The Great America Show - BIDENS ARE THE BAD GUYS

00:00:00.000 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs. This is The Great America Show. Welcome. Great to have you

00:00:08.100 with us. It is Wednesday, July 26, and mark the day, a big day for truth, justice, and the American

00:00:16.040 way. We may see today whether the rule of law is returning to our federal court system. The

00:00:22.980 sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden that the national mediaverse has been talking about for

00:00:28.340 the last few weeks is front and center, and Hunter Biden's attorneys are in big trouble, it appears.

00:00:35.780 Hunter Biden attorneys are due in court this afternoon, where Judge Mary Ellen Norica will

00:00:41.960 either accept or reject the terms of the slap on the wrist, the pat on the head deal for Hunter Biden.

00:00:48.920 But that is in jeopardy because Hunter Biden's attorneys face sanctions after being accused

00:00:54.880 of lying to the clerk in his criminal tax case as a judge, Judge Norica, has ordered the first son's

00:01:02.480 attorneys to explain themselves. The alleged dirty trick, a ploy to remove testimony from IRS whistleblowers

00:01:10.000 to remove it from the court docket. And Judge Norica ordering Hunter's attorneys to explain themselves.

00:01:18.380 That plea deal is a misdemeanor on tax fraud charges and the acknowledgement of illegally obtaining a gun

00:01:24.220 again, neither charge carrying prison time for Hunter Biden. A far different result would be the case for

00:01:31.640 99.9% of the rest of America. Not only is Hunter Biden the first son, a habitual drug user, a frequenter of

00:01:40.100 prostitutes, and pitch man for his father's quid pro quo services, now Hunter is actually a world-renowned

00:01:47.520 artist. An exclusive Business Insider's story breaking the latest that Hunter Biden has made more than a

00:01:54.900 million dollars at one art gallery selling his original prints. Here's the catch. One of the buyers

00:02:02.060 of Hunter's art happens to be a big Democratic donor, Elizabeth Hirsch Neftali. Neftali also happens to have

00:02:10.140 been appointed by President Joe Biden to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.

00:02:16.060 in July of 2022. The corruption of the Bidens couldn't be more transparent and in your face.

00:02:23.420 Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations is now reporting Joe Biden is also being protected,

00:02:29.460 along with his son, in his theft of classified documents as a senator and vice president.

00:02:35.920 Perry tweeted this.

00:02:37.520 Developing.

00:02:38.140 Special Counsel Rob Herr is having to negotiate conditions with DOJ and Biden's legal team,

00:02:45.120 including personal attorney Bob Bauer and White House counsel, for a possible interview with Biden

00:02:51.320 over his removal of classified documents when he left the White House in 2017. End quote.

00:02:58.400 So just how much longer will the Biden family get away with their crooked dealings?

00:03:03.020 Our guest today knows from personal experience how the federal government is protecting Joe Biden.

00:03:09.380 Joining us is Kevin Evans, attorney at law representing without question the people's

00:03:14.440 interest in seeking documents pertaining to the Biden crime family.

00:03:18.900 And Kevin is right now in court pursuing that very goal.

00:03:23.780 Kevin, great to have you back with us here on The Great America Show.

00:03:27.200 Let everybody know, if you will,

00:03:29.140 where you are in the judicial system now pursuing that FOIA and the public interest.

00:03:35.500 Sure.

00:03:36.300 Since I think we last chatted in January on this and what has transpired since

00:03:42.960 is that the government, Department of Justice, has filed a motion for summary judgment,

00:03:50.860 essentially asking the court to throw the case out on some technical grounds that I'll describe

00:03:57.260 here in a second. But I think I have to prelude that discussion with the government's underlying

00:04:03.020 position that they've asserted in their briefing and in their motion, which is, and I think your

00:04:09.460 audience will get a big kick out of this. The government, Department of Justice has actually

00:04:14.040 gone on record as saying that the public has a, quote, minimal FOIA interest in the Hunter Biden,

00:04:21.140 James Biden matter, which is the subject of my FOIA, a minimal public, a minimal interest,

00:04:28.280 and that the Biden interest is exceedingly greater than the public interest in understanding what's

00:04:36.080 going on with the Department of Justice, particularly in light of this recent plea deal.

00:04:40.640 Some have called it a sweetheart deal. I call it a sylph-like deal.

00:04:43.360 Um, but, um, yeah, so, so that's, that's the position they've staked. And so they've moved

00:04:50.160 for summary judgment. Um, and after saying publicly that they have found roughly 400 pages,

00:04:57.260 and I believe there's more, but after saying they've found roughly 400 pages of, and again,

00:05:02.900 their words, not mine, apparently responsive and potentially responsive records, when they realized

00:05:10.500 I wasn't going away, um, they then turned around and filed this motion and asserted LOMAR, which

00:05:19.160 is a, a doctrine, a case, out of a, a case that, a FOIA case from many years ago, essentially saying

00:05:26.160 that, um, we will now neither admit nor deny the existence of, uh, requested records, and, and so

00:05:35.120 therefore you can't prove your case that records exist and you lose. Uh, now, mind you, this is

00:05:40.440 after they've admitted that these records, at least 400 pages of, of records exist.

00:05:45.600 So, um, we had a hearing in court on Monday, uh, this past Monday, because I moved for discovery

00:05:52.060 after they asserted LOMAR, uh, in their motion, in their judgment, uh, motion for summary judgment

00:05:57.980 papers. And the court made a couple of interesting observations, uh, during the hearing on Monday,

00:06:04.560 which lasted about an hour and 20 minutes, he asked the government, the DOJ lawyer on the phone

00:06:10.820 from DC, who, by the way, couldn't appear in person. Right. He asked him, um, whether this was

00:06:17.820 a unique situation, uh, in light of the fact that the government has already admitted that these

00:06:23.040 records, at least a number of records exist. And ridiculously, the DOJ lawyer said, no, this is not

00:06:28.940 a unique situation. Uh, I responded by saying, well, then maybe they should point us to a case

00:06:34.860 because I've done significant research on this and I can't find a case where an agency has had

00:06:40.840 the chutzpah of doing what DOJ has done here, uh, which is turn around and assert LOMAR after

00:06:46.280 acknowledging that records exist. And the court agreed with me and said, no, I, you know, I'm, I'm sorry.

00:06:52.880 This is a unique situation. Uh, you've already admitted existence of record. So here's what

00:06:57.960 you're going to do DOJ. He ordered them to submit a declaration in camera for his review. I don't

00:07:05.560 get to see it, at least not at this point, explaining the search that they conducted, uh, where they

00:07:12.640 found these 400 pages of documents, attaching examples of those documents, and then informing

00:07:19.860 the court whether DOJ has disclosed any of those documents or the information in those documents

00:07:26.420 to anyone outside the executive branch of government. Uh, and in follow-up, uh, by me,

00:07:32.740 he said, yeah, that includes Hunter Biden's lawyer. So if you disclose these to Hunter, this information

00:07:37.300 or documents to Hunter Biden's lawyers, you need to tell the court that. Um, I, I, I, I raised that

00:07:43.700 because of what's happened, uh, recently, what's come to light in terms of what happened with this

00:07:48.780 search warrant in Delaware, where this AUSA wolf stepped in and alerted Hunter Biden's lawyers to

00:07:55.980 the fact that there was a search warrant, giving them time to do whatever they wanted to do to

00:08:00.940 remove records from the facility that was going to be searched. So I got the court to, to, um, put

00:08:07.660 on the record that this includes Hunter Biden's lawyers. So they have until July 28 to, um, provide

00:08:14.540 that declaration and the court made it clear that he expected a very robust declaration, not,

00:08:19.660 you know, just, uh, conclusory statements. And then we'll decide whether Glomar has been waived.

00:08:27.740 And Glomar, just to, to be clear for all of us, uh, non-attorneys, Glomar is what doctrine? What does it

00:08:35.180 state? So it, it comes from a CIA, a case, a FOIA request against the CIA related to, uh, a Howard

00:08:43.180 Hughes vessel many years ago. And essentially what it states is that if the agency, pick your agency,

00:08:51.180 whether it's DOJ, CIA, FBI, regardless, uh, if the agency believes that, um, there are exemptions that

00:09:00.380 apply here. In other words, what the DOJ has asserted here are unwarranted invasions into the

00:09:06.700 Biden's privacy interests. Um, if the DOJ in this case believes that there are such exemptions,

00:09:15.660 uh, the DOJ can, uh, say that we will neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.

00:09:23.900 We don't have to tell you whether responsive records exist. We're just going to tell you

00:09:28.140 we're neither confirming nor denying the existence of those records. That's what Glomar is.

00:09:33.260 You know, that that's a doctrine that I think should go away. What, what do you think?

00:09:37.500 I think it's absurd. I mean, it's like, it's like some kid making up a game, uh, you know,

00:09:46.300 heads, I win tails, you lose, you know, uh, it's, uh, preposterous on its face. I don't understand how

00:09:52.860 that doctrine could survive until I pause. And I think, wait a minute, we're dealing with

00:09:58.060 the federal government. Of course, that kind of illogic and absurdity would exist, uh, for

00:10:03.900 corrupt purposes, if for no other, don't you think? Well, I mean, there are exemptions, uh,

00:10:09.100 under FOIA. I mean, and the, the courts have, although they give lip service to the fact that

00:10:15.020 those exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Um, the courts have over the years broadly construed

00:10:22.700 them in the government's favor. Uh, and so the, the government has created this fiction that if

00:10:28.940 we tell you these documents exist or potentially responsive documents exist, then that's going to,

00:10:35.340 um, invade the privacy interest in this case of Hunter Biden, um, because we would have to disclose

00:10:41.740 that those documents exist. And that, that, that, that, that sheds negative light on Hunter Biden.

00:10:47.020 Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what more negative light needs to be shown on Hunter Biden,

00:10:52.940 but you know, that's the position. Yeah. You would think that would be firmly established in the

00:10:57.580 public consciousness, uh, including that of, uh, of judges, prosecutors, uh, and law enforcement.

00:11:04.860 So if the court finds that Glomar has been waived, um, it will be my position that the government

00:11:13.740 must either disclose the documents in their entirety or, and we're talking about these 400 pages of

00:11:21.500 records that they've already admitted exist, or they can, they can produce them in redacted fashion

00:11:28.220 and having quite a bit of experience in FOIA cases. Um, that's exactly what they do. I mean,

00:11:35.820 it ends up being like Valerie Plame's book, if you, if you know what I'm talking about, almost,

00:11:39.740 you know, pages of. Right. And so, um, you know, but, but that's something they could do,

00:11:44.940 and they could say, well, here's the exemption we're asserting with respect to this redaction,

00:11:49.180 and then we'd be refining over the redaction. So that's where I'm hopeful that we can,

00:11:54.860 we can get this case. Well, it's interesting because all of this coming together, there's a,

00:12:00.940 a great, uh, conflation, if you will, uh, in, uh, Hunter Biden's cases, he's being, uh, deposed

00:12:09.660 by in a lawsuit with a laptop repair shop owner. Uh, he is also, uh, obviously, uh, in jeopardy of

00:12:18.620 running afoul of the investigating agencies of the, of the house of representatives.

00:12:23.900 And by running afoul of, I mean, they are trying to bring the vice tighter and tighter

00:12:30.860 in order to produce all the documents and to actually get testimony, uh, from the agencies

00:12:37.660 that have been working with them, including those, the internal revenue service, the U S

00:12:42.060 attorney in Delaware, the department of justice and FBI all working together to come up with one

00:12:49.020 of the sweetest sweetheart deals imaginable that is on tax evasion, walking away with two misdemeanors,

00:12:55.100 uh, and, uh, and a gun felony that, uh, could be expunged, uh, just because they're awfully good

00:13:03.820 people. Uh, we're, we're talking with attorney Kevin Evans. He's pursuing, uh, your right to know

00:13:10.700 what the Biden family is doing and what the FBI knows about it all. Please stay with us. We'll be

00:13:17.900 right back. And we're back talking with attorney, Kevin Evans, Kevin, let's give us a sense, your sense

00:13:30.620 of, of, of where your case, your, uh, pursuit of these documents relating to James and Hunter Biden,

00:13:40.780 where they fit in context with all of the lawsuits that are going on and investigations

00:13:47.660 of the Biden crime family. So the, the FOIA request that I have served, and it was served

00:13:53.100 back in November of, um, 2020, by the way. Um, the, um, the FOIA request asked for records pertaining to

00:14:05.580 gifts, payments, that type of thing, um, to Hunter Biden in one paragraph, James Biden in the other,

00:14:13.420 from three specific countries, um, countries of China, Russia, and Ukraine. And if we're

00:14:23.020 successful, um, and we get those records, then they will indicate, um, you know, what DOJ has looked

00:14:31.420 into with, or not looked into with respect to these payments and gifts. And I will tell you that,

00:14:41.340 I mean, I have significant white collar experience. I mean, I've been doing this for 39 years and I've

00:14:46.140 had, I've had significant white collar experience, including several multi-month trials, white-collar

00:14:51.820 trials. And I've also conducted numerous internal investigations, including in Afghanistan.

