The Benny Show - 🚨 CIA Officials APPROVED Biden Campaign Plot to RIG 2020 Election With Hunter Laptop Coverup, with Guest Chairman Jim Banks

Episode Date: June 26, 2024

Supreme Court rules Biden administration can continue censoring conservative social media posts, Intel contractors on CIA's payroll colluded with the Biden campaign to discredit Hunter's laptop as 'Russian disinfo,' and the CIA Director KNEW and Chairman Jim Banks joins the show. Check Out Our Partners: Patriot Mobile: Go to https://www.PatriotMobile.com/Benny and get FREE Activation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, Supreme Court rules that administration can continue censoring Intel contractors on CIA payroll conclude that the Biden campaign could work to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story, and they acted against the sitting president. Congressman Jim Banks joins the show. My name is Benny Johnson, and this is The Benny Show. All right, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fast-breaking news environment, and it will continue to be a fast-breaking news environment for the end of time, I guess. And so that is why I encourage you to sign up for Patriot Mobile. Ladies and gentlemen, Patriot Mobile is the only wireless network that is 100% Christian, conservative, and committed to free speech. And that is a small group of people these days, ladies and gentlemen, a very small group of people

committed to free speech. But it's not all doom and gloom. We'll cover all of it in our first stories. Ladies and gentlemen, you must speak freely without funding the left. It becomes very, very tough again in our modern environment. We'll cover it all today on the show, but one of the easiest ways that you can do that is to switch over to Patriot Mobile. Patriotmobile.com slash Benny. Call 972-PATRIOT. Get free activation when you use the offer code Benny. Join me and make the switch today. Patriotmobile.com slash Benny. Supreme Court rules Biden administration can continue censoring conservatives on social media in major free speech case. Okay, this is not a fun story to get through, but there are a lot of people who are dooming about this online, so I think it's best that we just dive right in. Is this a good thing? No, this is a very bad thing. This is a decision that was just announced. And I want to go through the actual details of the decision. All right, here we go. So we're

going to go to what the case was because the attorney general majority was on the show just yesterday. This is something really, really important for us to cover because it actually affects what we do here every single day. Because there is no doubt in my mind, and we have this on confirmation, that there is a vast archipelago of censorship goons that wish to get their claws into anybody who's speaking freely. And you're starting to see the constriction all around the world. You're starting to see Elon Musk get sued in places like Brazil. You saw the censorship apparatus attack anybody who shared any information that went against the mainstream on social media during COVID or during the 2020 election. And on the show, we have confirmation that the CIA themselves approved of disinformation,

literal lies, misinformation, disinformation. It's not real. It's something that's either true or it's not true or it's unverified. Okay. There's no such thing actually. But the CIA approved of untrue information in order to rig the 2020 election. So this is something that's in full scale right now. And what the state of Missouri said with the state of Louisiana, along with a number of plaintiffs, is that the federal government is restricting my speech. The federal government is restricting my speech. The federal government is saying by going to the social media companies through the back door and saying, you must censor

this account, that the federal government is openly violating my first amendment rights, which is true, which is verifiably true. And it's why the states have won in these cases through the federal courts. And the Biden administration had been stopped from working with and meddling with the social media companies to come after all of us in our free speech. Now, there's a lot of complicated issues here. You have to take a step back and look at the nature of a publisher versus a platform. It's probably far too much for us to get into here. And this, of course, just broke moments ago. And so we're still still being sort of digested. But let's start with this. A publisher is a totally different thing than a platform.

We're currently on a platform right now. is a totally different thing than a platform. We're currently on a platform right now. You're watching the show on a platform. Whatever platform that you wish to watch the show on, we thank you for watching. We are a publisher, okay? So our show decides which stories we want to cover each day. We do that in concert with understanding our audience and knowing our audience. So we are going to obviously make choices as to what we cover and what we don't cover. You can't cover everything. That's not possible. So that makes us a publisher. We're making decisions about what we wish to talk about every single day. The platforms that we speak on, they have rules, right? There are rules about

pornography. There are rules about cursing. There's rules about, you know, naughty behavior and naughty language. Can't get into all of them. And they're all different for every platform. But those platforms, by and large, have a contract with us that if as long as we are not in violation of the law or in violation of decency standards on the platform, again, pornographic material, cursing, foul language, violent threats, things like that, things that you don't want on your platform, then we are allowed to speak truthfully and freely. And that's the way that it should go because the platform is there to effectively platform speech, right? Speech that they, that the platform deems appropriate for the platform, meaning within the guidelines of the law, let's say X. So within, so X's rule, Elon Musk's rule

is as long as it's legal speech, as long as it's not illegal, then you can say it or do it on this platform. And there are various variations of that. We stay within those rules and we are able to publish our show. So we are the publisher. We're making editorial decisions about what content we want to cover and the platform. Uh, as long as we stay within the boundaries, pretty wide, generally boundaries, then we are able to do our show. There it is. Okay. Here's where it gets messy. The government in the year 2020, uh, decided to make an X, an unbelievable and extreme jump into censorship saying, and working directly with the platforms to say, we don't like this account. We don't like this person. We don't like what they're saying. What they're saying hurts our feelings. Not necessarily that

it's false, but that it might go against what we, the government, wish to have as free speech. Now, on its face, prima facie, that's a violation of the First Amendment, period. That is getting, that is the government sticking its nose in between the relationship between the publisher and the platform, how we operate every single day. And again, there are rules. Okay. There are rules for what we can do by and large. I think a lot of those rules make sense. Okay. Some of those rules I think are insane, but others make sense. Again, I don't I have kids. I don't want open social media platforms to be openly pornographic or violent or so on. Right.

So fine. The problem comes when the government shoves its nose in there and for political purposes. Begins censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, which they did, knowing full well, full damn well, that that was a real piece of information, that that laptop was real. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a problem. And this is what this lawsuit's about. They also censored, of course, information around COVID-19. Some of those posts were true. Some of the claims were true or at the very least worth discussion because actually the science is never settled.

Actually, it's insane. Like what's happening now is anti-science. The entire nature of science is the positive inquiry forever into subject matter. This is the nature of science. So the idea that the science is settled or that the government would come through as some type of massive author authoritative, like clamp down for the science is actually anti-science throughout all history. The pursuit of act of actual scientists have been to debunk things that were assumed true to expand the knowledge of the universe. And most importantly, to ask questions. And ultimately what we choose to be on this program is a skeptic.

The best part about skepticism, especially skepticism about power, is you can't be wrong. And this is something, if I were to explain free speech to a classroom and I were given like 30 seconds, it's this. There's no such thing as a wrong question. Ask any question you want. The nature of skepticism is that you're never wrong. You have a right to ask every question. Find the answer. That's the point. The point of free speech is you're allowed to ask the question.

But around COVID and around the 2020 election, you weren't even allowed to ask questions. Why were all the ballots dumped in the middle of the night? Well, that little trend line showing Joe Biden go boop. Like why'd that happen? What's the situation behind that? You weren't allowed to ask. Clamp. Hunter Biden laptop,

while it shows a bunch of degenerate behavior about Hunter Biden, what it really shows is a multinational money laundering operation, presumably at the direction of the CIA. And we'll get into that. As Hunter using the Biden family as a cutout for their schemes in Ukraine and China and all across the world. What's that about? You can't ask that client. COVID-19, this seems a little odd, like COVID-19. Wait a second. So you're telling me that there was a lab that was studying coronaviruses that came from horseshoe bats that added the spike proteins that allowed the virus to be transmissible to humans when it otherwise wouldn't have been. And it's that very

lab where all of the people working at that project became sick and they became sick inside of the laboratory of Xi Zhenli, who's the Chinese scientist who's famous for cooking up coronaviruses that are infectious to humans in a laboratory. You're telling me that that's the lab that this all came from, and you're telling me that actually it's from somebody eating a pangolin in a wet market? That don't make no sense. I think we should look into that clamp. Shut up, deleted, account gone. These are the things you weren't allowed to add. This is prima facie government censorship, the destruction of the First Amendment. So that's the setup here. What was decided? What was decided was that the states do not have standing. All right. Now, standing is tough to explain, but what it boils down to is you have to prove that you are being injured

and without the court interceding, you're going to continue to be injured and your injury will be ongoing and active without the court interceding right away. OK, and what the court today found was not the merits of the case. And I think this is really important to dissect. I'm not here to give hopium or copium. This is not a good decision. We shouldn't celebrate the 6-3 decision, which came down on the side of the government censors. But it's important to take a sort of a razor here and say what, you know, and describe what's really happening. Now, what's really happening in this case

is that the government said we don't, there is no, that the people who are suing the government to stop them from censoring have not proven that they have active injury based on what's happening here. They haven't proven standing. Therefore, we cannot decide on the merits of the case. So before they can, the Supreme Court could move to decide whether the government is in violation of the First Amendment. You have to prove standing. Now, what could happen here is the states could go back and get 20 other states and 200,000 to million Americans to sign on to this lawsuit and say, like, we've all been censored. And that would change the dynamic of the standing. But right now there's two states and I think what, like five, like five individual Americans that are on this case. And what's being decided here is in part the ability for these people to prove that they have standing. And the court said, no, you don't. So that's what's going on here.

It's a procedural move. The court admits here in the majority decision that the government does censor and that that censorship that happened with the social media companies did happen and is actively happening and is now allowed to continue to happen as this works its way through the courts. Because what happened, what went on now is that this is remanded down back to the lower courts, ladies and gentlemen. But that doesn't mean that this is dead or gone. It does mean that the Biden regime will have no injunction to stop them from censoring through the 2020 election, 2024 election, making our work all the more important here. In his dissent, the dissent by Thomas Gorsuch and Alito, Alito writing the decision on the dissent,

Alito wrote, this is regrettable that the officials did what the official did in this case was more subtle than the ham handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vulo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators high positions, it was even more dangerous. It is blatantly unconstitutional and the country may come to regret the court's failure to say so. Officials who read today's decision together with Vulo will get the message. If coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not the message the court should send. So what Alito is expressing here are the obvious dangers of having a permanent government censorship archipelago apparatus to sink their teeth into free speech. And he's completely correct.

He's saying that what you're entering here is a very, very slippery slope. Again, if you're looking for a silver lining, it's that the court didn't decide whether the government should or shouldn't censor based on the merits of the case. They effectively punted and said, you need to come back with a stronger case. You need to get more people to sign on. You need to find more people to prove that the government injured them effectively. The state of Missouri cannot right now prove that the government is injuring them actively or will injure them in the future. You may agree or disagree on that. Of course, I disagree on that. But this doesn't mean that it's dead. This means that the battle continues in the lower courts. But it is, of course, a setback and something that needs to be retooled. But this

does happen quite a bit legally. It's one of the most important conversations being had in America right now. It's the most important conversation that is happening in the country right now because it actually directly affects our show. It directly affects your favorite podcasters, broadcasters, streamers, creators, because it defines the relationship. It defines the awesome power of the relationship that is brought to bear between your free speech and the platform to speak freely and the government putting their foot on the neck, putting their jackboot on the neck of that relationship, on the back of that relationship, on the spot, on the back of that relationship. The government applying awesome pressure, right? So when you get the, we saw this in the Twitter files, the FBI rolling through Twitter every single day, demanding censorship every single day saying they don't like these accounts, de-boost these accounts, delete these accounts. This happened every single day

at the FBI and at every platform. And when the FBI tells you to do this, and the FBI is, of course, the muscle of the Department of Justice, well, it's a pretty dangerous position to be in because nobody wants to be at the mercy of the Department of Justice. These people can make your life a living hell. This is made very obvious by our recent news cycles. When the Department of Justice decides to viciously come at you, well, how many active lawsuits is Elon Musk facing at this very moment? Because he stepped out of line with the regime and i guess this is the final this is the final silver line which is that you don't have to abide by these rules

um you could tell the government to f off these platforms don't have to bend to the will of some little nanny state censor in a political position inside of these agencies. They don't have to. Elon Musk says he won't. And we believe him. Elon Musk says that legal speech will be allowed on X. And whilst I'm sure there are requests going to X by the government, I don't have confirmation of that, but I'm sure it's still happening. Requests by government actors and state actors to take down posts. I mean, we know for a fact it's happening in Brazil.

Elon Musk is being sued right now in Brazil and he's in a standoff with a Supreme Court justice in Brazil trying to get him to stop and censor speech. It's just speech that the Supreme Court doesn't like. That's it. And Elon Musk is being now sued in Brazil. Same thing happened in Australia recently. So it's still happening,

but you can have platforms that fight back and say, this is not good for our users. This is wrong. And we don't want to be like government gimps that censor and ban, de-boost and destroy our user bases at the whim of some political hack, some nanny state soy censor who just got offended someday at a user. That's not how free speech works. And that's how that that's not how free speech works. And that's how that that's actually how platforms get destroyed. And I think that there's a great

sea change happening and Elon Musk is leading the way in that. And I have a lot like I think there's a lot of positive things happening there, but that is the state of play. The state of play is Elon Musk. Just tell the government like F off. I'm not going to play your game. We're going to not censor. Oh, you don't like that account? Tough luck. Be better. Restore faith in your agency. Why don't you do the hard work and like make people trust the FBI again or the Department of Justice again or the CIA again? Like there used to be a time, not too long ago, when everybody trusted those agencies. Maybe that was wrong. I'm not sure. But I know that's something that everyone in D.C. is obsessed with. Is there public trust in what we're doing? That's something you

hear all the time in D.C. The public doesn't trust us. Yeah, we don't. For good reason. You've betrayed our trust and lost our trust. So we'll cover in the next story on Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden's laptop in the CIA. But before we get there, obviously, Jonathan Turley, one of our favorite commentators on Fox, saying effectively this. And again,, we really like Jonathan Turley because he has a very, very clear-eyed, very clear-minded constitutionalist approach to how the courts are meant to run and supposed to run. And here's his takeaway. What does this mean? If the states don't have standing, who does? Well, it's very frustrating for the free speech community because standing is often used to block meritorious claims.

This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing. I wrote about this issue, this case, in my recent book because you have one of the largest censorship systems in our history, if not the largest. It's been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that we won't hear you on this issue because you're not the right litigants. Now, I have to admit, I've always been something of a standing dove. I believe that these standing decisions are too narrow because they do prevent the court

from rendering a decision on such important constitutional questions. So this issue will have to wait for another day. But one of the things that many of us have been arguing for years is that the government is engaging in censorship by surrogate. I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they're barred from doing directly. They're using academic and corporate allies to bar and cancel and blacklist critics on a variety of different subjects.

So it's going to be very frustrating for the free speech community because we've been trying to see if there will be a final decision to strengthen free speech. So Andrew Bailey, who is the attorney general of the state of Missouri, who was co-signed on this 6-3 repudiation by the court on standing has just released a statement. Here we go. My office filed suit against dozens of officials in federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation's history. The record is clear. The deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative. Now, this is, by the way, not for debate. Even in the majority decision, the majority says, yes, the FBI and DHS and various constellation of government agencies censored free speech. They say it. The majority says it. They censored free speech. Okay. So that, that's not, that's, that's not up for debate.

In fact, that was effectively decided, like decided today and stated today. Today's ruling does not dispute that. And he's right. My rallying cry to disappoint Americans. This Missouri is not done. We are going to go back to the district court, obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden's vast censorship enterprise once and for all. So the fight is not over. The attorney general of Missouri says so. And so again, like, don't let not your heart be troubled there. You're going to have wins and losses. There are going to be times when they're that there are going to be times when the nuance of the court system can be exceedingly frustrating. And that happens obviously for both political sides.

This decision is incredibly important. And I believe that it is a victory. Ultimately, I'm a glass half full optimist, silver linings kind of guy. I believe it is a victory to have this information out there. Rats do not like being dragged tail first into the sunlight in the middle of the day. Cockroaches do not like the hot fluorescent lights of people looking and discovering. This doesn't kill the case. This continues the case actually and retools the case. The court, the court has now laid down the gauntlet and says, here's what, here's the threshold you need for us to actually decide this on the merits, which is what needs to happen. And so the fight continues. And I think that it's important to drag, to drag these cockroaches into the sunlight. Okay. Much like this next story. Intel contractors on

CIA payroll colluded with the Biden campaign to discredit Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian disinformation. Bombshell new report claims. Oh boy. Here we go. So as we have talked about openly on this program, the definition of rigging an election is having a massive operation to stop information from being seen and reviewed by the American people, true information, to curtail in an organized fashion, to make people dumber or to silence important stories. It is actually remarkable how much criticism Donald Trump received in this these absurd BS charges in New York because he Trump was apparently rigging the election by stopping information from coming out. It is truly remarkable the same people level, the same critics will turn a blind eye, a direct blind eye to a story like this,

which is not an NDA with an adult film actress for allegedly something that happened in 2005, but an actual active rigging of information that was criminal in nature about the candidate running for president. A reminder, Donald Trump has done nothing criminal. Donald Trump did nothing criminal. Like, this is why it's taken them seven years to try and figure out how to charge this thing and why Joe Biden had to send his hatchet man from the DOJ, Matthew Colangelo, to try and figure it out. This is the absurdity of

that case. Inside of Hunter Biden's laptop, not just the gun charts, the gun charts and the tax charts are nothing. Inside of that laptop is a treasure trove of violations of federal statutes and laws. But at the very least, 400 federal felonies can be found inside of that laptop. This has been well documented. That laptop is the most damaging, inflaming criminal piece of evidence potentially to ever exist in the American public. And that laptop was walked into court two weeks ago by the FBI in a plastic baggie. The official laptop with all the gross stains on it and everything, the original laptop

was brought in by the FBI and put on the table. And the FBI said, this is the real laptop. We know it's Hunter Biden's. We've known that since 2019. The federal government has had access to it. And in fact, because we know it's real, we have 18,000 pages of metadata on this laptop. And so this was known at the time. And this was known at the time when the story broke in 2020. And so you must see every single government action taken to try and convince the public that this is Russian disinformation as it's as as a coordinated operation to rig the election. That's the it's the definitionally that's the only way you can you can understand it. There's a lot of shady stuff that happened in 2020. OK, we talk about it regularly on this program, but here you can see it is, here you can see demonstrable, demonstrable empirical rigging of the election. Okay.

With this singular story, you can just break it down into a binary. This is simple. They knew the laptop was real. They lied to you and said it was Russian disinformation. That on its face is an operation internally inside of the government to lie to the American public, to change public opinion, and to desperately attempt to drag Joe Biden over the finish line, given the violent nature of what's inside of this laptop. So here we go. Some ex-Intel intelligence officials were actively being paid by the CIA on a contract basis when they signed the letter that falsely claimed Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. Michael Morrell, former deputy director of the CIA, former CIA inspector general David Buckley, was another,

according to the bombshell new report from the House Judiciary Committee. Morrell was the one who organized the letter after a call from now Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Blinken said he did not give Biden a talking point in the lead up to the 2020 election when Trump attacked him over the laptop. According to the report, high ranking CIA officials were made aware of the letter before its publishing, and some raised concerns about the political nature of the letter. The signatories decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference inappropriately embroils the CIA

in domestic politics. The report states, saying it underscores the potential dangers of politicizing the intelligence community. Well, good luck, guys. Your chance to stop that politicization was to stop this letter from coming out, and you did nothing. In fact, apparently, the CIA director under Trump, Gina Haspel, knew about this letter and did nothing to stop it. Earlier this month, Republicans told Daily Mail they are seeking punishment for the 51 intelligence officials who falsely claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. The infamous memo signed by pro-Biden officials in the lead-up to the 2020 election claimed that the damaging pictures and messages found on Hunter Biden's laptop had the earmarks of a Russian disinformation

campaign that allowed Joe to discredit the laptop and his damning evidence during a presidential debate, town halls, and other media appearances prior to his election. Now, Republicans are demanding retribution for the 51 Act's intel officials saying they should be fired, criminally prosecuted, or even thrown in jail. I think their clearances should be revoked. I think there needs to be an investigation into every single one of them. So hopefully that happens. We'll have a great member of Congress on the show here in just a moment, Jim Jordan, saying effectively retribution needs to happen because now we know that people who are actively on the payroll of the CIA were the ones promoting and signing this letter. Let's go. Blinken calls Morell. Everyone

knew Morell wanted to be the CIA director in the Biden administration. Morell organizes the statement that 51 people signed. When he sends out the statement, he says, this is so Joe Biden will have a talking point against Trump during the during the upcoming debate. After the debate, Joe Biden's campaign chairman, Steve Ricchetti, calls Morell and thanks him. But Sean, now we've learned three new additional facts. First, the letter was actually reviewed by the top people at the CIA, either Director Haspel or Deputy Director Bishop. We deposed the chief operating officer, Andrew McRae. He said, I took it to one of those two individuals. They reviewed it.

Second, what you pointed out, agents looked at this and said, this is not what the CIA should be doing. This is a bad look for the CIA. This is all political. And third, some of the people who signed it, like Mike Morrell, were actually on contract with the CIA when they signed it. So being paid by the CIA to lie to the American people, the CIA is a clandestine organization. They're not supposed to operate domestically. Ha ha ha. But now you can see like time and time again that the CIA is using their constellation of experts, individuals, and groups to do exactly what they do all around the rest of the world. They just can't help themselves. They can't help

themselves. They're meddling in American elections the same way that they topple legitimate regimes all around the globe. That is their, that is the goal of the CIA actually is regime change. And they couldn't help themselves. They hated Trump so much that they executed a regime change here in America. This is this is the this is this is the only thing that you can possibly take away from these bombshell revelations. Here's Mike Turner talking about. Absolutely. Well, the House Intelligence Committee got these emails that showed that the manner in which this was presented and that we now know from the joint depositions that Jim's committee and my committee held that these individuals openly were talking about doing this letter solely to help Biden in his in his debate. Now, what that means is we now all know

that we saw Biden stand there in the middle of his debate and lie to the American public because he knew, of course, it wasn't Russian disinformation. When he said, I have a letter that says this is Russian disinformation, there's nothing to this. Biden was lying to the American public. But also everyone who signed that letter, the IC 51, as they're called, they were lying. And depositions, they, youitions, one after the other would acknowledge they didn't even try to verify it. They knew what they were doing. This was totally political, totally for the debates, and they were lies. So where does it end, right? Where does it end? You can go look up the definition of traitor. Would that apply to Gina Haspel, who's Donald Trump's CIA director?

Gina Haspel is somebody who was allegedly handed this false information about her boss that was going to negatively affect his ability to talk about the laptop and was going to be used in a, in a vast censorship campaign. There was a time, you know, hopefully you were around to remember this. And it was an unbelievable time when the New York post, which is a, the oldest newspaper in America, which did this incredible report on the laptop. If you shared that link, your account would be instantly banned.

If you shared legitimate reporting on the biggest political bombshell potentially in American history, that your account would be taken down. This is the power of this government censorship apparatus that just had a subtle victory today at the Supreme Court. It's scary times. Did Gina Haspel know? Kash Patel asking the right questions. Breaking news is coming out of the House Intel Committee just a short time ago that they're saying the letter that called Hunter Biden's laptop Russian disinformation that the CIA, they're saying from the highest levels, including the CIA director, knew about that letter and they did nothing to stop it. This is another example of exploding the lies from that letter.

