The Megyn Kelly Show - Media and Dems Turn Against Biden and Harris, and Hunter's Gun Charges, with Rich Lowry, Peter Schweizer, Dave Aronberg, and Mike Davis | Ep. 628

Episode Date: September 15, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, to talk about what appears to be a coordinated effort by the press to turn against President Joe Biden, Democrats refusing to support VP Kamala Harris publicly, Biden’s latest racist comment this past week, his incompetence answering questions, the bizarre way he keeps publicly referring to people controlling him, who could be the replacement for Biden, and more. Then lawyers Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis join to discuss the Hunter Biden indictment on felony gun charges, if these charges will satisfy anyone on either political side, whether the Biden DOJ is being weaponized, former President Donald Trump's answers to Megyn during their interview about classified documents and the Presidential Records Act, the different legal theories about whether Trump committed a crime or not, and more. Then Peter Schweizer, host of The Drilldown podcast, joins to discuss the White House talking points they are trying to get the media to use about the Biden impeachment inquiry, the truth about then-VP Biden's potential corruption, Biden’s questionable financial relations with Hunter, and moreLowry: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrplus-subscribe/Davis: https://twitter.com/mrddmiaAronberg: https://www.youtube.com/@FloridaLawManSchweizer: https://thedrilldown.com Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday. It's been a busy week here for The Megyn Kelly Show. Our interview with former President Donald Trump continues to make headlines and generate a ton of interest. Be sure to check it out if you haven't already on youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly, or you can listen to it via audio on the SXM app, which I love. Can I just take a moment? I'm not like, of course I have a relationship with Sirius, but I have to tell you separate and apart from that relationship. I love the SXM app. You can go back. If you, if you want to hear, sometimes I want to hear what

the lefties are saying. You can go in there and type in morning Joe up at pops. You can hear with what their lead was this morning. If you want to hear what happened on CNN, if you want to, if you're sitting doing your makeup and you want to like listen to Fox news or something, you can do it. It's all right there. And you don't need a cable subscription. Uh, and, or if you want just music, it's all good. It's all there. I love it. Um, it's how, if I want to listen to the podcast and I haven't had the chance, I'll go back. I'll listen to it on Sirius XM. It allows you to fast forward. All right. Sorry. That's it. I'm not actually getting paid for this. It's extra from my already existing relationship. But I just wanted you to know it's awesome. Also,

there's Apple, there's Spotify and so on. We begin with this. President Trump told us that while Joe Biden's age should not be an issue, his competence very much should be. Take a listen. Now that Joe Biden's in the office, there was just a poll out. Seventy seven percent of Americans say that Joe Biden at age 80 is too old to be president. Are they right? No, not not for the reason of old, because I have many friends that are in their 80s. I have friends, Bernie Marcus, that are in their 90s and they're sharp as a tack. Just, I mean, I would say just about what they used to be. No, not old.

He's incompetent. He's not too old. He's incompetent. And age is interesting, because some people are very sharp and some people do lose it, but you lose it at 40 and 50 also. But no, he's not too old at all. He's grossly incompetent. And it seems a lot of top Democrats and key figures in the media are now beginning to turn on not only President Biden, but also Vice President Harris, that they want, we think,

the entire ticket to be changed. What's happened over the last few days, right? What's happened? It appears to be significant because we're watching a revolt almost in real time against the Democrats' 2024 ticket. Joining me now to discuss it all, Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of National Review. Rich, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me. Congratulations on the Trump interview. Thank you very much. And I don't know if you heard it. I think that's a lot of people think that's natural talent. And of course, there is a lot of natural talent, but it takes so much preparation to just to each of those

questions to be up up to speed with any interviewee, but especially the former president. Yeah, that's for sure. I mean, exactly. Exactly. Especially with Donald Trump. And, and I, I mean, all the credit on that goes to my team for, you know, getting me the facts so that I'd be armed. I was saying this morning, um, in an interview that all the, like I had no nerves going into that interview, even though Donald Trump can be, you know, intimidating and formidable, I had no nerves because all of the work had been done. Now you sit in the interview. It's like, I know exactly what you do now. It's filling your brain with the right information. That's the real challenge. And that takes place in the weeks and, you know,

in our case, a month and a half before. So thank you. All right. Have you noticed it? Have you seen what's happening? Like there's been a noticeable shift in the way the Democrats are now talking about Biden-Harris, not just Biden, Biden slash Harris.

I'm not going to say it started with David Ignatius at the Washington Post and his piece saying they should not run, saying neither one. He wasn't saying Biden should go. He was saying they both need to go. She had her opportunity. She hasn't connected with the American populace. That wasn't the first thing. But I mean, it's the first in a several day cascade of hits on them because you've got that. Then you had a couple of there's been some pieces in the news. And then there's been person after person talking about how she necessarily might not be the running mate. I'm going to show you a couple of things here. Let me start with this. CNN's Daniel

Dale, the favorite fact checker of Donald Trump and only Donald Trump. I mean, literally like only Donald Trump and sometimes RFK Jr. Decided to emerge with one on Joe Biden's lies. Listen to this, not six. This president has a pattern at this point of either inventing or embellishing stories about his own past, his biography. He did it three times in one speech last month alone. He claimed he had witnessed a bridge collapse in Pittsburgh when he actually showed up about six hours later. He claimed that his grandfather had died just days before he was born himself at the same hospital. In fact, his grandpa died more than a year before in a different state, not the same hospital. And he also repeated a favorite false story that I and others have debunked over and over again

about a supposed conversation with an Amtrak train conductor he was friends with, who was actually deceased at the time the conversation would have had to take place. Previously in his presidency, he claimed at one point he'd been arrested during a civil rights protest when, in other versions of the story, he just said an officer had taken him home from a protest. He said he had visited the Pittsburgh synagogue where warshipers were killed in a 2018 match shooting. In fact, he'd actually spoken to the rabbi, but never went. He said that he used to drive a tractor trailer, used to drive an 18-wheeler. Never happened. The White House later clarified he used to drive a school bus at one point as a job briefly. School bus, of course,

not an 18-wheeler. This is an unfortunate pattern that keeps coming up again and again with Joe Biden. It is unfortunate, Rich. Very unfortunate. Glad they finally caught on. Yeah. So first of all, my apologies if there's some mowing sounds. I live in the suburbs here. I have a very nice office with with big windows and there's an industrial strength mower circling. Wait, can I tell you something? What you need is an Abigail Finan because she is like the little neighborhood policeman here. If that happens, she literally runs out and yells at me.

She hides in the bush. She's like, could you be quiet for just for the next 45 minutes? Bye. So look, it's just, it's unavoidable. You can't ignore it. You can't hide it. That accounts both for the David Ignatius column that kind of set off this little media spiral about Joe Biden and is why even the CNN fact checker has to notice. blow theater. You know, he tells the stories over and over again. And I find myself doing my, this in speeches sometimes, the story, it never gets worse, right? A story never gets less interesting with the telling. And he's such a talker. He's such a self glamorizer. This is just what he does. And over 40 or 50 years, every story basically is going to become false,

or he's going to convince some things himself of things that aren't true because it makes for a good line. Did Brian Williams get fired from his role as NBC nightly news anchor for less than this? I mean, it's like they had him in a couple of whoppers, but this is exactly what he got fired for. And yet you have a serial fabulist at the top of the government. I want to talk about the more of the cascade. That was one example. I've never seen CNN do that before on on Biden. So that's CNN and The Washington Post with that David Ignatius piece, which, by the way, is well worth our viewers time. You should go back and just Google it and read it. It's pretty good. It's pretty powerful. I like him. He's a lefty, but he's I like Ignatius. Anyway,

here's a couple of other examples. So after the Ignatius piece, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, who used to be a Republican, now says he's an independent. He sounds like a Democrat, comes out with the following admission, top five. When it comes to Joe Biden, people say, man, he's too old to run, isn't he? I mean, he's not going to he's not really going to run. When I say every discussion, I don't mean 99 percent of the discussion, every discussion. We got't mean 99 percent of the discussion. Every discussion. We got it. I asked Reverend Al if he was hearing it all the time on our show this past week. He's hearing it as well. Democrats off the air will say Joe Biden's too old.

Why is he running on the air? They won't say that. Hmm. I mean, it's absolutely true. I've had I've had that experience. There's a high level Democratic aide who I was on a show with. And when the camera is off, I was like, I think he could. I don't want this to happen. You know, God forbid. But he could die on the steps of Air Force One.

Literally, you know, it's a hazard to him to go up and down those big steps. And she's like, yep. But she you know, she wouldn't go on air and suggest any such thing. Now that they have him using the shorter steps, which I think is wise, you know, going directly into the underbelly of the plane. But this is I'm not a Democrat. Obviously, I don't spend a lot of time with Democrats. But just in my brief interactions with Democrats, what Scarborough is saying is that is exactly right. There are all these whisper conversations. There are all these conversations off air, but you don't hear it publicly. And it's partly because they feel stuck by his choice of Kamala Harris. And that's why the Ignatius column, you know, it's one thing to convince Joe Biden not to run again. I think that'd be very hard to do if he's dead set on doing it. But how are you going to do the twofer? You know, how are you going to get him out and Kamala Harris out? And he admits, the Kamala Harris thing, promise her a Supreme Court nomination. But what's the guarantee? Another Democrat's going to win in 2024. Why would she agree to that? And if she's all agreed,, you know, it looks like it's going to be 16, it's going to be 20 again. It's going just people like you and me or more on the right who

can't stand this person. I mean, it's funny to hear Charlie Cook talk about his deep loathing for Kamala Harris, but it's not just those of us who are more right leaning. The left doesn't like her either. And the polls show it. And now extraordinary, extraordinary moments on CNN as the anchors over there start probing what they accurately sense is a serious weakness on that ticket. Yes, him. We discussed that, but also her. She's not getting a pass. I think it was yesterday and it was Wednesday.

This is is it Anderson Cooper with Nancy Pelosi getting questioned on whether Kamala Harris is the best running mate for Joe Biden? Is Vice President Kamala Harris the best running mate for this president? He thinks so. And that's what matters. And by the way, she's very politically astute. I don't think people give her enough credit. People don't understand she's politically astute. Why would she be vice president if she were not? Do you think she is the best running mate, though?

She's the vice president of the United States. So people say to me, well, why isn't she doing this or that? I say, because she's the vice president. That's the job description. You don't do that much. Oh, my God. Secondhand awkwardness. It was so awkward, Rich. People need to watch that clip live. You need to see her body

language and the attempt to move the Botoxed eyebrows severely Botoxed. She needs to lighten up just a little. Right. As the he thinks so, he thinks so. And the awkward pause and smile at the end. It's funny about how politicians who aren't necessarily very honest, there are certain things they just find it difficult to lie about, right? The easiest thing for her to do out there, the exit ramp and the off ramp is, yes, Anderson, of course she is, but she couldn't bring herself to say it because she deeply feels it's not true. So she couldn't say it. And the reason Kamala Harris, you know, it's not great political skills that made her vice president United States is the fact that Joe Biden promised to select an African-American woman and had about three plausible choices. expect if someone was associated with a major scandal or had been the champion, a personal champion for some deeply unpopular policy initiative that went down the toilet the way

Hillary Clinton was when she was first lady with Hillary care. Neither are true of Kamala Harris, neither. She's, you know, she's supposedly the in charge of the border. She's not, you know, that's on Joe Biden. It's just people don't like her. And that's not a thing that's reputable. And they keep trying to, you know, every once in a while you'll see an article pop up about how it's because she's a she's a diverse woman. That's why it's the racist, misogynistic trend in American politics. But it's the Democrats don't like her either. I mean, and they're the ones and we all know that they have racist tendencies in too many instances. But my point is simply that you can't blame it on these crazy ass MAGA, you know, deplorables who just are, you know what they say about them. It's their people, too. Nobody likes her. She doesn't have a strong constituency.

And so it happened again. So Jamie Raskin goes on with Jake Tapper And Tapper, to his credit, taps into this same vein. Look what happened. It's a pretty simple question. Do you think Kamala Harris is the best running mate for President Biden? Yes or no? I mean, I don't know what else I can say other than she would be an excellent running mate and an excellent vice president. I don't know whether President Biden has named his running mate.

We're going to go through that process. You could say, yes, I think Kamala Harris is the best vice president and the best running mate for President Biden. So I've not seen any public opinion polling. You know, you might be a stronger vice presidential running mate than her or me or anybody else. I will tell you as a matter of substance and public policy, she'd be an excellent choice. Oh my God. So that's a little more lying because he's like, oh, she'll be excellent more than Nancy

Pelosi did, but unconvincing, right? Because he clearly doesn't believe it. And the would be, you know, if she is the running mate and he hasn't selected a running mate, how much more obvious can you be? So obviously they're deeply uncomfortable with her. And again, these are again, these are two things that are demonstrable to everyone. You don't need to run ads about it. Joe Biden is too old to do it again. And she she's deeply unpopular. It's crazy to watch him. Well, I haven't seen any opinion polls. What? I mean, Tapper was exactly right. You could say yes. What do you mean? You do know what to say. The answer is yes, because she is second in command right now. So like the answer is why you why would you even be asking me this? She's she's his number two. He said he's going to run again with her. Of course, she's the best.

Like it should be vice. It should be Joe Biden's problem if he later tries to kick her off. So what what is this telling us, though? Like what are the it's no accident that Pelosi and Raskin, these two top Democrats are both out there right now trying to create some distance between themselves and her. Are they actively getting ready to push her off the ticket and they're going to save him and sub in somebody else because that makes him more attractive because no one wants her. So we all know if Joe Biden continues in the way he's been, she has a fairly decent chance

of taking it. Like, is that the play? Yeah, I just think it speaks to the fact that they know she's unpopular. They know she'll be a drag on the ticket. They know this will be a big part of the argument. Look, Joe Biden is quite old. Maybe he makes it through a second term if he's reelected. But Kamala Harris has the greatest chance of sitting vice president, becoming president of the United States since Harry Trump. I mean, FDR was deeply ailing in 1944. The same is not true of Joe Biden now, but he is in this decline.

So they're uncomfortable with it. But would they can they act on it? I just think it's so hard. And the way to go is not dumping her. The way to go is to convince Joe Biden not to run again. And I don't know whether you can do that, what the mechanism for that would be. And the reason they're not going to do it is because they're afraid if he steps aside and you have a competitive primary, Kamala might win or someone to the left of Joe Biden might win. And it'll be even a worse matchup against Donald Trump.

I think it was the ladies of The View the other day that were expressing concern that he'll lose the black vote or at least a considerable chunk of it if he tries to sub out Kamala Harris. You know, live by the sword, die by the sword. You want to make identity politics your thing? Great. You're stuck with her. Sorry. Because the buzz and it wasn't just Rick Grinnell who said this on our show last week is that if he subs somebody in, it would be Gretchen Whitmer from the state of Michigan. She's a woman, but she's a white woman. So the concern that they were expressing was that some segment of the black voting population in the Dem side would hold it against Joe Biden. Maybe that's true. She's unpopular with all groups. I don't think that there's some black woman constituency behind Kamala Harris, but there might be some. And given the numbers,

Rich, I mean, you saw the Quinnipiac poll yesterday had Trump up one over Biden. We've seen a few polls. Trump's up one, some Biden's up one, but it's very, very tight, very, very tight in that hypothetical matchup. I realize these things get decided more by those critical swing states than by national polling like this. But my point is simply he can't afford to lose the votes. So subbing her out is not without risk. Yeah, I don't know how attached African-American women feel to her, but it does not make sense given where the Democratic Party is on identity politics. This would be inherently a racist choice, right? That's what they argue about everything else.

And maybe partisan considerations will win over, sorry about the noise, the ideological arguments there. But it also, it's just, it doesn't happen very often because it just speaks to a chaos, a certain chaos, a certain incompetence. You know, and Trump was mentioning that in the clip he played at the top of the hour here and that it would be admitting. I had this really important decision, the decision that is routinely characterized as the most important one a presidential candidate would make in 2020. And I blew it such that I had to jettison her what I hope is halfway through. The the quote, my team just forwarded it. It was from Sonny Hostin, quote, I would be very careful, President Biden, about getting rid of Kamala Harris, because we will not support you. If Biden gets rid of Kamala Harris and insert

someone else, he will lose the black vote. A panelist asked, even if it's another black woman answer, we are not interchangeable. It's kind of like I said, live by the sword, die by the sword, enjoy your little battle, enjoy your battle. Right. He said he set it up this way. That's what Dr. Phil always used to say. Your life is the way it is because you set it up that way, President Biden. That's a trap they made for themselves. You know, he did this as an identity politics choice and he can't get out of it or be very hard to because of identity politics. Meanwhile, we just had some passing references to who who really which party has the racist in it. Right. And the answer is, well, both. mean, there are, it's not like anybody's immune from finding a few racists in their party, but the Democrats and their obsession with race and, you know, it's been well-documented.

None more so than in Joe Biden's case. I mean, the list of racist and racist adjacent things that that man has said is stunning. It's like a Santa scroll. And you can add to that a comment he made just the other day when he was speaking. Where was he when he said this, you guys? I don't have it in front of me. Was this the Indian? This wasn't the Indian thing. He was in Maryland. No, listen.

Sorry to keep you trying. Listen, I know. Listen to how he characterizes African-Americans, Hispanics, and veterans. We've seen record lows in unemployment, particularly, and I've focused on this my whole career, particularly for African-Americans and Hispanic workers and veterans. You know, workers without high school diplomas. Oh, my God. You know, he didn't mean it that way. He didn't mean it that way. But it's just I'm sure he's he's he's such a poor talker now. And then also some of these

things he says that just I'm very tone deaf on racial issues. He is, you know, he's a creature of the 1970s. You know, that's the environment he grew up in. And he spoke, he spoke about things differently. And he still has that, that tendency. So I tend to, you know, give him a pass on this stuff. But it's doesn't make it any less painful to I don't give him a pass. I don't give him a pass. We've had Victor Davis Hanson on who's got something close to a photographic memory. And he'll give you the list right off the top of his head of the 25 racist comments that Joe Biden has made. I do believe when he says African-Americans and Hispanics, veterans, you know, the ones without high school diplomas. That's what he means. Blacks don't graduate from from high school and neither do Hispanics and neither do veterans.

I believe that. Now, I will say this. The White House tried to clean it up by in the transcript adding the word and and. So the transcript is African-Americans, Hispanics, veterans and veterans. And there are two people. There are two people of unappreciated importance in this White House. One is whoever's in charge of the transcripts. Right. Just changing what the president says on the fly. The other who is whoever was in charge of the transcripts, right? Just changing what the president says on the fly. The other is whoever was in that Easter bunny outfit who was shepherding Biden around at the Easter egg roll, which turned out to be like a sign of things to come. He really needs that bunny at every single event now. Telling him who's going to call on, telling him when to stop stop and very importantly, ushering him off stage in the right direction. What about you miss the signer? You know, the person who does the sign language has to interpret what the hell Joe Biden is saying.

Oh, yeah. When he's saying it, poor person. It's tough duty. It's tough. I mean, hopefully they have a running transcript of the prepared remarks. There is a question you mentioned the Easter Bunny of who's really in control and whether Joe Biden, like who the hell's telling him what to do because he's the, he's the commander in chief. He's the leader of the free world. He's the president of the United States.

And yet you get comments over and over and virtually every appearance. Now they're inadvertent. They appear like this one. Take a listen to Sato. Let me close with this. And there's a lot more. I know we can talk about it. Wish I had a chance to take all your questions,

but I'm going to get in real trouble. if I do that. Trouble with whom? Who's the boss of you? It's a pattern. You've heard it as many times as I have, right? They won't let me call on you. Here's my list of the people I'm allowed to call on. It's embarrassing. Yeah. So, I mean, he's stage managed. He has to be stage managed now. They they won't. I think, you know, to the Trump interview, there's no way Joe Biden would sit down and do that kind of interview. He just wouldn't be capable of it. Clearly, at least the people who are in when the first White House chief of staff resigned, it's like, this is huge. This is the first president to resign in the middle of his term in memory, because obviously whoever is the chief of staff at any given moment has to be the most powerful chief of staff that we've had in decades and decades. I think, you know, the basic policy mix, it reflects where Joe Biden is. But if he has trouble getting off the stage, he clearly needs more help in other areas, too. I want to tell we're going to have Peter Schweitzer on in just a bit. He's an expert on all the stuff

around Hunter Biden. But I want to get your take on the news yesterday. I listen to you, of course, you know, on the editors and I listen to you and Andy every Friday. Looking forward to today's drop. But I'm curious what your reaction was yesterday to finally David Weiss, who seems very much he seems a lot closer to being a Hunter Biden defense attorney than an aggressive prosecutor, announces that he's bringing three gun charges against Hunter moments before the statute of limitations expired. He if he was going to do it at all, he had to do it right now. And, you know, the messaging from the Biden administration is, see, it's a fair DOJ. You see, they'll go after anybody who breaks the law.

Yeah. So as as Andy, sorry, as Andy McCarthy, my colleague, former prosecutor, obviously, just says this, this is a one paragraph indictment. And the idea that it's taken years and you're up against a statute of limitations to do this completely uncomplicated charge is absurd and just goes to how every possible consideration has been given to Hunter Biden in this case and in this matter. And the only reason we got here is because the plea deal was so unprecedented and generous to the defendant, to the accused, that it fell apart upon its first contact with a judge. And that's why Weiss finally had to charge this case. But the biggest thing, though, is, you know, end of the day, this is a crime. Yes, he should be charged. But this is not the main thing. The main event is what James Comer and Republicans have been on. It's the influence peddling business and Joe Biden's role in it. And Weiss has let all that stuff, or at least a lot of it, when Joe was vice president, he's let the statute of limitations

lapse on it. So even if there are crimes there, if they're uncovered, it's just too late. And in part it's because it was a deliberate slow walk to avoid anything uncomfortable involving Hunter and especially his dad. I mean, that was really one of my biggest takeaways and sitting across from Trump for an hour and 20 the other day. There's zero chance Joe Biden could have done this. I don't think he's physically, mentally capable of doing it at all. And Trump.

Well, look, maybe he's not quite as on point as he was when he was 47 versus 77. He like his memory, he would, you know, you'd ask him a question and he'd give you something that wasn't totally responsive. And you'd be like, all right, did he, is he going to answer my point? And he he'd land it. He'd come back to it. He's like, he wanted to say what he wanted to say. Then he'd give you an answer on your point. Like, he was on point. Even though he, you know,

people say he rambles, it's really just he wants to say his points. That's what he gets out of the interview, to get his message out. There is, Biden can't do it

when he's in front of a teleprompter, Rich. Yeah. Has it all written out for him? I mean, if this thing goes forward as it looks like it's going to go forward,

Trump v. Biden, I realize Trump's at four times indicted. Biden's in a ton of trouble. He there's no way he can have a general election debate. No way. Yeah. And nine o'clock at night, standing there for an hour and a half. Yeah, it's really hard to believe. Now, you know, you might have a ready excuse.

Oh, I'm not going to be on a debate stage with a convicted felon or with an insurrectionist or whatever it is. But as I mentioned to you, I met with Trump for lunch at Bedminster two months ago or so now. I'd occasionally talk to him. We have obviously, you know, we're not best best buddies, given given what kind of things we've been saying about him. It was off the record. But just I was struck by the sheer personal force of this guy. He's a big figure, right? He's a celebrity. I don't want to sound like a fanboy. Obviously, I'm not. But that's just that's key to his political potency over the last five years. And Joe Biden, I haven't been invited to lunch at the White House, but clearly doesn't have it. So that just goes to a really important quality that people look

for in a president, strength, sheer strength. And Biden's going to be hurting on that metric. Also, the economy, there's a poll the other day, there've been a lot recently, so I forget which one it was, had Trump leading by something like 10 points on the economy. And usually most presidential years, that's that's the issue. Right. And he could be in Rikers. And if he's leading Joe Biden by 10 points on the economy, there's some serious chance he would win. And I think, you know, all this is kind of dawning on the Democrats, which circling back from what we're discussing at the beginning. This is this is a reason why they're, they're freaked out. Hmm. I just, gosh, I can't imagine how

we'll elect a president without having any general election debates. I don't know that the American and given the concerns about Joe Biden's age already 61% of the American people think he's too old. Well, no, it's, it's higher than that. That's a 61, 77, 77 net net. Yeah. And 61% of Democrats feel that they can't basement him. They can't do it this time. He's, it's not going to work to say, I won't be across from an insurrectionist. The media is starting to smell blood in the water and their loyalties to the Democratic Party, I think, are making them say he needs to get turfed out now, now, now. Otherwise, we're going to lose to this guy. So I just I don't think he's going to get the pass that he got the last time. Now, if a new Dem subbed in, they would. They'd start to run

cover again. But there's no that's one of the thing. And Ignatius, I think, pointed it out when I saw him in an interview the past couple of days saying there's no clear heir apparent. That's that's one of the problems. That's why there's some resistance. Who is it? It's not like, yeah, the white knight in shining, shining armors right there. Of course, Gavin Newsom would love to do it. But everyone knows he runs California. This is not a slam dunk. Right. Right. Yeah. And going back to identity politics to the heir apparent is Kamala Harris, right? I mean, formally, that's the vice president is always assumed to be the heir apparent, but there's a problem there. And are you really going

to substitute in the Ken doll, you know, for this African-American woman? That'd be really hard. And although, you know, this is well-spoken, I think it speaks well of him. He's willing to go anywhere. I don't know whether you've had a long form sit down with him, but he's on Fox a fair amount and he's very, very confident and charismatic. But, you know, California is different. He's way out there on the cultural issues that are major Democratic vulnerability. I think it's easier for the Democrats to be far to the left on economic issues rather than cultural ones. And, you know, the personal background, it's, you know, maybe it's okay against Trump, or certainly it's been okay against California, but in California, but some of that stuff would litigate and not play well. So, you know, I think the play would be

some boring, you know, Mark Warner from Virginia, someone who's just boring and conventional, non-threatening and can't be made or made radioactive. But nominating someone like that is is is difficult just to win a major presidential nomination this day and age. You need to excite people. OK, now, meanwhile, something interesting is happening on the Republican side, and that is this buzz. I'm sure you've heard it, too, about Glenn Youngkin and whether he's going to come in as the white knight.

He's the governor of Virginia. He's the one who ran in his little fleece vest. And the saying was fear the fleece, the fleece, because he was this sort of quiet, mild mannered candidate who those famous suburban moms could like, who was MAGA friendly, but not totally tied to Trump in a way that became problematic for some candidates in those midterms. So they, many Republicans think he can do it. He can be, he can be the DeSantis that we thought DeSantis was going to be. And, uh, I'm getting more and more buzz about this from my, you know, well-connected Republican friends. And a couple of things are interesting that that are happening there. He pardoned that dad. Smith is his last name in Virginia, whose daughter was sexually assaulted. Yeah. And Loudoun County was sexually assaulted in the restroom by a boy wearing a

skirt. And then he was called a liar at that school board meeting where the head of the school was saying that's never happened. He got mad. Some woman got in his face, tried to call him a liar. Anyway, he got arrested for his disorderly conduct there and convicted. It was crazy. They won't prosecute any crime down there in Virginia, but this guy gets prosecuted. And so Youngkin pardoned him. It's kind of interesting. Could have been for local politics. Could have, could have, because he's in this tight battle for the state legislature there, the Virginia House of Delegates. There's a hotly contested race there. And but it could have been more long. I mean, long range planning. I don't know. And and now there's an interesting race in a position to know that Youngkin is waiting to. He basically wants to get control of the state legislature there in great numbers by Republicans, and then beginning of November. And he'll miss the opportunity to get on certain state ballots for the primary if he waits until this Virginia House vote. This Virginia is the House of the Senate.

I forget what's what's in play. But in any event, what do you make of this whole theory? And are you hearing the same things? Yeah, I've heard the same thing. I was talking to someone yesterday, maybe, who's meeting with donors in New York. I was like, how's it going? What are people thinking? I was like, someone yesterday, maybe, who's meeting with donors in New York. I was like, how's it going? What are people thinking? I was like, nah, nothing.