00:14:58.460 I will tell you that one of two things happened here. Either there was a thoroughly inept and

00:15:04.460 incompetent investigation, or there's been a completely corrupt investigation and charging

00:15:11.420 decision. And in my humble opinion, with my experience, based upon what it looks like with

00:15:18.220 everything coming to light and thank God for Mr. Shapley. Um, it's looking like the latter.

00:15:24.300 This was a complete corrupt investigation, uh, preordained from the get go.

00:15:30.380 So to see these couple of dozen who have, um, approached the judiciary and oversight committees

00:15:38.300 in the house, as well as the Senate judiciary committee, uh, it, it gives me, uh, I was growing

00:15:45.420 very cynical about what the FBI and the justice department stood for. I am still overwhelmed by

00:15:51.260 the corruption of both places, but it's good to know that there are some good and decent and strong

00:15:56.620 Americans still working in those two places. Well, isn't it curious that of all, of all places,

00:16:03.500 the New York times came out today and, um, um, says it is confirmed, uh, what Mr. Shapley and the other

00:16:11.900 IRS whistleblower have said through independent sources. So, you know, now that this has gotten so

00:16:18.380 bad, the stench is so overwhelming that now the open, you know, the mainstream media is having a difficult

00:16:24.380 time trying to cover, uh, run cover for this, this outfit. And, um, uh, and, and, and so I am, I like

00:16:34.460 you, um, find some solace and, um, and, and believe me, I worked in this area for a long time, but there

00:16:41.740 are good people. There are very good people at these organizations. Um, I mean, my brother works for a

00:16:48.220 government agency, um, albeit overseas and has for a number of years. There are really good people,

00:16:53.500 uh, in there, but you know, they're not at the top echelon where this corruption, uh, is so pervasive.

00:16:59.900 It is interesting because the New York times is the, I would say the, the pillar of fourth estate,

00:17:09.180 uh, uh, commitment to the Marxist Dems who lead the democratic party. And this suggests to me, Kevin,

00:17:16.940 that when the New York times makes this turn, it looks like the leadership of that, uh,

00:17:23.340 Marxist Dems group that, uh, leads the democratic party have decided that perhaps Joe Biden is not

00:17:31.340 going to survive this, uh, at least, uh, as a candidate, uh, in 2024. Well, I think that's,

00:17:38.460 that is certainly an observation that's out there. And I think it's probably about as good of good as

00:17:43.580 any. Um, you mentioned Weiss. I don't want to condone what he did here. Um, because quite frankly,

00:17:53.420 um, I think what, what Weiss should have done, if in fact, he, he did ask for special counsel status,

00:18:00.940 and if he did ask for charges to be brought in California and DC and was stymied, he should have

00:18:09.340 resigned. Um, he should have sent up the red flag and resigned. He should have done what any morally,

00:18:16.380 in my opinion, responsible attorney in that position would have done. I mean,

00:18:19.740 we all remember the Watergate era, right? Archibald Cox, et cetera. Right. That's what they did.

00:18:23.820 Um, and that's what, that's exactly what Weiss should have done. And he didn't do it. Now we

00:18:29.420 can all speculate as to why he didn't do it. I have my own thoughts. I'm not interested in putting

00:18:34.140 those out in the, on the air, but, um, you know, that, that, that, in my opinion, is what Weiss

00:18:39.420 should have done. He should not have been led by the nose by an AUSA from his, um, district, 0.84

00:18:45.180 for instance, uh, who, um, informed Biden's lawyers, apparently of a search warrant. Um,

00:18:52.780 nor should he have been just simply accepted and rolled over when he was told that these more

00:18:58.140 significant charges would not have been brought. If he believed they should have been brought and he was

00:19:02.540 told no, then that that's what he should have done in my opinion. Now, having said that,

00:19:08.300 I will tell you that I don't hear any, I don't hear this talked about. I hear a lot of pundits

00:19:15.100 saying, well, the statute of limitations has run because the government so slow walked this.

00:19:21.740 That's true with respect to perhaps some of these charges. But what I don't hear being talked about

00:19:28.220 is the significant charge that, in my opinion, still could be brought.

00:19:32.860 And, and that is a RICO conspiracy claim, um, where the shell companies that all this money was

00:19:40.460 dumped into, uh, are the, it would be considered the enterprises, or the enterprise, and the individuals

00:19:47.740 would be the RICO defendants. And you, the predicate acts would be things like money laundering and wire

00:19:52.140 fraud, where, you know, if you have one of those instances, and I got to believe that there are several

00:19:57.660 of those instances during the last four years, all you have to do is transfer money from one account

00:20:02.620 to another. Um, and that's part of the money laundering conspiracy. Um, I still think that is a

00:20:10.460 really significant charge that could and should be pursued and can be brought. And that carries with

00:20:18.140 it real jail time, you know, not slap on the wrist stuff. That's years of jail time.

00:20:24.460 Well, you're bringing up a very interesting point. And you're right. I haven't heard anyone mention

00:20:31.340 the RICO charge. And we do know, thanks to the investigations of the House Oversight Committee,

00:20:36.780 that there are, uh, well over a dozen companies involved, uh, in the transfer of monies from both

00:20:45.260 foreign, uh, corporations and enterprises and, uh, uh, foreign, uh, governments, uh, to those accounts

00:20:53.420 that ultimately resulted in money, uh, in the accounts of, uh, well, uh, Hunter Biden, uh, and his, uh,

00:21:02.140 members of his family. We are talking with attorney Kevin Evans. We're talking

00:21:06.700 about corruption in our federal government and what's being done about it. One of the things

00:21:12.700 while you're watching one citizen, Kevin Evans, attorney at law, pursuing truth through the FOIA

00:21:19.980 request with the Department of Justice and the FBI about none other than Hunter and James Biden.

00:21:27.420 We'll be right back. Stay with us.

00:21:29.180 We're back. We're talking with Kevin Evans, and we're talking about the possibility

00:21:39.980 of overcoming all of these statute of limitations, uh, impact on the charges against, uh, Hunter Biden

00:21:48.140 in particular, uh, and perhaps members of his family, uh, including possibly the president of the United

00:21:54.940 States. The RICO, give us a, give us what are the, the requisites, uh, for a RICO to, to, to be brought

00:22:02.780 and, uh, uh, and prevail. So RICO charges are hard, but if there were ever were a relatively simple

00:22:11.980 RICO case, in my opinion, this is it. Um, and so what you need in that respect, and this will be

00:22:19.260 in order to get around the statute of limitations, if I were the prosecutor, I would charge this as

00:22:23.820 a RICO conspiracy. And so what you need in that case is you need what's called an enterprise.

00:22:30.860 Um, and the enterprise here, the criminal enterprise would be these shell corporations

00:22:37.900 where monies from Burisma, from the Chinese, the $5 billion that came from, uh, the China, uh,

00:22:48.460 colleague of Hunter Biden. That was the subject of this recent WhatsApp message. Um, if that money

00:22:54.940 goes into those shell companies, those shell companies become the enterprise and then you

00:23:00.540 charge. So they're not a defendant, the shell companies are not a defendant, but who are the

00:23:05.180 defendants are the individuals who benefited from and participated in the conduct, uh, resulting in

00:23:13.820 the payments to those enterprises or, and or the payments out of those enterprises. So Hunter Biden

00:23:20.540 being one, um, he would be a RICO defendant. And if you have what are called predicate acts,

00:23:27.740 and there's a whole laundry list of predicate acts, but money laundering is a predicate act, wire fraud is

00:23:34.060 a predicate act. Um, then, uh, if you have one of those within the statute of limitations,

00:23:41.900 uh, then you are, uh, not barred by the, and the RICO statute of limitations, by the way, is four years.

00:23:50.220 Um, you are not barred from pursuing charges that relate to similar conduct that occurred before the

00:23:58.620 four year period. So this, this allows you to go back and capture, um, the other payments that are outside

00:24:05.980 the four year period, as long as you've got predicate acts within the four year period. And I have to believe

00:24:11.180 that there are several predicate acts, uh, that have taken place since 2018.