They said that none of the individuals that signed it had access to classified information when multiple signatories were intelligence communities, contractors with classified intelligence access and the CIA director, the top intel official in the CIA whose office was presented the letter had access to that classified information, including the FBI information, which verified the laptop. So Gina Haspel again instituted a political operation at the head of the CIA to sit silent and deprive the American people of the truth to execute a political vendetta she had. This is the IC run amok and another application, misapplication of law in the two-tier system of justice in intelligence and national security. You're talking about election interference in that. Kash Patel, great to have you on. Yeah, that's election interference. Here's the actual report. We encourage you to go read it at Judiciary GOP. I don't think there's

been a more important report that Judiciary Committee has released. It does beg a couple of very interesting questions. Why is the CIA blocking the deposition of Kevin Morris? Kevin Morris is that creepy, bong-smoking lawyer from LA that is paying all of Hunter Biden's bills? This guy's paid close to tens of millions of dollars in Hunter Biden's delinquencies. Why? You know, there are some people in life that I like a lot, but tens of millions of dollars from this guy? Like, what stake does he have? Who's actually paying these bills? Why was the former CIA director joining Burisma with Hunter Biden? And that's good news. Former CIA director joins Burisma. It's good news, says the Huffington Post. Okay.

Why would that be? What's the CIA stake in Ukraine? Why is the New York Times publishing articles like this? Spy war, how the CIA secretly helps fight Ukraine, fight Putin in Ukraine. Effectively saying that the entire nation state of Ukraine is just a client state of our state department operated by the CIA. And that there are dozens of CIA bases throughout Ukraine. What is actually going on here? Why is Hunter Biden so protected? Was Hunter Biden an actual cutout for the intel agencies? Was Hunter Biden acting in a cutout capacity in Ukraine and the Burisma board along with the former CIA director. And were these individuals lying to try and cover it all up? Is the CIA actively paying Hunter Biden's legal bills through his dirty lawyer who they're blocking from being deposed or investigated? Is this all one massive coverup? And why aren't these traders in Guantanamo Bay right now? These are the 51 Intel experts.

Just like incredible that these are the people who scream and yell at us about diversity, equity, and inclusion. Yeah. It's a dumpster fire, ladies and gentlemen. Our government is such a cesspool of snakes, liars, people that wish to see the Constitution as an impediment to desecrate your civil liberties and civil rights. There are very few in Congress that truly understand that. Jim Banks, a member of Congress from Indiana, is one of them. He is the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services and Military Personnel, so I'm sure he has quite a take on the current topics at hand. And Congressman Jim Banks joins the program now. Congressman, thank you for being with us. I just want to kind of kick off the top with the Supreme Court decision.

6-3, no standing. The government can continue to censor. I guess it does fall then to Congress, perhaps, to stop the censorship. Your thoughts, sir? Well, that's right. Remember, this is about standing. So when Donald Trump gets back into the White House, he has to warn Facebook and these big tech companies, if you censor conservatives, there will be held to pay and the government won't recognize you. So there has to be consequences for those actions. If the Supreme Court isn't going to do the right thing and crack down on that type of censorship, then the president and the next Congress need to do that instead. And Benny, my commitment is I'll be leading on the front lines of making sure that happens.

Great. So moving on to government censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story. This was all of the breaking news over the last 24 hours having to do with the CIA and their deep active meddling in the 2020 election. Many would call it rigging of the 2020 election because they knew it was true. So how do you get away with that? There has to be consequences, right? Yeah, absolutely. Remember, remember after the 2020 election, public polling, unbiased public polling showed that Donald Trump would have won the election, that more voters would have voted for Donald Trump if the Hunter Biden

laptop story wasn't censored. So there was a real consequence to the disinformation, to the censorship. Like you, I posted the New York Post story on my Facebook page, and it was censored by Facebook, by Twitter and the previous regime at Twitter and elsewhere. And the public was lied to and told that it was Russian disinformation. I mean, we know what a crock that is at this point. But back then, there were too many voters who believed it. And it altered the outcome of not just the election, but of American history. It's why we have the worst president in the White House that we have ever had, the weakest president, and the most corrupt family that's ever lived in the White House, too, living there because of the big tech companies who censored that story. So there has to be consequences toward big tech, but also these 51 intelligence officials and others who signed on to letters who should lose

their security clearances. Their reputations should be completely destroyed at this point. But to get back to your earlier question, Congress has to do that and Congress hasn't done it yet. And one reason why is because we have a Democrat-led Senate. We only have a two-seat majority in the House. We have way too many squishy Republicans who have prevented that from happening at this point in the House of Representatives. So come November with this historic election, we have a moral duty and a mandate if we win the majority in the House, the Senate, and win back the White House, put Donald Trump back in the White House, to hold big tech and these liars in the intelligence community accountable. I mean, it seems like on its face, just the simplest thing that you can possibly do, right? Like, so they use their taxpayer-funded positions and their credentials that we gave them

and that they use the public dole, effectively, to advance their careers. And then they take, our repayment for that is that they take those credentials and they use them to lie to us in coordination with Joe Biden's campaign for a talking point and to cover up the largest political bombshell in American history. The Hunter Biden laptop shows numerous crimes, at least 400 felonies

committed by the Biden family or Biden family members. And so this is an I mean, this is an act against American democracy. Why aren't Republicans taking this seriously? Did the balls fall off? Are they scared of the intel community? It seems so binary. It seems so simple, Congressman, that we must punish these people. Yeah, I completely agree. And right now, the lack of leadership in the House to get that done,, even though it's a two seat majority, the leadership to make that happen.

Myself and so many others have pushed forward on this notion. We take take Leon Panetta, for example, one of the 51 signers of that letter calling it Russian disinformation and trying to minimize that very important story before the 2020 election about Hunter Biden and the corrupt dealings of the Biden family. Leon Panetta is on because he maintains a security clearance and he's on the boards of every major defense contractor that you can think of. It's the opposite. The opposite should happen. His reputation should be ruined. He shouldn't be allowed to make money off of his public service and that security clearance. And his reputation should be ruined to the point that he wouldn't serve and make so much money off of the public dime. So like the other 50 who signed it as well. But Congress has to move forward and hold these people accountable, take away their, their security clearances. And, uh, that, that hasn't happened yet because you have too many

squishy Republicans who are willing to go along with it. Yeah. I mean, again, uh, in fact, Congress like gives the FBI a brand new headquarters and reward rewards. It's seemingly supporters and rewards, seemingly, this apparatus that has rigged American elections with more money. It seems like there's, that seems like the end of the country, right? It seems like that's, if there's no consequence, I'm a parent, you're a parent, if there's no consequences, then the entire household will collapse. That's so true. That's why I've always said Joe Biden deserves to be impeached. And a lot of these officials deserve to lose their jobs and be impeached and publicly humiliated so that no future president in American history can ever think, I can get away with that too.

