The President's Daily Brief - February 2nd, 2023. FBI Raids Another Joe Biden Property.

Episode Date: February 2, 2023

It’s February 2nd. You’re listening to the President’s Daily Brief. Your morning intel starts now. ------ A good day to you, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve got three big briefs for you this morning that are shaping America — and the world. First, Joe Biden’s beach house was searched yesterday by the FBI. But there’s another place they should be taking a look at. I’ll tell you all about it. Second, the Biden Administration launched a second front / in a new war. This one’s against gas stoves. I’ll explain the latest. Third, a special brief for you today. It’s one that the CIA sometimes gives to the President called an Executive Brief. It’s a deep dive into a person or concern of great interest. Today, it’s about a new Middle Eastern leader named Saddam. But not in Baghdad. This one’s in Libya. Later, we close out the podcast with an observation I had on the immigration crisis in New York City. It’s an opinion, but not mine. It’s from a / legal immigrant. And his words moved me. I think they’ll move you too.  ----- Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of the President's Daily Brief. Email: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's February 2nd. You're listening to the President's Daily Brief. I'm your host and former CIA Officer Brian Dean Wright. Your morning intel starts now. A good day to you, ladies and gentlemen. I've got three big briefs for you this morning that are shaping America and the world. First, Joe Biden's Beach House was searched yesterday by the FBI. But there's actually another place that they should be taken a look at. I'll tell you all about it. Second, the Biden administration launched a second front and a new war. This one is against gas stoves. Oh, dear.

I'll explain the latest. Third, a special brief for you today. It's one that the CIA sometimes gives to the president called an executive brief. It's a deep dive into a person or a concern of great interest. Today, it's about a new Middle Eastern leader named Saddam, but not in Baghdad. This one is in Libya.

Later, we close out the podcast with an observation I had on the immigration crisis in New York City. Now, it's an opinion, but it's not mine. It's from a legal immigrant. Now, his words moved me, and I think they'll move you too. But before we get to that, we got to get started with this. Another day, another search of a Joe Biden home. This one is in Rahobit Beach, Delaware.

The FBI went in yesterday to the Biden family Beach House, searched for around four hours, and then they left. Mr. Biden's attorneys are saying that they found no classified material, although they did take some notebooks with Mr. Biden's handwritten memories of his time as vice president. So we'll see if any of those recollections had classified material in it, much like those notebooks that were found at Biden's other home in Delaware a couple weeks ago. So folks, all told, we now have three different Biden locations that have been searched by the FBI. We've got the office in the United.

DC, the main house in Delaware, and now the beach house. But there's actually one place that deserves your attention and the FBI's. And that's the Biden material that's being held at the University of Delaware, material that Biden himself has said that he wants no one to see. All right, here are those details. So back in 2012, Joe Biden gave reams of documents from his time as a senator to the University of Delaware. Now, both Mr. Biden and the university have since refused to let anyone review those documents. Well, why? Why is that? Well, the university claims that they're still working to organize and catalog all of the material, so they say it would be inappropriate to interrupt the process. Okay, but to be clear, that process started over 10 years ago. Meanwhile, Mr. Biden says

that he doesn't want anyone to review that material because it might be bad for him politically. I'm going to give you the exact quote here. But he said this back in May of 2020 when he was facing allegations of sexual assault during his time as senator. The accuser, Tara Reid, suggested that these senatorial records should be opened up and reviewed to prove, she said, her claim. Well, Biden said at the time, absolutely not. In an interview with MSNBC, Mr. Biden said, quote, the idea that the records would all be made public while I was running for office,

well, they could be really taken out of context. Strange. So what exactly are in these documents? What's the material about? Well, he went on to say in this MSNBC interview that the records include times when, quote, I met with Putin or when I met with whomever. and all of that would be fodder in a campaign. In other words, and in his words,

these documents are either embarrassing politically or they have to do with discrete conversations with foreign dictators like Russia's President Vladimir Putin. And that is why, he says, they must be kept hidden from view. And for the past three years, they have been. But the question before us, before, well, the FBI, is should they be hidden?

Because now we have multiple examples of Biden possessing either top secret documents owned by the government or his notes that contain classified material that are also owned by the government, all of which were not held in secure facilities in violation, of course, of the law. And that folks suggest that these Biden materials at the University of Delaware could very well fit the same pattern of malfeasance. But we don't know. and we won't know unless the FBI forces Mr. Biden and the University of Delaware to release these documents. Well, will that happen? Should that happen?

I'm going to leave that up to you to decide, but I will say this as a matter of my own opinion. If this were you or I, and the FBI knew that we had an established record of taking or writing down classified material, and then leaving that material in unsecured environments? Hmm. Well, those materials would absolutely be seized, right? You know it, I know it, and every reasonable American knows it because it's common sense.

So let's see if that happens to Joe Biden, or if instead there are two sets of rules and laws in America, one for you and I, and another for the nation's elites. All right. Let's move on. For our second brief this morning, the battle over America's gas stoves is apparently heating up again, no pun intended. The Energy Department is saying that they too want to ban gas stoves from American homes. So here's what we know with some quick background. A couple of weeks

ago, an official with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission floated the idea of banning gas stoves. So the argument was that they were bad for your health and contributed to climate change. Well, the reaction, as you probably know, was immediate and fierce. People were not happy about it, in part because natural gas stoves are used in about 40% of American homes. Well, that backlash worked, sort of. The commission's chief clarified that they weren't interested in really banning gas stoves, but he later added that they're still moving forward with something called a request for information on the topic. which is actually the first step if you want to issue a new set of regulations for, yeah, banning gas stoves. Okay.

As that process kicked off at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy was cooking up their own announcement for a separate effort to ban gas stoves. And late yesterday, we learned all about it. The Energy Department issued a new set of proposals that, if adopted, would set limits on energy consumption, for stoves. And as Bloomberg News is reporting, those proposals would effectively end the use of gas stoves in America. In fact, the trade group that represents manufacturers called the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers said that, quote, this approach by the DOE could effectively ban gas appliances. Now, to be fair, the folks at the Energy Department are saying that they're doing this to squeeze out more efficiency from appliances, to redactivity.

their energy requirements by about 30%. But regardless, the effect, whether it's intended or not, is to rid the nation of gas stoves. And actually, that makes sense. The Biden administration has made very clear that they want to put the oil and gas industry out of business and replace it with solar and wind and batteries. So this banning of natural gas appliances would be a natural extension of that war on traditional energy. At any rate, do keep this in mind if you've got a gas stove or you want one or you think that this is just crazy.

And the government should be worried about lots of other things. With that, ladies and gentlemen, let's take a quick break. When we come back, I've got one more critical piece of news for you. So hang tight and we will be right back. Welcome back to the PDB. I've got one more critical piece of news for you this morning. folks, if I say the name Saddam Hussein, most of you probably know that he was the former dictator of Iraq.

Well, we have got a new Saddam for us to talk about, but not in Baghdad. This one is in Libya, and he might be the new president of that country at some point very soon. So before I give you the details, let me tell you why I'm giving this brief to you. When the U.S. president gets the actual president's daily brief from the CIA or something called the ODNI, sometimes they ask for what's called an executive brief. It means that the president wants to know more because they see something extra important that they really want to know more about,

perhaps a new opportunity or a new threat. And that's why we're talking about Libya this morning as a part of this executive brief. As PDB listeners know about two weeks ago, the CIA director made a surprise visit to Libya. And as I told you, the reasons for that visit were probably twofold. first to see if he could get more Libyan suspects related to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988. Second, he was also probably trying to settle the fight between two warring parties,

the first being the officially recognized government in the capital city of Tripoli. And the other is the militia running the eastern side of the country based in the city of Benghazi. And what the CIA director was almost certainly focused on was a, way to settle that fight because Europe could really use Libya's oil and natural gas, all because the Russian spigot got turned off a while back. But that's a tough thing to do if the country of Libya is caught in war or strife. So this executive brief then is imagining that you are the president, and you're focused on that militia in eastern Libya because you actually support the government in Tripoli. And you got to figure out what to do about this militia.

and its leader, a man named Khalifa Haftar. And, as it appears, it's a militia that's led by his son, too, a man named Saddam Haftar. So let's dig into the world of militias and spies and intrigue, because if we, as presidents, can get Khalifa and Saddam under our American influence, well, we can get that oil and natural gas flowing to Europe, which benefits our trade partners there, obviously, but also. the American people. So let's get to it, starting all the way back to the year 1969. So that was a big year for Libya, Khalifa Haftar and a group of officers, including a man named Colonel Mulmar Gaddafi, led a coup against Libya's king, a fellow named King Idris. As Gaddafi took

control, Haftar became a favorite military leader of his. Well, until the year 1987, when Hoftar and 300 troops were captured in the neighboring country of Chad, despite Gaddafi saying that his troops weren't there at all. So to save face, Gaddafi disavowed Hoftar, and that forced him to flee into exile. Well, he turned up in northern Virginia, not too far from CIA headquarters. Well, over the years, he became a U.S. citizen, and he was alleged to have a relationship with the U.S. intelligence community to include operations that were trying to kill Gaddafi. And I will say that, well, that certainly sounds like something that could be true. All right. When Gaddafi was eventually overthrown in 2011,

Hoftar went back to Libya to the east in Mungazi, where he enjoyed the support of his Arab tribe. Well, a few years later, in 2014, he went on national TV and called on Libyans to rise up against the government. But this time, it wasn't led by Gaddafi, of course. No, this time, it was led by Western powers like the United States and Europe. And he did that because, well, in all fairness, that Western-backed government was ineffective and corrupt. Well, after his call for an uprising, he did his part.

He and his militia took on the radical Islamists who had taken control of the eastern part of the country, And by 2017, he beat him. He gained full control of Benghazi. But from here, things get a little messy. He tried to capture the capital city of Tripoli in 2019 from those corrupt and ineffective leaders, but he fell short. At the same time, he accepted help

from the Russian paramilitary organization called the Wagner Group, and they deployed up to, well, around 1,200 troops to assist him. Meanwhile, the Russian government, government met with him many times, and so too did leaders in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Well, none of that brought him much goodwill with Europe or the United States. But all the while, as the Civil War was raging, he and his militia do, well, what militias do. They developed a reputation for being ruthless and murderous. In fact, he was sued for it in

U.S. courts. Now, I should note that he was trying to stay in power and survive, and as he did so, he embraced an uneasy alliance with some radical Islamists who, well, they weren't al-Qaeda or ISIS, but they definitely were a group with very radical Islamist beliefs. It was sort of a deal, as it were, with the devil to keep his head. Well, after three years of fighting back in 2020, he and his militia agreed to a ceasefire. Now, there was supposed to be a presidential race, and he planned run, but it was postponed. And ever since, there has been this sort of unsteady peace between Tripoli and Benghazi. But, you know, time has taken its toll on Khalifa Haftar.

He's going to be 80 this year, and he's thinking about the future. Specifically, who will continue the fight for his militia, for Libya, and for whichever foreign nation might support him and his cause the most? Maybe that's Russia, maybe China, maybe the United States and Europe. And that takes us to Saddam. Over the past four weeks, we've been getting increasing signals in a Russian and Arabic press that Khalifa is making moves to put his son Saddam firmly into power in that eastern part of Libya. So, for instance, Saddam is now leading his dad's militia, and apparently he's settling scores by,

well, neutralizing opposing tribal members. Meanwhile, recent images from Benghazi's streets show that they've been decorated with Saddam's picture. Next, Saddam himself has been meeting with various intelligence agencies about his future, which probably includes a run for president of Libya and those delayed presidential elections that I mentioned. And by the way, the spy meetings included discussions with Israel's service called him Assad. That's according to the new Arab press. And he and his father probably met with the CIA too, when director William Burns was in Libya a couple weeks ago. Finally, there's one other signal for us to consider in this executive brief.

A group of 22 Arab countries were supposed to meet in Tripoli to discuss Middle Eastern affairs about a week ago, but only five countries sent representatives. The others, according to folks that I've spoken with, actually back the Heftar family, not the government in Tripoli. So, there you have it, my friends. Your executive brief on Libya and what the state of play is in that very important. important and very oil and gas-rich country. So what would you do with this information if you were president?

Who would you back? And why should Americans care? Well, let me offer you my analysis and opinion. And I'll start with this. Global affairs are messy, aren't they? Because we have a choice. Do we keep backing the government in Tripoli, which is largely detested by Libyans in the East and, frankly, other countries in the Middle? Middle East? Or do we back the Haftar family, Saddam in particular, knowing that Western Libyans likely won't accept him? Well, whatever decision we make, we should be thinking about our goals for America and the American people. First, we need to get more of those Pan Am bombing suspect

behind bars. Second, we need to ensure that natural gas keeps flowing into Europe. And that's because, as America exports our natural gas to Europe, it's limiting domestic supplies and pushing up our prices. And that hurts the American consumers, with an increasing number of folks, as I briefed you before, unable to pay those natural gas utility bills. Well, as you all think about what you would do, who we should back, you should also know this. On Saturday, major protests broke out at the all-important Malita oil complex in Libya, where protesters took over the control center. Now, that's not necessarily a new phenomenon. Different factions have tried to take ownership of the oil and gas industry for years now.

But the point is that this sort of extra spasm of violence and protest so quickly after this signing of an oil deal between the government of Tripoli and the government of Italy, it was an billion dollar deal, well, it would suggest these protests, apparently the deal was not as lucrative to the Haftars as they would have liked. So we probably need to rethink whatever the plan is that we currently have because the CIA director clearly tried to hash out some sort of deal a couple of weeks ago and some didn't land right, right? The protests on Saturday suggest that.

And that probably means we have one of two choices. We either double down on our support of the government in Tripoli and get rid of the haptars one way or the other, or we work out some sort of better deal with Khalid. for Hoftar and dump the folks in Tripoli. In other words, maybe we strike a deal with another Middle Eastern Saddam, but not in Baghdad this time. This time, our Saddam is in Benghazi.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we conclude your morning brief. But I've got one more thing before I let you go. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the PDB folks. I've got one more thing before I let you go. Over the past four days, you've probably seen folks on TV talking about what's happening in New York City at the Watson Hotel. So for months now, the city government there has paid that hotel tens of thousands of dollars

to house hundreds of illegal migrants. They're almost all single males, no families. And they enjoy pretty nice accommodations. The rooms cost about 500 bucks a night. Well, the city is asking these gentlemen, again, illegal migrants, to please relocate to another spot. It's a large terminal that normally serves. as cruise ships. It's in Brooklyn. And they want the men to leave so that they can put illegal

families in the hotel. Well, on Sunday, a kerfuffle erupted. Many of the men were refusing to leave the hotel, saying that the terminal, that only had cots, not comfy beds. And also, the bathrooms weren't as nice. They had less privacy. And also, the food wasn't as good. They were going to have to eat in a cafeteria, not a restaurant in their rooms like they were used to. So no, the men said, we will not leave the hotel. All right, one final fact to mention. According to the city, these men were supported or incited by migrant activist groups. Groups made, of course, of far-left individuals who felt these cots and cafeterias were without dignity for this very vulnerable group of men.

So that's probably what many of you have heard over the past few days on TV or in newspapers like the New York Times, or the New York Post. But I wanted to bring you something different on this story. It's an interview from the New York Post of a legal immigrant. His name is Bonfilios Solis, and he lives in New York City with his wife and four kids. And I'd like you to listen to this gentleman as you think about this story in particular, but also about illegal migration in general. Because while my opinion or yours is certainly important, this fellow's view, really resonated with me, given his journey, of course, with legal migration. And I will say that he did curse a bit in this interview. Don't worry, though. I cleaned it up for our kids listening this morning.

So with that, here we go. Here is his quote. These migrants protesting at the Watson Hotel expect benefits from the government and aren't appreciating what they've been given. They're being very disrespectful. It's BS. I've been here for 30. years. I've never got nothing from the government, but I busted my backside, and now I own my own construction company. My first job in America was washing dishes in a restaurant. Then I was a waiter. And then I got a job in construction and worked my way up to Foreman. To see these guys sitting here expecting everything to be given to them with no effort, it's not fair, especially not to other migrants like me that are willing to work and are working for a better future.

Well, to Mr. Solis, if I could just say one thing to him, I'd say, amen, brother. In just his few simple words, he captured the American spirit. He captured that, yes, you can come here legally, but don't expect to get a thing from anyone, certainly not the government. Instead, get a job and work hard. work hard for yourself and for your family be a good example for them and for the other immigrants who come after you and then as you work hard as mr solace said focus on creating a better future a better future for yourself and your family yes but ultimately for your community from the quality of your schools to how you deal with your neighbors because good men like mr solas who work hard and talk about the

those are citizens who care about their communities. They don't put up with silliness like illegals squatting in a fancy hotel and being ungrateful. Instead, they just lead. They lead their families and they lead their communities. And you know what? I know that's especially true in this case. And that's because he said something very important. He spoke about fairness.

He spoke about getting something for nothing while everybody else is working so you get these free hotel rooms and free food. Well, that's not fair. And he's right. Of course he's right. And here's a thing, folks, if enough of us believe that, if we live like that, if we vote like that, if we demand that our communities orient themselves like that, then we change the nation. We change the culture from entitlement to service and sacrifice. We change the country. We change the culture back to a time when we didn't expect something for nothing. Or if we did get some help, we were grateful and humbled. And then as soon as we could, we got back on our feet and we worked hard for our future and the future of our communities and the country. It's a culture perhaps

best embodied in the words spoken by President Jack Kennedy so many years ago at his inaugural address. Do you remember those words? Hmm. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. So Mr. Salas, wherever you are, amen, sir. You are correct. And your words are a reminder to us all. That no matter how bad or ugly things might seem these days,

the American spirit, it is still alive and well. And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes your morning brief. As always, we close out the show, reminding each other of why we are here, talking about our country and our world. It's the creed of every good spy and every smart American. It's from John, chapter 8, verse 32. And you shall know the truth. And the truth shall make you free. Good day.