00:24:18.700 So we're looking at, uh, 2019 would be the, the cutoff here. Uh, correct.

00:24:26.540 So if there were payments, for instance, out of those shell companies, uh, to pick, pick your person,

00:24:34.220 uh, that would be part of the, in my opinion, the money laundering part of this case.

00:24:40.860 I, I don't see the, by the way, I, speaking of the public interest, I don't see the public interest

00:24:46.460 in a statute of limitations for something like, uh, RICO and, uh, on its, on its face. If you,

00:24:53.020 if you have a case built there, I don't see why there should be any limitation,

00:24:58.220 statute of limitations on bringing that case. What is the reasoning on the public interest in permitting,

00:25:03.660 uh, permitting a crime to succeed if you can last for four years outside of prosecution?

00:25:12.780 Well, I mean, I'm, I represent a lot of defendants over the years in white collar matters. So I am,

00:25:19.100 I'm, I, I, I won't, I won't say that I'm not, um, I, I don't think the statute of limitations is, um,

00:25:28.540 is so unusual or so, um, antithetical to justice because,

00:25:33.180 you know, my, when you have witnesses whose memories fade and, um, things of that nature, um,

00:25:40.380 it just, you know, these, these kinds of claims go stale. And if you're allowed to go back too far,

00:25:46.700 uh, then you start impacting the rights of individuals who are charged. So I'm not, I mean,

00:25:52.620 the statute of limitations does have a purpose. Um, but here, I, I just simply think that

00:26:00.540 if the, if the government were doing its job, if DOJ was doing its job, and I wonder whether

00:26:05.500 anybody has given any thought to this in the department of justice, uh, in terms of a RICO charge,

00:26:11.740 if they were doing their job, they, I, I, I'm quite confident they would be able to find predicate

00:26:16.220 acts within the last four years. Well, it's, it's pretty clear to me that David Weiss wasn't thinking

00:26:21.340 about it, uh, because this would have been a perfect, uh, approach for him to take, but he was also

00:26:27.260 prescribed, uh, according to reports, uh, from bringing charges without being in concert with, uh,

00:26:35.180 justice, Maine, uh, uh, California's, uh, us attorney, uh, it, it's, it was really, uh,

00:26:43.100 he was hamstrung, uh, in point of fact, wasn't he by a justice department that said it wasn't taking

00:26:49.020 orders from the white house and wasn't intervening in any Hunter Biden case. It seems pretty clear.

00:26:54.140 That's exactly what they were doing. Yeah. I mean, someone's lying here, right? Um,

00:26:58.460 is it the six whistleblower? Is it the, is it the six people who sat in a room with Weiss and listened

00:27:02.620 to him, uh, including the two whistleblowers or is it Garland? I mean, there's no in between here.

00:27:07.740 Somebody is lying. And, uh, now Garland may have tried to insulate himself through the deputy AG

00:27:14.460 and say, well, no one ever brought to my attention the fact that he wanted to be a special counsel.

00:27:19.340 Um, and that's how Garland gets, gets around it. Okay. Well, call the deputy AG before the house ways and

00:27:25.580 means, uh, and the oversight committee and, um, grill them because somebody here isn't telling

00:27:32.860 the truth. And my bet is it's main justice. So, but, but I get back to Weiss. I mean,

00:27:38.140 I'm not excusing his conduct here. If that, if he truly did seek to have DC and California pursue

00:27:44.300 charges and he did seek to have special counsel status and he was denied it, he should have walked

00:27:50.220 away. And that would have set up all kinds of red flags. Well, the red flags are flying in every

00:27:57.420 direction right now. Garland, uh, and Weiss, uh, no interference, they say, but six witnesses saying,

00:28:05.820 yes, as you point out, uh, the, the lines are pretty clear now, uh, and they're getting clearer by the day

00:28:12.700 and more lines are showing up, whether it is this instance or whether it is, uh, for example,

00:28:18.700 uh, the decisions about, uh, taking on a former president of the United States, finding a

00:28:25.100 magistrate to approve a search and seizure, uh, warrant, uh, as, uh, as they did. Uh, I, I mean,

00:28:33.260 there's just, this is a justice department that is, that's gone rogue, uh, but they've gone rogue so

00:28:40.300 far. It almost seems like standard operating procedure, doesn't it? Well, I could, I could, uh,

00:28:45.100 regale you with other instances where the Department of Justice has gone rogue over the years.

