George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley shreds Merrick Garland's decision to appointed discredited Justice Department employee David Weiss as special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, writing recently that this means the only way to move ahead with an investigation is through the impeachment process. What's next? Also today: Biden has sent Ukraine the equivalent of $900 for EACH household in the United States!
Get your tickets to the Ron Paul Institute Sept. 2nd DC Conference:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/which-way-america-tickets-665436647927
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.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you today?
Doing well, doing well, here to solve another problem.
We know the answers, but nobody will listen.
Yes.
Except a few good people out there, and our numbers are growing.
That's right.
And we also know that this crazy system is going to self-destruct.
And we will have a chance to at least a little bit of an input.
But we're looking for more supporters to support the corrections that must come soon.
But we want to talk today about how bad the Department of Justice is, because we should never refer to it as the Department of Justice.
Hopefully someday we can, but it's the Department of Injustice.
And I think I became so aware and so annoyed with the January 6th trials.
That was so obscene.
But what's going on right now is trying to sort out the truth in some of these things that are happening where they're out to get Trump.
And now the Republicans are fighting back.
But it is a struggle.
And when the trials come up and what they do and what are the results is a big deal between now and next year.
Of course, I think the referendum next year with the election might be the final settlement on this.
And these events, we don't know.
But our friend Jonathan Turley wrote a very good analysis about the Democratic solutions, persistent, you know, Garland, who's sort of losing credibility.
I think Jonathan actually said that, oh, no, he supported Weiss at one time, and he was sort of apologetic about it.
But Garland, Garland had enough reputation to get as far as he got, but he's going downhill.
And Jonathan writes a real nice important article explaining the situation here and how foolish the whole thing is by appointing Boyne Weiss.
I mean, you talk about the Fox protecting the Hen House.
I mean, he has to, should be the last person in the world.
And I think this might be a breaking point in the sense that, you know, the Republicans have to get energized, but, you know, the wheels of justice seems to go smoothly.
The illegal wheels of injustice seem to go much quicker than trying to get the justice system back in order.
Hopefully that happens, but all we can do is talk about what they should be doing.
Yeah, the appointment is astonishing of David Weiss.
I mean, it is so in your face.
It's basically Merritt Garland giving the Middle English America because it's so in your face.
This is a guy who's been discredited the entire time.
I wanted to put that first clip because this is Jonathan's piece and it's definitely worth a look.
And he makes a reference to the famous 1919 Fixing of the World series, and I think that's appropriate.
It's a very clever hook for the article.
But nevertheless, if you go to the next one, he's pointing out this David Weiss.
First of all, he had all the authority before, supposedly, to be a special prosecutor for this.
But he said, by appointing him, it was so in your face because it said in the five years that he was doing his investigation, which as Turley points out, was trashed by whistleblowers.
They say the investigation was fixed from the outset.
The whole thing was fake.
They were prevented from asking any questions about Joe Biden.
They were obstructed in any effort to pursue questions and compromised by tip-offs to the Biden team on planned searches.
And actually, something just came out about a tip-off to the Biden camp on a coming search.
And he also said this is the same Weiss who allowed the statute of limitations to run out on some of the major offenses, even though he knew they were running out.
He allowed it to run out.
Yeah, see, there's a lot of objection, and there's public discourse on this.
But right now, I think we're at a cross point where something has to be decided on which way we're going to go.
But, of course, John Jonathan's conclusion is he makes the case, you know, for impeachment in order for the Republicans to be able to, you know, on the Weiss deal, to be able to talk about and inquire about things that should have never happened if he'd have had an honest Justice Department.
But they're not going to pay any attention.
So, and I think it's been going back and forth.
And I certainly at the beginning saw that, why do we need another political event?
They're not going to really impeach Biden and why have that?
But right now, it looks like just to get to the information, some people say an inquiry or having the impeachment, but getting the information out, whichever is the best and most practical.
But I think Jonathan's point was that the total abuse is in the executive branch, and there's a limit to what the Congress can do to prevent them from doing it.
But they do have the right to investigate.
And in a way, the narrow margin in Congress has, as much as I make the point that on the big issues, they generally agree on war and money and all that spending stuff.
But in this case, when it comes to corruption at the Department of Justice, I think there is a difference of opinion.
And I think the change in the House has made a difference.
Yeah, and Turley also points out, and I forgot to mention, that Weiss is the one that negotiated this sweetheart deal for Biden.
This is the guy supposed to be the prosecutor.
He negotiates this sweetheart deal that gives him Hunter Biden broad immunity from anything he may ever do in the future, practically.
And even his own attorney, what is going on here?
The judge took one look at this deal and said, are you nuts?
This is impossible.
And threw out the deal.
So here's the guy who was trying to cook the books for Hunter and for Joe Biden.
He's put back in the hen house, essentially, which is completely insane.
And I think, and this is why Turley adds a couple of poll numbers, and he talks about how he did support Merritt Garland as Attorney General, thought he was a good guy, but how not only him, but America, America now sees that there's a real problem over there.
Let's put that next one up.
This is why the Justice Department is now less trusted by the public than it was under his predecessor, Bill Barr.
We thought that was a low bar.
But as Turley writes, during Barr's tenure, Pew found that 54% of the public viewed the department favorably, and 70% had a favorable view of the FBI.
But under Garland, the department's favorability has declined to 49% before many of its recent failures.
This was back in March.
And the FBI's favorability, we know that they've been weaponized, has fallen by 18 points to just 52%.
So he has single-mindedly destroyed the Department of Justice.
And go to the next one here because here's another poll.
Garland's failure of leadership has undermined key cases.
A Harvard-Harris poll this summer showed that 55% of the public view the Trump indictment as politically motivated, and 56% believe it constitutes election interference.
And if you read that again, Dr. Paul, it's extremely ironic because this is an investigation into Trump's alleged election interference, and most Americans believe the investigation itself is election interference.
Yeah, and onward they go.
One thing about it, when you hear Garland or any of them talking about what they've been doing, they always either, it's very easy for them to just ignore it or march on or smile.
But the one thing that I sense that they never show is any sign of reservation or a little bit of remorse.
And I think back about the shoeless Joe.
When the kid asks him, well, shoeless Joe, did you do it?
And Joe says, yep, we did it.
Back then, I guess there was a little bit different approach to the politicians that we have today in the Department of Justice.
They're never going to say, oh, yeah, we messed up on this, and I think we should apologize and go into hibernation.
Yeah, how far we've fallen from those guys.
Well, this is why, and you know, one of the things we like about Jonathan Turley, there are plenty of things to like about him, but he's very cautious.
He doesn't jump on a bandwagon.
He doesn't, he keeps an even keel because the Constitution is his guide and his belief in the First Amendment.
So this is why it struck both of our attention when he made the next comment, because he says, basically, this wasteland that I'm looking over that used to be called the Justice Department.
Here's what's going to happen from it.
If you do that next one, please.
And this is Turley writing in that article.
He says, as it stands, Congress has virtually ensured that Congress will pursue an impeachment inquiry as the only body seriously investigating the scandal.
And he goes on to say, the use of impeachment authority is the only effective way to overcome the roadblocks that the Justice Department has likely to throw up after this new appointment.
So he's saying, and he says, impeachment can work as constitutional kryptonite.
No court could seriously question the right and duty of Congress to get to the bottom of corruption allegations against the president without delay.
Although Weiss can refuse to answer questions, Congress can use its impeachment authority to demand answers from fact witnesses, including Biden family members.
So he's saying Merrick Gardin thinks he's being very, very clever by doing this, but he has in fact just insured an impeachment inquiry as the only credible investigation in the Biden family.
And they do get a bit cocky because this week we're expecting to see another indictment.
And Trump is going to grovel.
This goes on and on, and yet I think there are statistics to prove or suggest it that there is a shift when this happens.
People see shift in the middle of the independent thing.
They finally say, you know, enough is enough.
We know Trump is a jerk and they don't like him.
And they have all these arguments.
He's a Republican.
But some of them are getting to the point, well, this is a little bit too much.
And, you know, I saw one report that said that there's a pretty good chance, their opinion was that Biden will be dropping out.
He says he has only seven people working on his campaign, but he didn't have many more before.
I mean, it was who was running the campaign?
Department of Justice and the media and social media and all the lying, but they had the Department of Justice going, and they sure dug out the truth about Russia, gay, and they thought that would do it into it.
Oh, you mean they made a mistake there?
That wasn't all true, what they said about him.
Yeah, not Trump.
Yeah, it didn't take many people, only a cameraman in the basement, right?
Yeah.
Well, here's the show that there are other people that are looking at it, not just Hurley, but others that are looking at it in a nonpartisan way and scratching their heads.
If you can put up this next tweet by Glenn Greenwald, an honest progressive who we have a lot of respect for, who can never be claimed to be in Trump's camp, he says, the New York Times says Hunter Biden says prosecutors were nigged on a major part of the plea deal.
To which Greenwald replies, I 100% believe this.
Weiss intended to give Hunter insanely broad and generous immunity.
They denied that only when the IRS whistleblowers stepped forward and when media and judicial scrutiny emerged.
