On this episode, as we begin to record, we find out the breaking news about Pro-Bolsonaro’s supporters breaking into government buildings, including the Supreme Court, the Presidential Palace, and Congress, in a clear echo of the US’s January 6th.
We continue our conversation on the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war, including the significance of the continuing battle for Bakmut, increasing Western military aid and support, and some good news for Europe’s energy crisis.
Then we are onto the main story, the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives and the implications for US Foreign Policy. We discuss the new select committee on China, the promised hearings on the Afghanistan withdrawal, and, last and least, Hunter Biden.
Topics Discussed in this Episode
Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode
Ryan and Anita’s War on the Rocks Article
Russia-Ukraine War Update
Republican Takeover of US House and the Foreign Policy Implications
Follow Us
On this episode, as we begin to record, we find out the breaking news about Pro-Bolsonaro’s supporters breaking into government buildings, including the Supreme Court, the Presidential Palace, and Congress, in a clear echo of the US’s January 6th.
We continue our conversation on the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war, including the significance of the continuing battle for Bakmut, increasing Western military aid and support, and some good news for Europe’s energy crisis.
Then we are onto the main story, the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives and the implications for US Foreign Policy. We discuss the new select committee on China, the promised hearings on the Afghanistan withdrawal, and, last and least, Hunter Biden.
Topics Discussed in this Episode
Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode
Ryan and Anita’s War on the Rocks Article
Russia-Ukraine War Update
Republican Takeover of US House and the Foreign Policy Implications
Follow Us
Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in US foreign Policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relation scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co-host, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.
Ryan Kellogg: Thanks, and glad to be back. So, this is episode 26 and we're recording this on January 8th, 2023.
Anita Kellogg: Happy New Year. We are kicking off with another milestone the beginning of our second year. Once again, we thank you all for your support and hope that you continue to enjoy the show. If you know of anyone who might enjoy this content, please do pass it.
On this episode, we begin with the latest updates on the Russia, Ukraine War, including the significance of the continuing battle for Bakmut, increasing Western aid and support, and some good news for Europe's energy crisis. [00:01:00] Then we are on to the main story, the Republican takeover of the US House of Representatives and the implications for US foreign policy.
We discussed the new select committee on China and the promised hearings on the Afghanistan withdrawal and Hunter Biden. But first we have some breaking news, a pro boss, our supporters, breaking into government buildings, including the Supreme Court, the presidential Palace in Congress, in a clear echo of the January 6th.
So yeah, this is very breaking news. Like I just turned on CNN about 10 minutes ago and saw this. I don't know that we have a lot to say because we're just finding out about it, but I thought we should definitely mention it.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, just the images that we're seeing, I mean, it's like deja vu in terms of certain colored supporters and a certain colored outfits storming government buildings, taking selfies, sitting at government desk, trashing the place. It's all very reminiscent. I think the only thing I haven't seen is any obvious Qanon [00:02:00] supporters and nobody with the sort of sense of style that the Qanon shaman with this big horn had
So, I'm sure there's an equivalent on Brazil. We'll, we'll see some images emerging across the, the day, but more expansive and serious than that, the occupation of both the congressional building, the Supreme Court and the presidential Palace. Yeah. Which is I, I mean, it would be shocking to think like the White House is such a fortress here.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah up until in the beginning there wasn't a lot of violence, but they are talking about how there's a lot of increase in violence. Now what's interesting to me, I think is the way that they are literally trying to recreate some of the moments of January 6th, and that shows like a disturbing trend of really exporting some of this.
Ryan Kellogg: Well, I mean, I think this is the fitting end, I guess, to Bolson Artis, since Bolsonaro being the Trump of the tropics, you know, [00:03:00] look to Trump in terms of his messaging, his style policies, just everything was a mere image. So, I guess it's fitting that, unfortunately they stage a January 6th type coup under completely different conditions.
Obviously after. Lula's been sworn into office for over a week now.
Anita Kellogg: Right. Clearly, like nothing is more of a sign of guilt or something. I think people don't even know what he, he's guilty of or what's going to happen, but when you flee the country, you're like, oh, he knows something. He did some illegal stuff.
Right. And I think like we, when we were talking about the presidential elections, this isn't truly a complete surprise. I mean, the timing is a surprise, but certainly this has been a worry of everyone talking in respect. I think the big surprise is that it happened so late after Lulu took office.
Right. And I think that was
Ryan Kellogg: unexpected. Yeah. And I have, I mean obviously a lot more is going to come out, but I mean, maybe this is very similar where there was, I'm [00:04:00] sure there was signs of this on social media in Brazil and a buildup to this. , but it's so, so mirror image in that the police at these sites were utterly unprepared for the crowd size.
Mm-hmm. But I can't help but think in order to have, just to bring that mean people together, there's a ton of chatter online and organization mm-hmm. to, to, to do that. So, it seems like a failure of the Brazilian, you know, security around the capitol. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: And so, I don't know, it's concerning because things get more violent than they did on January 6th.
So, occupying so many buildings and it's hard to un know how Brazil civically w is going to respond to this
Ryan Kellogg: Y Yeah. Or if Bolsonaro will get involved. Because ultimately, I mean, the only scene that ended January 6th was Trump. obviously very reluctantly, very late and very late in the process, you know, telling his supporters to go home.
Will we see something similar with Bolsonaro [00:05:00] on Twitter or Right, just some WeChat or,
Anita Kellogg: I guess what I'm thinking in my head is probably no.
Ryan Kellogg: So yeah, how does that end,
Anita Kellogg: right. Yeah. So yeah, so it is very much just ongoing now, so there's only so much we can talk about, but definitely something concerning, and we'll probably show up on the next show and just pray that they managed to end it without more violence in January 6th, which was violent enough.
Yeah, exactly. We also wanted to chatter a little bit about a War in the Rocks article that is supposed to be published this week
Ryan Kellogg: that we. Yes, I think it's coming out this Monday and it was a joint piece that we did about largely because we, a lot of what we cover in this podcast is around US-China relations and the increasing tension around that.
And we've, we've touched a little bit on the migratory decisions to and migration policy. And one area that [00:06:00] previous, some of the previous research that I've been involved in looks at Chinese doctoral students and researchers specifically in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the decisions that they make and whether to stay in the US or return to China.
And it's historically it's been such a success story for the United States because nearly 90% of those doctoral students that come from China stay, contribute. A tremendous amount to the economy, but in recent years because of the the, the antagonism, the focus on students and researchers being potential spies, that that talent pipeline seems at risk.
So the article, deals with that and the, the dangers because of all the, the countermeasures that the US has introduced over the past five years or so. One thing that
Anita Kellogg: we had to edit down a bit that I think is still really important though, is what the [00:07:00] experience of people who are here as doctoral students or professors, what they undergo in terms of suspicion.
