All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
33:56
Weaponizing Government - July 20th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
We're coming to your city.
It's almost like a weekly TV show.
Yeah.
Indictment.
Yeah, indicted in Tujor.
When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.
Soon NATO will be the 32nd freestanding, have 32 freestanding members.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Where we're coming to your city.
Going to play our guitars and sing you a contrast.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
All right, now we're to Sean Hannity Show 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, so Robert F. Kennedy Jr., we announced last night in New York City, by the way, we will have a town hall with him.
He's certainly in the news an awful lot.
He's been polling, I think, at a very respectable 22% against Joe Biden, who is not popular even among Democrats in the country, never mind independents and Republicans.
But certainly controversial in some of his views.
But one of the issues that I think we've all got to think about is, okay, if you believe in free speech, how pure are your beliefs of this?
When people say things that you find grossly offensive, are you okay with that being put on a platform such as Twitter or Facebook or Instagram?
Or are you so offended that you want certain things banned?
And if you're going to ban them, well, then who's going to decide what gets banned?
Think about the impact of the pre-bunking by the FBI meeting weekly with big tech in the lead up to the 2020 election.
Even though they had Hunter Biden's laptop in December of 2019 and verified its authenticity in March of 2020, and yet they were warning every big tech company that, oh, you might be a victim of a disinformation campaign.
It may be about Hunter Biden.
Well, that laptop story got censored in the weeks leading up to that important election.
And there's no doubt it had an impact.
None at all whatsoever.
So anyway, so they're having hearings about this.
Congressman Greg Stuby of Florida is a member of the House Weaponization Subcommittee.
They had this hearing with RFK Jr.
this morning, and he had a great exchange.
I want to play this for you.
There's a lot in this opinion, and I just, you know, I have limited time, but I think illustrating some of the actions that the Biden administration took to censor speech is very important.
I'm going to read specifically from the opinion.
Explicit threats are an obvious form of coercion, but not all coercion needs to be explicit.
I'm on page 97 of the opinion.
The following illustrative specific actions by defendants are examples of coercion exercised by the White House defendants.
A. Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.
Please remove this count immediately.
Sounds like a directive from the White House to me to social media companies.
Accused Facebook of causing political violence by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims.
F.
This is exactly why I want to know what reduction actually looks like.
If reduction means pumping our most vaccine-hesitant audience with Tucker Carlson saying it does not work, then I'm not sure it's reduction, implying that they're reducing the information on that.
Questioning how the Tucker Carlson video had been demoted since there were 40,000 shares.
Wanting to know why Alex Berenson had not been kicked off Twitter because Berenson was the epicenter of disinformation and radiated outward to the persuadable public.
And I'm just skipping through here.
I'm not even going through all these.
Flatterly stated, not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted and how effective are you at mitigating reach and how quickly?
Flattery told Facebook, are you guys effing serious?
I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.
Sounds like a pretty explicit threat to me.
Again, quoting the opinion, these actions are just a few examples of the unrelenting pressure the defendants exerted against social media companies.
This court finds the above examples demonstrate that plaintiffs can likely prove, likely prove, the White House defendants engage in coercion to induce social media companies to suppress free speech.
You know, that is him reading examples of the Biden administration and their coercion.
And that's directly from the Missouri versus Biden case.
Eric Schmidt, now senator from Missouri, was the AG at the time.
Anyway, we welcome Congressman Stuby of Florida.
Sir, welcome to the program.
Welcome back.
Good to hear your voice.
Yeah, Sean, thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
All right, let's talk about your take, number one, on the hearings, the posturing of your Democratic colleagues on the committee, and your thoughts.
Well, what's interesting is the Democrats, because they can't, and mind you, no one in the Biden administration, the Biden family, or any Democrat is disputing that any of this information is wrong or false.
So when they can't win on the facts, they just start attacking you as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, whatever.
And so they're going after one of their own, RFK Jr.
is a Democrat who's running for president against Joe Biden.
And they're attacking him for being racist because he was trying to show through some of his tweets or quotes or whatever that the COVID vaccine and COVID affected different races differently.
So of course, their Which, by the way, is very controversial on his part, but go ahead.
