Best of the Program | Guests: Erielle Davidson, Bill O'Reilly & Peter Schweizer | 10/11/19

Man, this is a whirlwind show today.

We have Ariel Davidson on.

She's going to spend a few minutes talking about what's happening with Trump and Turkey.

It's a whole different look at things.

We're just going to go through the insanity of the CNN debate last night.

Also, O'Reilly, we talk impeachment, Turkey, Syria, town hall on transgendered people, what the president.

He says the president is changing, and he thinks that it is dangerous dangerous

for the president.

I happen to agree with him.

I've seen it.

When you hear him talk about it, you'll understand.

And Peter Schweitzer

is here to tell us all about the actual story behind Joe Biden and his son.

It seems like that isn't such an open and shut case.

You'll hear about it all on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the the Blenbeck program.

All right.

I just want to go through some audio here because

this is crazy.

What has been going on?

Let's, first of all, let's start with the impeachment.

Here's Mike Pompeo.

He hits back on a PBS host who says there's no proof of Biden wrongdoing.

But just finally, you know that there's been no proof of any misdoing on the part of of Vice President Biden.

You all keep repeating that line as if you're working for the DNC.

I'm definitely not working for the DNC.

I'm an independent journalist, but the European Union, the U.S.

Embassy in Kiev, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations felt that that prosecutor was corrupt and thought he should be removed.

There's no evidence that what Vice President Biden was doing was corrupt in some way.

By the way, it's now the prosecutor that they all cheered for.

They all cheered for Lusanko to come in and replace Shokin.

He was the savior.

This is the guy who's going to.

Oh, this is the guy you get $1.8 billion if you go ahead and replace Shokin with Lusenko.

It's Lusenko who's saying he's dirty and we need to investigate.

It's crazy.

Yeah, it's crazy.

And by the way,

the U.S.

Embassy in Ukraine, the U.S.

Embassy, the ambassador, is dirty.

She was just fired.

And when you, if you just watch,

look, sweetheart, I know you're a PBS.

You've been there since the, I think you were there before they even had radio.

And I appreciate all the hard work that you've done.

But listen, sweetie, just watch.

Is that too demeaning?

It does seem like you're being attacked.

Yeah, demeaning.

Yeah.

That's unfortunate.

I certainly,

certainly would be disappointed if they would take it that way.

Just watch the chalkboard

because the evidence is all there.

It's all there.

Okay.

Let me go to, let's see,

let's try CNN's Avalon crudely.

I'd love to see any philosophical consistency in Congress rather than pure situational ethics.

But,

you know, the problem is, A, he didn't need to shout it.

And B, B, we don't expect it because everyone's sort of knee-deep in hypocrisy on this stuff.

The problem is it is the Constitution at stake.

This isn't a Benghazi type hearing.

This is really serious stuff.

Yeah, I mean, Benghazi, what was the big deal there?

A couple people died.

You know, no big deal.

No big deal.

No big deal.

Don't worry about that.

Look, it's a fascinating thing.

You turn on these, you turn on cable news for one night, and what you see is such a bizarre painting of what America supposedly is.

So can I tell you something?

This is what happened in Germany.

There were two newspapers, two main news sources in Germany.

And in the 1920s, they were fine.

By the end of the 1920s, you could not tell that you were living in the same country.

They would have the same news reports, but one would say it happened this way, and the other one would say it happened that way.

And there was nothing that would tell you that it was the same incident.

And people chose sides.

Which newspaper do I go?

And

yeah, and they didn't listen to the other side.

And they just got hard and fast.

And that's what led to national socialism.

Let me go to the reporter getting cut off by asking the NBA players about China.

Incredible.

Incredible.

The lady in Second Pro.

Thank you.

Hi, Christina McFarlane, CNN.

The NBA has always been a league that prides itself on its player and its coaches being able to speak out openly about political and societal affairs.

I just wonder after the events of this week and the fallout we've seen whether you would both feel differently about speaking out in that way in future.

Excuse me, what do you think that asked about questions only?

It's a legitimate question.

This is an event that's happened this week during the MBA.

This particular question has not been answered.

James.

That's a very well-crafted question.

Good for CNN.

Good job.

They're asking, so are you going to speak out about social justice stuff now?

I mean, how are you going to do it?

How are you going to do it?

Yeah, because they love doing that.

They love doing that.

But when it comes down to the social justice of all these people they supposedly care so much about in China, all these fans that they're so worried about, as their entire society is turning into an episode of Black Mirror, they don't seem to be worried about it at all.

Right.

So here's the thing.

The NBA, Nike, all of that stuff is coming undone.

And I want you to listen to this real quick because I think the next thing we're going to is the same, just a completely different topic.

The NBA

was one of the first real cash machines in China.

They were there very, very early.

In fact, China started to fall in love with basketball back in around 1900.

The YMCA missionaries would come over and they would play.

And you could play it indoors and it was physical and it was fast and they loved it.

And so the Chinese people started to embrace basketball right around the same time that we did.

And it was brought over by American missionaries.

Then Mao took over.

Well, Mao banned everything that was Western.

And so people stopped playing basketball.

But what he didn't know is a lot of the generals in the communist military were

basketball fans.

They loved basketball.

And so they would play secret basketball games with the communist generals.

And they were playing basketball all the way through.

So when Mao died and China opened up and Nixon came down, the Chinese generals were all there going, we love basketball.

We love basketball.

And basketball was brought back in to China and it was brought in by the communists because they loved it so much.

What was his name?

David Stern?

Okay, he was the

commissioner of.

And why do I know him?

There was some scandal with him, wasn't there?

No, there was something very

There's no reason for me to know him.

You know him because

a friend of yours is friends with him.

That's how you know him.

You have like a,

you know, you don't know David Stern, but you have a couple of

selections from him.

So anyway, so David went in the 1980s

and he went to China and he saw their love for basketball and he said, you know what?

Why don't you guys play highlight clips?

And he actually would mail the highlight clips to China once a week, and they would play it on state television after the censors made sure they cut out everything that might be, you know, bad.

So

they loved it.

It became very popular.

And

so then I think about 1990, they started in on live feeds.

Why don't we just give you the basketball games and you can watch them and run them on state TV.

Now, this is still in a time when we only had three channels.

So they're watching now basketball on the communist television network.

So the Chinese loved it.

This is in the era of Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.

And that's as deep as I can go.

Magic Johnson.

You're going to get there?

Magic Johnson.

Yep.

Okay, so

this is a really popular thing in China.

It starts to explode.

Michael Jordan plays a really big role because, you know, Michael Jordan could fly Air Jordans, Nike.

So now the NBA and Nike

are in early on this Chinese market and it's exploding for them.

Nike is making a ton of money way before anybody else.

NBA making a ton of money way before anybody else.

So they start to, the NBA says, we've got to have our own league there.

They start their own league.

It was worth $2 billion.

Today it's worth $4 billion.

But the clincher is

who's the big Chinese guy from the Rockets?

Yao Ming.

Yao Ming.

That's where it really goes

and just explodes in China.

Now people are watching streaming basketball games from the NBA through the NBA of China on their phones at work every day.

They're watching American basketball games that are being played at night here.

Okay.

So it's gigantic.

Nike loves this.

The NBA loves this.

Both of these have been all into social justice, but both of these companies have been lying to themselves.

They've been saying, you know, as long as I avoid the three T's, Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square, you don't talk about those things and you're fine.

And

they know what monsters they're in bed with, but they've just been saying, we're just going to avoid those three things.

Well, now it's a little more complicated because they have concentration camps.

That's a C word, not a T word.

And they're taking people's rights away.

That's an R word, not a C word in Hong Kong.

They're also now, as Stu said, black mirroring their entire population.

It's not 1982 anymore now, is it?

This is coming undone because the American people are seeing this and they're like, I don't like this.

I don't like China

I don't mind the Chinese people.

I like China itself, but I don't like the Chinese communist government.

Look what they're doing.

And as they get worse and worse and worse,

Nike, and I am so happy to say this, Nike is going to lose in the end, and so will the NBA.

Those companies need to wake up and they need to answer that question.

I can't believe I'm saying this, from that CNN reporter.

What are you going to to do now?

You're going to still talk about human rights?

Are you still going to talk about oppression?

Are you still going to talk about social justice, Nike with Kaepernick?

Are you still going to do that?

Really?

You care about oppression that happened 150 years ago, but you don't care about the oppression that's happening today.

This is coming undone.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

We have Arielle Davidson on with us.

She's a staff writer at the Federalist, and she wrote a great article on what Trump is doing with Turkey.

Trump gave Turkey a choice on Syria, cooperate or risk catastrophe.

And this is what he keeps saying, but she's really laid this out well, and I wanted her on to explain it.

Arielle, welcome to the program.

Thanks for having me, Glenn.

I'm happy to be here.

You bet.

So

tell me, just go through this story for the audience.

Sure.

Well, when I initially heard that Trump was pulling troops out of northern Syria, and I saw sort of the media have a collective meltdown, my initial reaction was, there's more to this story than we are hearing.

And I think that's why this piece has resonated with people because they sort of went through a very similar thought process.

Essentially, what happened in Syria, in order to understand what Donald Trump's

moves are, you have to understand kind of why we got to the place we are.

And the reason we're in the situation we are in is because back in 2010, when Obama was calling, or back in the mid-2010s, when Obama was calling ISIS the JV squad, and he realized that ISIS was a much bigger threat than he anticipated, he had to choose allies allies in the Middle East in order to combat ISIS.

And he chose to align the United States with the YPG, which was basically a group of pro-Assad Syrian Kurdish forces.

Now, the issue with that alliance is that those particular groups of Kurds were seen basically as a terrorist organization by the Turks.

Yeah, if you remember, the GOP got involved in this as well.

You know, John McCain was seen with these terrorists and were like, what are we doing?

We're in bed with really bad people.

Right, exactly.

And so he essentially, Obama chose those people because at the time, he was trying to not rock the boat with the Iran deal.

So he had to align the United States with pro-Assad Iran-Kozi people.

And that's why he settled on the Syrian Kurds.

Now, I don't want to denigrate all the effort and the valiant fighting that the Syrian Kurds have done alongside American troops.

That's a really important factor here.

But we also have to remember that when we choose our allies, we're not necessarily choosing people that everyone is going to like.

And for the Turks, that could not be more true.

And so essentially, we posted up these groups of what the Turks would regard as terrorists along the Syrian-Turkish border.

This was an unsustainable situation.

There was no way that in the long term, President Erdogan of Turkey would be okay with this situation.

Whatever, regardless of what your feelings are on the Kurds are, that's the perspective that Turkey had.

And so that's the situation when Donald Trump entered office.

That was the situation that he entered upon.

And he essentially gave Turkey two choices.

He said, Look, we will cooperate with you.

We know it's an uncomfortable situation.

We can share intelligence with you and maintain the defeat of ISIS.

Or if you're that disgruntled, we will just let you be and sort of whatever, wherever the chips may fall, they fall.

So if you decide to invade Syria, that's on you.

If you want to face international condemnation, have sanctions lapped on you, that's on you.

We're not going to support that.

We will probably be part of the force that is slapping sanctions on you, but we're giving you these two choices.

Choose wisely.

And Erdogan made his choice.

And so that's what we're seeing unfolding right now.

You know, this is Donald Trump has actually been engaging in a very lengthy diplomatic process.

to arrive at this unfortunate conclusion.

But there were no good options here, Glenn.

Yeah, I agree with you, Ariel, and I don't like being in bed with them in the first place.

What gives me pause on this is

when you first hear about it, you're like, wait a minute, these were people that we had said are our partners.

Well, yes, but I've come to look at it in the last couple of days in the same way that the Soviet Union was our partner against Hitler.

That didn't mean we like them.

It means we needed to defeat Hitler, just like we needed to defeat ISIS.

And we got into bed with some really nasty people.

But we're not going to stand around.

I mean, you know, Truman comes in and he reverses that.

As soon as the war is over, the Soviet Union is our enemy.

So did we betray them or did we just correctly identify them after the crisis was over?

Sure.

I mean, I think that's a really apt analogy, but I'm sort of in, I'm in the camp of leaving a minimal amount of troops as sort of a deterrent, boots on the ground.

You know, I don't, I think this idea that we can stay there indefinitely and have massive amount of troops there is just not illogical.

Well,

Mariel, may I take that, may I push that back just a bit and see how you respond on this?

We didn't bring those troops home.

They just went over to Iraq.

So

it's not like these guys were like, hey, job well done, come home.

They just went to Iraq.

Right.

Or other places in Syria.

Sure.

I'm saying that it's okay to leave a small number of troops in northern Syria in order to act as a deterrent, in order to show also that we don't abandon our allies completely.

So

this is, again, the quagmire that we are in, is that we've allied ourselves, like you said, with some not so great actors.

But at the same time, we also send a message in the Middle East that we're not good on our word.

And I think there is a happy medium between the two.

This is something that Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz tried to hit upon in one of his tweets a couple days ago where he talked about how balancing our international image is also really important, but bringing the troops home is important as well.

And so I think we do need to recognize that when we enter into alliances, for better or for worse, I mean these people did lose thousands of lives fighting next to us.

And joining a war that we told the entire international community was necessary to fight for our national security interests.

It is something that's worth thinking about.

But again,

you know, what I wanted to highlight in the piece was that the media treating this as a situation where Trump went rogue or lost his mind is just completely untrue.

And it just shows, again, how much the media will avoid talking about Obama's foreign policy legacy because they know if they did, it would show how poor it was.

And they're not prepared to do that.

They're constantly, I call the media the janitors of the Obama legacy.

You'll notice that most of these pieces don't bring up the fact that the reason we're in this situation is entirely because of specific choices Obama made to prop up the Iran deal.

And getting in bed with the wrong people at the time, which the conservatives were at the time against these people.

We were against

getting into bed with these people and arming them and training them.

We were, at least I was, I was speaking out.

This is a bad move.

We're going to pay for this in the end.

And the media, had Barack Obama done exactly the same thing and said, bring the troops home, they would have been celebrating the end of the end of war.

We're finally coming back.

They would have done all of that stuff.

And so they have absolutely no credibility.

But I was struck by your article in the Federalist that you really laid out a really good case on

what Trump was doing.

That this is not just something that he got up in the middle of the night and said, you know why?

Let's pull our troops out.

This has been a long thought out, methodical process with him and Erdogan.

Do you think that he means it?

Because he said, if you start going after the Kurds,

we're going to crush your economy.

Do you believe that there is a tripwire that we should look for?

So there's two things that I think are important.

The first one is that Erdogan is supposed to visit the White House in November.

And I think he has, that provides some sort of motivation, that's sort of a carrot for him to behave himself.

And I do think that it might temper him a bit and it might force him to hold back, which would be helpful, obviously.

And the second thing I'll say is that Congress is already busily proposing bills to slap sanctions on Turkey.

And I think that's great because as many, you know, this sort of disgruntled pushback from Congress in terms of Trump's move to pull troops out of Syria, good.

Have them be angry.

Have them put as many sanctions as they want on Turkey.

That's what we want.

That's what we need.

We want to use anything we can without resorting to military force.

And sanctions is a really good tool for that.

One of the reasons that the Iranian regime didn't collapse in 2015 is because the Obama administration lifted sanctions.

The Iranian economy grew by 10% after we lifted sanctions in 2016.

So we could have the opposite effect by slapping sanctions on Turkey.

So I do think it will be super effective.

And I do think it will be a deterrent.

Thank you so much, Ariel.

I appreciate it.

Ariel Davidson, she is staff writer for the Federalist.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

I don't know what Bill O'Reilly's pronouns are, but welcome to the program, Mr.

Bill O'Reilly.

You guys are babbling this morning.

I don't know what you're hearing.

What are your pronouns?

I'm trying to put it all together, but...

What are your pronouns?

My pronouns are I have a new book out called The United States of Trump.

That's not a pronoun.

Those aren't pronouns.

No wonder I failed English.

So, Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program.

Welcome to the program.

Thank you.

Where would you like to start?

We can talk about the CNN show that nobody watched, but it was crazy.

We could start with the impeachment, the latest updates on that.

Where would you like to start?

I've been watching Donald Trump very closely for the past two weeks

as a human being, not a politician.

All right, that's where I want to start.

And I haven't talked about this even on billorilly.com.

I haven't

seen the first mention of this.

We'll alert the press.

This is an exclusive.

Well, the press will ignore you if you alert it.

They don't care about you.

Unless he dies, then they would care.

Right.

Okay, so in the last chapter of the United States of Trump, I interviewed the president after the Robert Mueller verdict came in.

It was the first time that I've ever seen him emotional in the 30 years I've known him.

Not crazy emotion, but if you read the last chapter, you'll see the emotion.

Okay, I noted that.

And now,

with impeachment, all right, and every single day he's guilty of this, he's guilty of that, he did this.

And this is a rerun of Mueller.

Almost the same wording, the same condemnation, the same conviction without evidence, exactly the same.

Groundhog Day.

So I'm noticing now that he,

President Trump, is starting to lose focus.

He's starting to lash out.

Now,

they're going to say, look, O'Reilly always lashes out.

Twitter, this, that, and the other thing.

Yes.

It has been up until two or three weeks ago a calculated lash.

Now,

it's all over the place and I will submit to you based upon my knowledge of the man that this is getting to him

so

this weekend I'm going to Vermont I'm gonna try to deliver a little candy to Bernie Sanders I know he's uh he's up there convalescing I'm actually gonna be very close to his mansion

and but I'm doing it because I need a break I need to get some fresh air I need to look at the leaves I need to get a little maple syrup and pour it on my head.

I need to do that, to get away.

You see what I mean?

Trump never gets away.

Never.

He doesn't sleep.

He's a vampire.

He has one hobby.

He hits the little golf ball, but I think he's bored with that.

All right?

And he's every day obsessing, and that's the word, about here they come again.

I didn't do anything.

They're trying to ruin me in another way.

And I've got to fight everybody all by myself.

That's a real tough place to be as a human being.

And I want all your listeners, who I think most are fair-minded, you know, to step back and say, you know,

there comes a point in a country's history where the people have to rise up and say, enough.

It's 13 months before we vote.

13 months.

All of this now is a charade.

And I mean, your head will blow off if you try to get in.

And by the way, I did analyze your stuff on Ukraine that you put on the blaze.

It was very good.

I directed all my hundreds of thousands of followers over to it.

Thank you.

But

in order to digest it,

it's like you have to be crazed because there are names and this and that.

Nobody knows about Ukraine.

And so I do the overarch.

There is no crime.

This is not anything that should be submitted to the House for impeachment vote.

It's not there.

Maybe it'll be there in two weeks.

It's not there now.

This is purely a malicious plan to destroy a human being.

Okay.

That's what it is.

So let me tell you this, Bill.

First of all, you're 100% right.

It is getting to him.

And it would get, I mean, it's getting to me.

I saw what happened yesterday where they arrested two people.

The third one, I think, is still out.

And they were arrested and tied to Rudy Giuliani.

That, oh, my gosh, look at this fundraising was going on, et cetera, et cetera.

The reason why the FBI and the Southern District of New York, this is your area, Bill.

There's something wrong with the Southern District of New York attorneys, federal attorneys.

These guys are the ones that turned down Lusenko and the prosecutors from Ukraine.

they came and tried to get to the United States and the embassy the ambassador of the U.S.

Embassy in Ukraine blocked them from getting a visa they wanted to go meet with the DOJ they wanted to go meet with our attorney general they were blocked once Trump removed that blockage they then got visas and they were told to bring it to the southern district of New York and that attorney those attorneys turned down even looking at the information.

They didn't want anything to do with that information.

Now these are the same guys who

seem to be eager to prosecute everything around Donald Trump, even though the main guy is a Trump supporter, supposedly.

He is now prosecuting these guys and

going after them on the day before

the ambassador is to testify in front of Congress.

This is a setup.

This is coordinated timing.

If I were Donald Trump, once you know the full story, you see how corrupt this deep state is.

And it is enough to drive you mad, especially because you can't explain it quickly to people.

And, you know, I don't know what William Barr, the Attorney General,

is doing.

I don't either.

He's the boss.

Right.

He's their boss.

So I'm going to let that play out because I don't know.

You know a lot more than I do about this.

And by the way, that is probably the only subject on the planet that you know more than you do.

No, I knew it.

I know it.

Well,

financial status.

You know

more about it than I do.

That hurt.

That hurt you.

That hurts you.

Makes me know.

I give credit where credit is due.

You know, you did a lot of good work on this, and people should take it seriously and look at it.

But you say that is a coordinated effort.

And I don't know whether that's true on a micro level, but I do know that the press and the Democratic Party are working together on this impeachment thing.

They coordinate, okay, through K Street.

K-Street is a...

a famous avenue in Washington, D.C.

where the political action committees are.

And there are organizations that coordinate information between Democrats and the press.

So through K-Street, because

the press, and I'm talking now the big boys, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News, CNN, those are the four.

They know there's no Democratic candidate that can beat Trump right now.

You're watching Elizabeth Warren tell another whopper.

about she got fired because she was pregnant or any of this.

Now we know because of good reporting from the Washington Examiner, that's totally bogus.

All right, this goes into her lineage of Native American.

So she

is,

you know, going to get destroyed if she gets the nomination.

Biden,

he's already, he's been the major casualty of Ukraine.

So next Tuesday night, when the New York Times and CNN team up to moderate the debate, the Democratic debate, the fascinating part of that will be, are you you going to ask Biden about his son and all of this stuff in China and Ukraine?

Are you going to follow up with questions?

Because you know Biden's going to have a prepared answer.

Are you going to ask Elizabeth Warren about this other bogus pregnancy thing?

No.

Are you going to push her on it?

What do you think?

You think they will?

No, I don't think they will.

They'll ask Biden, but they won't push him on it because they all say it's a conspiracy theory.

And it's easy to say it's a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, so one question.

And then Warren, I don't think she even gets it.

How about Warren?

Did she get a pregnancy question?

I don't think so.

No.

I don't think so.

So they're in the tank.

And if that happens, there's going to be an outcry in the conservative media, which is primarily talk radio internet.

Because Fox News is not in the conservative media anymore.

They've not

wait a minute.

What does that mean?

What do you mean by that?

Well, it used to be...

that Fox News had a traditional slant,

which means this,

that the guy who ran the place, Roger Ailes, basically his philosophy was conservatives and traditional Americans are not heard in the media.

Correct.

Okay, that's how he founded the channel.

So we all knew, all of those who were working for him, that we had to give voice, not exclusive voice.

I certainly didn't.

I mean, I balanced it out.

But we had to give voice to that side.

That's gone.

What makes you say that?

What makes you say that?

They're not banishing.

They're not banishing.

They're not saying, oh, if you're conservative or Trisha, you can't come on Fox News.

There's plenty of conservative and traditionals on there.

But the voice that used to be there is not there any longer.

So

you have a network.

It's still pro-Trump in prime time.

but not in daytime.

And that's an interesting shift.

And it's driving Donald Trump crazy.

Here's another thing.

Trump lashed out at the Fox News poll.

You guys saw that, right?

Okay.

Well, instead of doing a factual lash out, like he should have done, and say, did you know that the Fox News poll questions 8%

more Democrats than Republicans on impeachment?

If you look at the methodology, the Fox News poll asked 8%

more

Democrats than Republicans.

And guess what the margin was for impeachment?

8%.

Oh,

what a shock.

Nobody knows that because nobody looks at the methodology.

I did.

But that's what he should have done.

Just say, you know, this is bogus.

This is a setup.

If you're going to ask 8% more of one certain party, then you're going to get 8% gap.

That's what you're going to get.

Right?

Am I crazy?

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

I want to play, I think this is Judy Woodruff from PBS.

I want to play the audio from PBS talking to Mike Pompeo yesterday, and they're talking about the Biden scandal, and listen to what was said.

Just finally, you know that there's been no proof of any misdoing on the part of Vice President Biden.

You all keep repeating that line as if you're working for the DNC.

I'm definitely not working for the DNC.

I'm an independent journalist, but the European Union, the U.S.

Embassy in Kiev, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations felt that that prosecutor was corrupt and thought he should be removed.

There's no evidence that what Vice President Biden was doing was corrupt in some way.

Well, Peter Schweitzer, how would you respond to that?

Well, what they want to do is they want to go to the firing of the prosecutor.

They don't want to talk about the underlying financial arrangements that the Biden family had in Ukraine.

And that's sort of

their get, right?

You can't prove that the crime occurred, so there's nothing to see here.

Let's back up again and remember, you know, in February of 2014, the Russians had moved into Crimea in the Ukraine.

The Yanukovych government had fallen.

There was a crisis.

Joe Biden is appointed point person by Barack Obama on U.S.

policy towards Ukraine.

The buck stops with him.

Literally two months after that fact, Glenn, his son, Hunter Biden, becomes a board member of Burisma, this corrupt Ukrainian energy company.

It's headed by Zlachevsky, this corrupt oligarch who was in the Yanukovych pro-Russian government to begin with.

And they pay Hunter, according to the banking records, $83,000 a month.

And he takes over $3 million in total from this Ukrainian company.

He has no background in energy.

He has no background in Ukraine.

And it's not even clear what he did, if anything.

Okay, hang on just a second.

I want to add to this his background, and I'm sure you've done enough reporting to know his background, especially at that time, he is a very unstable individual.

Yeah, I mean, you know, we obviously don't like to get into the personal situation.

And I don't want to say, I don't want to, look, I'm an alcoholic, so I don't want to denigrate him for that.

What I want to say is

he doesn't have any skills, and at the time, he's also an unstable alcoholic and drug guy that has,

if you were going to put somebody on the board, if he wasn't, if he didn't bring anything special, he didn't bring anything, any experience, and he was unstable, why would you hire this guy other than he's the dad of the vice president?

That's exactly right, Glenn.

He had substance abuse issues.

You add that onto the top of the fact that he had no experience and no background with this company.

And the question becomes, why was he being paid?

He's not being paid for his skill set or his expertise.

Why is he being paid?

Now, the response from a lot of the press corps, not all of it, but a lot of it, has been, well, this goes on all the time.

As if that's A, acceptable, or B, if that's actually true.

It is true.

We've had a history of family members, of politicians, you know,

trying to cash in.

You had Billy Carter back in the day.

You had some stuff with Neil Bush.

But what makes the Biden case unusual is how systematic and widespread it is.

It involves Ukraine.

It involves China.

There's this bank account that I think we've shared with you, Glenn, this Morgan Stanley account where Hunter Biden was drawing cash out of.

We got access to this bank account because of a criminal case involving Hunter Biden's business partner.

And that shows money coming from a Kazakh oligarch during the same period.

It shows money coming from anonymous Swiss bank accounts, particularly a small Swiss bank that has been implicated in money laundering in five countries.

So, I mean, to say, oh, well, nothing's been proven that it's wrong here is just laughable.

And it's this lack of curiosity.

Judy Woodruff doesn't even seem to be curious about any of this that is so bizarre.

And by the way,

she says here also that

nothing has been proven.

And the embassy even says that, that this guy was...

What she's saying is that these international groups did not say that he didn't do anything wrong.

She's using those international groups saying this prosecutor needed to be fired.

Well, that's a different thing.

And by the way, the prosecutor that replaced that prosecutor is investigating Joe Biden's son.

Exactly.

And Glenn, this is a key point.

It's a key point.

To say on the one hand that people think the prosecutor should be fired, and to say on the other hand that it is entirely inappropriate for Joe Biden to get this guy fired, those are not mutually exclusive.

Both of those are absolutely correct.

And the bottom line is that is an abuse of power by Joe Biden, and he is using his office to directly or indirectly benefit his son.

And the problem is that they've lied about this repeatedly.

I mean, first they said, Glenn, no, there was no investigation by Hunter.

That was already over before the guy was fired.

The prosecutor has denied that.

And even the Berezma Company's lawyer, a guy named Mr.

Beretta, who was hired in part at the suggestion of Hunter Biden, said the investigation was ongoing at this time.

It didn't end until later on.

So

here's another thing that, Peter, that maybe you can help shed some light on.

Joe Biden comes over, and this is all according to record.

He comes over and he says, look, I think we can help your gas and oil industry expand.

So he goes over and he says, we have $1.8 billion that we are going to give you in U.S.

aid.

And you guys, it'll help you guys explore.

At the same time, Burisma hires Devon Archer and Joe Biden, Joe Biden's son.

they're on the board, so they get the money.

Now, the money is put into

a bank called Private Bank, and it's owned by the oligarch that is running Burisma.

That $1.8 billion

just disappears.

We don't know where that money went.

So

why isn't anybody talking about that part of it?

No, that's exactly right.

I mean, this is another oligarch.

There are two oligarchs that are involved with burisma.

One of them is Lachewski.

The other one is named Kolomoyski.

And this guy is basically a bond villain.

He's out of a James Bond film.

In fact, he has in his office a large fish tank that has sharks swimming in it.

Just to sort of tell you how this guy rolls.

And he owns Prevat Bank, which is this large Ukrainian bank, which U.S.

and Western aid dollars and loan guarantees are sent into.

And the problem is that

a large chunk of that money disappears.

And Ukrainian anti-corruption groups have sort of traced what happened to the money.

And they make, I think, a very convincing case that Kolomovsky and his team set up a bunch of LLCs and siphoned off that money.

Correct.

So now you have a situation of missing aid dollars that seem to have benefited Kolomovsky, who is paying involved in the payment to Hunter Biden of these board fees, $83,000 a month.

And Kolomovsky is also a guy who, before the Bidens arrived, was known as such a bad bond villain that

he is on a do not enter, no visa list.

He cannot get a visa to come to the United States.

But in the month that we discover, oh, the money is missing, somehow or another, this guy gets a visa.

to be able to travel to the United States.

Who did that?

What was that?

Exactly.

And who arranged for that to be done?

We don't know, but it deserves investigation.

And this is the sort of thing that, to me, is so bizarre and has really further eroded what credibility a lot of news outlets have left that they've not even bothered really to lift a finger to look into this.

They've declared from the beginning there's nothing to see here.

They say that

this research is discredited.

They never tell you why.

They never say, well, here's the bank account.

Tell us what's discredited about the bank account.

Tell us what's discredited about Hunter Biden not being qualified.

Tell us what's discredited about this missing money.

They don't want to answer any of those questions.

And

what's clear to me is you see that Joe Biden has adopted the tact that he is going to refuse to talk about this because I think he knows how explosive it is.

In fact, Bloomberg just a couple minutes ago is reporting that they have put the Biden campaign has put the other Democrats on notice to say if you bring this up during the October 15th debate, you are going to be revealing yourself to not be a Democrat, that you are not a Democrat for even going there.

So they are basically saying, we're not going to answer any questions from the media.

If the media brings it up, we're going to lash out at you.

And if other Democrats bring it up, we're going to lash out at you.

The last thing they want to do is actually talk about this.

Wow, it's interesting because it is exactly, I mean, Americans can understand it this way.

Joe Biden is China.

This topic is free Hong Kong.

And anyone who talks about it, you're out.

I mean, that is, this is chilling, chilling, especially the way they wrote about you.

They attacked you for that article in the New York Times.

You did an op-ed piece at the request of the New York Times.

That's right.

That day, which was, what, two days ago, the Biden administration attacks the New York Times.

And what do they say to the New York Times?

They say to the New York Times, we cannot believe that you are running information that's been discredited by this discredited author.

And of course, again, they never explain what's discredited.

And what I'll tell you, Glenn, is we do, as I know you do, we do vigorous fact-checking here.

But for that piece, we talk about the deals in Ukraine, we talk about the deals in China.

That was all fact-checked by the New York Times.

So

there's really no dispute that these facts are there, the payments are there, the relationships are there.

But again, the Bidens don't want to respond about this.

Why do they not simply sit down, have Hunter come in and he and his father say, we are going to take questions for two hours on this, and then we don't want to talk about it anymore?

That would be the simple direct way to deal with it, but they're not going to do that because there's not good or even great answers to these questions.

Here's the reason why he can't.

And even if it was, even if he was completely innocent of everything, you can't.

This, when, I mean, he was a mess, and he was married, and he was a mess.

And all throughout this, he was an active alcoholic.

Then he cleans himself up.

His brother dies.

He grieves, but he grieves with his widow and then starts hooking up with his widow, gets a divorce from

his first wife, marries his brother's widow, then starts having an affair with another woman,

divorces her.

No, he doesn't have an affair.

He just divorces the widow, leaves behind the widow, and now is married again after meeting this woman for 10 days.

The guy is out of control.

I mean, even if he's completely innocent, you couldn't put him on the stand.

He's not mentally healthy, I don't think.

Yeah, and that certainly is possible.

That because of some of the personal demons he's dealing with,

that's fine.

But then Joe Biden ought to at least be able to come out.

And the other thing is, release some of the financial records.

I mean, all the things that we talk about, the fact that this fund in China, for example,

hang on, don't go to China yet.

Wait, wait.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.