Is Biden The " Manchurian Candidate" ?? Watch Explosive Mark Levin Show From Fox News - The Jewish Voice
54 F
New York
Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Is Biden The ” Manchurian Candidate” ?? Watch Explosive Mark Levin Show From Fox News

- Advertisement -

Related Articles

-Advertisement-

Must read

FUll TRANSCRIPT: MARK LEVIN, FOX NEWS HOST:  Hello, America. I’m Mark Levin and this is
LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.
 
Do we have a Manchurian Candidate in the Oval Office? It certainly appears
that way, and what am I talking about? What I’m talking about, first of
all, is a corrupt media, an opportunistic media, an agenda-driven media
that for months covered up the corruption that is the Biden crime family.
 
The head of the Biden crime family, they still won’t admit it, is Joseph
Biden, Jr.
 
The media in this country during the last election, when they were
confronted with a true story about a laptop, Hunter Biden, a computer fixer
who had that laptop and hard drive, who found incredible amounts of data,
e-mail, and so forth on there — what did the media do? They covered it up.
What did the Big Tech oligarchs do? They not only covered it up, but they
banned “The New York Post.” They banned other media outlets. They banned
any individual who dared to refer to it.
 
How about the Democrats in the House, what were they doing? Did they
conduct an investigation to find out what was taking place? No.
 
How about the broadcast media? On the whole, another cabal of cover up
artists and censors who said that this was a Russian plant, and they found
51 people with backgrounds in Intelligence, boy, what an anomaly that is —
who said it clearly was Russia propaganda.
 
And when Donald Trump tried to bring it up during the course of debate, he
was cut off by Chris Wallace, who wouldn’t allow it to be discussed.
 
This is the state of media in America. We do not have a free press. We have
the equivalent of TASS or Pravda. We have a corrupt media.
 
We have a media that sings from one sheet. We have a media that
regurgitates down the line. Well, one outfit sets and the next outfit says.
Well, something interesting happened.
 
“The New York Times” came out with a piece a few weeks ago and said this is
authentic. Now, here’s the interesting thing. They didn’t actually say it
was authentic, it was a long piece they wrote, and then somewhere in the
article, they pointed out, they flagged that in fact, this laptop and these
e-mails seem to be authentic, and that they’ve been substantiated. Who are
they substantiated by? I guess, the prosecutors who are leaking this
information, the career prosecutors out of the Wilmington U.S. Attorney’s
Office, that’s my guess.
 
Because it was as recently as September 2021 that “The New York Times”
dismissed the Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation. And they did it
at the height of the campaign as well. So people who voted, apart, from all
the other corruption that took place and all the other violations of the
Federal Constitution that took place such as in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,
the fact of the matter is, many people voted without information that the
Biden family was being paid by the Communist Chinese government and by
their military.
 
Then we get this piece from “The Washington Post.” Wow. Get this piece last
week from “The Washington Post.” It is a very long piece, but I want to
read a few parts to you, because most of us don’t read “The Washington
Post” and for good reason.
 
“The Post” did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from
or new details about the transactions with CEFC. CEFC is the Chinese energy
company, and it is a massive front company for the Chinese government and
the Chinese military, which took place after he had left the vice
presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White
House in 2020.
 
So right away, in paragraph number five, “The Washington Post” is trying to
do a cover up for Joe Biden. Well, why are “The New York Times” and “The
Washington Post” even writing about these things? Why? Because the
prosecutors are moving fast now, and they don’t want to be completely
behind the ball and seem like the complete frauds that they are.
 
But there are new documents, which include a signed copy of a $1 million
legal retainer, e-mails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million and
consulting fees that are confirmed in “… new bank records, so that’s
about $5 million and agreements signed by Hunter Biden, illustrate the ways
in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s
decades in public service.”
 
Joe Biden’s decades of public service, they used his name, his family
benefits to at least $5 million, but Joe doesn’t know anything about it.
This is a lie being perpetrated by the media and this would be enough, this
should be enough for an investigation in the House of Representatives, but
they’re too busy investigating minor misdemeanors like trespass and
parading on private property over there at the Department of Justice,
January 6.
 