Yeah, so their approach is not the fact, is not agreeing with the fact that, yes, the Biden administration absolutely is working with big tech companies to censor speech.
They just attack him personally.
All right, let me play for you, Robert F. Kennedy, addressing this letter signed by Democrats trying to disinvite him from the hearing.
And I think it was his words, an attempt to censor a censorship hearing, which was pretty funny.
Hearing was convened to address.
This is an attempt to censor a censorship hearing.
And by the way, censorship is antithetical to our party.
It was appalling to my father, to my uncle, to FDR, to Harry Truman, to Thomas Jefferson, as the chairman referred to.
It is the basis for democracy.
It sets us apart from all of the previous forms of government.
We need to be able to talk.
And the First Amendment was not written for easy speech.
It was written for the speech that nobody likes you for.
I mean, it's really true what he said by them sending that letter, you know, pretty much disinviting him.
But, you know, to his credit, he showed up anyway.
Yeah, they were trying to, in the very beginning, basically close down the hearing and find him in contempt of Congress for the comments that he had made.
And he's absolutely accurate.
They are trying to censor him in a censorship hearing before the weaponization committee.
It's amazing the depths that this administration will go to to silence people.
We've seen it from the FBI, the DOJ, and at the highest levels in the White House.
Some of those things I quoted came from the highest levels of the White House.
And one of the statements that's in the Missouri v.
Biden hearing or the opinion is that this is coming from the highest level of the White House telling these social media companies to take people down.
Well, that is something that has to stop.
Now, we also have, you know, Section 230 protections for content companies.
For example, any media company like Fox News or ABC or NBC or CBS or CNN or the New York Times, Fake News, CNN, or the Washington Post or MSDNC, they have liability issues, yet these big tech companies that are not supposed to be content providers, but yet they're making content decisions.
And they have liability protection that no other news organization has.
Should that be taken away?
Yeah, I actually have a bill that addresses Section 230 and does significant reforms.
And if you are market dominant in the marketplace and you violate people's First Amendment rights, you would lose your liability protection.
And people like RFK Jr., the New York Post on the Hunter Biden laptop story could then sue those platforms.
Well, what's interesting is in some of this back and forth that's now in this opinion was Jin Saki and some of the people in the White House were veiled threats to these social media companies that they were going to take away their Section 230 liability protection if they didn't fall and do exactly what the White House wanted them to do.
Yeah, let me ask you this question.
At the end of the day, what should these big tech companies do?
For example, I find racism repugnant.
But if you go online and I don't even have access to any of my social media accounts anymore, to be honest, Congressman, I spent way too much of my spare time on it.
It became another job.
And I realize that it's better off if my staff handles it.
And if I really want to send out a tweet or something important, I just send it to them.
They have access to it.
They'll send it out for me after they probably argue with me that why are you starting another fight with Alec Baldwin or Jimmy Kimmel?
But in fairness, if you're going to have a platform of speech, does that mean you have to accept that a lot of that speech is going to be repugnant, repulsive, offensive?
And it's up to people to decide.
For example, I can't make people listen three hours a day to my radio show.
I'm trying.
If I could, and I could tie everyone down in a chair and force them to listen for three hours a day, it's certainly something to think about, and I'm kidding, or force them to watch my TV show and set their DVR and watch it every night at 9 Eastern.
I'd like that to happen, but I have to do a good show for that to happen because anybody can choose to watch or not watch, right?
So don't we all have the choice but to read, not read, and watch and not watch and listen to or not listen to?
Yeah, and the government shouldn't be in the business.
And in this example, the highest levels of the government should not be in the business of censoring speech that they don't agree with.
And they may not agree with things that RFK Jr.
has said, but that doesn't mean that Twitter and other Facebook and all these other social media companies should take it down.
In my opinion, as long as it's not criminal, if the speech is not criminal, sexually explicit, pornographic, threatening in nature, then Americans, whether you agree with them or not, have the freedom under the First Amendment of our Constitution to be able to say what they feel and have their opinion.
Yeah.
Well, and what do you think about some of the controversial things?
I won't get into the list now.
Next Tuesday, I've got a full hour with Robert Kennedy Jr.
I have a lot of questions for him.
But, you know, unlike a lot of other people that are interviewing presidential candidates, I don't view it as my role as the host to go in there and debate him.
I might have agreements with him.
I will never, ever listen to any government official in my life again on any health issue because they got so much wrong about COVID and about vaccinations.
I think, you know, for everybody to have told us that if you got the shot, oh, you're never going to get COVID.
You'll never transmit COVID.
And them knowing that mutations were a likely outcome and an evolution of a virus and not telling us that possibility and the truth about it, to me, is just, it's beyond criminal to me.
Yeah, I agree with you 100%.
Very few people in my district are going to believe what the CDC and the FDA now say and what the things that Fauci said, especially when the Biden administration started pushing narratives that if you got the shot, you're not going to get sick.
And obviously the facts bear out that that wasn't the case.
And when Americans didn't agree with that or had other opinions on whether it was effective or not, the Biden administration was using Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms to completely shut them down.
And that's what's really, really scary that we're in a place in our country where the government is okay at the highest level telling people how to censor individual speech.
I mean, the opinion in the Missouri V. Biden case is great.
He talks about if all of these allegations are true, this is the largest censoring of American speech in the history of our country.
And we need to protect that at all costs.
All right, quick break.
Right back.
More with Congressman Stuby of Florida.
He's on the House Weaponization Subcommittee.
That's the committee that held hearings with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
today.
We'll get to more of his observations of this.
Your calls coming up.
We have so much more to get to in the course of the program, all coming up straight ahead as we continue.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, we continue with Congressman Stuby of Florida, member of the House Weaponization Subcommittee, had the hearing this morning on the weaponization of the federal government with RFK Jr.
testifying today.
So at the hearing with RFK Jr.
today, he made a point of saying, I have never been anti-vax, never told the public to avoid vaccination.
Let me play that.
I have never advised black Americans not to receive vaccines.
At one point you say I'm anti-vax and that's a bad thing.
The other thing, the other moment you point out that all my children are vax.
I fact, I'm fully compliant with the vaccine schedule myself, except for COVID.
I took flu vaccines for 20 years straight.
I have never been anti-vax.
I have never told anybody.
I have never told the public, avoid vaccination.
The only thing I've asked for, and my views are constantly misrepresented.
So that the truth of what I believe is not we're not allowed to have a conversation about that with the American people, which I believe vaccines should be tested with the same rigor as other medicines and medications.
All right.
So he makes that statement in your hearing.
And my question to you is, and I've searched the record and we have not found an instance specifically where he said, don't get vaccinations.
However, he himself has been very outspoken against them, which, by the way, to me falls under the realm of freedom of speech and opinion.
And he's allowed to have that.
Yeah, he's absolutely allowed to have that.
He's allowed to express his opinion on that.
He's allowed to show evidence of those opinions.
It's not criminal conduct.
And then you have an administration who, oh, by the way, three days of them coming into their administration, we're suddenly trying to silence one of their now primary opponents.
Just like the kind of stuff that they're doing to go after President Trump.
They're trying to go after RFK Jr.
because he's a primary opponent.
And they did that three days into their administration to start trying to censor him.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, really interesting hearing today.
We appreciate you being with us, Congressman Stuby, great state of Florida.
We love having you on, sir.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Thank you.
All right, 800-941-Sean, our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
The Sean Hannity Show, a thermonuclear MMA assault on fake news.
Hannity is on right now.
Hi, 25 to the top of the hour.
Our number, 800-941-Sean, if you'd like to be a part of the program, in a second, we'll get a huge breaking news story with our friend John Solomon of just the news.com, FBI informant.
Remember the 1023 form, the FD 1023 confidential human source form?
Now, you might want to recall that this source was highly valued by the FBI.
And how do we know?
Because that source had been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the FBI for past information.
And anyway, John will tell us how the FBI informant told the agents that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma to protect the Ukrainian firm, the big energy giant, from problems, which then goes back to what I think I was one of the only people screaming every day and every night about the real quid pro quo, Joe Biden bragging about leveraging a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars so that a prosecutor in Ukraine would be fired.
Son of a bee, they do it in six hours and Hunter continues to get paid.
Anyway, we'll get to that in a second.
But first, I want to remind you, MyPillow, 20 long years now, celebrating their 20th anniversary, over 80 million MyPillows sold.
Can you believe that?
Anyway, Mike Lindell, MyPillow employees, want to thank each and every one of you for giving, by giving you the lowest price in history on their infamous MyPillow.
When you go to the Sean Hannity Square at mypillow.com, for example, the queen-size MyPillow, just $19.98, regular price $69.98.
The King is only $10 more.
And in addition to this special anniversary offer on the pillows, you're also going to get deep discounts on other popular MyPillow products.
Their bed sheets, their mattress toppers, their pet beds, their towels, my slippers, so much more.
So now's the perfect time.
If you've been wanting to try out some of their other amazing products, just go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square, or call 800-919-6090.
Now, this offer has a 10-year warranty and a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee.
And let me tell you, if you've never gotten a MyPillow, just wait.
All the sleep you've been wanting, needing, craving, desiring, deserving is yours when it arrives.
Mypillow.com, Sean Hannity Square to take advantage of the 20th anniversary offer.
We welcome back to the program.
He is the editor-in-chief of justthenews.com and also an investigative reporter, friend of the program.
Our friend John Solomon is with us.
Well, I guess we kind of now understand why that battle went on for week after week after week, and the FBI did not want to hand over the FD 1023 form.
And then the first time they handed it over, they handed over a redacted version.
The next time, they allowed members of the House Oversight Committee to see it in a skiff.
And now, finally, and by the way, the funny part was James Comer already had a copy.
So they already knew what was in it.
But now we're learning a lot more about it.
And you just broke this just moments ago, John Solomon.
Yes, listen, it's a four-page memo from the summer of 2020 that indicates that the FBI first heard about these allegations in 2017 from their trusted informant and that this informant had direct access to the founder of Burisma Holdings, a man named Zolchesky, an oligarch in Ukraine.
The oligarch knew that he was under investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, and that he had hired Hunter Biden to make those problems go away.
And that he was, that through Hunter Biden, his father, meaning Joe Biden, the vice president, would help these issues go away.
The owner of Burisma had a problem.
He was about to buy an American company, and he was going to go get an IPO to raise money in the United States.
And the corruption investigation was blocking him from doing that.
And Hunter Biden was brought in with his father to do that.
He understood the owner of Burisma told the informant he understood that it was going to cost $10 million, $5 million to Hunter, $5 million to Joe Biden to make these problems go away.
He paid it, even though he thought that Hunter Biden was stupid.
He didn't think he was very good.
He also knew that Hunter Biden had no background in natural gas.
It was simply to buy protection.
The FBI has known this for a long time.
They knew that Zolchewski bragged and the other executives of Burisma bragged.
They would never find the money to Joe Biden.
It would take 10 years to find how they paid the money.
This has been sitting in the FBI files for a long time.
Now, Sean, I'm going to tell you something I've never told anyone else.
Only the Justice Department knows this.
This was the information provided to me in December 18 that started me on my original reporting in 2019.
Everybody thought it came from Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnes.
It didn't.
I turned over my notes to the Justice Department a couple of years ago, and they learned that I found out my story about Biden, Hunter Biden, the story I came on your show and told people about before impeachment in 2019.
And by the way, in fairness to you, when you first brought this to me, I was skeptical.
Remember, I kept pressing and I'm saying, but explain this to me.
And obviously, you can't reveal your sources to me because they're so highly confidential, which I totally, as you know, respect.
And I was like, wow.
And then you had convinced me enough, and there was enough evidence out there.
Joe Biden, you're not getting the billion dollars unless you fire a prosecutor.
By the way, isn't that odd that a vice president is interested in firing a prosecutor in Ukraine and withholding a billion taxpayer dollars to get it done and demanding it be done in six hours?
And son of a bee, he brags they did it.
And then Hunter stupidly goes on Good Morning America, where he admitted he had no experience at all in oil, gas, coal, energy, or Ukraine, and is asked, well, why do you think they paid you all this money?
I don't know.
That was his answer.
I don't know.
Maybe because of your father?
So when he fired Victor Shokin, the prosecutor, Hunter continued to get paid, John Solomon.
I don't know where I grew up.
I have a word for that.
I'm not sure where you grew up what word you would use, but sounds to me like a quid and a pro and a quo.
Well, listen, that's what the informant was told.
In the presence of the owner of the company, Mr. Zolchewski, the oligarch of the Ukrainian oligarch, Zolchewski said he had already paid the Bidens, presumably to deal with Shokin, presumably to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor who is getting in the way of Ukraine, of Burisma holdings' business plans.
This is extraordinary that the entire time President Trump was being impeached the entire time I was being smeared and you were being smeared, telling us this is a conspiracy theory.
The FBI knew there was credible information from a trusted informant that this actually went down exactly the way I was told.
The Justice Department has my notes from 2018.
They know how I got this story.
They've known all along that this story was credible.
And all those members of Congress who smeared, all the people who looked at this story, all those members of the FBI and the news media that smeared us, they didn't know until today.
But I can tell you now, I knew this information.
I did not know the FBI.
I believe the reason the FBI sources came to me was because they were having trouble getting this investigated.
And so they went to a reporter who had done some good stuff on Russia.
But we had this nailed.
And now that the American public can see this was never a conspiracy theory, there was very serious concern that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden had been bribed to make a Ukrainian corruption case go away for one of his clients.
Next week, I believe we're going to learn some more explosive information about what Joe Biden did to assure Burisma that he was taking care of them.
We're going to learn that next week.
Wow.
I mean, this is amazing.
Let's talk about Devin Archer and what we might hear from him next week.
Yeah.
I believe that Devin Archer will be able to identify various times that Joe Biden did things specifically to help Hunter Biden's clients.
I won't get into more specifics than that right now.
I think you'll learn more next week.
But my reporting indicates that he was a witness, Devin Archer, who was on the Burisma board along with Hunter Biden.
He was a witness to moments where Joe Biden did things that benefited Hunter Biden's clients, including Burisma.
I think you'll learn more about that next week.
But that will be a Biden insider.
Remember, we have another Biden insider that has now said, yeah, Joe Biden met with the Chinese guys, Rob Walker, family friend, basically saying that Joe Biden didn't tell the truth when he looked in the camera and said, I never met with any of my son's business partners.
Rob Walker said, no, he did.
I was there.
I think Devin Archer will be able to give similar testimony, similar information to Congress.
And listen, he- Well, let me ask you, what does Devin Archer now have in it for him?
Is it the fear that they might go a lot deeper considering the investigations going on, especially in Comer's committee and Jim Jordan's committee, and that a lot more is coming out on the Biden family syndicate, and there's way more countries than were originally that we originally knew about and the suspicious activity reports they have copies of,
all the shell corporations, the LLCs that were not built for any real business dealings, but to just funnel money through.
You think Devin Archer is looking for something here?
Because if he is, and if he's looking to protect himself, that would probably be a pretty big motivation.
In other words, is he ready to flip on the Bidens?
I think Devin Archer just wants to tell his side of the story.
He's been portrayed by others, and he has his own firsthand knowledge of what went on, including in the tribal scheme that he was convicted, a tribal bond scheme.
I think he has some things to reveal on that.
I think he has seen the Bidens give one account, which, by the way, just keeps eroding, right?
Everything Joe Biden has said is falling apart.
I think he wants to set the record straight.
That's my reporting indicates he doesn't have an animus one way or the other.
He's not there to protect the Bidens or to harm the Bidens.
He just wants the American public to know what really went on.
And I think we'll get some very valuable information that will fill in some of the gaps here.
What is evidently clear now, overwhelmingly clear, Joe Biden said his money didn't get his family got no money from China.
They did.
Lawrence confirmed that.
They said, I never did anything to meet with my son's business partners.
He did, and Devin Archer will extend that.
Rob Walker already confirming that.
Joe Biden said there was no reason to investigate his son.
Now his son's going to plead guilty to tax evasion.