And yes, it's not maybe official investigations., but they get a lot of comments from their students that are very racial racist. They get suspicion from their colleagues. I know a couple of them who are political science, so you would think not even, you know, that sensitive degree who have endured a lot to be here.
And I think that’s a harder fix because again, it's not official policy, but something really has to be done about that because they do make such an important contribution. And I'm always amazed at the fortitude that they have to have to continue with their work here in the United States.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it's, it's definitely that frostiness and hostility that's been created because of a lot of the policies that the Trump administration introduced.
Things like the China initiative, which [00:08:00] we don't go into a lot in the article, but essentially was a Department of Justice program in 2018 that specifically targeted academics and researchers of Chinese descent and charged them with, with espionage and a lot. And the vast majority of cases had no proof around that, but that just created this condition where you have students, faculty members, you know, looking at their Chinese colleagues in a completely different light.
So that's why Yeah. One of the stats that we cite is, you know, four out of 10. Chinese academics currently in the US are considering going back because of that, that hostility. So that would be huge. And we mentioned before, you know, 90% stayed. If that changes to 60%, that's a huge loss of brain power.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah.
And one thing that's notable about that too is you have a lot of colleagues who just do treat all of this with this suspicion and would rather not see these students [00:09:00] in the United States come in the first place and there's not enough discussion on the enormous benefits. They bring the very, very, very low risk that is incurred.
And then we talk about too, why you can't just replace these with other American students or even students from another country such as India. So, I mean, I think it's a really important discussion to have and I hope it gets, becomes part of the policy discussion in Washington.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so definitely check it out.
Like I said, it should be on or in the rocks. We'll have a link to it in the show notes, and yeah, let us, let us know what you think.
Anita Kellogg: Definitely. All right, so onto our first story, the updates on the Russia, Ukraine War.
Ryan Kellogg: It's been a couple weeks since our, our last update. I'd say the, the biggest things, you know, in terms of, of what hasn't changed the battle around Bakmut and the Donbas region. [00:10:00]
Still stayed pretty significant stalemate. Just as a reminder, so Bakmut is was the city of 70,000. I think most occupants are, are now gone. But it's really been the focal point of most of the active fighting in terms of the Russian Ukraine war. And in terms of importance, we talked about before, is strategically not that significant to either side, but in terms of a symbol, it's grown even more and more.
And this is really. Driven, you know, from the Russian side, as we talked about before, by the involvement of the mercenary group, so the Wagner Group and their leader Prigozhin, who's really staked his personal reputation and his political reputation on success and the area. However, there's been more obvious tensions between the Russian military leadership and the Wagner group, and this is really a result of continued [00:11:00] stalemate.
There's been a number of reported issues around logistic problems and even lack of artillery shells for the frontline, and this was pretty shocking. I think the most Russian military observers, just because this was the one thing that. Russia inherited from the Soviet Union was a massive inventory of shells.
So the fact that they're having to ration them to the extent that you have the Wagner group essentially complaining about that, about not being able to tell Ukrainian counter attacks is a pretty significant sign that something within the logistics change, even around artillery, which is the one thing that, that they seem to have good command on is, is weakening there.
And then obviously the, the losses have been very significant. Over the period. So definitely the importance of Bakmut seems to be growing [00:12:00] because both sides have staked and there's a bit of a sunk cost fallacy, something that Ryan Evans and Michael Kaufmann on the War on the Rocks podcast discussed this week.
And I would definitely encourage everybody to, to check that out. I mean, Kaufman's the leading voice in terms of military analysis on the Ukraine war, and they really go into to some of the details on the battle specifically and, and some of the, the leading indicators in terms of, of what's going on.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I think the internal politics of this, to me is the most interesting aspect that I latch onto as the leader of the Wagner Group has certainly had this huge fight with the Russian defense minister. It's been ongoing, and he wants that position. You note that. The defense minister now has sent his own mercenary group patriot to counter the influence.
So, the way this is playing out for internal influence [00:13:00] is, I think part of why this has become important in the first
Ryan Kellogg: place. Yeah, I think so much of it is driven by internal politics within the Kremlin that it's hard to see each side. I mean that I think what's been significant is despite.
Reinforcement’s being poured into this area by the Russians that they haven't been able to gain any ground. That the Ukrainians, despite almost as heavy losses as what the Russians are seeing, that they've been able to hold the ground there, which has been a real testament to their efforts.
But yeah, the fact that the defense minister within Russia has his own mercenary group just points to the dysfunction and corruption. Within the Russian military establishment as well. Mm-hmm. and the fact that they’re jockeying for that. They have to send other mercenary groups in order to counter the influence.
Because I think the other thing that that came out was [00:14:00] a video essentially of two Wagner group mercenaries, which at first Russian propaganda said, oh, these are Ukrainians that are dressed up like the Wagner group. But then Pergo himself came out and shot a video with these two soldiers basically backing them.
And they essentially, you know, said some derogatory things towards the defense minister, but was essentially saying, yeah, this guy's incompetent. He doesn't know what he is doing. Peruzzi comes out and just, you know, forcibly, so they're supposed to be cooperating. The Wagner group can only succeed because they get logistical and intelligence report from the Russian military.
But at the same time, yeah, there's this internal competition. Between these forces. So, it just, I mean it all points to when you combine that with the fact they can't get artillery shells to frontline, it just points to more and more dysfunction within the Russian military. I think the other thing that stood out in terms of that dysfunction, Was, I think, featured in the news, you saw the [00:15:00] Ukrainian force.
So, using the rocket based artillery, the HIMAR that they got from the US struck a series of barracks just outside the city of Donetsk, which is about 60 kilometers south of Bakmut. And a resulted in the deaths of anywhere from a hundred to 400, essentially newly mobilized troops. The Russians initially blamed this strike on the illegal use of cell phones by the soldiers, but in reality, the blame is because they don't have the vehicles where the trucks in order to spread out their forces.
Mm-hmm. So in order to just keep them organized and mobilize them, they had to keep them congregated in a single area, which obviously made them very vulnerable. So, I think Russian bloggers, you know, pro Russian military bloggers have been very critical of that decision making as well. Yeah,
Anita Kellogg: so the next part aspect of this is sort of the Western military aid, and so we continue to see a gradual ramping up of [00:16:00] military support.
So one really notable development this week was that France agreed to provide the first armor vehicle, like light, very light tanks to Ukraine, which then was followed up by promises by the US and Germany to do the same. This is probably a new line that's been crossed and that tanks are no longer off, off limits.
Of course, Ukraine wants the newest models of tanks. The ones that are being given to them right now are the same sort of tanks that were used against the Soviets in the eighties, I believe, eighties and nineties. So, but definitely we continue to provide Ukraine with the type of military equipment to regain their territory.
Germany and US have also provided them with the Patriot Missile System batteries. Although my understanding is that's going to take months to train and that's always one of these factors. And governments wanting the very newest and best technology from the [00:17:00] United States, but it takes a long time to train like months and months.
And so sometimes it's really the lower. military assistance that can be more effective on the battlefield and certainly have a more immediate effect.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I, I definitely think that's a, a big issue. And obviously the, the timing as the other component and beyond the battle of back mode is the continued strikes on Russian infrastructure.
So while that has slowed somewhat, and again, this is something. Kaufman talks about in the War, in the Rocks podcast in terms of the manufacturing capability of mm-hmm. cruise missiles that the Russian industrial state can manage. It's still something where they have a limited amount of air defense, where to put it, and obviously defending what we talked about before, like these electrical substations and things is difficult to do.
Mm-hmm. . So it's a, a more of a attrition of, you know, how long can Ukraine manage [00:18:00] through the winter, which has been fortunately mild before they get these better air defense systems. Mm-hmm. ,
Anita Kellogg: definitely. Another aspect of this is the US also struggling to ramp up prediction of key weapon systems.
So one of the critiques by some in the Republican party is that we are using systems that are critical to our own protection in a possible peer competitor war with China, and the problem of ramping up production of these, these systems. , which is a topic in the class that I'm teaching, so I know quite a bit of why that happens.
One of the problems with the industrial base as it is now there's very little extra capacity. And part of this is because of the consolidation of the defense companies and began at the end of the Cold War during the Clinton administration when there was this de-emphasis switching defense in a way from de industrializing some of [00:19:00] the defense that we didn't need as many different contractors.
And so, there's actually this really famous moment called the Last Supper, and it was a 1993 dinner with defense secretary William Perry, who told all these contractors that the defense Department could no longer keep all these businesses going. And so, they should be prepared for a lot of mergers and acquisitions.
So, the problem. only now, instead of having a lot of companies that could ramp up production even a little bit, you have a lot of these like big companies who are already running three shifts. And so, the facilities that they have are not able, they just simply do not have the capacity to increase production.
And so, this is the big problem. It's something people were, if you were in a war with China, it's something people definitely worry about a lot. Like how do you replace your supplies and how long is it going to take your to replace your supplies? And the war in Ukraine is just, I think, brought that issue more to people's attention.
The good thing I think [00:20:00] about the war, maybe. I mean, there's nothing good about the war, but, but this issue is that it is bringing people to attention. And so there is this recognition, and I think there might be in response to this, in trying to ramp up production, we might increase overall capability, which would be important in any type of future war instead of being at the same situation where, you know, it's always a tradeoff between peacetime efficiency and war.
And I think you can definitely have too much going the other way but being able to have at least the ability in the economy to ramp up some production is important.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I, I agree. I mean, I think those are really good, good points. Other interesting thing I thought from the Wall Street Journal article was, you know, specifically around some of the smaller contractors, we mentioned the big six, which dominate the industry, but.
You know, there [00:21:00] was one company that article mentions Aerojet, which is a manufacturer of rocket engines, which are used in the, the Javelin and stinger missiles, which were particularly prevalent during the initial stages of the war in terms of importance and the fact that the company really struggled to meet demand.
And in terms of even replacing that inventory, it was going to take several years, which to the layperson seemed real shocking. You know that they can't ramp up production. But you've also seen the blockage by regulatory authorities within the federal government of Lockheed's acquisition to the firm. Again, this is just a, maybe a, a, a renew reflection of the D O D, that too much consolidation doesn't allow for that redundancy in the supply chain.
So they actually blocked the acquisition of this. So even if it meant like the scaling up. of it, and they've been [00:22:00] unable to, to meet the demand that that's something within D O D policy in terms of not allowing too much acquisition or consolidation going forward. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: And I think the D O D needs to have a plan though also in how do you get more diversity and how do they find smaller firms or encourage smaller firms to build in some of this redundancy?
And so, I think that's the next step for them because they definitely are trying to keep having more of these mergers, but that's not going to solve the underlying problem until they can find some smaller companies to invest in and help build their industries. Yeah. And
Ryan Kellogg: I assume that's, you know, change within the contracting policy.
Mm-hmm. in terms of, you know, giving a preference to smaller firms mm-hmm. in terms of how you reward these contracts. But yeah, it has to be all a government approach too, where you're working with the regulatory of the D J and [00:23:00] S E C and other bodies that, hey, we're not going to approve the mergers of, of certain firms in order to preserve the market competition that they feel like they need for mm-hmm.
national security purposes.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So, it's something that's pretty important and I think the issue of what we're supplying to Ukraine is giving more light to that. So, the good thing is that we've had warm weather in Europe, and so the energy crisis has not been as profound as expected with Russia having cut off all gas to Europe.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So just really quick on, on this, In the holiday season, so Europe has had unusually record warm temperatures obviously driven part by climate change and part by the La Nina weather effect. And it's resulted in the lowest spot gas prices since [00:24:00] right before the start of the Ukraine War in February of last year, and is actually down 80% from its peaks in August.
Now mind you, the prices are still about five times higher than they were in 2019 and remain much higher than the US in terms of economic competitive. European industries still struggle even at these reduced prices compared to their global peers. So, the lower prices are going to take a while to work their way through consumers, and that's just due to the, to the long duration of gas contracts.
But in terms of the, the storage stories really good. They're currently at 83% capacity, and that's compared to 54% at the same time last year, which according to the European Commission, is a really good sign. And actually, some countries have been refilling their storage in the winter, which is a little bit unheard of, but the warmer temperatures and the lower prices just [00:25:00] makes that more possible.
So, experts now think that by the end of the winter, their storage levels could be as high as 50%, which would really take a lot of pressure off of the gas markets because we talked about it would really be next winter because they would have effectively zero rushing gas to draw upon. So, looking ahead to the spring and summer when that gas is re-injected, they're, they're actually in, in pretty good shape.
And that's also driven by the fact that the overall usage is down. So, conservation efforts have, have done well, we talked about in previous episodes how the EU had set a voluntary goal of 15% reduction and the fact that they've hit 20%. Again, a lot of that driven by warmer weather. But a lot of that is just from industries and.
Average households with their thermostats suggesting that they've more than exceeded that goal. But I think that the biggest [00:26:00] uncertainty still remains, you know, how quickly is demand from China going to rebound following the end of the zero covid policy? And then is that going to result in this increased push in competition within L n G markets that lead to those higher prices and, and constraints again.