00:28:50.380 I've been involved in several instances like that. We don't have the time to go into them now,

00:28:54.700 but let me just tell you, this is not a new development. Um, there are

00:28:59.580 repeated instances that I personally have knowledge of where the Department of Justice has hid

00:29:04.940 exculpatory information, where they've overcharged people, um, where they have ruined lives,

00:29:11.580 uh, only to have a jury come back with not guilty verdicts. Um, I mean, it's just outrageous

00:29:17.020 that the conduct has taken place over the years. So this is not anything new in my experience. The

00:29:22.540 level of it here perhaps is what's so, um, interesting and, uh, unique in, in my opinion,

00:29:30.300 uh, particularly given that the people we're dealing with, but you know, there is a, there is a solution

00:29:34.620 here, Lou. Um, if, if this judge is doing her job and is truly looking out for the rule of law and the

00:29:42.540 integrity of the judicial system, she could refuse to rubber stamp this plea deal and she could haul 0.99

00:29:50.140 people into court before her and ask them some pretty tough questions. Now, is that likely to happen?

00:29:56.780 I'm not holding my breath. If I were sitting there as the judge on this case, it's exactly what I'd do.

00:30:01.580 Yeah. We're learning a lot about the judges in our court system, particularly in DC, uh, Florida,

00:30:08.380 uh, and a few other States as well. Uh, as you put it, I won't be holding my breath either,

00:30:14.300 but I certainly will be hoping like the Dickens that we can find integrity among these judges

00:30:19.820 in the federal judiciary, because there is the perfect example of what you're talking about an FBI

00:30:25.500 and a DOJ that have gone rogue, but right now sitting in jails in DC and environs in the federal

00:30:33.020 prison system, hundreds of our fellow citizens who were there, they've been overcharged for January 6th,

00:30:39.580 walking through the Capitol, uh, after having been invited in some instances, the book has been thrown

00:30:46.540 at every one of these people, irrespective of their level of culpability. If there is any culpability at all,

00:30:52.220 uh, some people definitely broke the law and they are being punished, uh, and will be punished.

00:30:59.740 But I'm talking about hundreds of people who are just simply being made an example of, and who are

00:31:04.300 political prisoners. And there seems to be no law against prosecutors who overcharge or judges who

00:31:11.500 over sentence. We always give our guests, Kevin, as you know, the last word you're concluding thoughts

00:31:17.100 on all of this, if you will. Well, let me just, with respect to that last comment, let me just say

00:31:21.500 that, I mean, we're not just talking about the January 6th folks here. There, there are plenty

00:31:25.100 of people sitting in jail at this, as we speak on tax evasion charges and RICO charges, right? Um,

00:31:33.340 so this is selective. This is an example of selective prosecution in the extreme, uh, only on the reverse

00:31:39.900 side. They're, they're deciding not to prosecute. Um, and so my hope is that by the, by the time we next

00:31:47.660 chat, um, we will be in a position to tell you that, uh, or at least I will be in a position to tell you

00:31:53.820 that, um, the government, uh, has lost its effort at summary judgment. The court has looked at the

00:31:59.900 documents and the information that's been presented and has determined that there's enough there for this

00:32:05.100 case to proceed and that the government is going to have to try to show that Hunter Biden and James

00:32:11.340 Biden's privacy interest exceed that of the public. And, um, I don't know how they make that showing,

00:32:18.620 but I guess time will tell. Kevin, we appreciate you being with us. We appreciate you spending time

00:32:24.220 to educate us all and to eliminate the events that are, uh, shaping this country in this particular

00:32:32.140 moment in history. Thanks so much, Kevin Evans. We appreciate it. God bless you.

00:32:37.260 Thank you. Thank you everybody for listening. Our guest here tomorrow will be attorney and author,

00:32:42.060 former Trump top DOD official Kash Patel on impeaching the Biden regime. Please join us and

00:32:49.580 please follow me on Twitter and truth social at Lou Dobbs. That's at Lou Dobbs and on Facebook and

00:32:55.500 Instagram at Lou Dobbs tonight, and be sure to check out our new Lou Dobbs.com website.

00:33:02.140 Please join us here tomorrow for the great America show until then. God bless you. God bless America.

The Great America Show - July 26, 2023

BIDENS ARE THE BAD GUYS

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript