Major Money Scandal “All Points Toward Joe Biden” As President Defends Hunter

Today on Sekulow, a major money scandal that all points towards Joe Biden as the President defends Hunter. 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. So we've told you about the confidential informant that's come forward to the FBI that was alerted to by both Senator Grassley and Congressman Cober. Cober who chairs the Government Oversight Committee in the House of Representatives that has subpoena power. That May 10th is when the Department of Justice and FBI is supposed to respond on that matter. Whether or not that 1023 form ever was, if there was any analysis of it done, any research of it done.

And so we will find out this week in answer to that. That was a direct allegation that Vice President Biden was taking money from foreign nationals. John Solomon reporting that someone in Ukraine to enact specific policy in the US. That would cause all sorts of legal issues. The biggest would be, of course, if you're a sitting President, would be the potential for impeachment.

If you weren't, I mean those would rise to the levels of crime. Selling American policy office about the worst thing elected officials is basically like treason and something like that. To enact policies for a foreign government to enrich yourself, not to better the American people or to better the United States of America. But Cober's taken it a step further by making this announcement over the weekend. There's been talk about are the Hunter Biden indictment, is that about to happen?

Is it going to be pretty much a slap on the wrist with some tax crimes and some gun application crimes that are, again at this point, not too serious? So Cober has stepped in and said DOJ, before you do make a move, let's take a listen to what Cober had to say. This is pretty bold from a member of Congress to tell the DOJ, better hold until you listen to what we've got prepared this week on Wednesday.

My message to the Department of Justice is very loud and clear. Do not indict Hunter Biden before Wednesday when you have the opportunity to see the evidence that the House Oversight Committee will produce with respect to the web of LLCs, with respect to the number of adversarial countries that this family influence peddled in. This is not just about the President's son.

This is about the entire Biden family, including the President of the United States. So we believe there are a whole lot of accounts that the IRS and the DOJ don't know about because we don't believe they've done a whole lot of digging in this, and we have. You know, what's interesting is they don't, the only one that cannot be indicted in a group like this would be the sitting President of the United States. The Department of Justice policy says that a sitting President, we utilized this precedent when we were representing President Trump, a sitting President cannot be indicted by the Department of Justice. That is DOJ policy. It impacts separation of powers, intergovernmental powers, because remember, the DOJ works for the President.

So it's going to be interesting. The thing with the existing crimes that we've heard about, the tax crimes, they are felonies. The gun form is a felony too. Now, it's hard to believe that there'd be a prosecution where Hunter Biden ends up in prison.

I think the Secret Service would say we cannot secure the family in that situation, so that probably doesn't happen. But also these things take time. It's not going to go to trial right away. It'd be probably a year and a half. Yeah, the question is, is do we see an indictment soon? And so far, there's been a lot of rubblings about that the last couple of weeks is somewhat imminent. Or do you see an indictment then a pardon? I mean, there's questions about that. You can do a pre-indictment pardon too, remember.

These are all federal issues, so I think you break the COBRA statement down. So he says they've got a web of LLCs, a number of adversarial countries the family was influenced peddling in, so that's part two. That it's not just about Hunter, part three, and part four, it's the entire Biden family, including the President of the United States. I think that would also include his brother, who is very close to the President. It's interesting that President Biden has brought with his brother and Hunter in so much negative news for the President, he still continues to put them forward very much in a public way at every major public event. Not a lot of them with Joe Biden.

He's got his brother and Hunter right by his side. We're taking your calls on it. 1-800-684-3110. What do you think Republicans need to deliver to back up a statement like this? 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be right back. The more moderate members of Congress. So when he's coming forward and saying to the Department of Justice, listen, we know the basics of what you, not much leaks out of the Hunter investigation. It's not like the Trump investigation where everybody that gets called gets leaked out and every single day there's a leak from one of those investigations.

Here, the only thing that's leaked out has actually been somewhat positive for Hunter, which is that the actual charges they're looking at, at least that's what they're leaking out, are pretty low level. One on a specific amount of taxes that were not paid on a specific amount of income. It looks like that was the Burisma money. But to the IRS, that would just be the money. The whole Burisma issue is another issue that would have to be investigated, whether that was influence peddling and all of that. That's not what he's being supposedly accused of there.

It's just the taxes on that. The other was when he went in for a gun application, he didn't mark down that he was also at the same time being treated for or using illegal narcotics. And that is a crime. But again, these are not serious long-term prisons for a first-time offender, which he actually I think would be. So there has been this kind of- You're not likely that the Secret Service would allow a protectee to go to a regular prison. There's no way. Plus, you're also not looking at a trial for probably a year and a half. Well, I think most people realize that those are not going to be- They've now accepted. Those seem like a slap on the wrist at best.

But yeah, the kind of lowest level you can be. And the President doesn't seem quite concerned about it either or else I don't think he'd be bringing Hunter around so much, so high profile. At a time when his poll numbers are taking a hit, he actually thinks bring Hunter around, bring his brother around. Cobra had this. He went on to say this. He's telling Department of Justice, let us put forward this press conference Wednesday to you and the American people that we've got all of this tied together. Now, this would not be necessarily information that you couldn't do if you were researching it because a lot of this is corporate registrations, things that would be public if you knew where to look. So if they've got confidential informants, which we know they do, and they've got whistleblowers, we know they do, who are helping them put this forward. But as Chuck Grassley said, all they can do then is take what those whistleblowers say and put the information forward. It's really up to then a Department of Justice and FBI to do something with it.

One, go to the veracity of it. Is it true? If it is true, was it illegal?

If it's illegal, what crimes were committed? I want to play the rest of what Cobra had to say. Just yesterday, I don't think I've ever seen this done before, even with all of the Trump stuff, where even Adam Schiff would always claim to have things he didn't have. I never heard him say, before you move on anything, you better wait for my press conference. So you are doubling down on you better have something very deliverable to both the American people.

When I say that, I mean digestible so that we can tell you on this broadcast it didn't take three hours to get through. But also something that's serious enough that the Department of Justice and FBI would have to rethink, or maybe the special counsel would have to rethink whether or not they were getting the info that they should have been getting when they were requesting it from the DOJ and FBI. Something I've always been concerned about with these special counsels is they have to then go to the DOJ for everything, and the DOJ is being run by a partisan loyal to the President. So even if they want to get information, they're kind of always up against a hill, if you will, and trying to make the case about why they need it.

So let's take a listen to Cobra Bite Five. More and more evidence is pointing towards Joe Biden. I mean, obviously, Joe Biden was involved in all these things, despite the fact that he's lied to the American people, despite the fact that his press secretary continues to lie about it. We've already produced one wire from one LLC totaling over a million dollars to four different Biden family members, and now we're going to produce an additional five Biden family members. More countries, more LLCs, more bank accounts. I mean, this thing is much bigger than anyone would have ever predicted, and it all points towards Joe Biden, the big guy. You know, the interesting part of this, of course, is they, like you said, they better be able to tie this in. I'm talking about the Republicans here because having LLCs, getting wires is not illegal.

Okay? That's not. So it's not so much that you got evidence of a wire transfer or you've got evidence of a LLC.

It's whether that wire transfer and the economic impact of that wire transfer was actually not put on a tax return or wasn't disclosed as a foreign agent registration if it was a FARA kind of case. So that's what needs to be put together here. Just saying, hey, we got 10 LLCs with five Biden family members.

Well, what does that prove? That's why I'm saying the Republicans, you know, they're raising the bar here at a level that even Adam Schiff did not go to. Right. So you bet you got to deliver.

I'm not saying they won't deliver. And I think there's a lot more here because this family had a lot of dealings that are questionable, to say the least. And we've seen the response from DC, the attempts to cover it up. We got more to talk about there.

What Mike Morrell told people signing that letter, we'll talk about with Rick Rinnell that he did not do when he sent out the letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was just Russian disinformation with all the 51 former Intel and current Intel officials. Let me go to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Mary's calling in on me. Oh, we just dropped Mary.

If you want to talk to us on air, the number is 1-800-684-3110. Do you think Comer and the Republicans are going to be able to produce on Wednesday in a way that will impact not just us as conservatives who have these suspicions, but the American people in general? And listen, we are seeing the polls.

The polls are not good for Joe Biden, so it might already be. But the real impact here, which is a pretty high hurdle, is Dad trying to impact the DOJ and FBI specifically here, these special counsels and prosecutors. The Republicans are telling the Department of Justice, don't move forward with an indictment if you have one, because we've got this evidence that we don't think you've seen. Which, by the way, they would not— To a Republican U.S. Attorney, a holdover from Trump. Yes, and it is a Republican in the Delaware case, yes. In the Biden case. In the Biden case.

So the question is going to be, and I know there's—you know, people don't—let me explain how it works here. You had Adam Shipp go out and just lie to the American people. He had direct evidence. He has a smoking gun. He had incontroversial proof.

He was—it was beyond a reasonable doubt. And he had nothing. Zero.

Nothing. He has, you know, he had all this evidence. So now the Republicans are saying, we've got all these LLCs and we've got these wire transfers. And that's fine. But the question is, did those end up in a financial disclosure document as required by law?

Having LLCs and having wire transfers is not illegal. So I just don't want the Republicans to build up something that they don't deliver on. That's what I'm concerned about.

Yeah. Again, let me play this, too, as well, because there's a kind of setup being made. And we'll explain a few of what we think this setup is, because Joe Biden—I love this. He does his first, like, big sit-down interview in a long time. It's at 10 o'clock at night, Eastern time, on MSNBC on Friday. So, again, how many people—they kind of said this—the audience that would usually watch this is either already asleep by this time, 10 o'clock on Friday, or busy with their kids out on, you know, out on the weekend.

They're not home. So this is where they put out these interviews, which, again, it shows you they're going to do that campaign from the basement strategy again. Now, this time they're going to do it from the Rose Garden or in a lot of videos, like his video announcement. But take a listen when he was asked about Hunter and kind of pushed. This was even by MSNBC, because they look at his polls. They want Democrats to win, and they're worried about how this issue is affecting him. Take a listen.

Sir, there is something personal that's affecting you. Your son, while there's no ties to you, could be charged by your Department of Justice. How will that impact your presidency?

First of all, my son's done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him. And it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him. He could pardon him, is what's going to happen.

And he has the authority to do that under the pardon provision of the Constitution. But, so, I mean, at the end of the day, I don't see… That's what he's setting up there. He's saying, I believe my son. Yeah, I'm not going to believe what the FBI says. I'm not going to believe what the Department of Justice is saying. I don't believe what Comer says.

I believe my son. He said he did it right, and I'm going to pardon him, because we all know what's going on here. This is a witch hunt. It echoes what the former President said. So maybe he pardons everybody. But the point is, he has the authority to do that. We're not at that stage yet, because there's not been an indictment. But you can pardon before an indictment. Right, so he could… Nixon. He could go ahead. He could let it move forward and then show, hey, these are so weak anyways, that maybe they're not so interesting to the American people.

Right. That, you know, it's the application and kind of a low-level tax thing that he probably has already taken care of on the civil side, paid the taxes, or is it a process to pay the taxes. I mean, there's been a pile-on of Hunter Biden, of course, the child support, the issue.

He's selling pictures for $500,000 to Chinese nationals, and then saying he can't pay child support for this daughter in Arkansas. So there's a lot of issues with him. The questions are, it's not so much him, but it's how it's affecting actual politics and the election for President of the United States. Some new polling out we're going to get into as well. I think for the first time ever in a head-to-head matchup, Donald Trump is ahead.

We're going to break this down for you. And what was interesting to me in this poll is that when Ron DeSantis was put head-to-head, I thought that might open up more people. It actually closed the gap, which was interesting. Also, he hasn't actually started kind of campaigning, but he hasn't officially launched. But some interesting numbers there to watch, too, and is this all kind of part of it, is that like what they did to Trump, by dragging you through so much, do the American people start saying, you know what, maybe you're not any better.

Maybe you're worse, actually, because of all these ties you've got to foreign nationals and foreign money, and the way you're treating family members, and the way you're going into court over child custody. Maybe that's too much for the American people when there's so many big issues, like Title 42 coming to a close this week. Remember, the ACLJ is on it, because we believe, like with the Biden laptop, they will try to silence this. We're in court right now to get that information.

Welcome back. We are taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. With this major announcement by Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, they have subpoena power. In fact, on this week, May 10th, the FBI has got to respond on the confidential informant and the document, the FD-1023 form, that the confidential informant sent to us. The confidential informant said was created by the FBI. Was that just tossed in a file somewhere, or was it actually analyzed and possibly, was there any kind of research done into a possibly opening investigation to the claims made?

The claims are wild. I mean, Chuck Grassley said that. I mean, the claims by this confidential informant say that they have direct evidence and they've tied all of it together, that Vice President Biden took money from a foreign national to enact certain U.S. policies.

I mean, think about what you just said for a moment. That's about the biggest crime you can commit as a vice President. That is a kind of treason. Well, a sitting vice President of the United States, this is what they're alleging, the sitting vice President of the United States took funds from a foreign national government to impact policy. Directly. And it changed U.S. policy for that money.

And would have done that directly. Yes. They better have evidence of that.

I mean, well, we've kind of seen some of it. You have to wonder if that's firing the prosecutor. Did he get paid to fire the prosecutor in Ukraine?

Remember, he threatened that he wouldn't give a billion dollars in aid if the prosecutor who was investigating... Do you really think the, I mean, here's the thing, we haven't seen the evidence, that they took, the sitting vice President of the United States who has to fill out annual financial disclosure form, took a direct wire from a foreign government and put it in their bank account. That's not going to be the way it comes down. No, they said it's not from the government. Yeah, right. It'd be from a person. Yeah, right. No, it'd be to an LLC, right? It would definitely be something like that. Right. It's not going to be a wire from, you know, from one to the other. You're never going to see those kind of, right? Correct. They're smarter than that or they wouldn't be able to make it this far without getting in trouble before.

Now, the question is, does this FBI, Department of Justice, we believe they're so weaponized to the left that even if they have it, do they even care? Let's go to the phones. Mary and Marilyn on Line 1. Hey, Mary. Hey, there.

Thank you so much for taking my call. I have been very concerned because I think we need as a nation to wake up. You have recently reported on these non-military committees or whatever, like the IRS. Yeah, weaponizing with automatic weapons. Right. And then they're also doing away with the weapons for the police. And I'm just wondering if a coup could be expected and if we get a new President or even before that.

I mean, I would say a couple of things. One, if it's Joe Biden, they don't have to be a coup. They have it already in place. They have their guy in place who lets them basically, let's seventh floor run things.

Let's Washington, D.C. and the kind of the swamp run how they want to run. It's not even so much Democrat, Republican as he just lets the bureaucracy do what the bureaucracy wants to do. He weighs it a little bit politically, but nothing that would upset them at all. Have you seen any bureaucrats moved out since he's been in office? No, he doesn't pick any fights with them.

He always looks like even if he's not, he looks like he's deferring to them a lot of the time. And so that's what they like. They also like war. And we've got an ongoing one that instead of trying to negotiate into the war in Ukraine, they want to now fund a counteroffensive in Ukraine. We know that's very popular in Washington, D.C. And again, I'm not that's not just Republican or Democrat.

That's kind of just Washington, D.C. To add to that, we saw this on the other side with Donald Trump, how they basically damaged him so much. I don't know if you'd use the word coup, but they certainly dragged him through the mud on issues they knew from the very get go were bogus. They knew from the beginning of Crossfire Hurricane that there was no Russian collusion. That whole thing was a put up. I mean, that's kind of like a coup, too, because you're dragging somebody through the mud. That was a put up because the dossier was a put up. It was fake. The utilization of the dossier to the FISA court, they got caught doing. But you're talking about a slap on the wrist. I think the lawyer was suspended for six months for lying to a court.

Anybody else did that? They deleted the email. They changed the word not and substituted it. And so it looked like there was collusion.

All that was false. So you take all this with a grain of salt, which you have to. And the question is here on the connecting the dots. Let's go take this. It's an interesting question from Rich in Pennsylvania. Hey, Rich. Welcome to secular. You're on the air. Hey, Rich.

Hi. Thank you for taking my question. My question is, why can't they wait to do all this indicting and charging after Joe Biden is out of office? So the limitations crimes have. There's a certain amount of time that prosecutors have to bring a case to court. It's called a statute of limitations.

It's a good thing to have. You don't want prosecutors to be able to go back 25 years because no one could defend themselves. So it's usually a three-year window, a four-year window, five or six.

That's how it works. So some of these allegations go back five and six years. So the statute of limitations would be a factor.

There are arguments. I think Bragg is using an argument that you can't toll their time as President. That's because under the state law of New York, they have a tolling statute. Federally, they do not. So it's different federally. And remember this, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution vests with the President the power to pardon. It says, the President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardon for offenses against the United States except in the cases of impeachment. So you don't even have to be indicted to receive a pardon. And it's not inconceivable that Joe Biden would pardon his own child. No.

Or himself. Yeah, they can. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. I did want to update you on it because it was getting cut off in the last segment. We're in court on these matters right now with the DOJ and FBI because what I'm concerned about happening again as we get close to this election cycle is this kind of information once again being labeled as missing disinformation so that the American voter, when they start paying attention, which is not right now. You know, the general election voter is going to pay attention a few months before the election. So all this time and all this info, you give time to the FBI and DOJ to go to those social media companies and at least try. I think it's going to be harder with Twitter now and Elon Musk. But we know that they'll work the Facebook.

We know they'll work the Googles of the world. We're going to report on that right now. We will get a report back June 29th. So that we filed in December. We'll get the first report so they have got to tell us what they have and what they are going to produce. Yeah, and listen, in the case we have against the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative Christian organizations and pro-life organizations again, we filed a freedom of information request there.

They said they had 44,000 documents, not pages, for something that took place in a six-month period. That's why going to court, as I'm holding the complaint in my hand here in federal court, is so critical. And that's why your support of the ACLJ keeps us in the fight. So I want to encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org. Yeah, on the second half hour coming up, Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us.

I just want to tease this out a little bit. And we'll take more of your phone calls as well. What do you think Comer and Republicans need to present to the American people on Wednesday that is going to convince them that this, again, not you, but again, a general public, that they need to pay attention because there is a lot more to the financial transactions and the foreign transactions and the peddling of influence. And being paid by what he is alleging is adversaries of the United States. So that would not just be Ukraine. I don't think they've ever been labeled as an adversary.

Certainly we are working together. We are funding their war against Russia right now. That would at least include, I guess, a country like China, right? I mean, you could use that term for China. You couldn't use it for Ukraine. You could use it for Russia as well. I mean, if this goes back to time as vice President, remember all that discussion, you never forget with Barack Obama saying, you know, get me reelected.

Things will be a lot different when he said that to Medvedev when they were changing the rules so Putin could come back as President. And so they had that interim President in place. So a lot going on there. But what do they have to deliver to the American people? What do you think you need to hear? 1-800-684-3110.

There's more still on the letter, too, from all the Intel, former Intel folks to say that that Biden laptop was totally Russian disinformation. We're going to talk about it with Rick Renell. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. I think there are two major issues. We haven't gotten to the second one yet because I really want to talk to Rick Renell about it.

And that is, but I will tell you what it is. So over the weekend, we found out that when Mike Morrell, former CIA director for Obama, asked Brennan and Panetta and Mike Hayne to sign that letter, some of those emails went out on October 18th. Some went out as late as October 19th. And in fact, the exchange with Brennan was 19th.

That's important because that's the day it came out. The debate was a few days later when Vice President Biden was able to say back to Donald Trump, no, that's just Russian disinformation. 51 Intel officials said that. We now know that in the email, it'd be interesting to see if when Brennan, who I think they are going to have to testify, both Brennan and Clapper are testifying on this. Morrell promised them in the email that he was going to secure a pre-publication clearance from the CIA before releasing the letter.

So at least giving them a little hedge of protection. Because that's what we all said was, how wild is it that former CIA directors are just signing on to something and it looked like 13 minutes? Well, now it makes a little more sense because they thought they were saying yes if the CIA. Now we know that he released the letter 15 minutes after getting Brennan to okay it. So there's no way he got cleared. He was the acting director of the CIA at one point.

Yeah. But here's what you've got. We're in federal court on this right now because what we want to find out is why in the world did Facebook and some of the other social media platforms take what the FBI here created?

And let me tell you exactly what we asked for. This request seeks records pertaining to the FBI's interactions with and requests to social media news platforms, including Facebook, to censor or quote, be on high alert for information in connection with the then upcoming election, which according to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, resulted in censorship or reduced distribution, which was meaningful of information, including the Hunter Biden related stories on Facebook. And that's because they came up with this whole narrative that this was Russian disinformation. There's never been an allegation that this was Russian disinformation.

In fact, that's been rebutted. And yet you had 51 intelligence, former intelligence officials go to the FBI. The FBI then goes to the social media platforms and we're going to find out why. Who authorized this idea of censorship, which by the way, talking about interfering with an election, that's an interference with an election. And I mean, just, you know, prohibiting money, prohibiting the distribution of information because it's contrary to what a campaign wants it to be. That's pretty much a censorship issue. And that's why we're in federal court on that.

Yeah. I want to go to Bill in Wyoming online three. Hey, Bill.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. After listening to what two people are talking about, it just reminds me of when Biden was first campaigning that the idea was that the administration is going to be transparent. And it seems to me that I'd hate to see if this is transparency. I hate to see what the cover up is. I mean, the question is, where is the transparency? What does it mean by transparency? I hope voters figure this out. It means exposing anything they think Republicans did wrong. It means blaming the Trump administration for all their problems. It means releasing all of their emails and documents. You can ask Rick Rinnell about that, what it's like to where your foyas get through on everything. When you're an ambassador, when you're a leader of the intelligence community, you would think those are the toughest.

We can attest to that. When you want info in that world, that's the toughest ones to fight with good reason, by the way, because it involves the highest levels of our security, American security. But they've got no problem with releasing all of that if it's a Republican they're releasing it about. So that's where they go to their transparency is, transparency is we'll tell you all about the former administration. It's impossible to have transparency to a President who doesn't answer questions, to a President who barely appears. And when he does, it's on MSNBC at 10 o'clock at night on a Friday.

I mean, it's almost laughable. That is about, I mean, Donald Trump is willing to go to see it in and talk. Joe Biden has to bury away a 10 o'clock interview on MSNBC, but that's what he's going to do. It's going to be the same campaign because you know what? In the last campaign, he hid in his basement. This time he's got the White House background. Exactly.

So it looks better, but it's going to be exactly the same approach. Yeah. He's not going to travel many places. He'll send, but that's why we're in federal court fighting for you folks. And we want you to keep us in the fight. Go to ACLJ.org and support the work of the ACLJ. Because speech is what's going to determine this election.

Being able to talk about the issues. A hundred percent. Digitally. Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110, our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security.

Join us, Rick Grenell. And first thing I want to go to you, Rick, is this latest revelation in the letter campaign by the 51 former intel officials and some current intel officials that called the Hunter Biden lab top Russian disinformation. What we wanted to add to that was there's now a report that Mike Morella, former CIA director, was telling the folks who he was asking to sign this, like Leon Panetta and Mike Hayden and Brennan, that, by the way, once you agree to put your name on this, I am going to take this through a pre-publication clearance from the CIA. We now know that there was no time for that because once Brennan signed on to it on the 19th, it took about 18 minutes for him to say yes, and the letter was released a couple hours later.

So what would that have looked like? As a former intel official, are there times when you do go back and make sure, hey, before any of this comes out or a book, I would see a lot of times this would probably be people's books or even articles they might write, and say, I just want to make sure this goes through the clearance process. It looks like this had no opportunity to do that. Look, there is a clearance process for former intel officials, and we have to use our best judgment, although I've written foreign policy opinion pieces a lot, even including for ACLJ, and I have been contacted by DNI specifically to say all my pieces should be cleared by the government, by the intel agencies, because of my past position, and I have pushed back a little bit to say, well, I'm going to allow you to clear if I feel like I'm using information that needs to be cleared, but if this is just my opinion and I'm not using classified information, I'm not going to ask for clearance, and I shouldn't have to, and to have the DNI's office come to me and specifically say, get everything cleared that you're saying publicly is obnoxious and I'm not going to do it, but when it comes to this letter, the fact that Mike was saying to people, I'm going to get this cleared, means that he was implying that there might be intelligence that he's weeding into and talking about Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation, and so he would want to get all of that specifically cleared. What we now know is that there wasn't a single piece of intelligence, there wasn't a briefing for any of these 51 people, they made it up. So Avril Haines needs to come clean and she needs to tell us, did Mike Morale and the Biden team seek to have some sort of sign-off from the intelligence agencies? Did they even ask?

Did they request? And what was the intelligence agency's answers? Because I would like to know if the intelligence agencies pushed back to say, well, there is no evidence that the Russians did anything with Hunter Biden's laptop. Were they warned? Maybe this is something for those intelligence officials, those career officials who are still at DNI.

We need to get these answers. You know, it's interesting because if you look at what they did, Rick, I mean, as far as you have a situation where you've got this letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials, they put this letter out, they get it over to the FBI and Facebook and everybody's got it, and then the FBI is then talking to the social media platforms about not running certain information, particularly the laptop, which you're talking about election interference. I mean, it doesn't have to be, it's not machine manipulation, it's information manipulation. It's the Russian collusion narrative against Trump. It's now suppressing this debate on the inappropriate nature of what was on the Hunter Biden laptop.

Now, here's the problem. Viewpoint discrimination is always viewed as unconstitutional. I've done four Supreme Court cases just dealing with that, and they're all either eight to one or unanimous. There's no controversy that you don't silence one side of the debate, but that's precisely what happened in this election cycle.

Well, there's no question. I think it's happening in our universities, it's happening in government, it's happening in the Democratic Party who keeps attacking people for saying something that is the truth, but somehow viewed differently by Democrats, and so they call it misinformation or disinformation, and it's not. It's dissenting information. We all know it.

When I was growing up, my dad used to say, sit and listen, you might learn from somebody. And now what we have are people running out of the rooms when they can't handle some sort of fact. So, look, I think this just goes back to Avril Haines. I think she's got to come clean. We need to be able to trust our intelligence agencies that they are not putting their finger on the scale when it comes to partisan politics. They need to come clean on whether or not they were involved in this letter that was circulating in draft form, and Mike Morale clearly says that he was going to reach out to the CIA. Did the CIA look at this letter and sign off? It's a legitimate question.

Yeah. It doesn't look like they would have signed off on the final form because he released it moments after getting Brendan to sign on, but could he have gone preemptively with it? We don't know. That's what we could, you know, the answers would be nice to know is, did he mislead all of these individuals? Did they just find out yesterday that they were all misled when this report went public? And do they even care because they're all kind of operatives anyways for the Biden administration? I don't expect any of those signers to the letter themselves are going to raise any questions if they're so in the bag for Biden, but I get, it all ties to, I want to go to this, Rick, keeps coming up.

You got, this is pretty unique too. I've never seen it before at this level. We have a committee chairman, Republican committee chairman of the oversight committee, a comer, who's a very serious person in Washington, D.C., and he's seen as that by Republicans on both the right and kind of even the more moderate Republicans. So when he was put forward to be the oversight chair, there was almost unanimous support for him, and he's come forward and said, before there is any movement by, from the U.S. attorney in Delaware on Hunter Biden, they need to wait until we have a press conference Wednesday and lay out all of this data about Hunter Biden that they have been able to put together, I guess it would be via whistleblowers and confidential informants to Congress. Never seen anything quite like that in Washington to see a member of Congress. The closest thing, unfortunately, I've seen, Rick, is Adam Schiff pulling stunts like that and not being able to deliver. So I think that's my big message to comer and his team is you better deliver when you make a statement like this.

You're not kidding. I certainly don't like having this played out at a press conference. We shouldn't be telling the intelligence agencies to pay attention to a press conference. What comer needs to do is take this information and get it into the hands of DOJ and the FBI and others.

Go have a private meeting, present this information. We can't be playing this out so publicly. I think the press conference is appropriate for the public to understand what's happening. That is certainly a part of the transparency strategy that we need to be having. But the intelligence agencies, the law enforcement agencies are going to have a lot of questions.

They need to be able to have some private time to ask those questions. Rick, I said the same thing earlier today. I mean, my concern here is it sounds just like Adam Schiff. We've got all this information. We're going to have this press conference with DOJ. Don't do anything until we have this press conference.

And you know what's going to happen. They're going to have a press conference. It's going to be a bunch of transfers, none of which are going to be to Joe Biden. It's going to be some LLCs. Maybe it's from foreign nationals, but not foreign governments. Is it a federal foreign agent registration act case?

Those are hard to bring. But it's like a setup here. The Republicans doing this to themselves. Well, let's hope not.

I certainly don't understand it. It's not something that I would do, but I hope that Kevin McCarthy is involved here, is bringing some leadership to say, look, we're going to give this information to the FBI and to DOJ. We can take it public to make sure that the public knows that we are pushing these issues.

But this is a set of information that needs to be given privately. I mean, I think, Rick, the issue, what Comer has explained, he does say they're going to go to the FBI and DOJ with it. I wonder if it's just they can't even get the FBI and DOJ on the phone.

I mean, they are having a difficult time. We know that Biden won't even meet with McCarthy on the debt ceiling and the debt limit and the budget. So if he can't, won't meet with the Speaker of the House, imagine if you're just a chairman of the oversight committee.

I mean, that's a big deal. But trying to get any attention from the DOJ, maybe they might feel, I mean, this is kind of what I would think is, like this is their only way to get the DOJ's attention is to do something more like a spectacle, as long as they can back it up. I mean, like you said, they've got to have a lot more than what's in a press conference to take to DOJ and FBI. First of all, from my own personal experience, there's no question that DOJ and FBI are not going to listen to you on the first phone call. And they just that's not that's not how they work.

But you've got to be persistent. I mean, I went over to DOJ and demanded information even when I was in the Cabinet. So there's no question that they're probably pushing Comer off, but he's got to get very aggressive and make sure that this information goes to them privately. No, I agree. We've been talking about the whole show.

This is kind of unprecedented to hear. So you've got to deliver. We want to be the party that delivers. We want to be the members of Congress and support the members of Congress that deliver.

We don't want to become like Adam Schiff and see that kind of show. Rick, we always appreciate your insight. Of course, we've got Rick as part of our team because your support of the ACLJ donate today, ACLJ.org.

We come back. We'll take more of your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

It's some interesting new polling, not just on Biden's popularity, which is very down within the Democrat Party, but on Donald Trump versus Joe Biden. All right, welcome back to CENCO. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. I want to go to the phones. Daniel calling from North Dakota on Line 2. Hey, Daniel.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. First of all, I was curious Jay was talking about statute of limitations, all the stuff with Hunter Biden. That's kind of piddly stuff with guns and all that. But the stuff with, you know, taking money from a foreign government for policy. The only hope the Republicans have is to prosecute this in the court of public opinion because, you know, the deep state will never allow it to go to court. Well, also, there's a five-year statute of limitations on bribery. Federal statute of limitations is five years. So, I mean, you bring in these cases, you know, that arrived 10 years ago or when he was vice President, so he may even go back more than that. The statute of limitations is run.

So, look, this is going to become a ballot box issue. You can't indict a sitting President. I don't care if it's Biden or Trump. It's a good policy not to be able to indict a sitting President because all they would be doing is defending themselves all day. What they would, I think the Democrats' strategy would be is if this was a Republican who was in office, so you knew that you weren't going to get a prosecution through even if you did have time with the statute of limitations, didn't have that issue, is they would impeach.

That's their strategy. Impeach, impeach, impeach. I think that we don't want to go that route.

You said that in our pre-meeting. You do not think impeachment, even if you had the votes on the House. I think, again, I would rather just, like Daniel said, I'd rather just take it to the American people. You're going to run out the clock on impeachment anyways with how close we are to the next election cycle. You don't have the votes in the U.S. Senate, even if you can get all the House members together on that. So, even if you had like this smoking gun on bribery, I mean, I would get the feeling like you need to impeach because it's almost like that's why it exists. But you know you're not going to get a single Democrat to go with you.

And if you can't, then you're just going to look like the loser ultimately, and you're not going to have enough time to really make the case then to the American people instead of just the partisan fight. So, I mean, again, that's also putting in a lot that we're actually going to have that information in time to even move forward in a way or even consider moving forward in a way. So far, we don't have any of this info. Nope. We're supposed to get some of it Wednesday.

Through a press conference. You sure? Rick Grenell thought about that.

Not a great idea. Yeah. I mean, all of us get concerned about that. When I saw the headline, I said, this is huge.

We have to talk about it because I've never seen this done before. Even Adam Schiff, he might have held press conferences, but I don't think he ever held a press conference that said, you know, wait to hear what I have to say before an indictment is issued. And of course, there weren't. I mean, the special counsel and things like that, they thought that they were working hand in hand. So again, we'll kind of leave that where it is. And I think we'll see what happens on Wednesday, the lead up to that.

But it was certainly it's very unique in this period of time. I do feel that there's probably a ton of frustration on Capitol Hill. Even when you are chairman of one of these committees, you can't get anything back from the the entities of the government that you're seeing. And that you have the power of person over. Let's go to the economy. Yeah. So let's let's play. Do we have the sound bite from President Biden on the economy?

Can we play that? Let's do it. We've made enormous progress over the past two years. And again, just today, reporting two hundred and fifty thousand new jobs.

Just this last report. The last thing this country needs after all we've been through is a manufactured crisis. And that's what this is, a manufactured crisis. And that's what it is from beginning to end is a manufactured crisis driven by the MAGA Republicans in the Congress. OK, let me let me a couple of things here.

Harry Hutchinson has joined us here. OK, number one, I was traveling this last couple of weeks, so I've gone to a lot of gas stations. It's approaching what I used to call high test 93 octane. It's approaching five dollars a gallon. Interest rates are the highest they've been in 16 years.

Home mortgage loans. Inflation is still it's come down a little bit, but it's still in the six to eight percent range. So this isn't a manufactured Harry MAGA crisis. This is a real economic challenge that the country is facing.

I think that's correct. And unfortunately for the American people, there isn't an adult in the White House. So when President Biden talks about enormous economic progress, he's really talking about an illusion.

And he's in desperate pursuit of that illusion. So, for instance, it might help the President if he talked to Warren Buffett, who expects that each and every one of his businesses to be down in 2023 versus 2022. That Warren Buffett is not a MAGA Republican. In addition, if the President decided to consult the service sector, he would find that only 52 percent of the service sector is likely to expand in 2022, 2023, sorry, and 48 percent is going to decline.

Meanwhile, manufacturing jobs, transportation have been down significantly ever since November of 2022. So if you were being the economic adviser to the White House, what would you tell him to do to get this under control? Well, first, I would be tempted to tell him to resign immediately because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not substantively.

What would you tell him to do? But substantively, I would urge the President to negotiate with the Republicans to reduce federal spending, which is fueling high inflation rates, and it is fueling high interest rates. So you've got to get federal spending under control.

Absolutely. What would be the second thing? So just to finish that particular point, keep in mind the debt, the national debt in the United States is at $32 trillion. So it's quintessentially important to do something about that. Number two, the President needs to reduce job-sucking regulation coming from the White House. And so the President refuses to face the facts, particularly in the energy industry. The President should push the United States toward energy independence. That would lower fuel costs. And the idea of pushing electric vehicles in the face of higher fossil fuel prices makes no sense because 70 percent of electricity in the United States is generated by fossil fuels. Regulatory reform, if it does not happen, suffocates the U.S. economy. That's just that simple. If we don't have regulatory reform, it's suffocating the U.S. policy economy. It is. And it stops manufacturing.

It stops new development of technologies because the regulatory hassles are so significant, no one feels like they—no business feels like they can surmount them. So that's the reality we're dealing with. Let's quickly take Susan's call from Maryland. Hi, Susan.

Hey, Susan, you there? She's not. Yeah, so the second part of this, I just wanted to point out the polling because we didn't get to it yet. What's interesting is that you've got a first head-to-head poll. It's against a national poll, but it's the first time I've seen President Trump leading and leading by seven points against—this is a Washington Post-ABC poll. In a hypothetical matchup between Biden and Trump, both—again, it's interesting, both Trump and DeSantis are leading. Trump by more.

Now, DeSantis has not announced yet. He's not on the campaign trail yet. So it says they would both beat in a national poll.

Now, the state polls are more important than that, but when you're this far away, you get more of these generic polls. What's interesting is that just seems—there's some tide turning against Biden, a lot of it inside his own party. I mean, 70 percent—that was another poll—of Democrats said they want to see a debate. Between Biden, the RFK, and—yeah, I mean, and I guess some others would jump in if there was going to be a debate.

There has not been a debate for an incumbent President by Republicans or Democrats since the 1970s on either side. The fact that they think he needs to go through that process is very interesting as well. We could dive into that, but we don't have time today. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll talk to you tomorrow.