But overall, I mean the, the warm weather has been a real blessing, you know, from that perspective in terms of, of gas usage. Yeah,
Anita Kellogg: exactly. So that's some positive news. On to our next story or the main story really. So, after 15 embarrassing votes, McCarthy has finally consolidated his speakership, which means the business of the House of Representatives can finally go on.
And there are some implications for Republicans now having the leadership role on US foreign policy that we wanted to talk about. And so, as you have listed in the notes, there are four [00:27:00] areas of focus that are from most to least serious. And I would like to emphasize that on the latter point. So, China, Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine aid, and as we've written the Biden Crime family dealings in Ukraine, China, and Russia,
So, let's start with the China Select Committee, which. Is something of McCarthy's project and we'll be headed up by representative Mike Gallagher from Wisconsin, who has seven years’ experience as a marine intelligence officer and served on the House Armed Services Committee intelligent committee. One thing I didn't know is that he has a PhD in international relations from Georgetown.
I know that he is very well received at the institution where I work at the National Defense University, and I think he's very serious and intelligence, and I think if you want a Republican to head this committee, he's definitely the right [00:28:00] person for this job.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I, I am, I'm very impressed. Just in the couple of interviews that I've watched and, and read through, he comes as you know, again, very well spoken, very focused, I think in terms of messaging, the idea that he wants to build something that can last beyond the current.
House, the current administration, he wants it to be bipartisan in nature. I think even the language that he uses, which is something we, we mentioned in the article in terms of the anti-China rhetoric and something that, you know, a lot of government leaders have not been disciplined about is the difference between the Chinese Communist Party and China as a whole we're the Chinese people.
And I think in all his interviews he's very clear in terms of where these policies are targeting. It's the Chinese Communist Party. And I think that that distinction, it's probably subtle [00:29:00] to people outside of who pay attention to these issues, but I think it shows that, hey, he has a PhD in this.
So I'm not, I'm not surprised, but it's refreshing to see that articulation and discipline to say, you know, our problem is not with. China, the country with the Chinese people, with ethnically Chinese people living around the world, but rather the threat by Xi Jing and the threats of the Chinese Communist Party.
So I think that alone shows me that this focus, this intelligence, this targeting I think the people that he's looking to name on the committee as well are equally serious. Mm-hmm. and respected. I think it's a good sign. Mm-hmm. for sure.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. And he's one of the few people I think, who uses the word bipartisan and actually means it.
Mm-hmm., of course, he's also aided by the fact that there is a lot of bipartisan consensus on China, so he can mean it because there's a really good [00:30:00] chance of it happening. Yep. But yeah, I definitely like the way he talks about this issue more than most Republicans. I think he's more nuanced and careful.
I do think though, he's a little bit vague on some issues such as he talks about selective decoupling and wants to target the technology that can be used for military modernization and political oppression, which I agree with. But the problem has been on this issue is how do you determine which technology and how do you do it in a way that's not overly broad because too much decoupling I'm very, very wary about and I think raises real concerns of a war.
Of course, on the other hand, how realistic is widespread decoupling is a, is a completely other issue because of the way that it's not just trade between us and China, but how other countries are [00:31:00] involved in the supply chain makes it more difficult than some people make it sound who have a more simplistic idea of trade.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. I mean, I agree. It's really the devils and the details when it comes to defining what trade, what data flows, enable this military modernization we're even political oppression. But the fact that you're using that language down selected dec coupling, the fact that in the interviews he's saying there's no real threat on the vast majority of trade.
Mm-hmm. Of having cheaper goods. So that alone is, mm-hmm. is refreshing. But yeah, it really is the details, you know, that we've talked about before on what is critical to national security that can be very broadly defined, where it encompasses industries that probably are outside of that, or it can be narrowly defined.
So, I think that's really the challenge in that. And I think one of the issues where he's probably gotten the [00:32:00] most articles, just because this has been a focus over the last couple of years, is around TikTok. , so Marco Rubio and the Senate and then Gallagher and the House have already introduced a bill in late December to ban TikTok.
And if you remember, the platform was effectively banned from the use from house members as well as I think in the Omnibus bill were banned from all federal employees on their devices. Mm-hmm. and Usages. He's called the app Digital Fentanyl, which is a little bit over the top, but I get why you do that to, to get the headlines.
Anita Kellogg: I know, but I want to speak to that. Okay. Because it's like, oh, the Chinese have some conspiracy to create this addictive social media platform. And I know a previous guest, Jason Sue had had talked about how ridiculous this is too. Yeah. But my point, it talks about, oh, how [00:33:00] it damages the social fiber, but then you should target Facebook and it
Ryan Kellogg: should be every form
Anita Kellogg: of social media, pretty much.
It's not just TikTok. Yeah. TikTok didn't even start the trend. So that, I feel like that argument is completely illegitimate.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I agree. And, and people have definitely brought that up. It's like, yeah, that's fine, but we need to go after like all of social media. Yeah. And if we're going to criticize this sort of thing.
But I think there is a, a distinction between all this personal data going to the Chinese Communist Party versus the US government. Yeah. I think there's, you know, obviously we have accountability through voting, though, you know, the democratic process while. CCP, we did not.
Anita Kellogg: So, really quick before you describe that a little bit more detail, is that if we're concerned about that data, the, the Chinese having that data there needs more emphasis on blocking the data brokerages, firms selling data to different companies in different countries, [00:34:00] including China.
There are other gaps if you want to keep personal data out of the hands of the Chinese government. And I feel like a little bit like TikTok is sort of, this gets all this attention and is a definitely concern, but other things need to have equal attention, if not in the public discourse, but in terms of policy.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. No, I think that's a great point and I haven't seen a lot out there on the bundling of data from, you know, essentially all the, the US companies and then being sold to China, because I think, yeah, the focus has really been on the direct conduit from a Chinese subsidiary going directly to. , the Chinese mainland, the mother company, and then a conduit to mm-hmm.
the CCP. That being said, you know what I've read from people that follow the China tech sector is that, you know, by dance, the parent company of TikTok has been on notice for the [00:35:00] last two years and they promised all of these improvements around transparency and building barriers that separate the US data from access.
There's within Beijing or the Beijing government, and honestly no progress has been made. The New York Times and Buzzfeed both reported late last year that. Unlike Bite dances, public comments that essentially data on American users were routinely accessed by China-based employees, that other bite dance companies that are also in the us.
So smaller companies have actually been used to push Pro Beijing stories than the algorithm. Chinese state media accounts have been flourishing on TikTok and Forbes also reported that Bite Dance Headquarters actually plan to use TikTok to track specific US users. So, I think maybe all of this hasn't been fleshed out.
The fact that I think it's being reported by New York [00:36:00] Times, Buzzfeed and Forbes gives some credence to it for sure. But there's definitely something there around how Bite Dances responded. Mm-hmm.. So, I think there's legitimacy to certainly having a debate on whether or not TikTok should be banned.