So yeah, he's saying, yeah, that did happen.
That did happen.
They were nigged on it because it was crazy.
Do you think it was purity of protecting the integrity of the IRS that they came for?
I'd hate to think that because they look like they've had it and they want to tell the truth about it.
So I would be more optimistic than that.
But anyway, it is a disgrace, really.
Yeah.
Well, I wanted to play a little clip.
This is from Oversight Committee Chairman Comer, and he lays down a pretty good explanation of what his approach is going to be.
And it's that first clip.
I think we want the first minute and five seconds of Comer explaining his take on naming David Weiss as special counsel.
Well, this is a joke.
All that Merrick Garland did was validate the point that many Republicans have been making that the Department of Justice was weaponized.
Look, I've been very vocal in saying we didn't need a special counsel.
I've been on the other side of a lot of my colleagues in the House.
The one reason I would give for not wanting a special counsel was what we've seen.
The fact that I have no confidence that Merrick Garland would appoint anyone credible.
I never dreamed he would do as bad as he did with Weiss.
Not only did Weiss drag his feet for five years and try to negotiate a sweetheart plea deal with the president's son, he also let the statute of limitations run out.
That was one of the biggest complaints from the Irish whistleblowers when they testified before the Oversight Committee was their frustration that they knew they were coming up on a hard stop as far as trying to prosecute the president's son for obvious crimes of tax evasion and violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
But Weiss intentionally let the statute of limitations run out.
We also learned in that testimony, Trey.
The Cost of Ukraine Conflict00:07:28
Yeah, we can take that out.
So that's a pretty interesting thing.
You know, this information is so powerful.
You think, just get out.
The old-fashioned way of thinking about it, if the major networks would only do this and put it up there, but that now is almost irrelevant.
And it's not going to happen.
But when you think now about they haven't, they've discredited some parts of the social media by becoming partners with our government and violating our First Amendment.
But there's still a couple people out there and they may grow and people may sort it out, hopefully, to find out the information.
Because when that information, I mean, that's powerful information, but it's not as automatic as it used to be, and it's not as automatic as it was during the last campaign because the media pumped up all this distortion and lies about Russia gay.
So that's where I'm looking for a little bit of optimism there.
Yeah, we need it.
We need it.
We need it.
Well, if you're ready, maybe we should move on to our second story of the day.
And this is something I said over on the weekend because I thought, first of all, we're looking for ways to explain to the American people what's going on in Ukraine is not cost-free, certainly to the Ukrainians who are dying in the trenches over there, but also certainly to the Americans.
And this is something that came out.
Now, this is from Breitbart, that next one, if you can put that up.
But an expert in the budget from the Heritage Foundation, we don't often quote the Heritage Foundation, but Richard Stern, he's a director of Heritage's Herman Center for the Federal Budget.
He told the Daily Signal that American aid to Ukraine, adding it all up, is going to cost, has already cost $900 per American household.
And I think that's something that Americans can wrap their heads around.
$900 out of my family's pocket, and it went over to Ukraine.
But it was supposed to be a shorter war.
Like all recent wars are to be short.
And they're not wars.
Sometimes they're just police actions and things like that.
But even if they had been able to do that, they're still wrong because it's not just really an accident or a prediction.
Predictions aren't hard to make when you say when some of these promoters of war would appear before a committee, I would say, do you really believe you're going to, when are you going to be out of here?
When are you going to tell us the truth about that?
Because it's not a wild prediction about that.
That's the way this government is operating.
And it's not, when it comes to spending this money and aid Ukraine, fortunately it's shifting a little bit.
But for a long time, it used to be 90% Republicans.
Fortunately, there are Republicans now waking up for fiscal reasons.
But in a way, it's sort of ironic and it annoys me because some of the ones who have shifted, oh, no more money for Ukraine.
We got to deal with Taiwan.
That doesn't fall into the category of a consistent foreign policy that was advised by our Constitution.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
But I do think that it's a good way of visualizing it for Americans that this is $900 that you don't have.
What could you do with it?
And I think you wrote about this week too: that some huge amount of Americans, if they had some emergency, what, $400 or whatever, they couldn't take it.
They don't have that much saving.
So I think it will resonate.
It's not going to resonate with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, but with some guy, some working guy out there, they're going to say, $900, really?
And as you always say, it's not a check.
I mean, it's not a bill they're going to get.
It's through inflation.
It's through all sorts of ways this money is hidden, but that's $900 less than their pocket.
Well, the other approach was talking about there's a lot of problems here at home, and Hawaii has a problem right now.
At the same time, it's very difficult to solve that.
You know, when there was no sign that we were ever going to, you know, all of a sudden morph into a libertarian society, and I was never optimistic to say, well, we're going to have a new Congress and we're going to systematically do what is right.
We're going to cut spending here, here.
And what could we do to be the most tolerable?
And one of my suggestions was, you know, cut this war mongering overseas and don't, if you have to cut at home, make that minimal or don't cut for a while.
Don't cut child health care.
And if you could work out a transition, even though that hasn't happened, it's not going to happen.
And that's why I fear that today when we just go overboard, because this continues and people, and I think the personal approach, you know, of mentioning, you know, it's $900 for everybody out of their pocket.
And, you know, that can be significant for them.
That might be, who knows what it is for the individual, but they just go ahead and spend it.
But the one problem has been, in a way, it's a problem because it works, although it doesn't deserve to work, and that is that deficits don't seem to matter a whole lot, and they get away with it even now.
You know, all they have to do is spend the money.
Oh, no, we have, we just passed a bill that's going to take care of the inflation problems like that.
But eventually that's what happens.
But the spending is just atrocious what's happening.
And the value, what the limitation is going to be on all these part, all these fights of Department of Justice and Ukraine and helping people and having a sensible thing will be the restraint will be the value of the dollar where there will be a loss of economic dollars.
Prices, if they think they've seen the end of price inflation, prices going up, they're kidding themselves because that's going to be the limiting factor because they won't have to have a vote for cutting back.
People will have to.
And that to me is tragic because there's no need for that because it could have been prevented and we could work our way out of it.
But there is no desire for that right now because everybody, if they don't want money for Ukraine, who knows, they might want to fight China.
That kind of stuff.
Yeah.
Well, to show what a tin ear Biden has on this, put on that next clip.
This is from antiwar.com.
Biden asked Congress for an additional $24 billion.
I think we talked about this on Wednesday or Thursday.
He doesn't care.
They've already spent $100 and some billion, $900 for every family or every household.
Now he wants $24 billion more.
You mentioned Hawaii.
They're not getting as much as that.
In fact, Biden seems a little bit uninterested in Hawaii.
But I'm going to, do you want to say some more on this?
No, I'm finished there.
Oh, okay.
I was going to close out myself.
Speaking of anti-war.com, I do want to raise your attention.
We don't do this very often, but we consider this organization like a sister organization for us.
And put on that next clip if you can.
This is the week of fundraising for anti-war.com.
Speaking of Anti-War.com00:02:49
We certainly appreciate your support for the Ron Paul Institute.
But people often ask, well, who else can we support that will help with the anti-war message?
Well, anti-war.com is a no-brainer.
And they're in their fundraiser right now.
Go to anti-war.com.
You can see they've got a handy marker showing how much they need to raise.
So definitely give them your support if you're looking for an organization to support a worthwhile organization to support the next one.
If you're looking for a place to go in a couple weeks, what better place to be than to listen to Ron Paul talk about which way America.
And this is going to be on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. He's going to have a great speech.
And you need to get your tickets.
There will be a, there is in the comments a link to where you can get those tickets.
And speaking of the conference, Dr. Paul, I'm going to make an announcement today because our viewers, you do hear us talk a lot about Jonathan Turley.
We talk about him all the time, in fact, because we have a lot of respect for him.
Well, just after the show on Thursday before we left, I got a message from Jonathan Turley, and he's accepted our invitation to be a speaker at this conference.
So we are thrilled to announce, Dr. Paul, I know you're really happy about this.
Jonathan Turley will be speaking at the Ron Paul Institute Conference about all this stuff we're talking about, about this case against the president, against the former president, and broader free speech attacks.
So we're both thrilled about that.
No, this is very good.
And we got to know Jonathan when I was in the Congress and we were starting our Liberty luncheon, Liberty Committee luncheons.
And he was one of our early speakers and he came back in.
He's going to come back another time.
So this is wonderful because we do see him as independent-minded.
He's not going to fall in the category of a Democrat position, a Republican.
Besides, it's too difficult.
They're always changing their position.
But no, he's thorough.
He's a constitutionalist, and that is a good thing.
And that's the theme and the atmosphere of what our conferences are like.
Because although there's never identical beliefs among any of us at all one time, but there is a theme, and one is we're looking for the truth and we're looking to expose people who fib and lie and distort and use government for their own personal benefit.
That is an annoyance.
Now, Jonathan, a lot of people point that in a political fashion.
Jonathan points it out in a very sincere, constitutional, and a legal sense.
And that's why it is so valuable to us.
So I'm delighted that Jonathan will be there and hope to see a lot of you there as well.