I mean, that's the very nature of why we should should the very point of why we should move forward with impeachment. Two seat majority in the House, Democrat led Senate. None of that. None of that should matter. That shouldn't prevent us from moving forward in the House and doing the right thing. We have a moral, I believe, obligation to do that and hold these people accountable. Just like the letter that I sent to Speaker Johnson a couple of days ago about defending Steve Bannon from going to prison because of an illegitimate committee. No one knows, Benny, no one knows how illegitimate the sham January 6th committee was more than me. I was supposed to be the ranking member of the committee and represent the minority party and was blocked from serving in that capacity. And now Steve Bannon, who was held in contempt politically by the Democrat-led Congress, who completely violated all of the rules

of the House of Representatives, and Steve Bannon is going to go to jail for it. And it's absurd. So I wrote a letter to Mike Johnson, the speaker. He finally acted on it. And he's calling for the House of Representatives to do an amicus brief to let the courts know, let the Supreme Court know that this committee did indeed violate rules. It should be completely delegitimized, just like many of the actions of the Biden White House, of the Pelosiosi congress so many things that they've done over the past four years to destroy this country and abuse their power and

abuse the rule of law should be delegitimized in the courts and they should be held accountable for it so what would be the path forward here uh congress could take a vote to my understanding congress should take a vote and could delegitimize the committee today. Many of us are pushing for that. And I've signed on to legislation that Thomas Massey, my colleague, has put forward to do just that, to completely erase the January 6th committee from the public record because it was an illegitimate committee that violated rules, that was a political witch hunt. Remember, I was supposed to be the ranking member. There was no ranking member. A lot of people think Liz Cheney was the ranking member. She was the vice chair acting on behalf of the Democrats. The Republicans were

blocked from appointing any members to that sham committee, which just goes to show it shouldn't hold any legitimacy in the courts. Steve Bannon shouldn't go to jail because he didn't participate in the charade. He should be renowned from the very start saying out loud what all of us knew, that this committee was a political witch hunt. It shouldn't be taken seriously. Now he's going to jail for it. Yeah. And Adam Kinzinger is endorsing Joe Biden seconds ago.

So Adam Kinzinger was the representative for Republicans on that committee. Yeah. And obviously he was representing the Democrats. I mean, the guy in 2019 was begging Donald Trump at his feet to give him the job to be this. People forget this, to be the secretary of the Air Force. He thought, Adam Kinzinger thought, I'm so great. Donald Trump should appoint me to be the secretary of the Air Force. And Donald Trump said, I don't take you seriously. You're not qualified. You're

emotionally unstable. I'm not going to give you that important job. And then crying, Adam Kinzinger whined and threw a childlike hissy fit after that. And now he's playing for the other team. None of us are surprised by it. Yeah, super, incredibly embarrassing. I don't know if his meds are off or his estrogen pills didn't come in or if he's just trying to be like a kid. He's not a Republican anymore.

I mean, he was an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He fits right in with the Democrats. Yeah, Kleenex spokesperson, actually. I mean, he's not a Republican anymore. I mean, he was an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He fits right in with the Democrats. Yeah, Kleenex spokesperson, actually. I mean, he's in retirement. He's obviously begging for work. He's crying, he's weeping. And he'd be, you know, obviously the guy spends a lot of time crying, clearly. So that sham committee should absolutely be wiped from history.

There is a vote, though, for inherent contempt that seems to be rolling quite swiftly through Congress with a lot of support against Merrick Garland. Can you give me an update on that? Yeah, you know, I'm hoping this passes. You know, there are like five or six, maybe more really squishy Republicans who are afraid to vote to hold Merrick Garland in contempt for abusing his power, for not participating with investigations that the Congress has put forth. So, again, he should be held accountable for that and held in contempt of Congress so that no future attorney general or no future cabinet official can think I can get away with that, too. So this is an important vote. I hope Speaker Johnson brings it to the floor. And I hope every single Republican in the House, maybe some Democrats

too, would vote for it. I mean, if you recognize that this guy is violating the rules, that he's abusing his power, then you should be fully willing to hold him in contempt of Congress. Yeah. So is that going to come to the floor? Is it going to be successful? We were hoping it would come to the floor this week. I think all of your listeners should reach out to Speaker Johnson and let him know this is important. Put it on the floor. Let's vote on it. I want to vote on it. So let's not pass up that opportunity to make our voices heard, to put every every Republican on the record of of are you are you here to do the right thing and hold those who abuse their power accountable? And this is an opportunity for us to do that. I hope we don't miss out on that opportunity. Yeah, I hope so. Because the consequences are pretty dire when you look at

the cutout state, like when you look at the client state, Ukraine, and what happens inside of that state department propped up 51st pseudo state and the hellscape that has been created over there. You've been doing a lot of work on this. They've, of course, canceled their elections. They're banning Christian churches. It is every bit of a dictatorship that we claim to be fighting. It is every bit of a regime that we claim to stand against. We are actually supporting and funding, and it's completely and totally evil. It's anti-democratic. Once again, they've canceled elections from here into eternity. And it's not a free society. It's the opposite. But also, it's a society that if you follow through the natural end conclusion of the censorship that's going on inside of the Biden administration and what you what you've seen, the DOJ, the actions of the DOJ, they have enemies lists. You know, it's very Stalin esque.

There are enemies lists that are being created. And the end result here is obviously going to be state sanctioned enemies of the state. And Ukraine has created those lists, actually. And your office did a great job at exposing them. We happen to be on those lists. Our executive producer, ALX, to his great credit, was also on those lists. Pretty shocking that my tax dollars and my children's future is being leveraged to go to a nation that rewards me by putting me on an enemies list for my free speech.

