HUNTER BIDEN: IRS Whistleblower Claims Investigation Interference

Today on Sekulow, the IRS has a whistleblower claiming investigation interference into Hunter Biden, and Tulsi Gabbard joins the Sekulow broadcast team. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow everybody.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. There's a lot to talk about today. My dad will be joining us too. We've got a new member of the Sekulow broadcast team to announce in just a moment. You might have heard it in the tease.

She'll be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast for her first time officially as part of the Sekulow broadcast team. So we've got, of course, the Hunter Biden IRS whistleblower news. We've seen the back and forth between the DA and the House Judiciary Committee in federal court. That started in the Southern District of New York, now is at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. There is a stay right now on Mark Pomerantz testifying, but that is moving very quickly. I mean, the filings are tomorrow and Saturday, so we should have a decision on that from the Second Circuit as early as, again, either over the weekend or early next week. It may end up all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, Alvin Bragg lost at the District Court yesterday. He's asked the Second Circuit to intervene.

All they have done right now is issue a temporary stay, and then it will be very interesting to watch. We'll have my dad join us to break that down. And as we get into this IRS whistleblower who is alleging that not only is the IRS not handling the Hunter Biden investigation properly, that they are actually officials preventing criminal charges from being brought against Hunter Biden. And that people who have testified under oath before Congress, including the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, that they have not been truthful—we'll say it that way—completely truthful to the committees when they testify.

Now, some of this you might say, ah, it's no surprise. We're going to break that down for you as well later in the broadcast. John Solomon, who has spoken to the whistleblower's attorney, is going to be joining us live on Sekulow to break it down for you. What to expect, what information this whistleblower has, and, you know, you always have to be careful in these situations.

Don't go too far. But that's why we're going to bring in John to go through that for you and really get you updated today. But, Logan, it's exciting to announce that Tulsi Gabbard is joining us as an official member of the Sekulow broadcast team. Yeah, she'll be part of the broadcast team once a week, and you're going to find her here in the next segment of the broadcast joining us live. A big announcement.

It's going to be a great addition, as you said, someone who can bring in a lot. But we'll talk about that, though, coming up in the next segment. We'd love to hear from you as well. It's a great time to call in. We'll have Tulsi on the next segment, then we'll start taking some phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching on Rumble, if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook, this is the time you can share, like, subscribe, do all those things.

But, unlike a lot of the shows, you don't just comment. You can call in. You can be a part of this happening right now live at 800-684-3110.

That's right. So, folks, when we come back, our new senior military and political analyst at Sekulow, Tulsi Gabbard, will be joining us for the first time. She's been on the broadcast before, but the first time as a member of the Sekulow broadcast team. That's going to be weekly. It'll change each week, what day, but we're going to get into political issues, military issues, liberty and freedom, which we see is just under attack every single day. And to broaden out the team of experts we bring to you. We've got people like Rick Grenell, Mike Pompeo, our internal experts at the ACLJ, of course, that we bring on the broadcast. We always want to be expanding that team to expand your mind and your ability to think through these big issues as well that are facing our country. So we're very excited about diversifying our team and also adding more voices.

They don't always necessarily agree, but to get you the best information and analysis and thoughts to get you thinking as possible. Support the work of the ACLJ. You know, we're able to do the broadcast, but so much more. In fact, we're going to be involved in that second circuit case. We'll explain that later how the ACLJ will be involved in that second circuit case. On the side of, of course, Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee, they cited one of our previous cases heavily at the district court level that we argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of President Trump. So support the work of the ACLJ. We don't just talk about it. We do it.

ACLJ.org. Donate today. Double your impact. We'll be right back with Tulsi Gabbard. Welcome back to second. We have a big announcement to make, and we talked about in our first segment of the broadcast. Tulsi Gabbard, who served as a member of the House of Representatives for Hawaii's Second Congressional District from 2013 to 2021, a Presidential candidate for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States, left the Democrat Party in 2022, the first female combat veteran to run for U.S. President and currently serves as Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. She also hosts her own show, The Tulsi Gabbard Show. So when we talk about bringing her in as a senior military and political analyst, you can understand why. Just from that quick bio right there, Tulsi, it is great to have you join the secular broadcast team. Thank you so much. It's awesome to be able to join you as always, but to be able to have these conversations on a weekly basis.

I'm really looking forward to it. One of the things I wanted to go to first, Tulsi, was these big issues where we see maybe an emergency in our country or something happens and we kind of rush to how do we fix it. Lately, it was kind of like TikTok. We learned all this news about TikTok and the Chinese government's access to it. And instead of just addressing TikTok, we got a piece of federal legislation that was going to impact or could impact all of us in our civil liberties and our abilities to utilize and free expression and use the apps we want to app. So instead of focusing on TikTok, Congress said, okay, let's use this moment and we'll seize onto all of the apps and all of the VPN data. It's called the RESTRICT Act. And you've been pointing out, I mean, this I think is what we've learned, I think especially conservatives have learned, that when there is this kind of move, if it's against TikTok or if there's a national emergency like 9-11 and how we responded with the Patriot Act, is now we all know, hey, we need to put the brakes on things when we start seeing legislation that goes a lot further than what we're even talking about.

Yeah. You know, Jordan, this is what's so dangerous and what we've seen, unfortunately, throughout history is how people who are in positions of power, and we've seen it come from both Democrats and Republicans, they will seize on these moments where we are concerned about our national security. We're concerned about our safety and the safety of the American people to create these pieces of legislation and policies that are such gross overreach and clearly violate our constitutional rights and civil liberties. And yet they get away with it, unfortunately, thus far, because they're saying, hey, don't worry, this is for your own good. This is for the well-being in the national security interests of our country.

And that need supersedes everything. They are completely getting wrong their responsibility, which is to strike that balance of recognizing how important our Constitution and civil liberties and freedoms are. It's what makes us who we are as Americans in this country with the balanced need of respecting that and ensuring our safety and security.

It's not an either or proposition, but that's unfortunately how they put it forward in order to get away with this stuff. And I'd like just to remind people, because you've taken so much heat for this, which is why I want to bring you on to our team, because I think it's so important for our audience, and I think they're getting it. With the pushback on the RESTRICT Act, even with the questioning around Ukraine that it's not just like 100% support for a buildup to war, because people have been burned in recent history by this kind of drumbeat that basically if you're not on our team, you're against us. And that's just not American, that we can question, hey, is there a way to settle down the conflict with China before we end up with Taiwan being invaded?

Or is there a way that we could have prevented the horrible war in Ukraine utilizing diplomacy and trying to improve relationships, even with countries we may see as adversaries, so that we don't see bloodshed or US military intervention? And in the past, if you questioned like that, you were an outsider. Now, and I think it's a good thing, more and more people are realizing it's patriotic to do that. Jordan, this is why I really appreciate your show and the platform that you're using to inform people about how critical it is that we see the world as it is, and that we make reasonable, sensible decisions that really serve the best interests of the American people and our country, preserving our constitutional rights and freedoms. When you see people who are out there, they're constantly saying, well, and I saw this when I was in Congress, I served there for eight years when the Patriot Act came up for reauthorization. On the House floor, if you raised questions or issues or said, hey, certain provisions that have been shown to abuse our civil liberties over these last 20 years need to be taken out of the statute. Immediately on the House floor, you'd have Democrats and Republicans saying, you're a traitor to America, you want to invite another 9-11 style terrorist attack. You talk about foreign policy, exercising diplomacy, trying to prevent conflict and wars by having open dialogue and conversations, not only with our allies, but probably even more importantly, with our adversaries. We can sit around and talk to our friends all day, but that's not going to ensure progress towards providing peace and prosperity for the American people. And this is what we, the American people, should require of those who are coming to us and saying, hey, I want to lead this country, I want to ask for your vote and your trust. So far, we have seen on both sides of the aisle such a failure of that responsibility as they bend the knee to the interest of the war machine, permanent Washington military industrial complex, rather than actually recognizing how serious the responsibility is to serve the interests of the American people in our country. I think a lot of people woke up to the issues with the Patriot Act when the FISA court system, which was part of the Patriot Act, was utilized, we found out it was being utilized against American citizens who would be classified in a setting that they had no way to object to. They would be classified as a foreign agent, thus they would lose their constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen, and then you could go to the FISA court and get a secret surveillance warrant to spy on them as if they somehow lost their citizenship rights without even knowing it.

And that happened to Carter Page. And so people finally said, you know what, when we write these kind of pieces of legislation, we have to be so careful, and when it's very broad, and especially when it's in response to something that's a tragedy and that scares people, and we want to do something, and we want Congress to do something, we want action. That's true, and there's always time to improve our laws to keep us more safe, but first and foremost is protecting our rights as Americans.

Logan? Yeah, absolutely. I think that those are the things that are very important here, and I think that's what's really exciting also about having you join our broadcast. We always look at expanding our team and younger, newer voices that we can bring into the conversation and monitoring all the comments that are coming in on Rumble and all other platforms, and most people are very, very positive. It's very exciting to have you here. Also, because you bring a different perspective.

You even brought it up. Sometimes we're going to have disagreements. You're going to have disagreements with the people who are on this show, with the other people who commentate and have their own points of view. But that's sort of the point, is just to get to the truth, and it's exciting to have you part of this media team. Thanks, Logan.

I appreciate it. Again, Tulsi, when we get to this, and again, on this interview, of course we're kind of introducing you as part of the team. I really say this because it happened when you visited our office, and people may have seen it a couple weeks ago on our broadcast. And we were going through a tragedy here. There was a school shooting here that's still in the news a lot because of gun restrictions and things like that that are being debated. And I actually saw something from our governor yesterday, who's a pretty conservative Republican governor, and I watched the video and I'm like, I'm not exactly sure what he's proposing here and whether or not it's – he's saying it's not red flag.

Of course, there's no legislative text to see yet, but again, it's that kind of move to, well, we've got to do something. So even in a very, very red state, very pro-Second Amendment state like Tennessee, there's a tremendous amount of pressure to pass laws that, again, may – because I haven't seen the text yet – trample on people's constitutional rights, even due process rights. And this is why the work that the ACLJ does is so important because you guys have a strong track record of really being constitutionalist and not looking at it through the partisan lens or whatever narrative may be ruling the day, which is what we the American people need.

It's essential. You know, there are a lot of examples that we could look to as you're talking about proposed legislation related to the Second Amendment. It is always the unintended – even those with the best of intentions, if we're not keeping ensuring that our civil liberties and freedoms are protected at the forefront, then we often end up with these unintended consequences. And I'll use the no-fly list as an example. You say, okay, well, obviously, if there are someone who's a terrorist out there, a suspected terrorist, then we probably don't want them flying on planes. Seems cut and dry, right? However, when you look at something like that and you start talking to people who somehow find themselves on this list, preventing their ability to travel, they have no idea why they're on there. Turns out, you know, somebody had a typo and spelled their name wrong, or they had the same name as somebody else, and they had no due process, no way to appeal, no way to know, hey, how do I get off this list?

It wasn't my fault that I'm on there. That's one of many examples of how critical it is that any change in our legislation that even tiptoes toward a violation or erosion of our constitutional rights and civil liberties must be examined very carefully, and keeping that responsibility and that oath to the Constitution at the forefront. Tulsi, we are excited to have you as part of the team, of the Secular Broadcast team as a senior military and political analyst. Today, introducing you to the audience as a member of the team. We know we're going to get into a lot of issues as you join us each week. We're also going to have pieces up at ACLJ.org by Tulsi for you as well, exclusive there at ACLJ.org.

But I thought for our audience, Tulsi was like, we need to get her on our team. We need to formalize this so she's on weekly, and I'm really excited about the discussions we're going to have and analyzing so many of the breaking news stories that come when we get that rush to issues. So folks, follow us here. Subscribe on Rumble. Join us.

Look for the new pieces out on ACLJ.org as well. We'll be back with John Solomon. All right, welcome back to Secular. So Tulsi, again, if you're just joining us, Tulsi Gabbard is going to be part of our Secular Broadcast team, joining us weekly as a senior military and political analyst. Really today, just getting into the basics, the discussions, and why. I think you know why now after hearing that. We want her on our team, so it's great to have her. We're also joined right now by John Solomon from Just the News, who was able to speak with the IRS whistleblower's attorney.

And again, just to kind of reset this and dad to reset it. This is a huge story because it seemed like the Hunter Biden investigation by the special counsel was kind of not really moving anywhere. People kind of said, well, even if he is charged with anything, it's going to be so much like a slap on the wrist.

No big deal. And then in the last 24 hours, we've learned there's a whistleblower pretty high up in the IRS in their criminal division who wants to get whistleblower protection. They don't have it yet, but they want to. And they've got information that sheds light on the fact that they think the DOJ and cabinet-level officials are interfering in even bringing charges against him. Well, it's interesting, John.

Welcome to broadcast as always. And of course, John Solomon, a good friend of ours and someone I've worked with for many, many years. John, I came out.

I told you this last night. I worked in Treasury coming out of law school in the Office of Chief Counsel of the IRS. The irony here is the lawyer, very well-respected lawyer, stated in his letter that he does not have some of the information because protective status has not yet been given to the whistleblower. Mark, a little as you know, John, very well-respected lawyer.

You've talked with him. First of all, what do you think this case is? What is the whistleblower going to really get into here?

What does he want to talk about? So based on what I've learned and what he's already divulged to the Inspector General of the Justice Department based on my sources, he is going to say that there were all sorts of political shenanigans that were trying to constrain the FBI and IRS from investigating certain angles. And then when the FBI, the IRS, and the tax division greenlighted the idea that they should bring a criminal indictment on tax charges against Hunter Biden, not one but two political appointees, one in one U.S. Attorney's Office, the other in another U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to bring those charges over the recommendations of the investigators and the greenlighting of the tax division, which is unusual.

If the tax division gives you a go-ahead, normally, as you know, that usually is a sign that the charges are forthcoming. So he has documents, he has intemporated his memos, he attended many of the key meetings, and it sounds like he doesn't like to see political inferences in a decision that should be made on the law. In the letter, Mark Little writes, some of the protected disclosures contain information that's restricted by statute from unauthorized disclosure to protect taxpayers and taxpayer returns. That's section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits unlawful disclosure of taxpayer information. He even said, my client would like to share the same legally protected disclosures with Congress, but he needs to get the protected status. And he said, I don't have abundance of caution regarding taxpayer privacy law. My client has refrained from sharing certain information, even with me, in the course of seeking legal advice. Thus, it's challenging for me to make a fully informed judgment about how to proceed. Which begs this question then, John, the letter does not say Hunter Beider. It does not say that. But your sources are telling you that's who it is, that case?

Without a doubt. The history on this is that this approach first occurred in December. The first approach to Congress and to the Treasury Inspector General was in December. It was made clear then that this involves the Hunter Biden case, it involves the U.S. Attorney in Delaware Weiss.

Then there was a delay. Then the Inspector General of Justice got involved. And then at that point, it's at the moment that we, in the letter references, or in the interview, Mark Lytle references this. He sees a senior Justice Department official make claims in testimony. That senior official is Attorney General Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland told Chuck Grazia a month ago, by the way, Merrick Garland has no problem talking about Hunter Biden, which is an interesting situation.

But he said, I assure you that the prosecutor, Weiss, has all of the power and authority to bring a charge anywhere he wants to bring it. The whistleblower said that's just not true. When the whistleblower says high level senior political appointees, is he talking about Merrick Garland?

That's the reference to Merrick Garland. Yes, my sources have confirmed that. He has testified, John, over and over again before these committees that he's not involved at all. No one's involved at DOJ.

President Biden said at the White House they're not involved either. Whatever the special counsel wants to do, he can do it. This would directly contradict that and show what this whistleblower is proposing is total meddling within the investigation into Hunter Biden. You see a very important line in the letter that Mark Lytle writes, that he says that there are two things that his client witnessed, preferential treatment and inappropriate political wrangling in the case.

And that's what motivates him. This IRS agent, we've done a lot of background on him, he doesn't have a social media account, he doesn't make political donations, he's not partisan at all. And you look at the letter and he says, I want to tell this to Democrats and Republicans alike because the issue is so important. And he's also, from the work we've been able to do on him, he's done a lot of important tax cases, including Swiss bank cases. He's been one of the IRS's most effective and trusted criminal agents for a long time. So he's someone with credibility, he's someone that wants to do this in a bipartisan way, and oh by the way, he's done it through the appropriate system.

He's gone to the IG, the IG declared it to go to the Congress, and they're following the law every step of the way. You know, it's interesting because, like I said, I worked for Chief Counsel's Office of Treasury, the IRS was the client. And we had, there's two divisions, there's the Civil Audit Division, then there's what's called CID, the Criminal Investigation Division. An IRS criminal supervisory special agent, Jordan, is a senior level, nonpolitical appointee, this is a career person, special agent for criminal cases. And usually if they are a supervisory special agent, they're handling what we would call sensitive or complex matters.

We had a whole, there's a special group of lawyers that handle it called senior counsels, or special counsels that would handle that. Yeah, and I think, John, what makes this different from so much that we see on the left is that this isn't a leaker. It's not someone just leaking it out to hurt somebody on the other side of the political aisle. As you pointed out, John, they want to follow, they have followed all the correct procedures that we have under the whistleblower statutes so that Congress can know about this wrongdoings within the executive branch when people want to come forward. But they did not follow this usual course that we've gotten used to of documents just leaking out when they politically benefit the left.

Yeah, no, I think that's right. I think that in this case, before the Trump era, most whistleblowers followed the same procedure that Mark Lytle and his client were following here, and the process worked its way, and when it was appropriate, it became public like it did yesterday. But the weaponization of whistleblowers is much like the weaponization of the FBI, and other things that we talk about occurred so often that even whistleblowers became public. Remember, the Ukraine whistleblower makes an allegation about a phone call that he doesn't have a record of, and when the record comes out, when President Trump puts a record, you realize the whistleblower wasn't quite right about it. And so what's been interesting about this, the IG at Justice has worked on this for several weeks, witnesses and documents have been gathered, there's a growing confidence that what this agent has alleged has some merit and needs to be looked at, and that is what triggers the notification to Congress that occurred yesterday. John Solomon from Just The News, JustTheNews.com. John, we appreciate you joining us on the broadcast today, and I think it's serious because, again, you only learn in these kind of situations where there's ongoing investigations, when you've got people like this, and I know people have said, what is going on here, why is this taking so long, when they have no problem indicting President Trump and moving forward with this, this has been going on for this investigation for years, and it looks like because there's been all these hurdles put along the way. Yeah, and these hurdles would be illegal, and that would be political interference with a criminal investigation, which is not supposed to happen, so we'll see. I mean, I think good reporting from John Solomon, and Mark Little is a very well-respected lawyer with a very large firm.

I think that's important for you to point out, too. Big law firm, one of the most prestigious law firms in the United States, and he's a whistleblower expert, probably the leading whistleblower lawyer in the country. All right, support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org. Donate today, double the impact of your donation.

That's ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. A lot to talk about today as Tulsi Gabbard joining our broadcast team. John Solomon just joined us because he spoke to the attorney representing the whistleblower in the Hunter-Bine case, the whistleblower coming from a pretty high level inside the IRS, a very high level inside the IRS, who wants to get whistleblower protection to provide this information to Congress, has gone about it completely the right way so that, again, it'll go through processes. And we've learned a little bit about what the whistleblower is alleging, not the specifics, nothing that, again, would undercut whistleblower protections or it's not like a leak, but just that this involves Hunter-Bine. It involves political interference and potentially false testimony by cabinet members. We believe that's the attorney general, at least the attorney general of the United States before Congress because he kept testifying that they had nothing to do with it. No political interference by DOJ. We're letting the Delaware U.S. attorney, who was a Trump appointee, handle it. Now, you've got the special agent who apparently is the special agent, which is the Criminal Investigation Division, CID, is what it's called, of the Internal Revenue Service, and he's a senior supervisory special agent, which means he has a team under him, probably assigned to what's called high-profile cases, is saying that there has been, in fact, interference. Time will tell, in one sense, because he'll get protectee status, I think that's for sure, and then can discuss his claims. He's not even given all of the information to his lawyer because he doesn't have that status right now, and disclosure of tax return information is actually a crime.

So he's being protective there. But I do need to reiterate this, Jordan, and this is where our government oversight project comes in and our expertise in doing this. The lawyer representing the whistleblower, Mark Little, is probably the most prominent whistleblower counsel in the United States, and he's with a very prestigious – Nixon Peabody is a very prestigious law firm. So this is not some political show going on here.

This is for real. Now, the scope and nature of what he's going to say, we'll find out in the months to come. Congress certainly will. Once that whistleblower status is granted, that doesn't mean it will come public to the American people because tax return information should not.

That's right. So I think, again, this is one to watch very carefully. I would imagine it was tougher for this whistleblower to interact in December than it is with some new members of Congress. Of course, now with the House being in control by the Republicans, who won't necessarily be – aren't doing the bidding politically of the big guy, if you will, or the President of the United States.

So, again, we're going to watch this very carefully. Other news to update you on, and we're going to get into it even more in the next segment of the broadcast, but there was big moves yesterday in the courts at the district court level and then at the Second Circuit level. This involves the subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to, not Alvin Bragg, but a former assistant DA in his office, Mark Pomerantz, who wrote a book about his time there and prosecute – and warning to prosecute Donald Trump, did a book tour. At the district court level, the judge said, we're not going to prevent this because this is a guy who wrote a book about it, went on tour about it.

Now you're saying he can't talk about it to Congress. So that's where it was in the district court. The Second Circuit did issue a stay.

Yes, the Second Circuit issued a stay, which is not surprising. The state says, we're going to review it quickly. I mean, the briefs are due today from Alvin Bragg's office or maybe tomorrow, I guess. And then Saturday, the lawyers for the Congress will have to apply. The ACLJ is filing a brief in this case, and I'll tell you why we're filing a brief in the case. We argued the seminal case, the key case involving congressional subpoenas to the Supreme Court of the United States, representing the former President. The case was called Trump versus Mazars, and we were counsel in that case at the Supreme Court of the United States.

And that law is the law the lower court relied on, of course, because it's the main case on when Congress can issue subpoenas. So, fascinating thing, ACLJ fully involved, big issue. If you've got calls about it, give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. We want you to join the broadcast.

That's at 1-800-684-3110. We'll get a little bit more into that and how the ACLJ is going to be involved, because I want to explain that for you, because this is the ACLJ being involved in 24 hours. And why we have a unique voice in this case as well. ACLJ.org, donate today.

We'll be right back. We don't want to just send it in as we will from the ACLJ. We want to give you the opportunity to send in the comments so that we are the leading commenter, and they have to respond to every comment they receive. And Erica Rubble wrote it that he got a reply back from the EPA that they received his letter sent through ACLJ Action's portal. So what we do is we have a portal to ACLJ Action.

It makes it very simple. So it will go right to the correct people at the EPA on the proposed rule change, because they are going through the correct process this time. This is to, again, I think two-thirds of most vehicles in nine years would be barred from being sold gasoline vehicles. And about half of heavy duty vehicles, so large trucks and cargo trucks, they would be barred illegal under law. And we don't even have a system, I mean nine years from now, we don't have a system in place to even have that many electric cars functioning. But one of the fears is that you will have to then rely on government transportation. Which, again, if you live in a major city, that's one thing.

But a lot of our listeners are suburban listeners who commute. Imagine if you had to rely completely on government options to travel because electric vehicles are just too expensive for you, or you've got to travel too far and the charging takes too long. So even Elon Musk, who would benefit a lot from a law like this, has said, we're not ready, we don't have the grid, so keep commenting, keep using ACLJAction.org. And thank you, Eric, for reminding people that you do get a response, and we want to continue that as well. Now, Dan, I want to get into the district court decision, the Second Circuit I'm sure will also be considering, because we're going to be filing a brief.

So I want to explain that to people quickly. This is not one like for next time, we're going to be filing a brief within about 36 hours. Let me tell you what the case is about. So the prosecution of the former President by Alvin Bragg is, in our view, a political prosecution.

We've said that. There's no underlying felony. The indictment, we've given full analysis on that, was ridiculous, and obviously it's political. Then on top of that, that office used federal funds to go investigate the former President's company, and they acknowledged that. So they took federal funds to investigate the former President. Now, what's interesting about all of that is, Mark Pomerantz was a lawyer inside Alvin Bragg's office.

He quit in disgust because he was so angry with Alvin Bragg's decision not to prosecute. He writes a book about it where he discloses all this internal information. Now he gets subpoenaed by Congress, because Jim Jordan said, what the heck is going on here? They're taking federal money, they're investigating former Presidents, which is a form of election interference, by the way.

So you've got this kind of train wreck that's happening right in front of your eyes where all of this is coming together. Then a subpoena is issued. Bragg's office says, we don't want him to participate. Well, the judge says, you know, Mr. Bragg, District Attorney Bragg, you never took action against Pomerantz when he wrote the book about your decision. And they said, well, we weren't happy about it.

We didn't like that he did it. So then the judge utilized the existing law in deciding that, yes, in fact, a duly issued subpoena from Congress has been issued, the deposition can take place of Mark Pomerantz. And they relied on, we had a series of three cases, Jordan, you were co-counsel with me, and we did it right here in this room. In fact, there is oral argument language, you may have to save it for tomorrow.

In the beginning of the oral argument where we talk about in the previous cases, we said that the DA doing this, weaponizing the district attorneys, now they don't want to comply with a subpoena. Well, that was the case argued right before ours. I was involved in all three of them. When I got up, I basically re-argued all of them and put them in context because all these cases were related.

That case laid out the parameters on congressional subpoenas. And let me give you the bite. This is what we played. This is what I said was going to happen. And it turned out exactly what's happened.

The second circuit is wrong. It should be reversed. If not reversed, the decision weaponizes 2,300 local DAs.

An overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow any DA to harass, distract, and interfere with a sitting President, subjects the President to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions, and to state grand juries who can then be utilized to issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the President. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case. What I said is exactly what's happened. So the ACLJ, we are going to be filing because at the district court level, these cases were cited heavily throughout the district court opinion. The cases that you argued before the U.S. Supreme Court was under COVID, so that's why it was done in this room via conference call, which was interesting to say the least. But again, it just shows you that there's an interplay. But what was very clear at the district court level, we haven't seen anything on any major discussion yet from the second circuit.

I don't read much to add into the stay. That's pretty normal. It was all happening pretty quick because the subpoena was going to be for today. But I don't know, do we have the sound from Andrew Weissman? I asked to get that yesterday.

I don't know if we were able to get that. And Andrew Weissman, who was a protagonist of Donald Trump, said, hey, Pomerantz has to show up. He was on the Mueller team. Yeah, he was a Mueller lawyer, and he has to show up.

So we'll get it for you for tomorrow. But he basically said, you know what, congressional subpoenas are enforceable here, and Mark Pomerantz kind of walked into this. And then the ACLJ, we are going to be directly involved.

I want the audience to know that. We are going to be filing this weekend. Yeah, so we had about 100,000 new members of the ACLJ, or people that signed our petitions, when we did the first aspect of this, when the DA's announcement was made. Now we've got this aspect, which is now the Court of Appeals, which is the congressional subpoena, which we're going to back.

And your support of the ACLJ makes all that happen. And they're relying on the series of cases we argued at the Supreme Court just 34 months ago. So our cases are the predicate for all of this going forward on these congressional subpoenas. And that's what the judge relied on. That is the current law. And that was a major, major win that we had on that issue.

And it shows the parameters. Congress's subpoena power is not limitless, especially when you're dealing with the President. They've got to show special need. But here, the Congress has the need, and they acknowledged that federal funds were used in the prosecution of the President's company and Allen Weisselberg, his CFO. Yeah, so again, the ACLJ is going to be directly involved. Once we file that, we'll post it to you at ACLJ.org.

That'll be over the weekend. But that just shows you again the resources we have available to act very quickly. We were talking about it all late into the evening last night with our legal team. And this morning, while we've been on the air on filing, getting it filed at this quickly, at this stage of the process, supporting the House Judiciary Committee's efforts to get this subpoena and get the deposition of Mark Pomerantz. The DA's office takes federal funds. This person subpoenaed, is no longer inside the DA's office. And the bigger picture, wrote a book about the very issue here that Congress wants to ask questions about, did a book tour.

Spent a lot of time as an analyst on MSNBC talking about all these issues. And Alvin Bragdoe complaining about some of that. The judge said, hey, you never took any action. You could have.

Not only you could have. He said that Pomerantz may have violated some of the law in New York and Bragdoe took no action to stop the publication. Now that would have been hard because of First Amendment issues.

But he took no enforcement action against Pomerantz. So you know what they're concerned about here? Pomerantz is going to go after Bragdoe. Bragdoe is going after Trump. I mean, think about all this folks who's the leading candidate for the Republican Party to be the next Republican nominee for President. So you talk about election interference and messing with elections. This is a prime example of how that happens.

Yeah. So folks support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. We have a matching challenge right now where you can double the impact of your donation this month. Again, we're reaching towards post the mid month. So it's a critical time to support that and the work of the ACLJ.

I'll tell you this. This is the perfect example of utilizing the work that we have done for decades. I mean, we've been litigating Supreme Court cases since the 80s. 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010, 2020s.

Five decades. And yet those Supreme Court decisions even now from just 36 months ago become the seminal, the key case on all of this. None of this happens without your support of the ACLJ. So this is a defense of liberty. This is the defense of the constitutional republic. This is the defense of our constitutional framework and the roles of Congress and elections. And the ACLJ is front and center on this to the Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States.

None of that happens, including this broadcast, without your support of the ACLJ. Now we're in a matching challenge campaign. We are three quarters of the month way through it. We are 10% behind last year.

Close, but we're behind last year. We need your support. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for, which means if you donate $50, we get $50 or $10, we get another $10.

So your impact is doubled. If you're able to do it, let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org and support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. It's that critical.

ACLJ.org to support the ongoing work of the American Center for Law and Justice. The Biden administration wants to redistribute, love that term, high-risk costs to homeowners with good credit. We'll talk about that when we get back. Welcome back. I said there was a lot to talk about today. New members of the broadcast team, Tulsi Gabbard. We talked about the IRS whistleblower with John Solomon. We talked about the Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee and their challenge with Alvin Bragg, and that's in the circuit court about whether or not a former assistant DA can testify to the House Judiciary Committee. District Court said yes.

Second Circuit put in an administrative stay once, briefing from the Judiciary Committee, their attorneys and Alvin Bragg's attorneys. And then ACLJ is going to be filing over the weekend in that case with an amicus brief. So again, your support of the ACLJ as our team works through the weekend to get that filed. We're able to do that and bring new people onto the team like Tulsi because of your financial support of the ACLJ and ACLJ.org. And I imagine a lot of you with that financial support, you probably have pretty good credit.

And guess what? The Biden administration, under a new rule, is going to utilize those who have good credit to redistribute high-risk loan costs to homeowners like you with good credit. So you will be paying more for your mortgage because your good credit score, which is supposed to be the opposite, you're going to be paying more to subsidize loans for high-risk borrowers.

So instead of the mortgage lender or the bank factoring that into points and interest rate, which is how you do that when you weigh loan value, if your FICA score, your credit score, is over 660, you are going to pay basically a surcharge to finance other people's high-risk loans. Professor of Law and Economics, Harry Hutchinson, do you want to explain that one to me? Well, it's not explainable on the basis of economics.

It's only explainable on the basis of political ideology. Jay, I think it's clear beyond question that America's housing industry has entered a crisis period and the crisis is heating up with rising interest rates. Keep in mind, interest rates have doubled year over year. Many real estate firms are collapsing. And now the Biden administration is prepared to issue an administrative rule, effective May 1st, that will further interfere with the housing market. This should bring us back, if memory serves, potentially to another housing crisis. Keep in mind, we had a housing crisis from 2008 through 2010. But Jay, history often repeats itself because people rarely remember the lessons of the past. Or put differently, this claim underscores Randolph Bourne's intuition that history perpetually forgets what it perpetually remembers and rediscovers.

So I think the Biden administration is suffering from one thing, among others of course, and that is amnesia. And so they don't seem to understand that they are fueling another financial crisis by basically taxing people with good credit scores. Yeah, and good credit scores, your economics could be all over the board. You could have a good credit score and be middle class, you could be on the lower middle class, you could be upper middle class, you could be wealthy.

It's just about are you managing your debt to income ratio the right way. And so this affects people at all different levels of home purchasing who have worked hard to keep or get a good credit score and keep it there, especially when they're about to apply for a mortgage. So we actually have David Stevens, he is a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, during the Obama administration wrote, This confusing approach won't work and more importantly couldn't come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months. To do this at the onset, listen to this, of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers, that's the American people, and lenders. That's Obama's people.

I think that's correct. In essence, the Biden administration is actively working to create a housing recession. Keep in mind there is already a housing recession in the western part of the United States. So housing prices in some states have fallen by as much as 18%.

In Boise, Idaho, they've fallen by about 9%. And if you also factor in the information which shows that many home buyers are buying mortgages or buying homes with variable rate mortgages, as those interest rates rise, this increases the possibility that they will have to essentially enter into a fire sale with respect to their house. This is going to further collapse, in my opinion, the housing market, particularly in western states that are already hard hit. And so this makes no economic sense, but it does incentivize, if you will, poor credit risk customers to get into the market, and that will fuel future recessions in the housing industry down the road. Okay, so now these high-risk people are going to get more, I guess the lenders are going to get more pressure to give them these high-risk loans. They are high-risk because they might not be paid off, and then the lender is stuck with maybe the property or some kind of situation like that, which becomes more and more difficult under current laws to even get back. But like you said, the long-term effects of this is you're giving out more loans to people who shouldn't be getting them.

I think that's correct. And this particular- They aren't ready to get them. They should be working on their credit score before they go there. I think you're precisely correct, but the real problem is to do this in the face of falling housing prices. So what does that mean? It means someone might qualify for a mortgage today under this new Biden administration approach, but then as housing prices fall, this will further accelerate a decline in housing prices, and this is precisely what happened in 2008 and 2009, but the administration prefers to forget history, but history, I think, will come back to bite the Biden administration. Yeah. You know, one of the things interesting, Joe on Rumble Road, he said this will really bury the housing market.

Everything will crash. And he mentions Blackstone. Now, they're a huge asset manager as well. I think he's referring to Blackstone.

He may be referring to BlackRock, also as an investing group, that will purchase distressed properties by pennies on the dollar. But again, to bury the housing market is to punish the American people for policies. Again, it's kind of these woke policies.

I mean, Harry, that's what it's all about. Somehow the credit score system is racist or bigoted, and so it shouldn't matter anymore. So people with good credit, we're going to punish you. I think that's correct. So what the Biden administration has decided is that individuals with good credit are indeed oppressors, and individuals with poor credit are victims, and the Biden administration has put its thumb on the scale to reward poor credit risk.

Yeah. Folks, again, this shows you the depth of our team and all the issues we talked about today. We introduced a new team member with Tulsi Gabbard, and we're going to get into a lot of the freedom and liberty issues that are constantly under assault right now. Sometimes in the name of what we think is something that would be good, like we talked about these TikTok restrictions, and then they come forward with a restrict act, and it's like, whoa, that is not what we wanted. And we learned a lot about the Patriot Act from those days. When we have a crisis, when we have an emergency, we can't just rush to give away our constitutional rights, because when you do, oh, it is a lot tougher to get them back once you give them over to Congress. We talked about the IRS, we talked about the Hunter Biden issue, we talked about DOJ and what ACLJ filing this weekend on behalf, on the side of the House Judiciary Committee against Bragg at the circuit court, and of course, bringing in Harry Hutchinson, our policy analyst, on this issue involving mortgages. Support our work, ACLJ.org.