Anita Kellogg: So, the last thing I want to do is defend TikTok, because I don't like TikTok.
and I really don't care. Cause I don't ever use TikTok ever. So, I don't have a dog in this fight at all. I just don't care about it. I think the other thing because, in some ways the preference would be able to sell to an American company Yeah. Is because I don't know that you can completely ban TikTok because it's so large.
There's so many users in the United States that I can't even imagine what it looks like to. Yeah. And
Ryan Kellogg: I, I, I totally agree. I mean, I think the most obvious solution is a forced. to a US firm because, I mean, making a lot of people have are now making their livelihoods. Just like people are making livelihoods [00:37:00] off of YouTube.
People have become TikTok influencers and are, you know, building following and it's obviously the, the hottest thing for generation Z in terms of social media. So, I think I agree out now ban not going to happen, but a forced sale. I think that's, that's probably the future for, for ByteDance.
Anita Kellogg: The article I read was uncertain what the mechanism for that would be, but certainly something that I think would be a good solution and I think is needed.
I agree that these are all definitely problems with the way the data is being used and what it's vulnerable to. Right. I wanted to end this though by talking very quickly about another comment that Gallagher makes as, as part of the purpose of the committee, and that's this idea of long-term investments needed to win the new Cold War and that were engaged in this ideological whole of society's struggle.
And one thing I wish that would be more part of the conversation is what is winning this look like? [00:38:00] Do we want a China that is dismantled and crumbles like the Soviet Union? Is that really in our security interest? Do we just want to prevent China from having more power than it already does?
It's hard for me to understand what it means to win the war with China. Yeah, I
Ryan Kellogg: don't think that has been defined. I mean, the last time it was defined, , and I don't even know if it was ever formally defined with our previous policy of engagement, where the hope was through economic liberalization, that eventually you would see something like Glasnost, not that the Chinese would look at that as a positive example, because it led, I mean, I don't think it directly led their o other factors, but they certainly, in their minds, they see glass note's, political opening and reform leading to the death of the party.
Mm-hmm. and then chaos within the country. But [00:39:00] yeah, I, I'm trying to, I don't know if anybody has articulated exactly no one what that goal. Yeah. No
Anita Kellogg: one has, it's just the new Cold War that we're going to win, but we have no idea what, what winning looks like. What is our, so without that, what is our real strategy?
Right. What, what is the strategy toward winning if you don't know what winning looks like?
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. In, in my mind,. You know, obviously China faces this demographic time bomb, so it has a limited period in which, oh, so your peak China? Well, I think so. I mean, I think between the demographics and then the middle income trap that it probably has a narrow window, which does make the next five to 10 years probably the most dangerous.
Mm-hmm. In particularly looking at where, you know, she at, he's, he's 69. A lot of people draw that he wants to create this lasting legacy. We've talked before about the hundredth anniversary in 2049 being very [00:40:00] significant in terms of reunification Taiwan. So I think everything’s building to this next five, 10 year period where China would potentially be the most dangerous, where it reaches its peak relative power within the world.
So as part of it just outweighing that and. Hoping that the internal pressure creates reform after she's death, assuming that he stays in office until, until his death. I don't know. Yeah, so I feel like it's, can we contain, essentially contain China constrain its power during this most dangerous period of time while creating Taiwan into this porcupine to deter them as much as possible?
Yeah,
Anita Kellogg: I think, I'm not sure I buy the peak China argument, which is sort of as you articulated that within 10 years or so, there's so much internal problems for the Chinese party that they will [00:41:00] start to lose the power in terms of, I suppose, maybe within the country, but certainly external. . I'm not sure that that will happen because I'm more like people always predict that to happen.
People are predicting that forever, and I'm wary of those sort of predictions myself. I think we need a very clear idea of what winning is and I think we have to understand the importance of the stability of China. Cause we definitely wouldn't want to see something like the Soviet Union happen in China and it's unrealistic to make our goals to get rid of the totalitarian, which is a little extreme language for the Chinese CCP.
I think personally, I think it should be more about containing its global influence while accepting that it should have some influence in East Asia that it's going.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. I don't think anybody's arguing against some influence, but I think, well, I think we [00:42:00] definitely want to prevent the hegemony of China within Asia, because Asia being the pivotal growth region of the future.
There have to be a balance of power and I think every other nation state within that area wants a balance between the US and China. So the goal is to maintain that, protect Taiwan. And I, I agree that the goal shouldn't be the overthrow of the party because I don't think we could care less. It's only because China is a greater threat to the US-LED world order.
So, if we can last pass that period where China is a threat just because of internal demographics that yeah, that's fine. If the party stays in power just as long as China loses relative power, that it's no longer a threat to the US-led global order.
Anita Kellogg: Realistically, I think you'll always have a China that is if not a true.
Dual [00:43:00] power to the us. Something that is, is certainly, I think it's a long-term threat and I think it'll remain a long-term threat. Winning definitely cannot be seen in terms of this, you know, dividing at the world, which people do argue about. So as Speaker Robert Atkinson, you can, he's at a think tank, I can't remember which one it is.
And he writes a lot of prominent things. I mean, he thinks like people either get on board with the USS China policy. He said specifically there are no, there should be no non-aligned countries like there were against the Soviet Union. And so, he's like, Europe, we should alienate, you know, Europe would no longer be our allies if they don't get on board.
And so, people are defining the war with China in these.
Ryan Kellogg: Which to me, being outside of this process, unlike you, seems crazy that you think you could achieve greater divisions than the Cold War of the Soviet Union. Mm-hmm., given the economic ties and how integrated China [00:44:00] is. Mm-hmm. with the world. I mean, we couldn't get India or India, these other countries during the Cold War to back away from the Soviet Union.
And that was without like these strong economic ties. How do we think we're going to get the world and why would we want that? And that goes against Stephen, the idea, and that's why Gallagher is refreshing, because it's the selective decoupling it is. I, I haven't seen him frame anything. That we need the forced countries to choose one way or the other.
No,
Anita Kellogg: I, I haven't, and that's why it's, it is refreshing from unlike people like Robert Atkinson. Unlike I said, it's not even going by what he's, he said to us, but his writings are very public, and you can check it out and just look up his name. But it’s worrisome that someone who, with some prominence in a think tank is promoting this viewpoint.
Right. And I'm glad not to see it on the committee, but I think it's, it's definitely a concern for me. And I think we have to think about [00:45:00] this really carefully as much as we're thinking about the other aspects of China.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I think that's, that's definitely an issue. So, I think, again, the devil will be in the details.
