'We Know Why They Did It' - Jim Jordan Eviscerates Merrick Garland On Live Television

Hey, ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America

and Merrick Garland's ears must be ringing because he got roasted. Just moments ago, folks, before we get started

please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe. Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

Now, Merrick Garland appeared before the house on Wednesday, the 20th of September

and he was met with a fiery Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan pulled no punches

He let him know exactly what he believes Merrick Garland did and the reasons he believes Merrick Garland did it

Now I'm going to avoid getting into any kind of trouble here by just having you listen to Jim Jordan

just really lace in to Merrick Garland. It's so beautiful. I want you to watch every second of it

Let's take a look. himself quote mr weiss has full authority to bring cases and other jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary

that was your response attorney general to senator grassley's question on march 1st 2023 just

referenced it when mr bishop was questioning you only problem is he'd already been turned down

by the u.s attorney in the district of columbia mr graves so he didn't have full authority did he

i had an extended conversation with uh senator grassley at the time we briefly touched on the 515 question and how that process went I have never been suggested My point real simple Mr Garland You said he had complete authority but he already been turned down

He wanted to bring an action in the District of Columbia, and the U.S. attorney there said

no, you can't. And then you go tell the United States Senate under oath that he has complete authority

I'm going to say again that no one had the authority to turn him down

They could refuse to partner with him. They could not. You can use whatever language refused to partner is turning down

It's not the same under a well-known Justice Department of practice. Here's why the statute of limitations question is important

that Mr. Bishop was getting at just a few minutes ago. Here's why it's important

You let the statute of limitations lapse for 2014, 2015. Those were the years with the felony tax charges

where Hunter Biden was getting income from Burisma. Here are four facts that I think are so important

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma, made a lot of money, got paid a lot of money over those years

A couple million bucks. He wasn't qualified. Fact number two, he wasn't qualified to be on the board of Burisma

Not my words, his words. He said he got on the board because of his last name

The brand, as Devin Archer said, when he was under oath and we deposed him. Fact number three, Burisma executives told Hunter Biden, we're under pressure, we need help

Fact number four. Joe Biden goes to Ukraine, leverages our tax money, American people's tax money, to get the prosecutor fired

who was applying the pressure. Interestingly enough that fact is entirely consistent with what the confidential human source told the FBI and they recorded in the 1023 form

The same form, Mr. Ray, didn't want to let this committee and the Congress see

That all happened. That all happened. What I'm wondering is why you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax years that dealt with barisma income

There's one more fact that's important, and that is. that this investigation was being conducted by Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump

You will, at the appropriate time, have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that question

and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the Congress

I don't know the answer to those questions. Did they forget, did the lawyers just like let it, did they just like, oh, darn, we let it, were they careless? I expect that won't be what he says

but because I promise. You know that's not the case, because as Mr. Bishop pointed out

they had a tolling agreement. They talked to Hunter Bynes' defense counsel and say, let's extend the statute of limitations

And then at some point, they made an intentional decision to say, we're going to let the statute

of limitations lapse. And I want to know who decided that and why they did it

Mr. Weiss was a supervisor of the investigation at that time and at all times

He made the appropriate decisions, and you'll be able to ask him that question, and he will

You know why they did it. Everyone knows why they did it. May not say it but everyone knows why they did it They did those tax shears that that that dealt with the that involved the president It one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware That doesn involve the president of the United States But Burisma oh my that goes right to

the White House. We can't have that. And we can slow walk this thing along. We can even extend

this statute of limitations, and then we can intentionally let it lapse. And we know this investigation was slow. Here's what everyone said. Shappley said, DOJ slow walk the investigation

Ziegler, slow walking and the approvals of everything. This happened at the Delaware's

attorney's office and DOJ tax level. Mr. Sobasinski, the FBI agent said

I would have liked to see things move faster. Ms. Holly said the same

Every witness we've talked to said this thing was slow walk, and we know why. They were slow walked it long enough to let the statute of limitations run

so they wouldn't have to get into barisem. Tell me where I'm wrong

Wow. Wow. He blew his doors off, folks. That was fire. That was fire

Good for you, Jim Jordan. You said what a lot of us are thinking, and well, frankly, we couldn't have said it better ourselves

I want to know what you guys think of what Jim Jordan said. Do you agree with him? Do you think he did the right thing

Do you think he handled it well and said everything that needed to be said

Let me know in the comments. Also, please make sure you like, share, and subscribe. It really helps us out

I'm Carmine Sabia. This is Explained America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody