BIDENS ARE THE BAD GUYS
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
156.95306
Summary
Hunter Biden's plea deal is in jeopardy because Judge Mary Ellen Norica has ordered the first son's attorneys to explain themselves. The corruption of the Biden crime family couldn t be more transparent and in your face. Special Counsel Rob Herr is now negotiating conditions with DOJ and Biden s legal team over his removal of classified documents when he left the White House in 2017.
Transcript
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.
00:02:38.140
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.
00:03:29.140
where you are in the judicial system now pursuing that FOIA and the public interest.
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,
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.
00:21:29.180
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
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.