This is an anti-Trump Republican. Nothing good, but Yunkin, maybe Yunkin. And I just, I'm an admirer of his. I think he ran a great gubernatorial campaign against a really talented politician who ended up stepping on it in an important couple of ways, Terry McAuliffe. But late entrance, it never works. Once you're skipping states because you're not filed in those states, how's that going to work? And then, although I think he ran a great campaign as a really competent and likable guy, is he electric? Is know, is he an electric candidate, potentially? I don't think so. And then finally, what we need, you know, this really struck me during the first debate in

August, what you need is someone so dominant on that stage without Trump there, that he or she is not just going to do well or do a little better than everyone else. You need someone to be so dominant, they suck away the support, basically, of everyone else on that need someone to be so dominant. They suck away the support basically of everyone else on that stage and they get to 30 or 40. And then you can, you can think about this being a competitive race. Would Junkin do that? I mean, no one's done it so far, right? That's currently in the race, but DeSantis would collapse to zero and Nikki would collapse to zero and Vivek and Tim Scott, cause Junkin's in the the race. I just I just can't see it. So I understand the race is not developed to my liking. Right. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge reality.

And this just seems like wish casting. So maybe, you know, maybe in Iowa where Trump's a little softer and you have people saying it's more open than it seems. Maybe something happens there. I don't discount that. But the national polling is just it's just screaming. This is not a competition. Right. This is very much like the Biden RFK Jr. race. Biden's number slightly better against RFK Jr. than Trump's are to DeSantis, but they're not that far apart. OK, in Virginia, all 40 seats in the Virginia Senate and all 100 in the House are on the ballot. Republicans hold a 40 seats in the Virginia Senate and all 100 in the house are on the ballot. Republicans hold a slim majority in the house. Democrats narrowly control the Senate, uh, strategists on both sides agree that each chamber is up for grabs. So the, the hope by Yunkin is that the Republicans hold the house,

increase their margin and that they take over control of the Senate. And then he could really push his agenda or any Republican in the governor's seat could push a Republican agenda. So we'll see. I mean, I've heard it from a lot of people. I don't know who knows. We'll see. Rich Lowry, always a pleasure. Have a great weekend. Thanks so much. You too. OK, when we come back, we're going to turn to some legal stories in particular, uh, this Hunter Biden indictment news. And we'll talk about some of the mainstream media's reaction to my Trump interview is saying that he quote confessed. He confessed in our interview, uh, that we aired for you yesterday. What do you think? Dave Ehrenberg, Mike Davis, join us next. Joining me now, Mike Davis. He's the founder and president of the Article 3 Project,

which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law. Also with us, Dave Ehrenberg. He's the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located. They are normally with us on Trump indictment days. That's become a thing. It's like a pattern, a regular appearance schedule for them. But today they are here for a couple of, well, there's a bunch of legal stories to get to. We'll get to Trump, but I want to start with Hunter Biden. Guys, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it. So let me start with you, Mike. The DOJ, the Trump or the Biden defenders are out there kind of saying, see, this is fair. It's a fair DOJ because they've brought three felony counts against Hunter Biden. He got a gun while he was an active addict and he lied about it on the application

that amounts to basically three felony charges. They're saying he could spend between 10 and 25 years in prison. My God, if anything, this is unfair treatment versus what the average civilian would get. How do you see it? I would say don't be fooled. This is the same Democrat picked Delaware U.S. attorney David Weiss, who has been covering for the Bidens for years. He let the statute of limitations expire on very serious tax charges. He buried evidence deemed credible by the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney that Joe Biden may have taken a $10 million foreign bribe from Burisma and changed American policy. This David Weiss is the one who came up with this secret sweetheart plea deal with Hunter Biden with this

backdoor pardon for all these crimes. Remember what they're doing here. They are charging Hunter with this gun charge. He's not going to spend a day in jail. They're going to let this criminal process work its way through the presidential election until November 5th, 2024. And then either Joe Biden will pardon his son and maybe himself, or David Weiss will come to another sweetheart deal, maybe another plea agreement where there's no jail time. And in the meantime, they're going to protect the Bidens, particularly Joe Biden, from congressional subpoenas because then the Biden White House, President Biden Biden, from congressional subpoenas, because then the Biden White House, President Biden himself, Hunter, the Biden Justice Department, they're

going to say, sorry, we can't cooperate with you, Congress, because there's an ongoing criminal prosecution and ongoing criminal investigations and other matters. And Hunter Biden, the second he's pardoned or the second he gets a plea agreement where he doesn't face criminal liability anymore, he no longer has his Fifth Amendment rights. So they're not going to pardon him now. They're not going to do a plea agreement now. They're going to wait until this impeachment inquiry is done. They're going to wait till after the presidential election.

All right, Dave, what do you what do you think of it? Well, it's good to be back with you, Megan and my friend, Mike. First off, is it Weiss or Weiss? I wish I was Weiss. I think it's Weiss. I think I was I was giving Mike a pass. I'm pretty sure it's Weiss. Trusty Ehrenberg to know the difference between Weiss and Weiss. So, yes. OK. I do agree with Mike that I do not believe that Hunter Biden will spend a day in jail. I agree with him on that. And it is ironic because I think this prosecution was motivated in part by the DOJ trying to show that, look, we're even handed. This is not a weaponized DOJ. Look, we're even going after the former vice president, current president's son.

But in trying to make everyone happy, they made no one happy. The left is infuriated because this charge, this gun charge is rarely charged, rarely invoked, especially when the gun is not used for another crime. And then the right, which thinks that Hunter Biden is the head of some international criminal conspiracy, is thinking this is small potatoes. So they've made no one happy here. I would say this about the weaponization thing. I think when you add this to the fact that John Durham stayed on and was allowed to file his charges, the fact that the DOJ didn't file charges against Matt Gaetz, who was a big MAGA guy, the fact that DOJ Merrick Garland took the side of Donald Trump over E. Jean Carroll for a long time, and now you have this,

I do think there's a very compelling argument that there is no weaponization of the DOJ, but of course that's something that's going to live on in the right wing ecosphere. Can you just expand on what you just said about E. Jean Carroll? That's the woman who accused Trump of rape in the Bergdorf Goodman changing room. Sure. The Department of Justice had a policy that they were going to defend Donald Trump against E. Jean Carroll because Donald Trump was president. And since even though this didn't happen while he was president, the defamation occurred. His defamation occurred while he was president.

And so the DOJ took the policy that they were going to defend, pay for the legal expenses of Donald Trump against E.G. Carroll. And when Merrick Garland took over, he continued that policy. He said, yes, we will continue to defend Donald Trump. Only much later did they change their policy. But for a lot of us, it was like, wow, how can you say they're weaponizing the DOJ when they're backing Donald Trump over E.G. and Carol?

Can I just ask you a follow-up on that? Do you know, I know this was a story, but it's, you know, many moons this was a story, but it's, you know, many moons ago, whether they did the same for Clinton when he was the sitting president and got accused by Paula Jones, the thing that got him on all the trouble for lying under oath. Did the DOJ defend him in that? Was that the DOJ's lawyers? I don't remember what the, it's a long time ago. I don't remember what happened there, but I can tell you when it comes to this case, Donald Trump's defamation occurred, alleged defamation.

Well, it was proven to be defamatory. It occurred while he was president, but it didn't involve his presidential duties. It involved statements he made before he was president. So I don't know. It's a good question about Clinton and DOJ. But to me, I thought it was the wrong move by DOJ to defend someone who was making statements based on something that had nothing to do with his presidency. Right. Outside the scope of his duties. I don't know, Mike, there's a lot of evidence. I mean, this is Dave's making the sort of more liberal case for why the DOJ is fair and fair and balanced. There's a lot on the other side of that ledger, however, like indicting a former president twice on charges that none of us can totally understand other than the obstruction case like that, I that I get. And we could go down the list. I mean,

do you is there any merit to what Dave's saying in terms of like, yeah, they didn't go after Matt Gates and they did go after Hunter and they defended him on E. Jean Carroll and so on. This is the most politicized and weaponized Justice Department that I've ever seen, even more so than the Obama Justice Department. Remember, they are indicting a former president and a leading presidential candidate for the first time in American history on bogus, on a bogus legal theory. Jack Smith's legal theory on January 6th is bogus. It is not a crime to object to a presidential election. It is specifically allowed by the Electoral Count Act

of 1887. It is not a crime to twist arms politically. That is allowed by the First Amendment. If it were a crime to object to presidential elections, Democrats would be in jail for objecting to Republican wins in 1968, 2004, 2016. If politicians can go to jail for being jerks, just about every politician in Washington, besides my former boss, Chuck Grassley, the nicest man on the planet, would be in prison. This is definitely a politicized and weaponized justice system. Just look at what they're doing. They're going after President Trump. They're going after President Trump's top aides, disregarding 250 years of executive privilege, going back to George Washington. They're going after January 6th protesters, these goofballs who got out of control on January 6th

at a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service and turned into a riot. Yeah, you should charge the people who trespassed. Yeah, you should charge the people who were violent, but to charge them with insurrection? How many insurrectionists get to the floor, the Senate floor of a nation's Capitol and walk through velvet ropes and follow police direction and take selfies and don't burn down the damn place. And at the same time, they did the Kavanaugh, right? I mean, that's one of the things that's been coming to mind with what they did to Brett

Kavanaugh on Capitol Hill looked a lot like that, minus the violence. It's important to say. Yeah, I was the staff leader. I sat behind Chairman Chuck Grassley during those proceedings when you had hate protesters in the audience and then their senators like Kamala Harris disrupting the proceedings the entire time, threatening senators, disrupting the committee hearings, disrupting the floor votes, chasing senators, trespassing and chasing senators in non-public areas and threatening them. Remember the famous video of Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican senator, being chased into an elevator and looking like he's ready to pout and cry. I mean, it's just, it's unbelievable, the double standard. Look what they're doing to parents outraged because their kids are getting raped in the Loudoun County schools and the superintendent's lying about it and covering it up and moving the rapist from one school to another so he could he or she or whatever the hell that person is can rape another person.

