictment.
Yeah, yeah, right.
U.S. Presence in Syria00:05:03
That should be all that's necessary.
Yeah, so there's this.
There's two dozen times he called his dad, you know, hey, get on the phone, dad.
I've got to get this deal going.
So it doesn't look good for him.
And will remain to be, it'll remain to be seen.
Like you say, will some Dems get on board and say, look, this guy is a disaster for us.
Let's come get someone smart and non-corrupt like Newsom to run.
Yeah.
So anyway, it'll be an interesting few days, that's for sure.
No, we don't go on to the next subject here.
Yeah, let's move on because this is something we've been keeping our eyes on.
But I think it's ramping up.
We put on that, go all the way ahead where it's U.S. Reaper drone.
We'll skip all that other stuff that we were going to talk about, if we can find that clip.
So this is, as you know, I mean, Dr. Paul, we occupy, what, some 30% of Syria, or a big chunk of it at least.
Where all the oil is, where most of the grain is, the U.S. occupies.
They say they need it to fight ISIS.
But we're seeing now a very, very significant increase in conflicts between the Russians, who are there at the invitation of the Syrian government, and the U.S., which is there illegally occupying Syrian territory.
So the thing is ramping up.
I do not think it's unrelated to the Ukraine war.
And I think it has a potential of having some serious implications.
Yes, sir.
I have a report on some of those statistics.
One of this reports that one-third, U.S. controls one-third of Syria.
Wow.
80% of the oil and most of the wheat.
So with that in mind, it sounds like we have a colony over there, and you know, you have to protect your colonies.
And this whole thing, the distance between us and Syria, and we're assuming that we're responsible for that.
And oh, we can't.
You mean they shot at our airplanes?
Yeah, exactly.
You know, so that to me is such a mess, but it's a reflection of an attitude.
You know, in Washington, if you come down and say, so what?
Why are we over there?
No good will come of it all.
It's not our property.
Why don't we take care of our own property?
That's blasphemy.
Yeah.
And treasonous.
What are you doing?
You gave up.
That to me is a real shame.
But I think, you know, even if you approach it from a moral viewpoint, I think the Russians have more justification to be involved there than we do.
And they've been closer allies, I mean, real allies for many years.
Yeah, I mean, I think certainly in legal terms, Russia is there at the invitation of the legitimate government.
That government continues to be recognized by more other governments throughout the region.
So they certainly have the legal on their side.
You have a question: well, why are we there?
I mean, there's a lot of oil around the world we can steal.
Why are we stealing it from the poor old Syrians?
Well, that's because Iran is next door.
I think that's why the U.S. wants to maintain that military presence there in case they decide to do something against Iran.
And that's the main thing.
But what we're seeing now is Russia and Iran ganging up and saying, hey, we can do these little pinprick things.
We can annoy the Americans.
We can push it right to the brink and make it difficult, if not untenable, for them to continue to be here.
And that's why we're seeing this U.S. Reaper drone.
And this is one of many that's happened over the past few weeks, where the Russians will fly a Sukhoi or something right up to these Reaper drones and they'll do all sorts of things and then they'll throw out some flares and mess up the Finns.
In fact, they downed one, I think, in the Black Sea.
So they're doing more and more of this harassment exercises against the Americans.
And I think it definitely certainly has to do with what's happening in Ukraine and how things are getting a lot more serious.
I think it exposes the weak underbelly of the U.S. because there's no way, estimated 1,000 troops, maybe there's a few more, there's no way that that can even serve as a tripwire.
There's no way that the U.S. wants to open a new front in its war down in Syria.
There's no way it even can get back in there.
Even Biden says, we don't have any ammunition left.
So I think the Russians feel like they have the cards in their hand and they're trying to play those cards right now.
Yeah, and it's getting fuzzier for drawing the line that we talked about the other day.
There's a line.
If you cross that line, that means that we're really going to expand the war.
But that is getting more difficult.
Yeah, and I think the U.S. excuse is unconvincing.
We have to stay there because we have to fight ISIS.
ISIS is basically pretty much toast.
And the Russians have shown themselves to have an appetite to get rid of these guys as well.
So anyway, I think if we could move on to closing, if you're ready, and I'm just going to remind everyone again, if you put on this next clip, the very last clip actually, which way America, this is what we've been talking about.
Defending Basic Principles00:03:21
This is the topic.
Where are we going?
Do we want to continue sleepwalking toward a world war, or do we want to look at a different approach?
I will put a link in here where you can get your tickets to this conference.
It's going to be a great event.
Dr. Paul is going to be speaking with his vision for America in the future and a lot of other people with some interesting insights.
So get those tickets and come see us September 2nd at the Dulles, near the Dulles Airport.
Dr. Paul, over to you.
Very good.
And I'm looking forward to it because I always find our events to be very interesting because we get an insight, at least I do, from the people who attend.
And so many are complimentary and say, yes, they benefit a whole lot.
Some come from long distances.
We have individuals coming from overseas as well as across the country.
But it is an effort to find people who are very dedicated to basic principles.
Basic principles of the summary of that would be non-interventionism.
That is, don't commit yourself and accept the principle that you can intervene in people's lives because you don't like what they're doing or you don't like what their beliefs are, but they're not causing any harm to anybody.
And others who think that you can intervene in the economy because it has to be fair.
We have to have a fair economy and we have to make sure that everybody's treated exactly the same.
So this goes on and on.
And of course, it applies to foreign policy too.
If we apply the same principle of non-intervention into foreign policy, believe me, there would have been a lot less people killed over the last 120 years.
And that, of course, is one precise goal for us.
And people have to realize that you just can't walk away and it's going to be that way.
You have to have a principle that you defend and understand.
And the principle is that of liberty and non-interventionism.
Because I am convinced when you see these fighting going, this fighting going on constantly, and who's going to have the last say, we see this on this, all the social justice warriors going around, that in a free society, what people do is they accept the idea you're free.
Free individuals get along better.
Free individuals bring people together.
And free people find out that when everything is voluntary, there's more prosperity and there's more peace.
And I keep blaming ourselves who believe this.
Why aren't we doing a better job in spreading this message?
It's a wonderful message.
And things are going to pot right now.
And things are a mess.
And to resolve this, because I think the bubble and the currency problem and the political fights going on now is worldwide.
It's just not domestic in one country.
And we are facing this.
I see it as an opportunity to offer up a philosophy which is hard to turn down if you're able to explain it to people.
I believe it's very appealing to young people as well.
They say, well, how are you going to reach the young people?
Young people are doing this and that.
Well, I have to say I felt favorable about how the young people responded to this message, and I hope we can continue to do it.