They are too busy over there at the Department of Justice investigating
parents who dare to challenge School Boards. They’re too busy investigating
the Georgia Republican Legislature that dares to change its election laws
to conform with traditional election processes.
 
We know exactly what’s going on here, exactly. But let’s go on. What else
do we find here?
 
“Accounts linked Hunter Biden received at least $3.79 million in payments
from CEFC,” just remember that’s the Communist Chinese and the communist
military front company, ” … through consulting contracts according to
bank records and joint agreements reviewed by ‘The Washington Post.'”
 
You know, I said here, back then, this laptop, it has got the names of
individuals. It’s got dates on it. It’s got times on it. It’s got a
thousand methods for confirming the authenticity of what is on the laptop.
Where are the media? Media in cover up mode.
 
“Biden received an additional $1 million retainer issued as part of an
agreement to represent Patrick Ho, a CEFC official who would later be
charged in the U.S. in connection with a multimillion dollar scheme to
bribe leaders from Chad and Uganda.”
 
“An intermediary from CEFC initially reached out to Hunter Biden in
December 2015 to set up a meeting between the then Vice President’s son and
Ye Jianming, the founder and chairman of the Chinese firm, according to
verified e-mails from a purported copy of the laptop hard drive reviewed by
the outside experts for ‘The Post.'”
 
So this information was known to “The Washington Post” and “The New York
Times” before the election. They chose not to look.
 
“CEFC is a massive oil and gas company founded in 2002, had financing from
government, development banks, and ties to the Chinese Communist Party and
the People’s Liberation Army according to people who studied the firm.”
 
“The contract signed on August 2, 2017 — August 2, 2017 — stated that
Hunter Biden would get a one-time retainer of $500,000.00 and would then
receive a monthly stipend of $100,000.00 with his uncle, James Biden
getting $65,000.00 a month.”
 
It says, “Later, the money began flowing almost immediately, with the first
incoming wire of $5 million, arriving in August 8, 2017 according to
documents found on the copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop again, and
corroborated by identical bank statements that Grassley’s office — Senator
Grassley — obtained from Cathay Bank for an account jointly held by Hunter
Biden and CEFC execs.”
 
By my calculation, we are almost at $10 million now. This doesn’t even
count the corruption with Ukraine or other countries. This is just
Communist China.
 
Later on in the article: “During the time the CEFC was active, funds were
being transferred from Hunter Biden to his uncle, records show.” Oh, Jimmy
Biden.
 
“All told nearly $1.4 million went from Hunter’s company to one controlled
by James Biden, according to a 2020 report produced by Grassley and fellow
Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.” So they had this again during
the course of the last election.
 
“The transactions were identified as potential criminal activity, a
designation meant to flag potential money laundering, political corruption,
or other financial crimes according to a report from the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network at the Treasury Department that was reviewed by ‘The
Post.'”
 
Now, I’m not going to overwhelm you with more information. It gets worse.
There’s more with the Biden crime family, more. Now, Joe Biden’s role, oh,
“The Washington Post” said there was no role — and whatever “The
Washington Post” says, of course is true, as it covered up the laptop to
make sure that Biden would be unaffected and unencumbered with it during
the election.
 
Look at how the media circled around him during the debate — Chris
Wallace, “The Washington Post,” “The New York Times,” the big oligarchs and
Big Tech, just a disgusting cover up.
 
Well, here’s “The New York Post,” Miranda Devine, who’s been on this and
she points out to Bobulinski who was a business partner, who came forward,
who had nothing to gain by coming forward, a former Navy SEAL. He puts it
all on the line.
 
He said: “‘I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked Hunter
about his business.’ Bobulinski would say in a bombshell statement to ‘The
New York Post’s’ Michael Goodwin on October 22, 2020 before the election.
‘I’ve seen firsthand that’s not true because it wasn’t just Hunter’s
business. They said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy
on the line. I don’t have a political axe to grind. I just saw behind the
Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family
aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars
from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled
China.'”
 
“Now less than two weeks after meeting Joe Biden,” Miranda wrote,
“Bobulinski incorporated Sino-Hawk Holdings LLC on May 15, 2017 — that
year 2017 — having decided against Hunter’s suggestion they call it CEFC
America.” Hunter Biden wanted to call it after the Communist Chinese
regime’s name for its company.
 
“It will be a global investment firm seeded with $10 million of Chinese
money.” We just talked about that, remember? “That would buy projects in
the U.S. and around the world in global and/or domestic infrastructure,
energy, financial services and other strategic sectors said the contract he
had drawn up.”
 
“Sino-Hawk would be 50 pDonatebalance of natureercent Owned by Ye Jianming, Chairman of the
communist company, CEFC through a Delaware Incorporated CEFC entity, Hudson
West IV LLC; the other 50 percent will be owned by Oneida Holdings LLC,
another Delaware firm set up by Bobulinski. Now, Oneida would be split
according to an e-mail sent by James Gilliar to the group on May 13, 2017
laying out the distribution of shares.”
 
Ready? Twenty to H, Hunter; 20 to RW, Walker; 20 to JG, Gilliar; 20 to TB,
Bobulinski; 10 to Jim Biden; 10 held for H for the Big Guy.
 
“Three years later, Bobulinski would tell the world, there is no question
that the big guy is Joe Biden. Hunter Biden call his dad, the Big Guy or My
Chairman and frequently referenced asking him for his sign off for advice
on various potential deals that we were closing.”
 
There is much more on this and ties to Joe Biden, the now President of the
United States. No wonder the media covered up for him.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, we need a Federal Special Counsel. We cannot leave it
to Merrick Garland and the political appointees at the Department of
Justice. This is why we have Special Counsels, an experienced, competent,
independent Federal prosecutor who puts together a team, a Special Counsel
Office to investigate Joe Biden his family, the dealings with Communist
China, the dealings with Ukraine, the dealings with Russia, the dealings
with Romania, the dealings with all of these governments.
 
Biden told a flat out lie as he often does that he knew nothing of his
son’s business practices. We have witnesses, we have contemporary
information, documents, a laptop, which has now been authenticated by “The
New York Times,” so we know it’s accurate. We’ve got a ton of evidence that
would trigger any investigation of a sitting President of the United
States. We’ve not had one single hearing in the Democratic-controlled House
of Representatives, as they’re chasing down paraders and trespassers on
minor misdemeanors with the January 6 Committee.
 
We need a Biden crime family committee and we need one right now. We need
to know what the hell is going on. Communist China is our biggest enemy,
and they’re staring us down. And it is my contention, we have a man in the
Oval Office who is by all evidence, corrupt, bought off, and we need it
now.
 
When we come back, we have two great guests: Senator Ted Cruz and David
Mamet, who is a fantastic writer and playwright, and you’ll be fascinated
by his story.
 
I’ll be right back.
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
HILTON:  Welcome back, America.
 
The United States Supreme Court as the only Court actually mentioned in the
Constitution of the United States. These are big appointments, lifetime
appointments. The nation suffers mightily if the wrong people are on the
Court; it does pretty well if the right people are on the Court. And Joe
Biden limited his choices to African-American women who are on Courts, and
that’s a limited number of individuals and he chose the most radical.
 
The left-wing groups and dark money got behind the candidacy of Judge
Jackson, and one of the great legal minds in this country serves in the
Senate, it is Ted Cruz. He was a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Alan Dershowitz, no slouch,
says that he is the brightest student here ever had. He is a good friend of
mine.
 
Senator Cruz, welcome. You’re on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You
questioned this nominee. Were you impressed with her?
 
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX):  Well, so I’ve known Judge Jackson for 30 years. We
were in Law School together. We were both on the Law Review at Harvard.
Personally speaking, she’s very bright. She’s very charming. She’s very
affable.
 
But her substantive record? I mean, you used a word a minute ago,
“radical,” and I think that’s exactly right. Her substantive record is
dramatically to the left, and she is confirmed, she will be the most
liberal Justice of all nine, she’ll be the most liberal Justice to have
ever served on the U.S. Supreme Court and that will have enormous
consequences across the entire range.
 