Mm-hmm.. But in terms of the, the framework, the early signs of who's on the committee all seem pretty positive. Mm-hmm.,
Anita Kellogg: I agree. I agree. It's a good sign. So, it'll be interesting to see what the hearings on the Afghanistan withdrawal turn up. Because likely and I feel very, very much, it's just going to be this very Republican vi led hearing.
But the, one of the reasons why I fear that is I think there is some legitimacy to having a hearing like this. And I do think it was a problem that there was never anyone held accountable for what happened in the withdrawal that led several people to be dead. Apparently, there are still American citizens who are left behind.
It was not done well and. [00:46:00] Someone should be accountable to those failures, whether it's the intelligent community, whoever was leading up the, the actual process. And I think if it was a bipartisan and a fear hearing that that would actually be really beneficial to our country. One of my concerns too is that it's being led by Michael Nicole, and he's pretty much the opposite.
I think of Mike Gallagher occasionally his stuff will be re treated on Twitter and it's always awful. Like, I can't even give you a good example, but mm-hmm., it's bad.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I agree. I mean, this, this definitely has the threat of becoming more like the Bengali hearing, which went on for several years and had no major findings.
Anita Kellogg: And even the Republicans on those committees would agree with the consensus that there was, they couldn't find anything that, any wrongdoing.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And, and I, I completely agree this, this is on a much greater scale, so I think. There are definitely [00:47:00] lessons that that should be learned from it. You know, given the, were US soldiers killed the number of Afghans that were killed within the process itself, the fact that he had a botched drone strike that killed 10 innocent civilians during the withdrawal period.
And then, yeah, just so many thousands of Afghans that, you know, essentially risk their lives to aid American troops during the occupation period, haven't been able to secure special immigration visas. So, the responsible thing would be, yeah, to have a balance bipartisan. Commission, you know, similar to what's being set up for China.
And then, you know, having something that not only has these lessons learned, but then something that provides a path for actual constructive actions like passing the Afghan Adjustment Act, which has been [00:48:00] languishing within Congress, it would expand this whole special immigration visa, which would allow a pathway to bring in the remaining Afghans, assuming you know, they've been able to survive during this Taliban occupation would provide additional funds.
So, we were able to accept 70,000 Afghan refugees. But that's largely depending on private charities and individuals to support them during the period and then actually giving them a pathway to US citizenship. Because right now they, they have no pathway to, to legal citizenship here.
Anita Kellogg: It should be noted that veterans themselves, this is what they are most concerned with.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Right. Yeah. This is, yeah. These people that risk their lives as translators and as security and, and, and aids
Anita Kellogg: and they're more concerned about this issue even than the other sort of aspects of it that have been.. Yeah, but they're Republicans McCall has said that he's yet to comment on the bill and it does not look like he probably will put much weight behind it, which is necessary [00:49:00] for it to pass.
This shows one of the problems in not having a responsible opposition party because like I said, the type of person whose Li Dent McCall may not be as crazy as Marjorie Taylor Green. But is part of that general, well, I mean is the mainstream Republican party. So, there are a few like Michael Gallagher who are responsible, but they are very small minority of the party.
And so, like I said, I think Americans do deserve answers and I think that someone should be held accountable, but that's not what this hearing is going to accomplish.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think it, it is going to be too focused on the scoring political points against Biden and reality. What should happen is something, you know, similar to that, that nine 11 commission where it looks at the entire Afghanistan project, because this occurred across for presidency.
This failure isn't just Biden. Mm-hmm. Biden was the one who [00:50:00] yanked the band aid off and yeah, it definitely could have gone better, but this was a failure, a systemic failure. Mm-hmm. across multiple administrations. So, the focus of it should be much broader on what led to these, these failures mm-hmm. and, and how to prevent this going forward.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I agree.. So, talking about the crazy wing in the Republican, well, I mean their level of crazy and there is the Freedom Caucus who are by far the craziest and what held up the hearings and have gotten McCarthy to give up most of his power. He also had to concede that he will reduce the defense budget by 75 billion.
So, this is definitely not traditional Republican. I know a lot of people in defense department will not be happy about that for lots of reasons, but they are leading this charge of [00:51:00] reducing aid to Ukraine or even stopping continued aid
Ryan Kellogg: to., and this isn't an immediate threat because the funding for Ukraine actually has been approved up through September, so through the congressional fiscal year with this passage of the 1.7 trillion omnibus package.
So that's essentially 44 billion has been pledged in the package compared to the 48 billion that's already been spent since February of 2022. But, one thing that that will make it challenging for the Freedom Caucus is the fact that support for Ukraine remains remarkably high. So, 75% of Americans currently agree with the support levels for Ukraine, and I think that you've seen that because when McCarthy came out in December about, well, the blank check for Ukraine is over.
And also, when the Democrat Progressive Caucus came out with their letter, [00:52:00] challenging the spending, that there was pretty quick rebuke from both sides of it. So, I'd say that's the one encouraging thing.
Anita Kellogg: Although there's plenty of things that 75% of Americans agree on that Congress has opposition policies that it gets through because of Well, that's true
I mean, that's the disturbing thing, I think is the way that you. Have smaller groups use the levers of power and Republicans are particularly good at
Ryan Kellogg: that. Yeah, and I think that's the concern, especially around the rules on how bills are brought forth for consideration. What exactly McCarthy gave up is still not a hundred percent clear.
I mean, we've mentioned that everybody knows that his speakership itself is very tenable. Like a single member can bring up an ejection essentially for a vote of no confidence. So, he could lose his position at any point of time. Maybe
Anita Kellogg: one of the shortest speakers. And you have such strict, depending, but I know they were [00:53:00] specifically focused on being able to debate this policy because they felt like it
Ryan Kellogg: just went to committees.
Yeah, I think they, I think they want to have a debate on it to at least. air their views. But I think you brought up the point on, yeah. You know, if this is simple majorities, that this is an issue where obviously you're going to get 90, 95% of support from Democrats, maybe not the progressive caucus, and then well over 50% of Republicans are going to be fully supportive.
Yes. So
Anita Kellogg: I'm not worried about this. Yeah. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but I do think it's really notable that how this went from just hearing your French minority to this group, really getting a lot of concessions from McCarthy and really making a lot of voice for their opposition to it.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I think a lot of it comes from because we don't talk a lot about the Fever swamp, that is the, the far right media. But the things that they discuss, the world and reality [00:54:00] that they reside in is completely different. So, in terms of the messaging around Ukraine, you know what Tucker Carlson is saying?
What News Mag is saying, what they're discussing in social media is a completely different view around Ukraine. So, when Marjorie Taylor Green talks about not ascent more towards Ukraine is coming from that, that standpoint. And that ties into our very last discussion, which is the most fever, swampy, and politically charged element.
