New Plan Would Scrap and Remake the FBI; Biden Says He Dodged WWIII

Hey, good morning everyone. Let's talk about the FBI. I'm sure you saw yesterday, FBI Director Christopher Wray was testifying before Congress, and honestly, in terms of the questions, it's nothing new. They're asking about, of course, undercover agents on the word, I cannot mention, J-something, J6? Asking about that, he refused to acknowledge whether or not they had undercover agents there that day who may have acted as provocateurs. They asked him about weaponization of government, the targeting of President Donald Trump, the many things that suggest the agency has been politicized. But I think the real new thing is this, there are serious questions right now as to whether there need to be reforms within the FBI. And this, I think, is what's going to come out from these discussions, the idea of whether something needs to change, frankly. Because what we have seen, and at the very least, you can acknowledge when, again, Trump was still president, and you had James Comey and those guys allowing for the investigations into Trump Russia to go through while knowing it was fake, and even allowed for attempts to remove Trump from office as the sitting president, knowing it was fake, to allow that to happen. In other words, what you would traditionally call a palace coup, a coup d'etat, to allow that to happen demonstrated that if politicized, the FBI could launch a coup against our own government, that they could destroy our own government. And you could argue that James Comey, at least if not intentionally, did play a role where he almost did that. Of course, they did not remove Trump from office, at least not while he was president, but they did, of course, undermine his entire presidency using fake narratives, you know, Trump Russia. Now, given that, there are some real questions as to what can be done. Because you might remember that when special counsel John Durham wrote his report detailing the cross, you know, they call it the crossfire hurricane investigations, crossfire hurricane being the extravagant sounding name that the FBI gave to their investigations into Trump, which is not it's not normal for them to give like movie title names to investigations like that, by the way, like it's not it's not normal behavior, which does suggest even that was a little weird. But after John Durham released his report and exposed that what had happened, Durham's excuse is his logic in terms of how that was able to happen. How was it that false information was able to be presented at the FBI and they rolled with it? How was it that there were multiple gaps, things that even independent researchers, things that myself, for example, noted took place were not taken into account, or maybe they were and they were done anyways. But regardless, they launched these investigations, they undermined the President of the United States and they allowed and sat back as individuals tried to remove him. Of course, James Comey was proclaiming he had evidence he did not. And James Comey, as former FBI director, frequently was making appearances on Twitter and elsewhere, you know, making it seem like the President of the United States was a criminal when he was not. You can debate on everything else on Trump, Russia, he was innocent, right? Say as you will, the facts are out now. That being the case, what Durham said was that there was confirmation bias, confirmation bias, meaning people's discernment had been damaged by their own bias. The lack of proper discernment, people assumed, well, Trump must be guilty. So this evidence I'm being presented with, even if flawed, must be accurate. Look, we can argue that we all do that a little bit. I think a lot of people assume Hunter Biden is guilty of a lot of things. It's confirmation bias. And so if crack cocaine is discovered in a random part of the White House, everyone assumes it was him. Because, you know, it is and I know that the circumstantial evidence is there, but it's not hard evidence, right? We don't know for a fact, but there's confirmation bias where we're like, gee, I wonder who it was. I understand that. Yeah, well, look, I think it was him. You know, I mean, if you have a guy taking photos of himself driving 170 miles on the freeway while smoking crack and then he shows up at the White House and there's crack there, you know, you generally think it might be that guy. You know what I mean? Anyways, on the point of the FBI, there are real questions now on do there need to be checks and balances, additional ones? The problem is there already are checks and balances and they were not followed. What do you do if an agency chooses to not follow its checks and balances? Do you need additional oversight? Well, it was already there. And the problem is, is that the FBI, of course, has additional power. You know, for example, Ray, as we speak, testifying before Congress yesterday, you know, would be considered oversight. And you know, in other words, it's a very complicated time. There's a problem and they're trying to figure out how to fix it. And so there are some real proposals right now on how they can fix the problem. Let me show you this. Town Hall had something, Heritage Foundation. One of the proposals on how to fix this problem is, well, just remake the whole FBI. Give them the old Great Reset. We've heard of the Great Reset. Maybe the FBI needs a Great Reset. And if you talk to some folks, they say this as well. There needs to be kind of a holding to account of individuals who did in fact violate the law. There needs to be a holding to account of individuals who violated their oath. There needs to be a holding to account of people who had confirmation bias and committed what could be considered in some countries treason. You know, you try to remove a president from office. You try to overthrow the president of a country. What do you call that? You know, what do you call it when some group of people tried to overthrow the president? You call it a palace coup. You call it a coup d'etat. You call it insurrection, actual insurrection. And you need to hold people to account. Even if it was done with them believing that the evidence may have been accurate, when they ignored the checks and balances and it results in something as damaging to a nation as that was. Not to mention the damage it caused to just civil harmony, where half the country thought Trump was guilty and was, you know, rioting on the streets. People died. People were killed in those riots. You know, what do you do? Nobody was held to account, right? Let me show you what Heritage Foundation says. It says here, Short of that comprehensive reform, Congress must, at the very least, put in place the minimum set of proposed reforms outlined in this paper and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 702, offers a perfect vehicle for doing so. It says the report offers nearly a dozen elements to reconstruct the FBI, including by limiting the tools of investigation used by the Bureau, prohibit efforts to suppress free speech, and other constitutional rights, and shifting headcount and resources from Washington to the field offices, and considering moving the Bureau's headquarters out of the national capital area. Now, of course, the FBI does have its purpose. They have done things that are very important. And some of the things, for example, like going after multi-state or multinational criminal operations operating in the U.S., it is necessary to an extent. The problem you have with traditional law enforcement in the United States, which actually would be the sheriffs, is jurisdiction. They can't necessarily cross state lines. And if you have a multinational criminal syndicate, or a multi-even nation, you know, multi-state or across the whole country, criminal syndicate, something which is relatively new for us to be facing, it's very hard for local law enforcement to deal with that. They can root out the problem locally. They can advise their counterparts in other states on how to also root it out. But in terms of going after an entire criminal network when it's operating in multiple areas, it's really, it doesn't work. That's a problem too when we're dealing with communist subversion, and when we're dealing with communist, like Chinese Communist Party spies. And the FBI has shown to be at least getting better, getting better when it comes to going after these folks. Now, that being said, if you were to ask me, right, if you were to ask me what should be done, I would tell you, this is my personal opinion, how to fix the FBI. If I were to give proposals, I would say this, the only traditional law enforcement branch in the entire United States is the sheriff. Sheriffs are elected officials. The sheriff can appoint deputies, right, deputizing people, which are the, you know, the sheriff and his or her deputies. The sheriff is sworn only to the Constitution. The sheriff has no allegiance outside of the Constitution. They are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. The answer to no politician, the answer to no, you know, agency, the DOJ cannot control them, DHS cannot control them. The President of the United States cannot force a sheriff to do something at their bidding. The sheriffs are, again, elected officials sworn only, right, to the Constitution. That is their allegiance. And they are also, again, you know, understanding that they have to go by what they call the spirit of the law, not the technical enforcement of the, you know, the technical details of law, which police departments typically have. Police departments are, you know, they're under the mayors, and they can be to an extent politicized as they, of course, have to follow city hall. The FBI is something new. The FBI is under the DOJ, the Department of Justice. They were created by executive order. They are appointed, but they're not elected. And because of that, I think you have the issue of allegiance. The FBI is under the DOJ, and it is an allegiance to the DOJ, and the DOJ controls them. The head of the DOJ is an appointed official as well by the President of the United States. And you do risk, because of party politics, having essentially elected, having essentially appointed individuals within our justice system, within the FBI itself, tied to whichever president is in power. And because we have such deeply divided politics in this country, if you have the president in power, obviously, and they appoint their entire cabinet, you're going to have a politicized system, and you're going to have exactly the problems we had. If you were to ask me what the solution is, it is replicate the model that this country was left with by the founding fathers, that is the sheriffs, on every branch of law enforcement. The head of that branch, the head of the police departments, should not answer to the mayors. The heads of police departments should be elected officials sworn only to the Constitution. The head of the FBI should not be appointed. The head of the FBI should be an elected official sworn only to uphold and protect the Constitution. If you were to ask me, that is the one way to fix it. Replicate the model of the sheriffs for every branch of law enforcement, including federal law enforcement. Only through that could you depoliticize it. Because only through that, I mean, again, you would always have risks and problems. Corruption is going to exist in no matter what system you have. And that is the reality of human history. There is not a single model of government in the entire spectrum of all of human history that has ever, ever, ever, ever been immune to corruption. Because if individuals become corrupt, you're going to have problems. That's why you have checks and balances. And that's why you have systems in place to create, to an extent, divisions. Let's call it, you know, the separations of powers. It's why in the United States, Congress has to agree on the legislative side, the president has to sign off and have to even pass a lot. And the, again, Justice Department, well, again, the courts, the Supreme Court can still even challenge that. There are checks and balances, things that hold each other to account. If you would ask me, again, the only way to fix the problems of politicized law in this country would be to replicate the model of the sheriffs, which is the form of law enforcement that the founding fathers intended to have for this country. That is the only solution, personally. That being said, let's talk about some other stuff. We'll jump over to Epoch TV for the rest, though, because I want to talk about how Biden avoided, or says he avoided, World War III. In all honesty, he kind of did. I'd actually agree with him on this. Biden avoided World War III. Let's talk about this. We'll jump over to Epoch TV for that. Again, those of you on YouTube, come join us. Breathe the fresh air of freedom. Escape censored news. Get away from censored news. They're not telling you the truth. They are dishonest individuals.