It’ll have enormous consequences for free speech. It’ll have enormous
consequences for religious liberty. It will have enormous consequences for
the Second Amendment.
 
Her record shows a consistent left-wing radical approach, but I think there
was no area where her record was more troubling than crime and her record
on crime in particular. She came out of Law School and she clerked for
Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court, and she became a Federal Public
Defender. And you and I have both known Public Defenders and they are our
Public Defenders, people go and do that because their heart is with
criminal defendants, their heart is with the murderers, with the criminals,
and that’s who they are rooting for.
 
A lot of the same reason people go become a prosecutor, because they want
to lock up bad guys, Public Defenders often have a natural inclination, in
the direction of the criminal. And I’ve got to say that inclination was not
just while she was a Public Defender, but she carried it onto the bench
when she became a Criminal Judge. You know, my office did an analysis of
her criminal sentences versus every other Federal Judge in the country.
 
Her average sentence for all criminal cases 2015 to 2019 was 29.9 months.
The average nationally is 45.1 months, so she is 34 percent less than the
national average for all criminal cases.
 
But I’ll tell you, Mark, it gets even more concerning when you deal with
sex crimes, and she has got three decades of advocating for lenient
treatment for sex offenders, and in particular, her record dealing with
defendants who are guilty of possession or distribution of child
pornography. Her record is no less than astonishing.
 
Over and over again, she had 10 different cases in front of her over her
time as a Judge, dealing with people who all of whom pleaded guilty to
possession or distribution of child pornography. And over and over and over
again, a hundred percent of the time, when she had sentencing discretion,
she gave them a slap on the wrist. She gave them much, much lower than the
sentencing guidelines. She gave them much, much lower than the prosecutor
asked for.
 
And again, these are statistics my office pulled together, her average
sentence for someone who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography
was 29.2 months. The national average is 68 months. That means she
sentenced 57 percent below the national average.
 
And I’ll tell you, it’s even more stunning for the people who pleaded
guilty to distribution of child porn. The national average is 135 months if
you’re distributing child porn — that is a bad crime, 135 months is the
national average, her average is 71.9. So it’s half, 47 percent less, and
there is a mandatory minimum of 60 months for the distribution of child
porn. So she couldn’t go below 60 months under the law.
 
This pattern is really disturbing, and what it will mean, if she is
confirmed as a Justice, I think we will see for 30 or 40 years a Justice
over and over again voting to release murderers, over and over again voting
to overturn criminal convictions, over and over again voting to put
loopholes in place that benefit violent criminals and sexual predators and
that I think is really disturbing.
 
LEVIN:  And rule against death penalty cases in the states, and lenient on
violent illegal immigrants, and you’re exactly right, she is totally
predictable. She is the hard left of the judiciary in this country, and
yet, Ted Cruz, I haven’t heard a single Democrat senator speak out against
her. In fact, I hear the so-called moderates, Manchin, has endorsed her.
Even here, a couple of Republican senators are on the fence and Susan
Collins has said she has met her, she likes her, she did extended
interviews, says she is going to vote for her.
 
Given her record, given that she is an extremist, and she is an extremist,
don’t we, as the public who have to live with the results of these
decisions and live with the results of these Justices, have a right to
conclude that these senators, whomever they are, who vote for her are weak
on these very same subjects.
 
CRUZ:  It’s the only outcome you can come to and, you know, the last book I
wrote was entitled “One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat can
Change History.” And you and I did an entire show talking about that book,
“One Vote Away” and it went to number one on the Amazon bestseller list as
we discussed it.
 
That book, every chapter talks about a different constitutional right. So
there is a chapter on free speech, a chapter on the Second Amendment, a
chapter on religious liberty. There is a chapter on crime and the death
penalty, and what the book does is it tells war stories So it’s not an
academic book, it is telling firsthand accounts of litigating some of the
biggest landmark cases in the country.
 
And what is striking, and you know this, but it is important for everyone
to know this, that over and over again, the big landmark cases are five to
four. We are one vote away on issue after issue after issue from losing our
fundamental rights.
 
Heller versus District of Columbia, the landmark case upholding the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That was five to four. I think the
odds are 100 percent that Judge Jackson would vote to overturn Heller.
 
The death penalty. The death penalty, repeatedly, we’ve seen activist
Justices vote to overturn the death penalty, I think the odds are a hundred
percent that Judge Jackson would vote to overturn the death penalty. And at
the end of the day, when you have senators who say they don’t support
abolishing the police, when you vote to confirm Justices that will release
violent criminals and endanger our communities, then you are supporting,
abolishing the police and repealing the Second Amendment and taking away
our free speech rights and taking away our religious liberty rights, you
are supporting that kind of radical agenda.
 
LEVIN:  And of course, these absurdity of not willing to define a woman,
that tells us where she is going to turn out on all these Title 9 cases.
The absurdity of her pretending not to know what critical race theory is
when she wrote about it, when she talked about it, when she promoted it.
It’s a strange thing.
 
If you embrace critical race theory, you cannot embrace the Constitution of
the United States.
 
Ted, I want to thank you for being one of the leading voices, if not the
leading voice in the United States Senate in opposition to this nomination
and on behalf of the Constitution, my friend, thanks for coming.
 
God bless you.
 
CRUZ:  Thank you, Mark.
 
LEVIN:  We’ll be right back.
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
AISHAH HASNIE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT:  This is a FOX News Alert. I
am Aishah Hasnie in Warsaw, Poland.
 
A horrific scene out of Ukraine today. Bodies found with bound hands and
close range gunshot wounds scattered throughout the outskirts of Kyiv.
Ukrainian authorities are accusing Russian soldiers of torturing and then
murdering civilians before retreating from the area.
 
And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warning of yet another threat,
explosive mines near homes, abandoned equipment, even corpses left behind
as booby traps by the invaders.
 
Ukrainian troops meantime have been warned to clear the area with extreme
caution. More than 400 civilian bodies have been found in Kyiv suburbs,
European leaders condemning the brutality and calling for even tougher
sanctions against the Kremlin.
 
I’m Aishah Hasnie now back to LIFE, LIBERTY, & LEVIN.
 
LEVIN:  Welcome back, America.
 
We have a really special guest who has very important things to say. It’s
David Mamet.
 
David Mamet is an American playwright, filmmaker, author, director. I have
no question you’ve seen him or heard him or read or watched what he has
done over the years. Screenwriting credits for, among other things, “The
Verdict,” “The Untouchables,” one of my favorites, “Wag the Dog,” and it
goes on and on and on. Just a brilliant, brilliant thinker and writer.
 
But now, he has come out with a book called “Recessional: The Death of Free
Speech and the Cost of a Free Lunch.” This book.
 
I read this book in one night. I couldn’t put it down. This book is not
only beautifully written, it is a book effectively on philosophy, the
philosophy of liberty versus tyranny. It is a book about the greatness of
America and the graveness of the challenges that it faces right now.
 
And David Mamet is a very brave man. He’s a man now of Hollywood, but he is
a man who goes against the wind there, but this is a spectacular book. I
hope it does extremely well, but I think even 50 or a hundred years from
now, when we’re long gone, David, it’s going to even do better.
 
It’s like de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America.”
 
DAVID MAMET, AMERICAN PLAYWRIGHT, FILMMAKER, AUTHOR, DIRECTOR:  Oh my God.
 
LEVIN:  It did well, the two volumes, when they originally came out, people
read it, but it took 50 years after his death, and he died as a young man
until it really became iconic. This is an iconic book, and I don’t say that
about books. It’s called “Recessional.” You can get it an https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amazon.com&d=DwICAg&c=uw6TLu4hwhHdiGJOgwcWD4AjKQx6zvFcGEsbfiY9-EI&r=fe5uzrmHri0ka-N9lsgYbbY50i72SjHc5T5gk4H-cVc&m=9cRnzCfprjNHDeaubedx0ls00CAMVB5Vf_zJ4Mlj-1KE_Xj4OFmgSmjx477-y9vR&s=XDB51WbhjQ40M8xlc1q9m8iOOx_b17pt2TWFTG79lwU&e=  or any
decent bookstore, and I want to ask you about it.
 
In the book, you say among other things, right, at the beginning, and you
don’t — you don’t hide your feelings. You say, “If restrooms must be
redesigned to accommodate different ‘genders,’ how much more worthy to
assert that sexes do not in fact exist and then that men can give birth? If
Donald Trump is evil, must not anyone who questions the proposition be evil
also? And if evil, must it not be worthy that they be destroyed, and then
that those who won’t proclaim it share their fate? If speech should be
limited to avoid offense to college students, how much more worthy to
expunge the books, thoughts and electronic footprints of any defending not
only the offending matter, but free speech itself?” This is just a tiny,
tiny taste of the contents of the book, which is broken down beautifully.
 
So David Mamet, the public wants to hear from you more than me here, tell
me, and you say in the book, but tell me what motivated you to write this
book and how you came to these conclusions?
 
MAMET:  Well, I was a red diaper baby. My parents were first generation
immigrants in Chicago, and they grew up as part of the Democratic Party of
Mayor Daley in Chicago, and the parents of my friends worked with Saul
Alinsky, and they were part of the young communists, and I didn’t realize
there was anything other than the left because to us, being just arrived
Jews, I was the second generation, the Republicans were guys in white
plastic belts and white pants on the golf course, and the golf course just
didn’t admit Jews in my day.
 
So I grew up in the bosom of the left and profiting magnificently from our
freedoms. I was a — I used to drive a cab for a living, and then I started
writing plays, and I thought that I could put on the plays in the garage,
and a few people might come. And if I paid attention to them and wrote
better plays, more people would come and I could move to Broadway and
become an actual playwright, because I thought I was going to end up in
prison because I was — I never do well, or, you know, end up homeless
because I never studied anything.
 
So I profited magnificently from the American tradition of free speech. You
could say whatever you want, and if people liked it, they might come and
tell their friends to see your play. And if they didn’t like it, they would
stay away. And if you worked on that play for 15 years, you got zero money
from it. I said, that’s fine by me. I’ll do that all day long.
 
Then I saw the depth of free speeches. If we don’t like your play, if we
don’t like a comment that you made, we’re going to bankrupt you. And I
said: Wait a second, wait a second. Somebody has got to bell the cat, okay?
The mice all know that the cat is going to kill them. So the mice say, wait
a second, let’s put a bell on the cat so we know when the cats come down.
The question is, who is going to bell the cat?
 
And so I looked around and I say, I guess, that’s me, because I profited so
much from Great American thinkers like Shelby Steele and Tom Sowell and
yourself, and Eric Hoffer, who was my idol, who was our greatest
philosopher, and Milton Friedman.
 
I profited so much from these people that I said: Wait a second, let’s
break it down, Tom Paine, right and the writers of — the framers — and I
said, who is going to be those guys now? And I looked around and I said,
there are some people, well, it’s time for somebody to stand up, because
not to speak up is collusion.
 
And there is an old saying among pilots, which is not “Dear God, don’t let
me die,” but “Dear God, don’t let it be my fault.” Right? Because — so
that’s what I thought about America. Right? Whatever is happening to it, I
don’t want to contribute to it.
 
I adore this country, and I love the theater, and I love the idea of free
speech and it is past the tipping point.
 
So I thought, time to speak up.
 
LEVIN:  We’ll be right back.
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
LEVIN:  Welcome back.
 
David Mamet, so what is the reaction in the entertainment community on the
West Coast to you?
 
MAMET:  Well, I’m very fortunate because I came to Hollywood as a very
successful playwright. So I didn’t spend any time — the idea of something
being an industry, I am talking about the industry — that was an obscenity
to my mind, because I’m a man of the theater and that wasn’t an industry,
it was the theater. It was an art. And it was full, of course, with some
marvelous people, and a whole bunch of parasites, of course, like any other
business and a really good mix.
 
But I came out here to the industry and I found out that because it wasn’t
an art, it was just a business. And because it wasn’t an art, it didn’t

Latest article

- Advertisement -
EnglishHebrew
Skip to content