Crazy. I mean, this is just crazy to think that a an NGO with ties, by the way, to the Obama Biden White House took money from the State Department that's associated with Ukraine and their government would put out a list and name me and you, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Don Trump Jr. A lot of Republican. There's there's not a single Democrat on this enemies of Ukraine list. But every everybody on it is either a conservative or Republican who recognizes that we're not going to bankrupt America to fund corruption in Ukraine. That's why I voted against hundreds of, at this point, hundreds of billions of dollars for aid packages to Ukraine. And it's landed me on this enemies of Ukraine list. So I wanted to draw attention to it because my constituents at home and Hoosiers at large are saying enough is enough. I mean, America can't secure its own border. Why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine?

If that makes me an enemy of Ukraine, then I wear that as a badge of honor. I mean, this is a pure absurdity. And where is the Biden administration or the State Department? Where have they defended any of us that have been named an enemy of a foreign country? If I were a Democrat congressman, I guarantee you that Anthony Blinken would be pushing back on whatever that foreign country is that calls a member of Congress an enemy of that country for voting against further public aid and bankrupting my own country for that of another. So of course, they're not going to do anything about it. That's why we got to get Donald Trump back in the White House

to solve the situation between Ukraine and Russia and make America strong again from a foreign policy standpoint so that our enemies fear us and our allies respect us once again. I mean, that's what this all comes back to. Yeah. The only problem with what you just said there, Congressman, is that Anthony Blinken is too busy organizing the CIA and CIA contractors to write fake letters discrediting a real laptop that shows at least 400 felonies of the Biden family. Yeah. He's too busy doing that. He was, again, the consequence reward matrix is totally broken in Washington. Anthony Blinken gets rewarded for doing that

with the Secretary of State position. Nothing will change unless somebody sees some consequences. So we appreciate your fight. We know it is an uphill battle. We encourage everybody to follow Congressman Jim Banks. He is one of those guys who actually does throw some elbows and land some punches here and there. He's somebody who's feared by all the right people. And 125,000 Americans can't be wrong. Congressman, thank you so much and Godspeed. Good to be with you. Thank you.

It's so frustrating sometimes. It's so frustrating sometimes. And it's not Jim Banks' fault, right? It's not Congressman Jim Banks' fault that all this is happening. But the decay and the weakness of Republican leaders for generations who have just sort of lived off the fat of the land and have allowed this slow creep of totalitarianism to happen. And now, now the unthinkable, now the unthinkable. We're looking at gag orders on the, on Donald Trump. Speaking of free speech. You know, it's like, I didn't really want to celebrate this. The judge has altered Trump's gag order to let him talk a little bit about his hush money conviction. I mean, so we're supposed to celebrate this, that the leading candidate for president is allowed to talk to the american people that his

meanwhile all of his supporters uh can be completely nuked from space by a federal by a federal government agency that we pay for what an insult what an insult to us like we like we have to pay for our own captivity. That's how slavery works. It's like how slaveries work throughout all time. The Hebrews, the Israelites, get enslaved by Pharaoh, by Egypt, right? And their slavery was 20% of their crops and wages, right? So you had to pay 20%. That was the slave wage, right? For this horrible enslavement, right? That has been

taught throughout all history. The average tax rate in America is 32%. So we're already like worse tax cattle than slave states, right? They have no need for the chains. The chains are digital now straight into our bank accounts, straight from the IRS. The chain, like they don't need, they don't need the chains, the physical chains anymore. They, they have, they have the digital and the bureaucratic chains on all of us. And now they have obviously lashes on our speech, say the wrong words, and you will be silenced. So ask yourself, are you actually free? What does that mean to live in a free country? It's like, the answer to that is obviously no.

We started in a revolutionary war over like a one cent tax on tea. So it's pretty, pretty remarkable how quickly we've fallen. And now we're asked to celebrate because the judge rolled back a little bit of the gag order on our presidential candidate. No, I will not celebrate this. I'll let Alina Ahaba, though, sound off on it. Here we go. Well, first and foremost, we have the absolute ridiculousness where they try and make it sound like Judge Mershon is being politically unbiased. We know that's not the case. We had a partial win in the First Amendment gag order where he allowed the president to now speak about witnesses. Remember, President Trump is the only person being gagged here.

He is the only political candidate that is being gagged. Witnesses themselves weren't gagged. So we have Judge Mershon now after the trial, after people like Michael Cohen could go on MSDNC and all the rest and talk. Now they say, oh, hey, you were convicted by a New York blue jury, but now you can talk. Don't get it twisted. This is what they're doing to make the American people think that everything is fair and square when we know it is not. It's much like Hunter Biden, who's still walking around freely despite the sham of a trial that they had for him to make

them look like they're not biased. So then on top of that, Sean, we had the DOJ and, you know, Jack Smith, who we do not believe is even a valid special counsel who wasn't appointed properly, shouldn't be in the position now asking for yet another gag order. It's no different than what we're going to see on Thursday. They are orchestrating everything through courts. If they can't hype up and hop up Joe Biden, they'll just make sure they silence President Trump while they go after him politically in the courtroom. So, yeah, not not going to not going to celebrate that. President's been gagged, His supporters are allowed to be harassed, intimidated, and to have their rights violated via the federal government. No, something needs to change and change dramatically. It's what we fight for here every single day. That's why we're excited about the potential for Donald Trump to pick a VP even today, according to NBC News.

According to NBC News, Donald Trump will be making his VP selection in the coming hours before the debate. Again, the debate is going to be in approximately 30 hours from now. And so will Donald Trump choose his VP between then? Well, NBC News, who is very well sourced inside of the Trump campaign, says that the announcement could come before the debate. That'd be pretty exciting. There is a ton of speculation around three names, Doug Burgum, Marco Rubio, and J.D. Vance, but don't count them out, man. There's been a lot of whispers about Vivek. Vivek's going to be at the debate. Vivek is helping Trump prepare for the debate along with a pretty awesome rockstar team. And so I don't know. I mean, it's Trump, right? So we'll see. Of course, we're on VP watch.

And we're trying to pick up like any vibe. Donald Trump's going to have a event today at 1 p.m. in Atlanta. And it's going to be a live event. He's going to have somebody who's on his VP shortlist there, Byron Donald. Donald Trump said that his VP will be at the debate and that he's already decided who his VP is. OK, so here's the breaking news. Joining us now from Fort Pierce, Florida, is NBC News correspondent Dasha Burns. Dasha, what are you hearing? So, Katie, this is all coming to us just moments ago. The former president, according to four sources familiar with the situation, could announce his vice presidential pick as soon as this week.

Several sources telling us it could come before Thursday night's debate. Now, he had said publicly that he was going to announce closer to the convention, either at the convention or shortly before. But one source telling me that there was a shift in the conversation as early as last week to pivot and to do this sooner, to make a splash earlier. They're, of course, working with some date constraints here. They're looking at the sentencing on July 11th, the Republican National Convention right after, and, of course, the debate on Thursday. So they've been trying to work out, looking at these different options, looking at the pros and cons of when to announce. And it seems now that they are considering announcing this week again, potentially before the debate. We're still working out on details about why exactly this decision was made.

But we are now looking at a very, very soon knowing who the running mate will be for former President Trump, Katie. You can trust that our program will be on this story. We're in direct communication with Team Trump. There's been some very interesting little snippet tweets that have been sent out by Trump advisors, like Chris Lasivia, who's said, hey, I'm traveling down to West Palm Beach. Guess who's on the plane with me?

Very exciting, right? What does that mean? We don't know, but they're clearly teasing this out. Stephen Chung also has been tweeting, hey, very, very exciting. He quote tweeted that these are Trump advisors who are like kind of sprinkling in that a VP has been selected

and that they're like in you know they're going down to west palm beach that they're they're traveling secretly with trump so what is what does it all mean don't like we don't know we're not sure but we'll be locked in and ready to cover all of it and uh you can trust that we will we will stop on a dime to get that news up and out for you. We will show up for you. We promise to show up for you. We're still trying to figure out what the hell to do with tomorrow. I'll just be honest with you. This is an internal conversation. So CNN, maybe you pick this up, but CNN, total dicks, they have said that we are not allowed to stream the debate. And they have used their muscle on the platforms,

with the platforms, to say that they will effectively penalize or take down us streaming the debate, right? So we would do all this work to build up and go. This is just kind of our internal thought process here. And I've never lied to you, so I might as well just be honest here. So we do all this work to build out a debate show, right? And the moment we start streaming the CNN debate, boom, the channel gets completely hit and the debate gets ripped down, right? And does that serve anybody, right? I mean, that obviously gives us a big talking point against

CNN, but we already don't like CNN. So it's like we don't need the convincing. The question is how to handle tomorrow night. And we're going to have those conversations all day today. We're consulting with our attorneys to figure out how to fight this. of fair use. The purpose of the fair use laws is for a channel like ours to be able to comment, fact check, and provide our own discourse on two men who are running for president of the United States. That is by definition fair use. It is something that is in the public interest. And we are spending the entire afternoon actually consulting with our lawyers to try and figure out what we're going to do here. It makes us very angry. It is a petulant and despicable decision by CNN to do this. And they are attacking independent creators. They see us as the threat to them, to the corporate media hegemony. And the longer the time span draws out, the more you see that corporate media is going

to balkanize and try as hard as they can to destroy independent creators. And that's then ultimately going to be the goal, is to destroy and to atomize independent creators. And so we're going to fight that with everything that we have. So when it comes to tomorrow night's debate, we will be live. You can count on that. We will have a interview with Laura Trump

that we've already booked out. So we're going to be speaking with Laura Trump before the debate. We have a bunch of pre-debate programming. And again, we're going to be spending the afternoon sort will be there for you. OK, you didn't need any more of a reason to hate CNN, but but here's here it is. And so in full disclosure, this is what we're dealing with is what Tim Pool is dealing with. This is what breaking, you know, breaking points, the Saga and Jetty's program, Crystal Ball's program dealing with. So they're not just going after conservatives, they're going after all independent creators. CNN is saying no independent creator is allowed to stream this except for us, except for,

you know, CNN is the only people that can stream this, which again, completely violative of fair use. And it is in the public interest, of course, for you to see this debate. So we're doing everything that we possibly can to fight this. We'll have an update for you tomorrow about what our program is going to officially look like. Ladies and gentlemen, please sign up for the Benny Brigade as we will do everything that we possibly can to show up for you, including fighting legal wars. Please show up for us and keep us independent so that we can continue to make these decisions and to do the very best reporting that we can do ourselves on this program to talk about

these issues with heart and with the honesty that these issues deserve. And that is ultimately what we wish to deliver to you, salt and light. Salt and light from our verse of the day today from Psalms. Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord, our God. Don't put your faith in men. I don't care who they are. Don't put your faith in men. I don't even care. I don't care who they are. Don't put your faith in men. Don't put your faith in political parties. Certainly not the

Republican Party, as we demonstrated with our interview today. Generally worthless. Don't put your faith in even nation states, right? Like, understand that these things fail and have always failed throughout history. Put your faith in the Lord, our God, in the name of Jesus Christ, and then you will have the victory. Then you can be assured that the victory is yours and that you can stand and live upright and march with total confidence as we march alongside you. It's your boy, Benny. It's the Benny Show. See ya.

Former MLB All-Star Sean Casey, a.k.a. the Mayor, keeps hitting it out of the park. Take my 30 years of experience. Take the wisdom and knowledge I've learned from the failures. When I got sent down my rookie year, all the injuries I had to overcome. Your mind is the most important tool you have in life. Be relentless. Keep charging. It matters how you talk to yourself, how you look at the world. That matters. We talk about that. I don't know. I'm fired up. Baseball's back and it's going to be incredible. I love it. The Mayor's Office with Sean Casey from Believe. Follow and listen on

your favorite platform.