Morning Wire - J6 Committee Audit & Free Speech Defense Fund | 8.10.23

Episode Date: August 10, 2023

The Jan. 6th House Committee allegedly lost various relevant documents, the House Oversight Committee reveals evidence showing big money funneled back to Hunter Biden, and Elon Musk announces a new legal effort to protect free speech. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.  Balance of Nature: Get a FREE Fruit & Veggies Travel Set plus $25 off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WIRE at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/ Tommy John: Exclusive discount for our listeners at http://www.tommyjohn.com/Wire  Genucel: 70% Off! 3 Step Dark Spot Correcting System - Limited time! https://genucel.com/WIRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The January 6th House Committee allegedly misplaced numerous relevant documents, leaving an auditing congressman with questions. So we need to get to the truth of what really happened. How much more of this report is just made up narrative? How much evidence is missing and did the committee break the law? I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley. It's Thursday, August 10th, and this is Morning Wire. The House Oversight Committee reveals

more evidence tracking $20 million funneled to Hunter Biden from foreign sources. We're going to release more bank records that show more suspicious wires that we're going into the Biden family's back pockets. What new information was revealed and does it successfully tie the case to the big guy? And Elon Musk announces a new legal effort to protect free speech. What does it mean for X and the platform's users? Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to to know. Republican Congressman Barry Loudermilk says the House Select Committee that investigated January 6th failed to save numerous relevant records before it disbanded. Loudermilk is leading an audit

of the Select Committee's findings, but says the committee's shoddy and likely illegal work has significant gaps. Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce is here to discuss the missing January 6th files. So Tim, what is Congressman Loudermilk investigating here? Lattermilk sits on the committee on House administration and chairs its subcommittee on oversight. He was tasked by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy with auditing the work done by the Select Committee on January 6th. It's worth noting that the January 6th committee was a very partisan exercise. It included no significant opposition since McCarthy declined to endorse it, and its only Republican members were both vocal critics of former President Trump. That would be former House representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger.

So Lattermilk was given this assignment to audit the committee's work and ensure a fair account of what led to the riot at the Capitol. Morningwire spoke to Ladermilk, and here's what he said. Basically, all they did after spending $18.5 million was come out with a manifesto against Trump trying to tie Donald Trump to the attack on the Capitol. And everything that they did appears to be to just come up with that narrative. Now, what's missing from the current files? Well, they don't know because they don't have it. Congressman Benny Thompson, the former chair of the January 6th committee claims he handed over four terabytes worth of data and records they collected over an 18-month investigation. But Loudermilk says he only received two and a half terabytes of

information. So what accounts for the massive discrepancy? We don't know, but Ladder Milk knows some of what's missing. For instance, defense attorneys working the cases of January 6th defendants asked Loudermilk for tapes of people deposed by the committee. When Loudermilk went to retrieve them, he didn't have them. Then later, Loudermilk came across a letter that Thompson had sent to the White House and Department of Homeland Security as part of the J6 investigation and found out that a copy of that letter wasn't in the J6 files either. He's now asking the White House and DHS to produce all communications they have from the J6 committee. And finally, Ladermilk says he's found little, if any, records related to capital security on January 6th.

It could be that they never generated any records. I think there is something there. It's more and likely that the team found something that somebody didn't want them to find out so they suppressed the records. But there were videotapes of depositions and interviews. Those videotapes were actually used in some of the televised hearings. And so we know those exist. So how did this happen? Why are these files missing? Thompson told Lattermilk in a letter that the missing files were left out because the committee didn't have to archive, quote, temporary committee records that were not elevated by the committee's actions, which means basically anything the committee didn't find useful. But Laudermilk says that the

J6 committee was required by law and House rules to turn over all their records at the end of the term. So what Thompson has argued is just not correct. Now, this has been going on for months. Has he found anything yet? Yes, he has. Ladermilk's investigation has turned up some pretty explosive evidence related to the use of plain close officers at the Capitol. Probably the most shocking is that we have verified that there were some plain closed law enforcement officers who were not Capitol Police who were encouraging people to go into the Capitol. And what's important about that is Metropolitan Police, law enforcement from the executive branch are not allowed to be on capital grounds unless they are specifically asked to be there or there's a preexisting

agreement that is enacted. And we do know that there were law enforcement agencies that were non-capital police that were on capital grounds before any of the agreements were enacted, nor were they invited. So basically, they were already on capital grounds in violation of our law. So we need to find out why were they there at that point and what were they doing? This could be a major revelation. Intelligence officials have refused to say anything definitive about the use of plainclothes officers at the Capitol that day, and LiderMilk has a lot more evidence to sort through. Well, it'll be interesting to see what else he finds. Tim, thanks for coming on.

Great to be on. The House Oversight Committee has released bank records purporting to show that Hunter Biden and his associates received more than $20 million from foreign entities. This is the third such memo from Representative James Comer's committee, and it furthers the House Republicans' narrative that the Biden family was making a fortune off of access to Joe Biden. Here to discuss the revelation as Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. So what new information was contained in this memo? Good morning.