And by the way, we knew that tax evasion goes to this very transaction in Ukraine.
And now we knew the FBI had strong reason before Joe Biden became president to suspect he was involved in a bribery scheme.
All of that debunks what Joe Biden said when he did his last job interview with the American people, looked in the camera.
Oh, by the way, he also told us the laptop was fake and it wasn't.
Joe Biden lied to get in his final job interview with the American people in the fall of 2020.
He lied on multiple fronts, according to the evidence now in front of us.
And he got his job because he misled the American people.
That is the one thing, no matter what comes of this, that is now clear to the American people.
He did not tell them the truth about lots of things.
And the question is, why?
All right, quick break.
Moore with Investigative Reporter, editor-in-chief, justthenews.com, John Solomon on the other side.
All right, we continue.
Big breaking news from our friend John Solomon at justthenews.com.
And this is a blockbuster story today about the FBI informant with a 1023 form told agents for the FBI that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma to protect Ukraine from problems and the Ukrainians from problems involving the investigation into Burisma, which greatly benefited the Bidens financially.
Let me go to what Chuck Grassley released late yesterday showing this Ukrainian oligarch claiming he was coerced into making the payoff.
And that's the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlodchevsky, I believe is how you pronounce the name, telling this FBI informant that obviously was very trusted, having been paid a lot of money in the past by the FBI, saying specifically at this coffee shop in Vienna, Austria, that, quote, it costs $5 million to pay one Biden, $5 million to pay another Biden, according to the FD 1023 report that you're reporting today.
Do we know if Comer's committee, we knew about the $5 million for sure, right?
Do we know for sure the $10 million got transferred?
Listen, no one has found this money yet.
We've seen all we've seen transferred so far is about $3.7 million that went into the accounts.
Well, yesterday it came out in that committee hearing 6.5 from Ukraine, mostly believed to be from Burisma.
I think there are multiple people that paid the Hunter Biden team in Ukraine.
I wrote a story about another oligarch that did some investment with.
No, I mean, it gets confusing.
I'm not trying to complicate this.
They had so many forward deals going at once, it's hard to track.
I don't believe to this moment they have tracked a full amount of $10 million.
What we do know from the FBI record that I got a hold of two years ago is that $3.7 million came through in monthly payments of, I think, $83,667 for a period of two years.
It rolls up to about $3.7 million between what Devin Archer and Hunter Biden got.
There is a pursuit to try to find this other money.
In this document, Zolchewski and the other Ukrainian executives brag it's going to take them 10 years to find how we really paid the money.
But here's the most important thing that both Zelchewski and his top guy, the man who on a daily basis dealt with Hunter Biden, a guy named Vadin Pazarski, told the informant.
He told the informant they paid Hunter Biden to take care of problems through his father.
His father was part of the package, according to this informant report, quoting directly the Ukrainian Burisma officials who knew what was going on.
That is so significant.
Joe Biden was part of the package, according to this.
And the problem that they wanted to deal with was dealing with Viktor Shokin, that Ukrainian prosecutor that was in fact investigating Burisma.
Those are really significant revelations.
They confirm what I was told in December 18, what I began reporting at the Hill in 2019.
It confirms what Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley first reported in 2020.
It confirms everything that your show focused on in 2019, 2020, 2021.
We now know that the Ukrainians saw Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as a package that they purchased when they paid this money to Hunter Biden.
And by the way, it also shows that the Ukrainians didn't think very much of Hunter Biden's gas knowledge or his overall skill set.
They called him, I don't want to know if the word stupid, but they called, they used pejorative terms like, was not smart.
Let me read you.
Pojarsky, a Ukraine official, replied that Hunter Biden was not smart.
All right.
They try to ignore us, John Solomon, but guess what?
They can't.
This is now coming to a head.
Republicans and those two committees, oversight and judiciary, are doing their job.
Thanks, John Solomon, editor-in-chief, justthenews.com, investigator reporter.
We always appreciate it, John.
Thank you.
All right, when we come back, state of the economy, so much more, 800-941-Sean, our number.
We'll get to your calls.
Some of these, you know, we have an update on Jason Aldean, by the way.
▲
Export Selection