I have to say, of the foreign policy program. But I
Anita Kellogg: protested this topic because I don't know the, we got to cover it. I don't know why. I
Ryan Kellogg: really don't know why. Yeah. So this is the most charged., but the investigation into the Biden crime family.
Anita Kellogg: Brian has promised not to edit out any snarky comments I make in this discussion.
Ryan Kellogg: Nope. So, I think for those not versed in the [00:55:00] Rich, did I make my silo ecology of the far right? The Economist provided a very nice background on the issue, and for those of us who forgot, you know, in the run up to the 2020 election, we'll just provide a little bit of background as summarized by the Economist on the famous Hunter Biden laptop.
And the focus of what the next two years is really going to be about, get into the bottom. Of the correct Biden crime,
Anita Kellogg: let's Afghanistan might end up at Benghazi. And again, when I say Benghazi, it's like committee after committee, finding no wrongdoing, but having as many committee hearings as possible, this is going to be something, yes, that consumes, but I don't know what impact it has on foreign policy.
I mean, the only importance I think of the story is that it was part of Trump's traders sort of offer of only giving military to the Ukraine if they [00:56:00] investigated Hunter Biden.
Ryan Kellogg: Well, I think we can't dismiss it because again, because of the impact within the rights media that it could very well impact a lot of the focus, particularly within the primary process based on the presidential side and on the cent on house side, where if certain things emerge around the Ukrainian energy issues with Hunter Biden and Burisma.
Ukraine may become increasingly toxic, which may force because of a rabid base in the primary process, may force more and more of the house members for their political survival to throw Ukraine under the bus.
Anita Kellogg: I wanted to say this in the earlier discussion too, on Ukraine aid, is simply that I’m not surprised that there's a mine.
I'd be more surprised if there was not a minority who was against it. I mean, clearly, we know how it's in our interest. I hope all our listeners understand [00:57:00] how it's in our interest that in no way having Russia increase, you know, be successful in this endeavor and set the precedence of spreading influence by invading other countries' territories and claiming some of those territories is in any way going to help the United States and isn't actively harming the United States.
But at the same time, it's natural. You know, there's always been an ice ablation swing in the United States, and I think it's natural that. Groups to the far right and even the far left do have some objection to it. Fortunately, they're in a small minority, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to want to have a debate about it either.
No,
Ryan Kellogg: I, I don't think that's, that's unreasonable. I think it's whether they have the power because of these changes within the rules to I agree. Hold the government hostage, which would be bad. And block funding. Right. So yeah, I could, this
Anita Kellogg: is completely bad. Yeah. But I do think we have suppressed debate on it, and I think some of their [00:58:00] frustration comes from that.
And I do think that as long as it doesn't hold up funding, which I know this is the problem of holding up funding all these matters that I know are legitimate, and I know I'm maybe being too easy, but Americans are entitled to some sort of debate over it as well.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. No, I mean, oversight and accountability regardless of policy is, is.
A key job for Congress. So, yeah, no, I, I totally agree. Okay. I just wanted to say that. All right, so speaking of oversight, this applies oversight to Biden and his family members as well. How does a fight
Anita Kellogg: of Biden, it's just his family members,, and then
Ryan Kellogg: he's supposed to be No, no, no. We, we know Joe's involved in this as well.
I mean, come on. We don't, Fox so does No, no, no. It's, it's definitive. There's definitive proof as I'll, as I'll detail. So, in October of 2020, right before the election, the New York Post published an article that alleged in 2015 that Hunter Biden had [00:59:00] introduced his father, Joe Biden, to a Ukrainian energy executive, and that his business dealings had directly led to a change in US foreign policy.
Now, this information came from the infamous MacBook Pro, which I think is the type of laptop you use. Mm-hmm. is that right? Yeah. So good. A good quality laptop was left in a repair shop, so they had to get repaired at some point in New Jersey, and it somehow ended up in the hands of one infamous Rudolph Giuliani, who turned it over to the Post having too much fun with this.
Yeah. Well,, it's a fun topic, so at the time, you know, most of the media couldn't confirm the veracity of the laptop or any of these claims except for the brave, brave, courageous New York Post, getting that message out there. Now of course Twitter and Facebook being absolute libtard hacks really limited the spread of this [01:00:00] story.
As Elon bravely detailed in the Twitter gate, I don't know if it was called Twitter gate, but in the series of releases from a month ago, which he breathlessly did, I think with Matt Taibbi, this I did not know about Bouquet. Oh yeah, no, this is a big thing over like three or four days about bringing transparency to Twitter and about the suppression.
Mm-hmm. colluding with the Biden government, because Biden was in the government in October of 2020, as we famously know before the election. Mm-hmm., yeah. De essentially suppress the story. So there definitely seems to be issues where Twitter and Facebook. through their own policies were too cautious. Yeah. Was not the right call to suppress the story actively.
Anita Kellogg: I think they should have suppressed all the wrong information about Covid. But I don't, I question whether suppressing this story was the right thing to do.
Ryan Kellogg: Right. Yeah. So, they definitely were, there were definitely missteps there. But yeah, just a little background on [01:01:00] Ukraine and Burisma. So, from 2014 to 2019, so Hunter was a paid board member of Burisma, which is a Ukrainian natural gas company.
This is the other reason we're covering it because they both involve energy companies. So, I think this is totally legit me say, so Barista's owner was investigated at the time by Ukraine's equivalent to our attorney general, but he was then fired. Now this is where a lot of the conspiracies come about because they thought from Republicans is that it was Biden, the Obama administration that fired.
That caused the firing of this attorney general withholding funds from Ukraine. Mm-hmm. specifically, because of Hunter Biden's business dealings. Now, what is ignored is the fact that everybody, the EU, all the member states recognized that the attorney general within Ukraine was enormously corrupt and
Anita Kellogg: in fact, mean they weren't about charisma, they weren't like trying to protect Hunter Biden.
I'm sure they
Ryan Kellogg: [01:02:00] were all trying to protect Hunter Biden, because it's all a global cabal of Pedophilic elites as we, right. We all know from QAN on, they investigated this in the Senate in 2020. They were not able to find any support that the firing of the Ukrainian attorney General was linked to hunter's position.
But Trump on his famous, perfect phone call. Ask Zelensky threatens Zelensky to search for evidence. And of course, this was the subject of Trump's first impeachment. And you know, the testimony of our podcast guest Alexander Veneman. So that's one side, that's the Ukraine business dealings. Now Hunter being a busy guy also had business dealings in China.
So, in 2017, the 20, how dare he? 18. I know. Really what traitor? No,
Anita Kellogg: Ivanka doesn't have all those patents with. Like
Ryan Kellogg: that didn't happen. But he did have a bank account in China as well. Who did? Trump. Oh, okay. Oh yeah, yeah. Trump had a bank account. China, yeah, that [01:03:00] was a big, that was a big deal. Said this.
Chinese oil and gas company called CEFC, which I'm not sure what that stands for. They actually paid Hunter and his uncle James Biden a total of $5 million, which I have to say is pretty sweet because their only job was to try to negotiate an LNG project and the us but that's
Anita Kellogg: the actual job rather than sitting on
Ryan Kellogg: the board.
That's true. It's an actual job. I mean, they're not I that solve work, neither one of them is qualified for this job. But yeah, this, as I point
Anita Kellogg: out, I think there are a lot of CEOs who not qualified for their jobs.
Ryan Kellogg: They have backgrounds in the industry. They work in that not all the time. Okay man, you are, you're a hunter apologist.
I see.
Anita Kellogg: I, I really, really am not, I think a lot of it is.
Ryan Kellogg: So anyway, so the, the, this LNG project was never. But within this same laptop, email was found that promised a 10% stake in this company. Again, [01:04:00] that was not set up to the quote unquote big guy. Now, this big guy reference has been immediately applied by Republicans that that has to be Joe.
This must be Joe Biden. But if it was Trump, he was promised a stake within this company. And even though this period does not overlap the time that Biden had any political power, he is clearly compromised because of these millions upon millions that Hunter and James have received from China, right directly from the
Anita Kellogg: CCP, from a deal that didn't go through and didn't actually mention him.
Ryan Kellogg: The big guy, come on, this says the big guy. Who is the big guy Trump Trump's. You're talking about Trump other than the big guy. About
Anita Kellogg: Trump. Trump would love to be referred to
Ryan Kellogg: as the big guy. No, no, no, no. Small hand Trump. No. He is not going to be referred to as big guy. Now the one, the one real thing that has emerged out of this.
So [01:05:00] Hunter has been unlike Trump, and his taxes, has been under federal investigation since 2018, and they actually do have enough evidence to bring charges against him. Now, it's somewhat limited in scope, but it includes tax crimes. So that's not clear if it's the reporting of some of this income. But he also failed to speculation.
Disclose. Disclose. Right. Well, we'll find out. So, failing to disclose his drug use, which he has been very open about. The Biden family has been very open about, he's struggled with addiction with crack use. So, he lied about his drug use when purchasing a gun, but that
Anita Kellogg: would involve persecuting.
Ryan Kellogg: Thousands of people prosecuting.
Oh yeah, yeah. Prosecuting thousands of people. Like they don't go after people. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I think it's very unlikely he's going to be, I don't think there's any way he could get thrown in jail for a tax bill because he is already paid the tax bill. It's not clear if he's paid the penalties. I'm going to assume probably, and lying about drug use, like you [01:06:00] said, is, is Israeli prosecuted, nevertheless, isn't No way relevant.
Very clear with that big guy reference that Joe Biden is clearly implicated and they're going to spend the next two years really focused on getting to the bottom of what are clearly not just the simple trading in your last name, but rather deep, deep criminal enterprise. What I
Anita Kellogg: love about this is Biden never developed any actual business in China.
He wasn't ever part of a deal yet. Trump has a lot, he's a 5 million. Trump has taken a lot more than $5 million from the Chinese, you know, from the Chinese economy. I mean, but Biden didn't, didn't take the 5 million
Ryan Kellogg: Joe Biden. Wait, hunter Hunter's just a passthrough. I'm sure he went to Joe, I'm sure. Like a part went to the big guy.
Yeah. Clearly
Anita Kellogg: they didn't pass the deal. Like the deal was like, yeah, but the
Ryan Kellogg: future, oh well. Yeah. Yeah, that's true.
Anita Kellogg: It was for the future deal. It wasn't about the 5 million at all. That's
Ryan Kellogg: true. This is, but what we just know about what [01:07:00] he published in that MacBook Pro I'm sure is we the Yeah, I'm sure. I mean Jim Jordan is going to get to the bottom of this, and I just blow things wide
Anita Kellogg: open.
Right. I mean, you actually, they had a whole laptop hard drive If it did belong to Hunter Biden, surely
Ryan Kellogg: it does. I mean, I think that is con It definitely did
Anita Kellogg: belong. Well, that was in the stories. They were not, they never confirmed that it belonged to Hunter. Yeah.
Ryan Kellogg: I think that's why they accepted it does belong.
I mean, there were a lot of vis all the salacious videos
Anita Kellogg: that were on the, in the, in the Economist article, it said the journalist could not independently verify that it was the
Ryan Kellogg: centers at the time, at the time. But that's since been, I think verified.
Anita Kellogg: I disagree with that. But even if it was, I mean, that's very telling that this is the most they've gotten.
Like, you, you don't like to have a laptop with all the stuff on it. And then where else do you hide the details?
Ryan Kellogg: Like, well, on some other laptop search? I don't know. They need to, how many laptops do you think he has look at the [01:08:00] FBI to I'm pretty seize everything that he has. Clearly, I'm pretty to unearth this.
I mean,
Anita Kellogg: you went through a whole hard drive, and this is the most you can
Ryan Kellogg: come up with. Well, I mean, the biggest thing that come out of it were more the videos of. Which we won't go into cause that's, cause that's not relevant. This podcast, Oh, I bet the house committee hearings will make everything.
Anita Kellogg: It's not relevant.
That's not relevant to anything, let alone foreign
Ryan Kellogg: policy. Well anyway, this was organized from the serious to the least serious. So, we had to end. So, we want to emphasize this. We had to end with the clown show. We got a little bit of a preview of the clown show these past week, work week. So, I don't
Anita Kellogg: find it funny because I feel I'm dreading the clown show.
Well,
Ryan Kellogg: I mean this is, I mean, seriously, this is what's going to be the focus for two years. This is going to be, I know hundred. I'm thinking we don't government, but we just want, so I wanted to at least summarize it. It does involve Ukraine and China, which we do talk about a lot. I know it could impact Ukrainian policy in a roundabout way.
Marginally. Well, we'll [01:09:00] see, we'll see. I guys, you're right. So, I, I think it's relevant, but I do appreciate it. I, I did have fun with it. So,
Anita Kellogg: Well, I think that's the show, right?
Ryan Kellogg: I think so. I think that was the episode.
Anita Kellogg: Well, this brings us to the end of the episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www.kelloggsglobal politics.com and follow us on Twitter @GlobalKellogg or me @arkellogg. I actually tweet more than the official account because I keep forgetting about it.
Ryan Kellogg: And you can reach us by email. So anita@kelloggglobal politics.com and myself, ryan@kellogg global politics.com. And as always, please see the show notes for the articles we discussed in this episode and leave a rating and review on your favorite podcast provider. Thanks everyone. Thanks, bye. [01:10:00]