I think the top line item here is a bank record that shows Russian oligarch and former First Lady of Moscow, Yelena Batarina, wiring millions of dollars to two shell companies partly owned by Hunter Biden back in 2014. The memo also notes, as we saw again in Hunter Biden Associate Devin Archer's testimony before Congress last week, that then Vice President Joe Biden attended a dinner with Batarina and Hunter in roughly the same time period. These are really the kinds of connections that the committee is seeking to and frankly succeeding in finding. And there's no denying that this is all getting closer and closer to the president with an election looming within the year. Right. We also saw the familiar name Burisma in this memo. What did Comer's committee present in regard to that Ukrainian energy company? Yeah, so according to the records in the memo, and this isn't entirely new information, Hunter Biden and Archer were receiving about 80,000 a month.

from Burisma between 2014 and 2015, totaling a staggering 3.3 million bucks. As Comer put it, quote, it appears no real services were provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden, end quote. The way Devin Archer described it was the Biden brand. And to Comer's credit, nobody from Biden world has offered any kind of innocent explanation as to why Hunter and his buddy were getting these massive payouts. If Archer is to be believed, It was almost entirely because Hunter was selling access to and influence over his dad, whether Joe Biden was fully aware of it or not. Right. Why would Comer and the committee release this memo now?

There seems to be sort of an approach here of slowly doling out new evidence. Is that the strategy? Yes, it's politics on some level. And not for nothing. It has been the case of late that every time a Biden brand bombshell drops, there's suddenly a new indictment of Donald Trump distracting from the story. So yes, Comer is understandably trying to keep this in the news cycle. But frankly, he's also facing real recalcitrance from the Department of Justice in getting answers about the Biden case. The DOJ keeps saying there's an ongoing investigation so they can't comply with his oversight requests.

In the fall, we'll see some testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland on all of this before Congress. But for now, Comer's, he's trying to keep the irons hot. Yeah, that makes sense. Do we expect to hear from Hunter anytime soon? A few weeks ago, Joe Biden was making a lot of appearances with him, including a trip to Dublin. But that seems to have dried up a bit here. It does.

And that's a great question. But bear in mind that until a few weeks ago, Joe Biden and his allies were under the impression that this was all about to go away as Hunter's plea deal was going into effect. Obviously, that didn't happen. It's not yet. And so the skyon of the 46th president, he might be laying low for a while.

And ultimately, this question of what kind of legs this scandal has hangs over all of this. Joe Biden did an interview with The Weather Channel this week, the Weather Channel, right? Mainly about the climate crisis, but he can't duck the legitimate questions about his involvement in his son's business deals forever, especially in an election season. The questions are coming. Whether he has the answers that get him out of this mess, that remains to be seen. Yeah, I mean, while the Republicans will keep pulling at this thread. Dave, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me.

On Wednesday, we learned that special counsel Jack Smith's team issued a search warrant for former President Trump's Twitter account shortly after the platform was purchased by Elon Musk. The news comes days after Musk vowed to fund legal bills for anyone punished by their employer for posts on his platform. Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Prestoge Acomo. So Amanda, what did special counsel Jack Smith request? Well, Smith's team first obtained this warrant on January 17. That was a couple of months after Musk acquired Twitter,

and they wanted information related to Trump's Twitter account. A court found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses. Additionally, the government was able to get a non-disclosure agreement, which made it so Twitter couldn't disclose the warrant. The company said no, citing the First Amendment, specifically in objection to that non-disclosure. It seems Twitter wanted to at least let Trump know if they were being forced to hand over his account information. Twitter was supposed to hand over the docs on January.

27th, but refused. Eleven days later, the judge held the company in contempt and levied a $350,000 fine. Twitter did not fully comply with the order until two days later on February 9th. We still don't know anything about what they're looking for or what they found. Now, pivoting to some news from earlier this week, CEO of ex-Elon Musk made an announcement that he would pay the legal bills for anyone fired for speech and or activity on his platform. what were the parameters for that offer?

Musk said in a post on X that he will pay for legal representation for anyone who was treated, quote, unfairly by their employer due to posting or liking something on his platform. He also said there is no limit to the cash he'll put up. Importantly, Musk took an extra step here saying that X would effectively wage a PR campaign against companies that engage in viewpoint discrimination. Here's his direct language. We won't just sue. It'll be extremely loud and we will go after the board. boards of directors of these companies, too. Do we know if anyone's actually taken him up on this offer yet?

Well, there's at least one case that Musk has shown interest in. A woman named Carolyn says she was fired in January from limited run games, allegedly over who she followed on the platform and a years old tweet that was critical of transgender ideology. A transgender activist called Carolyn a, quote, transphobe who follows a veritable who's who of right-wing transphobic creeps and demanded Carolyn be fired. That same day, limited-run games announced determination, citing a commitment to, quote, supporting an inclusive culture. Musk exchanged public messages with Carolyn on Sunday about pursuing her case. It seems Musk is indicating here that he wants to represent people who might not have huge

name recognition. And that's the point Toby Young, founder of the British organization Free Speech Union, brought up with host Andrew Doyle. Young's group helps everyday people who are fired for their political views and beliefs. People focus on the J.K. Rowlings of this world, but actually it's lower down the scale. We look after bus drivers, train drivers, dinner ladies, care workers. Those are the sorts of people that are at risk of losing their livelihood, simply for expressing what they think. So what are the chances of an employee actually succeeding in a case like this? This would be a tough fight against a private employer, but I think that's why Musk added this component of a bad PR campaign against such companies. And Toby Young, whose job it is

help represent people who have been wrongly fired, he believes the threat of litigation from the world's second richest man would be enough to change behavior. If you can make the directors and the non-executive directors liable, then that would put a stop to it, I think, overnight. I mean, just the fact that he said this, I think will make a difference. Well, I'm interested to see which cases he takes up. Amanda, thanks for reporting. Thanks for having me. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back this afternoon with more of the news you need to know.