Look at what they're doing to. And by the way, that case was used as an example, Dave, by Merrick Garland in his DOJ memo about why these parents were potentially domestic terrorists. I mean, that memo is that's case closed as far as I'm concerned in terms of their bias and the fact that they've been politicized. But I'll give you the chance to respond. Well, Megan, do they really call the parents domestic terrorists? I read that memo. I didn't see the direct phrase. I thought that it was a lot more nuanced than that. Did he really call them domestic terrorists? Yeah, we'll pull it up. They likened the parents

to domestic terrorists. Yes. All right. Well, I'd love to see it because I've seen I thought I read the memo and I read it a different way. But yes, please pull it up. One thing that I want to say about the charges against Hunter Biden, just to go back to the charges, is that the statute under which they're proceeding, this gun law, is about to be thrown out as unconstitutional. It was thrown out by the Fifth Circuit, an appellate court, as unconstitutional. And so it's hanging on by a thread. And I think that's the best defense there for the defense saying, hey, this thing isn't even a legitimate statute. And then you have the lying on the forms. Those two charges will go away if the underlying statute goes away, because the lying would be immaterial if there is

no underlying statute. So this is not a great case. And there's a thinking that if if I disagree with you, it's not a great case. That's why people are mad on the right. The great case was the tax evasion and the underlying corruption and possibly foreign agent registration act. Just before we go to break my crack team, New York Times, 1994. The Justice Department today threw its weight behind President Clinton's claim that the sexual harassment suit he is facing from a former Arkansas clerical worker should be put off until he leaves office. They did defend him on this in a brief to be filed with the federal court in Little Rock. The Justice Department will argue that the president is immune from civil suit while he's in office to allow the sexual harassment suit to go forward.

The DOJ argued could irreparably interfere with the president's performance of his official duties. The 25-page legal argument from the Department of Justice was obtained from the lawyers of Paula Jones. So they were involved in that case as well. I knew it. I remembered it. The little brain, the little hamster sometimes runs on the wheel. Nice and fast for a Friday. Mike and Dave, stay with us. We'll get into

impeachment and Trump next. I want to talk to you about the Trump interview on Wednesday. We aired it yesterday, Thursday, and the media went nuts with it. I mean, it was actually very interesting to see what different people did with it. You know, there was kind of something in there for everyone. Core MAGA loved certain parts. DeSantis fans loved certain parts. And of course, the left loved the discussion about the criminal indictments. And I'll tell you something funny in just a second about something that happened on MSNBC that kind of amused me. But I begin there with Lawrence O'Donnell, who did, I think, 20 minutes on this, at least. I don't know. My team watched it.

And he had on Andrew Weissman. Can I tell you, I've never heard Andrew Weissman actually speak before. I only read about most of my news I get via, you know, reading it. I've never heard him speak before. Very odd way of speaking. And then there was Neil Katyal, former Solicitor General. And the other guy was, I don't know this other guy. He's constantly on there talking about how Trump is the devil. Morris, Brandon, I can't remember. You'll know him, Dave. Bradley Ross?

Moss. Oh, yeah, Moss. You can see him in this clip. Bradley Moss. Okay. There's a reason I'm taking time to say their names. I'll get to it. But here's their reaction to a piece of that interview.

Let's listen to more of Donald Trump's testimony today, not under oath, in his own defense. I'm allowed to have these documents. I'm allowed to take these documents, classified or not classified. And frankly, when I have them, they become unclassified. People think you have to go through a ritual. You don't, at least in my opinion, you don't. But it's even beyond that, because the Presidential Records Act allows you to do as president, only as president. When you hear these interviews with him, and I feel like these interviewers almost have to issue him Miranda warnings now before he does these interviews because he just keeps confessing.

He has to be able to put forward this cockamamie legal theory he's got about what the Presidential Records Act lets him do. He's going to take that all the way to the Supreme Court. Basically, Trump's defense that you just heard is a defense to the crimes of which he's charged, the way that bleach is a defense to COVID, Larry Lawrence. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So they had a bit of a field day with it. Mike Davis saying he confessed on camera. And if you watch a longer clip saying, in fact, a bunch of pundits on the left said this will be played in court. Do you have a different view? Well, first, I'm just very happy that Neil Katyal made it out of the desert. He was at a he was at a music fest and got stuck in the mud and he posted on Twitter how it you know the agonizing eight hours that he had to walk through the mud to get out. So I mean, I it reminded me of

people like people in East Palestine and you know, people in Maui was just devastating for Neil that he had to walk for eight hours. But I would say this, they mock this legal this legal argument. Now it's the same legal argument that the president Clinton used in the Clinton software case. And he won right under the presidential records act. Uh, any, any document created or received by the president or his staff is a presidential record or received. And that includes agency records, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, classified records from the CIA, the DOD. These are subject to the Presidential Records Act. And under the Presidential Records Act, the mere fact that President Clinton took eight years of highly classified audio recordings, 79 tapes of his presidency, including discussions with foreign leaders, including discussions with his national security aides, clearly born classified, the most

classified materials possible, the mere fact that President Clinton took them with him when he left office and did not turn them over to the bureaucrats at the National Archives makes them presidential records. And it doesn't matter whether they're classified or not. That's why Congress gives former presidents federally funded staff with security clearances, secure office space, secret service protection. I can see Dave actually wincing as you're talking. He does not agree why. Burning Man Festival. So number one, Megan, before I forget, just one thing. When you said in the previous segment, you said the Department of Justice defended Clinton when he was president. Correct. They did it while he was president. The difference is that Merrick Garland was defending Donald Trump after he was president, after he was no longer president. So I think that's the

difference. That's just one little thing. If I can go back to what my friend Mike was saying, you asked the right question. It was an excellent interview all around. And you asked the right question, because when when former President Trump was saying that the Presidential Records Act essentially gives them immunity here, you said, but you had a subpoena and then you didn't comply with it. So it's still obstruction. Obstruction is obstruction. It doesn't matter that you were president. If you refuse to turn over documents in response to a subpoena, that's a crime. Willful retention of documents is access the documents under the Presidential Records Act. But once he's no longer president, he cannot keep those documents any more than he could keep Air Force One. And even if you say, as Mike says, he can still keep them once you receive a subpoena to get them back. You can't keep them. You have to turn them over or else it's obstruction. That's I mean, that's where the president's the weakest on the obstruction, because I've we've been debating this for how long now, guys, you know, all of us since since the Mar-a-Lago raid about whether he had the right to the documents to begin with. That's one question. And then irrespective of whether he had that right, whether he needed to turn them over once he got a subpoena. I mean, I've got tons of documents in my files here. I have a unquestioned right to all of them. But if somebody serves me a subpoena, if the feds serve me a subpoena to turn them over, I have to quit. The question of ownership, is it now irrelevant? It's irrelevant. It's not about ownership. It's about,

is it responsive to the subpoena or isn't it? A judge has to issue the subpoena. This is the full power of the court saying, turn it over. And I have to, and then we'll argue about what the other issues are. But that's the problem for him, Mike, is that the allegations are that when faced with that subpoena, whether he had the rights to the documents or not, he didn't comply. He kept the documents. That's why the feds found I know they only made an issue out of 30 of them, but some hundred documents that still had the markings classified on them when they raided Mar-a-Lago. I would say this. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act. Right. And so what was the criminal predicate for this subpoena?

Right. And that's the issue is, is if it's an. OK, but if there isn't one. So, yes. So take it. So let's say for argument's sake, there wasn't one that they failed to state a crime that would have justified that subpoena. What does that do? What does that mean? Well, I mean, it means the subpoena is not lawful. And so that the issue is, is if you're issuing an unlawful subpoena because there's not a criminal predicate, how can you obstruct justice for an unlawful subpoena? There's a 2019 memo from the office of legal counsel that is binding on the executive branch. It is the Office of Legal Counsel is the general counsel of the executive branch. And this was during the Mueller probe. And essentially, this OLC memo says you can't obstruct justice into investigations of

non-crimes with very few exceptions. So if they are investigating the non-crime of a former president having his presidential records, which is allowed by the Presidential Records Act, how can you, how can Trump have obstructed justice by being a jerk and not responding to the subpoena when the subpoena was issued pursuant to a non-crime, right? Why didn't you think of something- Dave's a prosecutor. He's a prosecutor. What's the answer to that? Do you agree with that? No, I don't. I think Mike might be conflating the search warrant with the subpoena. The search warrant, yes, you need to have evidence that there's a crime there. But when you send out a subpoena, that's different. I mean, how else would the government get these nuclear secrets

back? Just by asking politely, they did that. So if you can't send out a subpoena to require them to be turned over, how else could you ever get them to be turned over? Well, what's the predicate crime? I mean, you think the government could just issue subpoenas to American citizens without an underlying crime? I mean, that seems like a problem. There has to be an underlying crime, and there's not an underlying crime. We carve out exceptions for the president of the United States. Okay, out exceptions for the president. This is interesting. I would say the underlying crime, if you need an underlying crime, it would be the violation of the Espionage Act, the unlawful retention. Once you're no longer president, you can't keep nuclear secrets. And so that's the underlying crime. And if you say, well, that statute doesn't apply, well, they have a good faith basis to

believe it does. And I would submit that because of national security reasons, you don't need to have the crime if someone has some sensitive documents that they will not turn over, you can send them a subpoena. But regardless, either way, he got the subpoena and he admits that he just thought

he didn't have to respond to it. So that's where he's really in a lot of trouble because obstruction is the big whammy here, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. It is the big whammy. It's definitely where he's most vulnerable. Here's the thing that I continue to struggle with. And you guys know since the Mar-a-Lago raid, I've been doing a good faith search to try to understand whether I believe Mike's arguments, which are strong and I get it and you're one of the smartest people I know, Mike, or whether I agree with you, Dave, and more Andy McCarthy, who are on the other side on the Presidential Records Act. You papers, a diary, which is what Clinton was working

on with a with a an author. And those papers were to advance his diary. But you don't get ownership of the CIA's briefings, their documents of the FBI's documents just because they came to you as president. They don't become yours. They remain the documents of the people, your personal documents, your notes that are made for your diary, but not necessarily even your notes on those documents if it relates to the business of the government. That would still be the people's. That's his argument. This is why I asked Trump this follow-up question in SOT16, which was also played at length over on the, you know, other channels. Watch. I am covered 100%. I got it. There's a dispute about that, about whether presidential.

Just so my audience. I don't think there's any dispute that I'm covered under the Presidential Records Act. Well, you're covered, but it's not clear that it allowed you to take all those documents. You can't say it says it says what it says you're allowed. And do you believe that every CIA document that came to you as president was automatically yours to keep no matter what? I'm not going to answer that question. So that's the dispute. What did you make of that, Dave? That was brilliant. I mean, really, Megan, if if you want to do a part time role in my office as prosecutor, we'd love to have you. I might. I might. But you asked the right questions and you can tell by the former president's comments saying, I don't have to tell you or I don't want to tell you. Whatever that response was, that's when he knew you had him backed into a corner on that one.

What did you make of that, Mike? Look, I mean, all you have to do is look at the statute, look at what it says, but it's any document created or received by the president or his White House staff. There is a carve out for agency records, but those are agency records that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, right? Classified records are not. Why do we think that a president can be trusted with our nation's most sensitive documents and secrets? But the second he leaves office, we can't. I mean, that's that's absurd. Of course, he can look at his presidential records.

If you look at the question for you, that's a good point. But I want to ask you a quick other question. Vice President Pence has said there was a process for declassifying documents in the Trump White House and that we followed it a few times. Vice president Pence has said there was a process for declassifying documents in the Trump white house and that we followed it a few times. And he could remember a couple of instances and in terms of what they did to declassify. So Trump is now saying, when I have them, they become unclassified. That's what he's saying that, that, that doesn't square with the white house actually going through steps to declassify

documents from time to time. If everything, if he had a standing order, as his White House did claim and when he got, as he and his, as his people claimed, his lawyers claimed he had a standing order to declassify, you know, when he shipped it off to Mar-a-Lago, literally nobody has any record of it. Vice President Pence didn't know about it. John Bolton, former national security advisor, didn't know about it. His chief of staff, Mark Meadows, didn't know about it. John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, didn't know about it. His chief of staff, Mark Meadows, didn't know about it. The chief of staff prior to Mark Meadows didn't know about it. So, Mike, how does that how does any of that square if the president's going to go in there

and say, I just thought it with my mind. There didn't have to be any quote ritual is what he said. They just became declassified instantly upon my receipt of them. It's going to be hard to square that with the fact that they did take steps to declassify certain documents along the way. No, the classification argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether these documents are classified or not under the Presidential Records Act. Right. Under the president, of course, there are classified presidential records. There are a lot of classified presidential records and he is allowed to access them anytime he wants under the

Presidential Records Act. That's why Congress gives former presidents federally funded staff with security clearances, secure office space, secret service protection. But actually, what Trump is arguing, even if it were relevant, whether it's classified or not, he is correct. Under the Clinton-Sachter case, the judge said that the mere fact that President Clinton took these highly classified, 79 tapes, eight years of his presidency, highly classified audio recordings of his presidency, the mere fact that President Clinton took them and didn't turn them over to the librarians at the National Archives deems them personal under the Presidential Records Act. You may think that that decision is wrong, but guess what? That is the controlling decision

for former presidents. It's really the only one that's, you know, close to on point. It was at the federal district court level, so it hasn't been tested up on appeal. This will be. I mean, one thing those guys said over there, one of them said was Trump's defense is really going to rise or fall in the courts, like with the judges, as opposed to in front of juries, because this discussion you guys and I are having right now is going to happen in front of the people who count, you know, the judges, the appellate court judges, and probably ultimately the Supreme court. So at least in that lane, um, the juries may wind up proving irrelevant. Wanted to get to one other piece of it. Just to clarify, I asked Trump about this document he was allegedly waving around. This is a

significant part of Jack Smith's case against him. He said that Trump had an Iraq attack, sorry, Iran attack plan that was drafted by Mark Milley to attack Iran and that he was waving it around people at Bedminster like, ha ha ha, look at this. I wasn't the warmonger. Mark Milley to attack Iran and that he was waving it around people at Bedminster like, ha ha ha, look at this. I wasn't the warmonger. Mark Milley was the warmonger. He's in the paper saying, I'm I want a war. Look what this lunatic sent to me. He wanted to attack Iran. And here's the document showing it. It's classified. I could have declassified it as president, but now I can't. Well, Jack Smith's made a big deal out of it. We've heard the tape. There was a tape that mysteriously got leaked to CNN. Gee, wonder how that happened from this imparted impartial DOJ. Anyway, we heard it. So I asked him about it and he kind of tried to wiggle on what he told Brett Baer, which was

there was no document. I had newspapers, I had magazine articles, but there was no document. First, I'll show you the exchange I had with Trump on it yesterday. We've all now heard the audio tape of you, post-presidency, showing third parties some sort of document that you're describing as secret. Allegedly, it was a Department of Defense Mark Milley plan to attack Iran. Now, this was at a meeting right here at Bedminster, where we are now. You later told Brett Baier in an interview that you had no document that day, only newspapers and magazines. But we hear you on the tape. We hear you saying, quote, look, this was him. This was the Defense Department and him. It's highly confidential. This is secret. This was done by the military and given to me as president. I could have declassified it. Now I can't. This is still a secret. Now, why would you describe a newspaper article as highly confidential and still a secret,

saying as president you could have declassified it, but now you can't? Let me just tell you something. Number one, I did nothing wrong because I come under the presidential record, Zach. Let's get to my question. Why would you be holding up a newspaper saying this is still secret? I'd have to look at it. I could declassify it if I still secret? I'd have to look at it. I could declassify it if I were president. I would have to look at it.

But that's what you told Brett Baier. You told Brett Baier that that was a newspaper or a magazine. I could have declassified. No, I also told Brett Baier, as I remember, I don't know, it was a longtime interview. Will you tell me what were you waving around in that meeting? I also told Brett Baier that it wasn't a classified document. What were you waving around in that meeting? Because it certainly sounds like it was an attack.

I'm not going to talk to you about that because that's already been, I think, very substantiated and there's no problem with it. It hasn't been substantiated. Jack Smith says it was the attack plan. Megan, let me just tell you. Let me just tell you. And you told Brett Baier. Let me tell you. Here we go again. I'm covered by the Presidential Records Act. I'm allowed to do what I want to do. You guys are both laughing as you watch that. Just for the record, here is what he told Brett Baer.

And you were recorded saying that you had a document detailing a planned attack on another country that was prepared by the U.S. military for you when you were president. The Iran attack plan. You remember that? Ready? You were recorded. It wasn't a document. OK.

I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles i had copies of magazines read there was no document that was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about iran and other things and it may have been held up or may not but that was not a document i didn't have a document per se there was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles. I mean, you know, I, just so you guys know this, the audience, I don't ask these questions without doing my homework. Like I, especially sitting with the president, the former president or at a presidential debate, I do not go in willy nilly and try to make shit up. Um, I was trying to get to the bottom of it. I think

somebody probably has advised him now, Dave, stop talking about that. Right. Like, I think probably all of us would have said, Mr. President, stop talking. Don't like when you get to the subject of the indictments, just say it's bullshit. It's election interference. That's all I'm going to say because they're trying to get me. Megan, this is why the documents case is the strongest case against Trump, because his only defense is that he had declassified the documents. But when he is on that recording saying, I can't show you this because I didn't declassify it.

I need to declassify it. That ends that defense. And it really doesn't matter what he's waving. He can be waving his golf scores. It doesn't matter because it shows what he knew about the declassification process and that he had not completed it. Interesting. Go ahead, Mike. Again, whether it's classified or not under the Espionage Act, if you look at them, that's not the relevant inquiry. That's a factor that you can look at. But think about this.

Let's say at the worst case scenario that President Trump actually had Milley's war plan, which do they do they have the documents? I don't know if they even have those documents. Seems like they do. The amended the superseding indictment suggested that they did that they did find it. And just FYI, Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, had his book in the Ghost Writers first draft, said he saw the Ghostwriter, saw the document at Mar-a-Lago in Trump's I'm sorry, in Bedminster, in Trump's office. Then they removed that. And Mark Milley said he took it

out because he just couldn't believe it. But now he sees it differently and he does believe it. Sorry. Go ahead. What I would say is this is that he's having an off the record discussion with a reporter and he's flipping a document in front of the reporter? Did he give the document to the reporter and let the reporter read the document or did he flip it in front of the report, right? And so that's a key thing that you have to look at and that's something that will have to be figured out at trial. If he's flipping a document in front of a reporter and the reporter can't read the document, how is he revealing national security secrets to a document?

It looks like he's showing off a trophy, a prize. Megan, can I add something to that? Yeah, go ahead. He's not being charged with dissemination. He's being charged on the Espionage Act with unlawful retention. So whether he showed it to the reporter or not, he's not being charged with dissemination of that document. The power of that recording is, as I was saying, is the fact that he knows the declassification process and he knows he didn't do

it. But again, under the Presidential Records Act, he's allowed to have his presidential records. It doesn't matter. But Mike, then why didn't he just say to Brett Baier? Yes, I had the Iran attack plan. I waved it around, didn't show it to anybody. But that's that was the Iran attack plan. I waved it around. Didn't show it to anybody. But that was the Iran attack plan. I had the right to have it. He showed up. But guess what? It doesn't matter whether you think what you're doing is lawful or not. It's what's the law?

Why didn't he say that to me yesterday? Why did he say, I'm not going to tell you? I'm not going to answer that. He's not a lawyer. I don't know. I mean, I'm not advising him on this, but I would say that. He shouldn't be talking about this stuff. That's why he should keep his mouth shut. I mean, I'm not advising him on this, but I would say that he shouldn't be talking about this stuff. That's why he should keep his mouth shut. I mean, listen, I'm happy he spoke to me, but stop asking.

And he's been speaking. Well, I know. I mean, look, it's not my obligation not to ask. Right. It's his obligation to say I know where the lines are and I'm not going to cross them. But I do think, you know, there's a question about is he trying to do jury nullification? Because that's actually what Neil Katyal was saying, that he's trying to do jury nullification, just get his defense out there, trying to muddy the waters a little bit so that people just have it in their heads. Like, wait a minute, isn't there a question on this? Maybe he didn't do it.

I think at the end of the day, at the end of the day, President Trump knows that these cases are going to be decided by the American people on November 5th, 2024, regardless of what happens in the courts. And so I think that he's running for president on November 5th, 2024. And that's why he's making these political public arguments. Go ahead. Yeah, I agree with Mike on that. I think his best defense on the Mar-a-Lago documents case is to get elected president

again and then tell the DOJ to call it off or to get jury nullification, where he's got a very favorable jury pool. Four out of the five counties that it's going to pull from are red counties and the fifth is a swing county. And he's got a judge. This is your neighborhood, so you know. Yeah, it's my backyard. And the judge there, Judge Cannon, although she gave a ruling favorable to Jack Smith just yesterday or two days ago, but she has given the former president a lot of favorable rulings up to this point. So I think he thinks he's got a favorable judge, favorable jury pool. And if he can push this out as far as possible, he'll get away with it.

All right. Now, here's what I wanted to say about the Lawrence O'Donnell segment. So they went on. It was I mean, it might have gone on longer than 20 minutes. I have no idea. I don't have the stomach to watch that, but, um, went on and on and on. They played so many clips from the interview. You know what never came out of Lawrence O'Donnell's mouth? My name. Thanks to the Megan Kelly show in a Megan Kelly interview, Megan Kelly show aired this today. You can, you can use my clips. We put them out to everybody. We didn't say don't touch our clips. We said you can use them. Fucking credit the show. Right. They put it. Sorry. Sorry. I try not to swear in front of you guys. But they put it in a chyron and that was it. He never said it. Never said it, which is what reminded me of this Muhammad Ali

clip. Why don't you call me my name, man? Well, what's your name? You told me your name was Cassius Clay a few years ago. I never told you my name was Cassius Clay. My name is Muhammad Ali, and you will announce it right there in the center of that ring after the fight if you don't do it now. Acting just like an old Uncle Tom. Another Clyde Patterson. I'm going to punish you. Then he beats him down in the ring. And in the middle of the fight, he says to the guy, say my name, say my name. Rude. It was rude.

That's all I'm going to say. I won't make you comment on Lawrence O'Donnell. See, it doesn't hurt if you say it. Lawrence O'Donnell, it's fine. They can handle the saying of the name of somebody who they might not like. Quick update before we go. Timeline of the Garland exchange and domestic terrorists. First, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden White House suggesting, quote, the threats and acts of violence at school board meetings might be, quote, domestic terrorism. Then Garland responded by directing his agency to review strategies to address the harassment and the threat. FBI's counterterrorism division, hello, then created a, quote, threat tag

based on Garland's memo. Then the National School Board's decision later admitted there was no justification for some of the language in that letter. In a Senate hearing, Merrick Garland hit back and said the language in that letter was not contained in his memo, but he said he has no plans to rescind his memorandum and said the school board association's concerns were justified. Senator Grassley then said to Merrick Garland, the last thing the justice department and the FBI need is a very vague memo to unleash their power, especially when they've shown zero interest in holding their own accountable. So interesting. You guys are great. Thanks for being here. Thank you. Mohammed Megan. Mohammed Megan just took down David. That was great. I took down David. No, don't don't screw up my my future role as a junior prosecutor,

Mike. Come on. Stop that. That's true. That's true. Never mind. Mike, good to be with you. Thank you, Megan Kelly. Thank you. Great to see you, Dave Ehrenberg. You too, Mike Davis. To be continued. Have a great weekend. Up next, Peter Schweitzer is here. He's an expert on all things Hunter. We'll get into it and we'll talk about the impeachment. Joining me now for more on the Hunter Biden indictment and impeachment inquiry into President Biden is Peter Schweitzer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and host of the Drill Down podcast. Peter, welcome back to the show. So let's just kick it off with what you think of the Hunter Biden criminal charges on the gun

charge alone. Well, I got to tell you, Megan, it's a little bit like a criminal who robs a bank and they get pulled over and charged with a speeding violation. I think the gun charge is real in the sense that he did violate that law, but it's the least important and least interesting, I think, of all the legal challenges that Hunter Biden faces. I also think it's the charge that he's most likely to get sympathy from a jury on. Basically, I made this one decision, I didn't sign this form correctly, I've got this gun that I shouldn't have gotten.

So to me, it's pretty weak tea. And behind all of it is you have a prosecutor in this case that has been reluctant to really do anything with regards to Hunter Biden. So I don't think the indictment has much meaning at all. I think most of the action we're going to see is on the congressional side with the Oversight Committee and of course, now with the new powers through the impeachment process. Yes. Okay. So the impeachment process, let's talk about what's happening there. The White House reportedly they're not worried. They're not worried about this at all.

There's a long report today. I think it's in Politico talking about how they've had lawyers looking at this for months now. They knew something like this might be coming. They're very armed to defend. And they put out despite the fact they're not worried at all, not worried at all. Peter, they put out this like long talking points memo and then demanded that the press cover the impeachment story in a certain way, demanding that it is time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans covering impeachment as a process story. Republicans say X, but the White House says Y is a disservice to the American public. You will cover it our way or we will, I guess, get you censored or

come after you. Who knows what the threat is? And they put out like a long talking points memo and saying these are all the things you're going to hear and all while they're why they're not true. I'll just give you a couple. One Republican claim Joe Biden engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign natural national. They say that FBI form is only the memorialization of a tip to the FBI. It's not documented proof. And that Bill Barr looked at this very FBI form in which an informant says Joe Biden took a bribe while vice president to help out Burisma. And they both profited. They say Bill Barr under Trump, the then AG, found this to not be supported by the facts.

I think there's more to that story. Yeah, there is, Megan. You know, a couple of things. First of all, the White House lawyers are very confident there's nothing there. That operates under the assumption that the Biden family has actually been honest with the White House as to what those commercial ties were and what actually went on. They've been very confident for years, repeating the statements that, you know, Joe Biden had no involvement with his son's business. He had no knowledge of his business. He had no interactions with his business partners, all of which ended up being lies. So they may be confident, but I am still not convinced that the Biden family is being completely candid with the Biden White House and perhaps even the lawyers. The second thing I'd say, Megan, is what they want to say is unless you can prove that Joe Biden himself received money and essentially the standard of proof they want is videotape Joe Biden on videotape taking money.

It's not a bribe. And that's simply not true. All you have to do is look at the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or even look at the international bribery standards. These were the international standards for determining the legal definition of bribery that were signed in 2011 by the Obama-Biden administration. Both the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and those international standards say it's bribery whether the politician gets paid or whether a family member gets paid. So it does not really matter. You don't have to prove that Joe Biden got paid for taking a particular government action. If you can demonstrate, and I think there's already conclusive evidence of this, that the Biden family was paid for certain services to be rendered and that Joe Biden rendered some of those services, that is end of story bribery,

every bit as much as if Joe Biden himself took the money. That's very interesting and a very important point. They don't need to show a payment into Joe Biden's bank account. The payment into hunters is enough. And we know he got paid by Burisma over many years or many months, at least. The other thing I wanted to mention is Bill Barr said publicly it is not true that they're now claiming that he closed it, that he found it not to be supported by the facts. What he said to The Federalist in June of 2023 is, quote, that's not true. What they were claiming then it was not closed down. It was sent to Delaware for further investigation. Bill Barr did not look at this and say there's no there there. He sent it to David Weiss to look further into the possibility that there was a bribe. And we know from the IRS whistleblowers that the DOJ, that David Weiss's team had no interest

in pursuing anything related to, quote, the big guy, Joe Biden. Never mind Hunter Biden's alleged corruption. They shut these guys down at every turn. Now they claim, Joe Biden, nevermind Hunter Biden's alleged corruption. They shut these guys down at every turn. Now they claim number two, Joe Biden, as they're saying, Republicans are claiming Joe Biden as VP got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired in order to help the company where his son served on the board. Their response is then vice president Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the state department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, a policy Republicans also supported and saying that Republican senators echoed Biden in urging the Ukrainian president to reform the prosecutor general's office, that there was a consensus. This guy, Victor Shoken, the prosecutor looking into Burisma had to go. It wasn't a Joe and Hunter operation, Peter. Yeah. You know, it's interesting. John Solomon's done some interesting reporting on this from a FOIA request he made at the State Department. And it's very clear based on those documents that there was

not a consensus at the State Department that the prosecutor should go. And I think it's important, Megan, also to put into context the chain of events that are crystal clear that I think demonstrate the fact that this needs to be investigated and looked at for further information of a bribery. And I just I want to run through a couple of points here. April of 2014 is when Hunter Biden gets his deal with Burisma, a million dollars a year. November of 2015, he receives an email from one of the Burisma executives saying that there is a lack of progress being made by Hunter Biden and his team. And he says in the email there is a single deliverable that he's asking for from Hunter Biden, and that is to close down any inquiry of Nikolai Zlachevsky, the head of Burisma. So explicitly, the Ukrainians are saying, this is what we want you to do. Then we know, of course,

in December of 2015, based on the testimony of Devin Archer, his business partner, that Hunter Biden and Burisma executives called Joe Biden to discuss having the prosecutor fired. And lo and behold, three months later, the prosecutor is fired. And of course, Joe Biden brags publicly that he's the one that did it. Those chain of events to me are extremely damning because it demonstrates what Burisma was saying the services were that they wanted from Hunter Biden, which was get this prosecutor fired. We now know based on Devin Archer's testimony that in fact, they did reach out and talk to Joe Biden and getting the prosecutor fired. All of that to me is very, very clear cut evidence that it is warranted to look at this as a bribery investigation. And let's also keep in

mind, Megan, that it's not really a defense to say this is something I would have done anyway. You know, my son got paid, but I would have done this anyway. If you're on a local county council and you were going to vote for a development, but you took payoffs from the developers anyway, that's not a defense. You've still committed a crime. So there's a lot more to do here. And I think what the White House's position has been one of constant retreat and the standards that they're sort of putting up are quite frankly ridiculous at this point. This is amazing stuff. This is so interesting and so clarifying. You're the best, Peter. John Solomon's been amazing, too. Yes, I've been reading his reports and they're devastating. I mean, they're just devastating. Just to add to what you just said, this is from his timeline.

Prior to the moments that you were talking about, we got to the fall of 15 when the Ukrainians on Burisma were getting upset. They wanted more bang for their buck from Hunter. So let's go back a little before the fall. Let's go to June of 15, according to John Solomon's reporting. Letter from Victoria Nuland at State. She was the lead on Ukraine. She sent a letter to Shokin, this prosecutor who would get fired, on behalf of then Secretary of State John Kerry, congratulating Victor Shokin, suggesting they were impressed about the job he was doing on corruption reform. This is the guy who would then be fired a few months later. October 15th, now we're in the fall, a task force made up of state treasury and justice officials had decided that Ukraine and its new top prosecutor, Victor

Shokin, had made enough progress on their anti-corruption reforms for the country to receive the new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee. But about a month after that, in October of 15, now we're moving on to November and December, when Hunter was getting more active, getting Joe, having the meeting set up. Joe and his top advisors did an about face on Victor Shokin, contradictory to what career staff recommended, ultimately demanded his firing, which did happen in March of 2016 as a result of Joe Biden. None of that's mentioned in the little White House talking points, Peter. It's weird how that didn't. Yeah, it is. It's very,

very strange, Megan. And this is this is the problem. The evidentiary trail is working against them. You know, here's another issue that I think the committee can look into on impeachment. And this is very black and white and very clear cut. If you look at Joe Biden's tax returns, which of course, you know, the 2017 tax return, he would have filed in 2018. The 2018 tax return he would have filed in 2019. He lists the income for Celtic Capri, which is his LLC, as $9.6 million in 2017 and $3 million in 2018. So for a total of scrutiny already by some people in the press asking about his financial relationship, if any, with his son. In 2019, he files a form with the Office of Government Ethics, and this form is filled out by the same accounting team that had done his taxes. In the Office of Government Ethics during that same time period for the same company, Celtic Capri, he doesn't list $12.6 million of income. He lists only $7.4.

So there's literally $5.2 million of income missing in his more recent disclosure. How does that happen? How are you off by 40% on your taxes? And my presumption would be the taxes would be the more accurate because there's a tax liability issue. That's the very sort of question that I think the Congress needs to be looking into, because it goes to this question of, was this Ukrainian money? Was this money from China, the 10% from the big guy deal? The head of CEFC had wired $5 million to Hunter Biden and said, this is for the Biden family. Did Joe Biden get some of that? These are all the kinds of questions that the committee needs to go through this inquiry process because the congressional committees that have been

looking into this house oversight, et cetera, have been stonewalled completely by team Biden. And now it's going to be tougher now that it's an official impeachment inquiry for anybody, the banks included, to say, no, we won't comply. Interesting, by the way, if they get a subpoena, they have to comply. Just ask Donald Trump, you know, like what's good for the goose. You're prosecuting him for not complying with the subpoena shoes on the other foot. Another question for you. This is in the white house defense talking points, Victor Shokin, that Ukrainian prosecutor, this is the white house saying this his own deputy Vitaly Costco said that Shokin was not investigating Burisma at the time. They cite Bloomberg quote, Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Lochevsky. He's the guy who was the head of,

he founded Burisma throughout 2015. Kosko, this guy, this Shokin's deputy said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations. They're trying to say there's no way Burisma was going to Hunter in the fall of 15 saying, get this guy off our backs because he wasn't on their backs at that time. This is this is just blatantly not true. Can you explain what's happening? I mean, this is such a lie. This White House memo is just full of lies. a press release at the end of 2016 saying we are no longer under scrutiny by Ukrainian authorities, we've been given a clean bill of health, the prosecutor's office is not looking at us anymore,

we are free to do deals overseas and we can now participate in some other programs. So Burisma themselves said that they had been under investigation until the end of 2016. So it's just patently false. And to me, Megan, the ongoing frustration, I know you express it all the time, is where is the media with this? I mean, they're being led around by the White House. They're regurgitating these talking points. The White House has consistently lied about so many things involving hunters and Joe's financial relationship, the financial relationship with his brother, uh, as well. Um, and, and you would think they would simply look at Burisma's releases over the course of the last several years and see that this claim is just simply not true. Yeah. There is plenty of evidence to show that the that top guy who founded Burisma was in serious trouble well prior to the time they got that prosecutor fired, that he knew they were coming for him.

And he was lining up his ducks to try to get back into the good graces of everyone there, reestablish his reputation. And that's why it appears he hired Hunter Biden, put him on the board, and then began almost immediately leaning on him to try to get himself out of trouble, including with the help of Joe Biden. And there's there's plenty of documentation on that. So there's just like this statement by this second in command to Victor Shokin. I don't know what that guy said or didn't say, but there's a ton of evidence to show that they were under investigation. And notwithstanding that, here is what we get from our media and Democrats. But I repeat myself, soundbite 10. If you had evidence that Joe Biden was linked to Hunter Biden's business deals in a way that is illegal, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, no evidence that we have seen. House Republicans so far have failed to show any direct evidence.

As for evidence, though, there hasn't been any. And House Republicans have still not delivered any proof of President Biden directly benefiting from his son's business dealings. First, they have to have some evidence that is hard evidence. No evidence, Peter. Yeah, the evidence is there. And again, the fact that the Biden family profited from decisions that Joe Biden made is quite clear. And the Burisma one's a classic example. Everybody kind of mocked when Joe Biden, sorry, when Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board,

pointing out he wasn't an energy expert. He wasn't a Ukrainian expert. What was he doing on the Burisma board? We now know he wasn't a Ukraine or energy expert. He wasn't a Ukrainian expert. What was he doing on the Burisma board? We now know he wasn't a Ukraine or energy expert. He was a Joe Biden expert. And that's what they were hiring him to do. And I think the firing of the prosecutor is one example of several that we're going to have greater clarity on going forward. And I think time is against the White House on this. And I do think that if it does come to an impeachment, the Senate's probably not going to vote. They're going to vote along partisan lines.

But what we've always wanted, Megan, is the information to come out for people to be aware of what the first family was doing when Joe Biden was vice president of the United States. And I think that's exactly where we're headed. That's right. So the reason Kevin McCarthy had to declare the inquiry instead of have a vote on it is because he didn't have the votes. There are a lot of moderate Republicans in districts, I think some 18 of them that went for Joe Biden who don't want to have to vote for this because they want to win reelection. But once this evidence starts to come in, I mean, now that they're really they've got this wide net,

do you think that those Republicans and others like the public opinion on this, it's already in favor of believing that he did something wrong? We've seen that. Do you think it's going to get even stronger? I do, Megan. I think you look at the trend line as more information has come out. The information is not confirming Joe Biden's story. It is convert confirming the very serious legal and ethical problems that exist with the way that the Bidens have operated. So I think more sunlight is going to basically lead to sunburn as far as the Bidens are concerned. And that's just the harsh reality that they are facing. The politics of this are separate, but I think when you look at the evidence and the facts, the American people are already there. Every poll that I've seen indicates that 60% or more of the American people believe there

was something wrong and unethical with what was done here by Joe Biden. We need answers. Peter Schweitzer is one of the honest ones looking for them. Thank you. Thanks so much for being here. I want to tell all of you two things, go sign up for our American news minute. It's my email to you every Friday, and we've got some behind the scenes, fun things for you, including pictures from my interview with Donald Trump, go to megankelly.com and you can sign up. We don't clog your inbox. We just send you one

email a week. I've gotten such great positive feedback on the email. People love it. It's a great way to catch up on what you missed and check out our full interview with President Donald Trump. It's on podcast. It's on youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. It's everywhere. Have a great, great weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.