Breaking: Hunter Biden Plea Deal Appears to Fall Apart

This is Jay Sekulow and we've got breaking news. Hunter Biden's plea deal appears to be falling apart in federal court right now. 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, Jay Sekulow. Well, a plea deal is not done until a federal court accepts the plea. Now normally, that is a perfunctory aspect.

Not always, but normally it's perfunctory. Hunter Biden went in to enter his plea as part of a plea bargain where he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts for tax issues. And then they deferred prosecution on the gun charge issue, which was the felony. Now, there was a lot of questions about this deal and what was really going on here.

You had the whistleblowers testify saying that this was not only a sweetheart deal, it was the opposite of what the FBI thought should have been charged. And at the same time last night, I mean, this was unprecedented, the judge called for a hearing because there was an allegation that one of the lawyers in the Hunter Biden defense team, not Abby Lowell, who's a friend of mine, one of the other lawyers, I think from Delaware, actually asked for a document to be removed from the docket sheet that she said contained information that shouldn't be public. And she misidentified who she was representing. Yeah.

Go ahead. From what it seems like, she tried to convince the court on this phone call that she was actually representing the other side. So she was representing the Republicans while she was Hunter Biden's actual attorney, one of the members of his legal team. But the breaking news right now, dad, is that the Hunter Biden plea deal appears to have fallen apart, or at least currently falling apart. When we had him go in this morning, everyone was a little confused of why it was taking so long.

There was discussion of this, you think he'd go in, this would be 15 minutes, in and out, an hour passed, two hours passed. As far as we know, they're still all in there, right? So they're still all meeting right now. But what's coming out, because there are reporters that are inside, I believe, are reporting that the plea deal that they originally thought they were going to get just isn't going to happen. Well, and that's because, not because of what was the issue with what was filed the other day, and that may have been misappropriated as far as removal. What the plea deal, and this to me is mind-boggling, the plea deal seems to be falling apart over the issue of the scope of the immunity from further prosecution. In other words, they thought they had a universal deal, the defense lawyer saying, this is it, we're done, we'll plead to these two charges.

You cannot then investigate them for fair violations that have already been going on and any other charges they might have under review. In other words, the plea deal was a universal plea deal. It resolves the matter, any investigations involving him. Apparently that is not what the Department of Justice said they thought the deal meant. It's hard to believe that at this 11th hour that this is happening.

Right, in the middle of it. I guess people are going to ask, why would something like this happen? How does this happen, and what are the implications? It's very, first of all, let me just say, I've never had a situation on a plea where you did not know going into it what was at stake and what the scope and nature of the plea was going to include. So Andy O'Connell is going to join us in the next segment, but I've done pleas, Andy's done hundreds of pleas, we've done them in the state courts and in federal courts. And plea bargains are, as you know, very common. A lot of cases are resolved. Most cases are resolved.

But here, the plea is falling apart over a fundamental basic issue. What is the scope and nature of the immunity going forward? Immunity from prosecution. I know a lot of you probably have questions or comments related to this. We'll be joined by Andy O'Connell next. So a prosecutor who's been through this dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of times. So give us a call. If you have a question about this, you want to know more about the details or the situation involving the attorney misrepresenting themselves, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. We're going to take as many calls as we can, just like yesterday. So fill them up.

If you have a call, get it in now. Logan, interestingly, we have a lot of people watching, I'm not believing this, on Facebook. Yeah. Breaking news.

I guess so. So share it with your friends on whatever social media platform you're on. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We're in the last week of our Matching Challenge campaign.

And don't forget, if you've got a question or a comment, this is the time to get it in. 800-684-3110. Justice delayed, justice denied. Welcome back to Secular.

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. A lot of you joining us right now, hearing the breaking news that the Hunter Biden plea deal, which we all expected this morning as they went in, thought it'd be a quick turnaround. It seems to have fallen apart in court. Now this comes from a lot of interesting facts that have come out in the last 24 hours, whether that is lawyers misrepresenting themselves to the court, clearly angering a lot of judges.

It is an interesting time for Hunter Biden as we head into really the heat of election season to have this still looming. I think a lot of people assumed today would be it, plea deal would happen, we'd try to move on as a society, but it just doesn't seem that way. Well, the thought yesterday was that there could be, you know, the defense lawyers may be getting sanctioned, you know, monetarily sanctioned by the judge for misrepresenting to the clerk or the court who they represented in trying to get a particular document removed from the file.

That's what everybody thought it was. But yet today, when the lawyers went into court to enter this plea that had been negotiated to the two-count misdemeanor, there was a disagreement between the Department of Justice and the defense as to the scope and nature of future immunity, including what appears to be the situation, investigations on foreign agent registration act issues and others. So they thought, in other words, defense lawyers and thought they had a universal resolution of the criminal matters. And the government comes in and says, apparently, and we haven't seen this from the government yet, no, no, no, this is only these tax charges.

That's all we're pointing to are these tax charges. Joining us now is our senior counsel for the ACLJ, Andy Cahnemann, who also, by the way, just to be clear, was a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, that was Atlanta, was in charge of the criminal division and also a state attorney general, a district attorney. I've had federal, state and local district attorney experience as well. Andy, this is a, there was all this talk yesterday about this document attempt to be removed from the record by the defense lawyers who then evidently allegedly misrepresented themselves to the clerk or the court judge was upset about this. But today it looks like that they, as of right now, they're still in there. The plea deal is, quote, falling apart over the scope and nature of what the actual immunity is here. Well, Jay, this should never have happened if the lawyers had done their job and had discussed prior to entering that courtroom today just exactly what the scope and nature of the immunity deal was.

And apparently there were a lot of loose ends that were not tied up. And then you go into a federal district court where you're supposed to plead in a 15 to 30 minute plea hearing and suddenly the question becomes, well, now is he immunized for other charges that he is not pleading to or is he going to have to face those at some point in the future? Well, I don't know. I think we're just giving, you know, we're just going to have to give him immunity for this. We're just giving him immunity for tax charges. We're not giving him immunity for foreign registration charges. Well, that's not the deal. The deal was he was going to get immunity for everything that he did.

Well, no, no, that's not the deal. Well, I've had that happen in cases where there's bad lawyering involved and the district judge says there doesn't seem to be a plea negotiation that I can either accept or reject. You either go out and discuss it or the whole thing's off and we go to trial, Jay. We just got from the New York Times. They have someone in the courtroom.

Listen to this language, Andy. This is Federal District Judge Noreke said this. He asked Leo Wise, who is the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware, he's the top prosecutor in the case, if the deal meant, in other words, the plea arrangement meant that Hunter Biden would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes, including violations relating to representing foreign governments.

That's Foreign Agent Registration Act cases. Wise said no, and Hunter Biden's lawyer responded by saying that the deal was now null and void. Then Hunter Biden lawyers repeatedly cast the deal as the final chapter of a five-year inquiry into the President's son. But Judge Noreke quickly punctured that assertion when she asked the prosecutor again, this is Leo Wise, if the Biden investigation was, quote, ongoing. He replied yes, adding that if Biden's team thought otherwise, then there's no deal. So, Andy, what a miscalculation in the negotiations with the district, with the U.S. attorney in front of the judge on the scope and nature of the plea.

This is, this is unbelievable. This is plea negotiation 101. I mean, really, Jay, before you go into that courtroom to enter a plea before a U.S. district judge, or for that matter, any judge, if you've got a negotiated plea that you want that judge to accept, then every aspect of that plea should have been discussed, should have been tied up, should have been brought together, and they, each side should know what the scope and nature of the plea involved.

And if it involved use immunity, derivative use immunity, transactional immunity, total immunity, then that should have been known and understood clearly. You don't go before a judge and have these kinds of embarrassing moments where the judge says, is this it? Is this what he's pleading to today? Is that over with?

Am I to accept this plea on this basis? No, that's not the case. There's still more to be investigated.

What kind of stuff is that? You know, we're getting calls on this, and we're going to take them at 1-800-684-3110. If you want to chime in on this and if you've got any questions, do give us a call, 800-684-3110.

But unprecedented here, to have this kind of miscommunication on this high profile of the case is really, Logan, I'm telling you, I've never seen anything like it. Yeah, look, hey, I'm going to say this real quick. This is one of our largest YouTube audiences in a long time, and Facebook audience, for that matter. So if you're on Facebook, I'm going to ask you to share this, because that'll get into more people's feeds. If you're on YouTube and you're brand new, I'm going to ask you to hit that subscribe button. You can do that right now and hit the thumbs up. Both of those things really help, and obviously, give us a call or comment. But hit the subscribe button if you're watching on YouTube right now, because there's a lot- There are more people watching on YouTube than any big platform.

Yeah, we're pretty close to 300,000 subscribers, so you know what? Help us get there. Click that button right now. Let's go to calls. Let's go to Bill, who's calling in Arkansas, listening on XM.

You're on the air. Hey, Bill. Hi. How are you doing? Great.

Go ahead. You know what? I'm kind of one of those that looks at it from a different point of view and says, I think some of this stuff is planned, and I almost don't believe that anybody goes there without knowing. I think sometimes it's all misdirection. There's a plan to the misplan. That's kind of the way I look at the way things come to fruition these days.

You know, I would agree with you, but for this. They had said for the last two and a half weeks that a plea deal had been arranged that was going to put this behind Hunter Biden, and the government was getting a lot of pressure on Capitol Hill. Remember, they wanted Weiss to testify as to what he was authorizing and what he was allowed to authorize. There was that whole question of bringing felony charges under the tax code, and he said he didn't have the authority to do because they were in other jurisdictions.

I think one was in DC, one was in California. But normally, Andy, let's walk people through this. When you've got a plea deal, if I'm the defense lawyer and you're the U.S. attorney and we're negotiating the plea deal, we go back and forth, and when we talk about the scope of nature and what this plea will be.

Well, that's exactly right, Jay. If you're negotiating a plea deal, it's like negotiating any other agreement in which a matter is up for discussion. And one of the fundamental things in a case like Hunter Biden's is you're going to discuss whether or not this ends all his criminal issues with the United States of America. And the question is whether that means whether there is immunity, whether this is the totality of his plea, two simple tax charges, unbelievable. But that's the case. And then you say, okay, well, then we go in there, the judge hears this, we give him immunity, or we say this is the totality of it. No, that's not the case. There's still further investigation. That's not the time you negotiate.

The time negotiating it to negotiate is before you walk into that courtroom, not standing there before the judge who's waiting to take a plea and discussing and disagreeing on the scope and extent of the plea. That's embarrassing. It's also bad luring. It's also bad for the justice system. We have opened up our phone lines in full here to take your calls and comments about this. I want your reaction to this. Do you think it's politics? Do you think it's legal?

What do you think it is? 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110. Phone lines are now fully open. Now, having said what, following up what Andy said, normally when you go into a plea, everything has been ironed out. Everything has been worked through.

Everybody understands the scope and nature of what the plea is about. That's not the case here. Apparently, there was a huge miscue between the government's lawyers and the defense lawyers. And then you got the complication of the defense lawyers.

And this is a complication, Logan. The defense lawyers yesterday tried to remove a filing from the Hunter Bynes lawyers that was filed by the House Ways and Means Committee. And they misrepresented who they represented in the case.

The Hunter Bynes lawyer. At least that's the allegation. So that we thought would be the subject today of what the judge was going to get into. But apparently, that is not the case. You have a fundamental breakdown. Now they're saying it's over the gun charge.

This is very interesting. So this is now coming out. Which was something like mishandling a firearm. The gun charge was the felony for incorrectly filling out forms.

Now they're saying it could be the gun charge issue that did this. We're staying with this, folks. There's a lot to discuss. Stay with us. Talk to us. We want to hear from you. We'll take your calls and comments. Yeah, we'd love to hear from you. Thousands and thousands of you are watching online.

Obviously, many more are listening on radio. We'd love to hear from you right now. Give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. Also, as we wrap up this segment, the ACLJ is in the middle of our matching challenge. Actually, towards the end of this July matching challenge. This is kind of the last week to get your donation matched in the month of July. So do that right now. If you have $10, it becomes $20.

$20 is $40 because there's other ACLJ members ready to unlock their match as soon as you donate. So we appreciate that. And do that right now. Also, again, phone lines are open. We want to take your calls on this Hunter Biden situation. 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be right back. Well, this goes to the you can't make this stuff up. I mean, you got a plea deal that was supposed to be entered into, which is very perfunctory normally.

But apparently not the case today. And it may be involving the gun charge. It may be involving a foreign agent registration act issue.

We don't know the nature. We just know that the plea is falling apart. This comes on the heels of the FBI acknowledging that they sought FISA protections and FISA aspects against a sitting United States senator, a sitting state court judge, and a state court representative, which is not what these courts are supposed to do.

We're joined by our senior counsel for global affairs, Mike Pompeo. Mike, before we get to the issue with what happened with this, you know, investigation of a sitting U.S. senator, which I still can't even get my head around how that was going on. I want to talk about this plea deal situation. It appeared that there was a plea between Hunter Biden and the government. It got a lot of attention because there were allegations by whistleblowers that charges were not brought, felony tax charges in particular. There was supposed to be a plea deal worked out, and apparently they did, where they were going to plead guilty to, Hunter was going to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax cases, would not have gone to jail for that, obviously.

And then they were going to defer this gun charge. And now there seems to be this whole matter falling apart. I'm wondering how much of this is the scrutiny that's on the FBI and the Department of Justice and these continuous missteps that are happening almost on a daily basis here.

It certainly appears that it's got a lot to do with the scrutiny that's been received and properly so. When we all saw the agreement that had been entered into or at least tentatively agreed to by the parties, you could smell that these weren't, you know, normally it's the prosecution and defendant, they are adversarial. It certainly looked like there was less than an adversarial relationship between them, that there had been some deal, not a deal in the traditional sense of one party saying, yep, we'll compromise here and the other saying we'll compromise there.

But something that didn't feel right. It didn't look like the investigation had been sufficiently thorough. It didn't look like the charges were consistent with the actions that were actually being charged and that frankly, no one seems to dispute.

And so we know this, Jay, you've worked in this world before too. None of these plea deals are done until the judge signs off on them. Everything else is just essentially a suggestion from the US Attorney's Office or from a defendant. I hope the judge will take an independent view of this, an independent analysis and make sure that the arrangements that have been agreed to by these parties weren't a result of some agreement, some side deal, something that wasn't consistent with the actual role of the Department of Justice, which is to deliver, to in fact deliver that justice equally fairly across everybody who comes before them. Mr. Secretary, what's so interesting about this was yesterday the news broke and they thought this was going to be a big deal that now they're saying, by the way, we've got a breaking news update.

Okay, Logan? Yeah, we have an update. CNN just put this out. Paula Reid from CNN just said update. Hunter Biden plea deal is now back on.

Pierce Biden legal team now agrees the DOJ could later charge Biden on unrelated issues. Okay, this is, you can't make this stuff up. This is like, I've done a zillion of these as a government lawyer, as a private lawyer. This goes into some of the calls we've had. Is this a show? Well, that's what, you know, Mike, you start wondering here. I mean, we've had this two hour now of drama unfolding.

I kept telling our team here, everything could change in 10 minutes and it was a gun charge and it was a fair violation. Now Biden's team says, okay, we'll take the deal and we, you might be investigating this later. I mean, it seems to me to be so outside the ordinary protocol and how these things are done.

You know, Jay, this gets to what I know we're going to talk about. This gets the institutional trust that the American people have in the FBI and in the DOJ. When you see these kinds of shenanigans, you see this kind of chaos, you see this kind of uncertainty and things that look like they're outside the rails, right? They're just, they're disconnected from anything an ordinary American citizen would have the opportunity to do or to see.

You begin to lose faith in these institutions. And so I don't know what to make of this current update. I don't know if it's true. CNN, I don't know if it actually reflects what the teams on the ground are actually seeing, but we know this. We know that this has been chaotic. We know that the charges didn't reflect what Hunter Biden actually did. And we know that there are lots of questions that remain unanswered about whether the U.S. attorney actually investigated in a way that they should have. We've seen these FBI agents, we've seen these IRS people say, hey, look, there were constraints on what we could do and what we could look into.

It seems to me this plea deal is at the very least premature and in the worst case, a result of influences that ought not to infect our Department of Justice and its decision-making process. It goes to this question of institutional credibility. So we get revealed late last week through a FISA court order. So the Foreign Intelligence Family Court issued an order stating that the FBI made an improper database search of a sitting U.S. senator. They've not disclosed who that senator is yet. Additionally, a state senator and a state court judge. It seems that, you know, basically weekly right now we're getting news of this and we're talking about the institutional credibility. By the way, the state court judge, all the state court judge did, Mike was contacted the Department of Justice concerned that there may have been a civil rights abuse going on by someone in his community. I think it was a sheriff, a particular sheriff or someone in the sheriff's office that they were concerned about and he ends up getting investigated. And the FISA court says, hey, you didn't have the authority to do it. And the National Intelligence Group within the FBI said, oh, you had no basis to do that kind of investigation.

This is what affects the institutional credibility of these organizations. You once. Yeah. Jay, I know this FISA system incredibly well. It has served Americans well. It has saved American lives.

I don't think there's any any way anybody can dispute that. The question then becomes, can we trust the figures operating that system to behave in a way that's consistent with the rule of law and not do things like conduct searches against targets that they're not permitted to? This is designed to collect foreign intelligence. That's the F in the I in FISA, right? It is there from time to time is incidental collection.

But that's not what this sounds like. This sounds like this was intentional collection against American citizens. And so the question is, was this some rogue agent sitting at a desk somewhere unsupervised?

If so, who failed to supervise or worse? Was this an intentional effort to politicize this system and use it against sitting public figures? We don't know the answer to these questions. And that gets to the third point, which is. And if we don't know the answer to these questions and these things keep popping up, it seems to me that the American people are going to lose trust and faith in this institution.

And as a result of that, they will be the American people will be denied the ability to perform the important functions that FISA has historically done. It may be the case we have to fix this. I hope we get to the bottom of it. And at the very least, we need to make sure that there are processes and procedures where those who violate the rules, just like in any system in American government, those who violate the rules are held accountable in a way that is serious and meaningful and prevents something like this from ever happening again. We appreciate it.

Senior Counselor of Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo, ran the CIA, knows these issues very well. Thanks for your insight and information as always. Thank you, Dave.

Alrighty. Folks, we're going to take your calls coming back from the break. This is breaking news. Fox is saying the deal is still falling apart.

CNN is saying, oh, it's back on. We're going to give you the analysis as it happens. First of all, call us. We're going to take your calls. Coming up in this next half hour, we will take your phone calls. So those Adam and others that are on the line here, hold on the line.

We will get Timothy. We'll get back to you in a moment. We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110, but support the work of the ACLJ. You just heard from the Director of the CIA, former Director of the CIA.

He knows these issues. Sure. There's a lot of people joining us right now online. And if you're not one of them, join us online. If you're listening to Transco Radio, don't you want to see us? Go watch us online. I encourage you to do that, especially if your station doesn't get the next half hour of the broadcast.

Some of them don't carry the full hour or carry at different times. Right now, we're broadcasting live. ACLJ.org, YouTube, Rumble, Facebook. We're there.

Just find us, but you go to ACLJ.org. It's all there. And while you're there, you can make a donation as part of our July matching challenge.

All donations made are doubled. If you are watching right now on Facebook or if you're watching right now on YouTube or even on Rumble and you're brand new to the broadcast, I'm going to ask you to hit the thumbs up or the like and hit that subscribe button. We are inching close on YouTube to 300,000 subscribers. I'd love to get us there soon and you can be a part of that.

We'll be right back. There was an allegation yesterday evening that a document was sought to be removed and the lawyer representing, in this particular case, Hunter Biden, supposedly said to the clerk of the court that she was somebody else representing the other side and wanted a document that basically shouldn't have been posted, removed from the file. We thought that would maybe some, there were talks about possible allegations there of sanctions today. We thought that's what it was going to be. Meanwhile, we find out now it's fallen apart. Yeah, it's fallen apart or maybe it's back together.

We're still kind of following what's going on right now. The original plea deal, at least we know, which would have included pretty much immunity is what it seemed like for a lot of the charges. That is off the table. So we know that's off the table.

You know what it does? It keeps Hunter Biden's name in the press, something that, good Lord, I've already said how many times I would love to take a week off from saying the name Hunter Biden, but simply that's not going to happen. That just seems like this is the story that goes on and on forever and ever as we are, they're wall-to-wall coverage showing the federal courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware. The story that never ends is this Hunter Biden investigation. I think what is happening here, I mean, this is kind of my take on it right now, and we'll take your calls at 800-684-3110 is they had a plea deal.

It's gotten a lot of attention. You had whistleblowers from the FBI. You had whistleblowers from the IRS. You had questions over whether the US attorney on the Hunter case was actually allowed to investigate other crimes in other jurisdictions.

Apparently somehow he was not. That testimony hasn't been public yet, but he's supposedly going to be testifying. So you had all this happening at the same time, kind of simultaneously this was all going on. And then you had this very bizarre situation last night, Logan, where an allegation has been made that a defense lawyer posing as a, I guess as a US attorney or something, tried to get a document removed by the clerk of the court from the clerk of the court that they didn't want on the record. And this was an amicus brief filed by the House of Representatives. And that we thought was going to be a big sanctions discussion this morning, but they walk in and the deal seems to be falling apart over this.

I think this is important for you to understand. It seems to be falling apart over the scope and nature of the immunity. What does that mean in English? He is pleading guilty to two charges involving taxes, and then they're deferring a charge on a gun situation that would have been a felony. So two misdemeanors pled to. The question came up in the courtroom, and I'm going to read it.

This is from the courtroom this morning. The federal district judge Mary Ellen Norica pointedly asked Leo Weiss, he's the US attorney for Delaware, if the deal meant that Hunter Bynum would be immune for prosecution for other possible crimes, including violations related to representing foreign governments. Weiss said no, and Hunter Bynum's lawyers responded by saying the agreement was null and void. If it's not a universal agreement, it's null and void.

That is not our understanding. Hunter Bynum's lawyers repeatedly cast the deal as the final chapter of a five-year inquiry into the President's son. Judge Norica quickly punctured that assertion when she asked the prosecutor, again Leo Weiss, if the Bynum investigation was, quote, ongoing. He replied yes, adding that if the Biden's team thought otherwise, then there's no deal.

Then we find out, or at least there's an allegation, that it had something to do with the gun charge. So CNN is reporting that the deal's back on track. Fox is reporting that the deal has fallen apart. We're giving you the analysis of what this is, but it shows what happens when you have a distrust in the system, whether it's the courts, whether it's the FBI, whatever it might be. There's a lot of distrust here. There's a lot of doubt cast on this, Logan. We need to take calls when we come back.

We have people holding. Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to say there are thousands of you, maybe more than ever, watching right now on social media platforms. If you're on YouTube right now, subscribe. If you're probably brand new, you can be brand new to the broadcast. Click that subscribe button. We do this show each and every weekday, and we put out tons of other video content as well. If you are new on Facebook or new on Rumble, do the same thing. Follow and share.

But I'm going to single out our friends on YouTube right now because there's so many of you watching for this news. We are going to take as many calls as we can in the next segment, so give us a call right now. If you're on hold, we're going to get to you. If you're not on hold, two lines are open right now. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I'm also going to give you a way to interact with us through a poll here coming up in the next segment. Maybe a little about what we talked about yesterday is do you think there are articles of impeachment that should go through? Welcome back to Secula. We're going to go ahead. I think we're going to start off with taking some calls.

Let me just kind of set it for a second here. You've got to plea. I'm going to put you inside the courthouse. Lawyers on the defense usually seated at the right-hand side of the courtroom. The lawyers on the prosecution usually on the left, depending again on the courtroom.

You go in. Your plea deal is negotiated. You're just asking the judge to accept the plea.

He usually says or she says, is this voluntary? Is this what the parties agreed to? And here you have apparently this fundamental breakdown as to the nature and scope of what actual immunity is going to attach once this plea deal is entered into. Because Hunter Biden would be pleading guilty to misdemeanors.

That is not the case. I mean, apparently this is totally falling apart. And it's falling apart, I think, in part because there's been a lot of external investigations. You know, you always ask us, folks, do these investigations mean anything?

Oh, it seems like nothing happens. His entire plea is falling apart. I think in part because there's been so much attention to it. These whistleblowers have been very brave. We're going to talk more about that next month, folks. Really brave what they've done coming out on this. And then, of course, you had all of the really procedural questions coming on and groups like ours talking about this, questioning how this deal possibly could be.

I think all of that together has impacted this. So let's go ahead. We're going to take calls at 800-684-3110. Phone lines are jammed right now, but as soon as we take a call, by the time you hear it, they're probably gone. So keep calling in. Let's go ahead and go to Adam, who is calling from Virginia, watching on YouTube. Adam, welcome. Hey, how are you all doing today?

Pretty good. So, I'm a felon. Okay. You know, I paid my debt to society.

If it was me that was under the knife right now, I'd have the folks slammed at me. The fact that he's the President's son, it's not even about the tax charges I'm getting at. Sure. It's the gun charge. Yeah, you're talking about the fact that- The gun charge is, you're right, the gun charge is the felony. Yeah. And that's the one they had delayed prosecution on.

But I think people see this, they see this as a headline news and they realize, yeah, they don't feel like they're getting treated the same as the President's son in this situation. I'm sure Adam did not. I don't know anything about Adam's case, but I'm sure he did not. Yeah, so Adam, we appreciate you calling in. Thank you for watching on YouTube. A lot of people are watching on YouTube in a brand new- Biggest number we've had on YouTube since I can remember. A long time, clearly that clicked with people. You know, breaking news items, sometimes YouTube decides to feature, so I'm going to ask you again to subscribe. Hundreds of you have since we started.

Since the last time I checked, 30 more have, so go ahead and keep doing that. It'll make our social media team very happy. Let's go to Timothy, who's calling from Alabama, watching also on YouTube.

Timothy, welcome. Yeah. Go ahead. Like the other guy, yeah.

I think it's all political because his daddy's the President. Sure. I mean, if an average person would have done what Hunter has done, we'd be in jail. Yeah. Timothy, thank you. I'm only cutting you off because of some sound quality issues we're having there. There was some, you know, repeating going on.

I think you just slowed your audio up, but I think that is the sentiment of a lot of people, thousands of people. Timothy, thank you for calling from Alabama, and thank you for watching on YouTube. One of the questions, of course, in this whole process has been, did this U.S. attorney in Delaware get to investigate every aspect of the case? He said yes, then the agents and IRS and FBI agents came back and said, well, actually he didn't. He wasn't able to because he wanted to look in cases that may have originated out of the District of Columbia, which was Washington, D.C., and also in California. He's a U.S. attorney from Delaware. That's the limitation of his jurisdiction.

He'd have to get special permission to go into those states. Apparently, at least they're testifying, he asked and they denied it. Right. Then they cut this deal, which is unreal, and they postponed the felony charge, which is the gun charge, and they go back and try to negotiate out a deal that they said is not going to be a universal resolution for immunity.

As Andy and I were talking about earlier, normally you have immunity and it does everything. That's not what happened here. This is, Logan, I will tell you, this has taken a really interesting twist and turn here. Yeah. Very. But it's an entertaining twist and turn to see where this goes because I think a lot of people assumed that this was going to be a walk-in.

Oh, I did. Fifteen minutes, check-in, good, he pleased this, good, moving on, and we're out. And that's what the news report was going to be.

But chaos ensued and now here we are. Let's go ahead and take some more calls. Let's go to Judith, also calling Alabama, watching on Facebook. Judith, you're on the air. And, hey, real quick, Judith, before I go to you, if you want to call in, there's going to be three lines open here in just a second. 1-800-684-3110. Judith, welcome. Thank you.

Thank you for taking my call. I don't understand immunity. If you can explain immunity to me, I would – where did it come from and why does it apply to Hunter Biden? I mean, he's not a government official. He's not – why is he exempt from our laws? It's not immunity as like a government – a government member could come in and argue, you know, official immunity or something like that.

That's not what this is. When we're talking about immunity, we're talking about judicial immunity in the context of a negotiated plea. So it says, okay, we've got these 10 tax card charges. If you'll plead guilty to two, we'll wipe these other ones off.

Now, apparently, this again, according to CNN, this is happening live while we're on the air. The plea proceedings have restarted and the President's son has agreed – now, this is a lot broader than it was before though, so there's interesting here – to a limited agreement that covers 2014 and 2019. So anything between those five years, 2014 and 2019, including any tax-related offense, drug use or gun possession is now off the table. That will be an accepted plea. That's interesting.

Yeah. So the President will plead guilty to the two misdemeanors from 2017 and 2018, but the agreement will also cover tax-related conduct that has not been indicted. And that's where the IRS whistleblowers were alleging fraud for the other three years. Those are the two sides have agreed to this, supposedly that it does not shield him from potential future charges.

Now, the chances of those future charges, I will tell you, slim to none. And that's what I think people get disappointed and sort of – So he's still getting a very – it looks like a very good – but this is – folks, you're watching this play out. Folks, you're watching this play out in real time. And can I say something about the ACLJ team, both our production team and our lawyers? We're able to get you this information, give you this analysis live on the air as it's happening, because, A, we've done this before, and B, we've got a great team.

And your support of the ACLJ makes all that possible. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. There are 5,000 of you almost watching just right now on YouTube. That will be 50,000 by tonight probably.

Oh, yeah, for sure. That's just on our live broadcast, and thousands watching on Facebook and on Rumble right now, so welcome to you guys as well. But that number on YouTube shows, again, this is a specific group. On Rumble, it's a very targeted audience.

We know who we're getting, and those numbers are pretty consistent. Facebook, it's bigger than it's been in a long time, and YouTube is bigger than it's been maybe ever. And that is because we know you guys care about this topic. So you've got to subscribe and share. Oh, yeah, I encourage you to subscribe because a lot of you are brand new.

It's fun. You've seen hundreds of you subscribe since we started this broadcast, so I really appreciate it. I'm monitoring the numbers in real time, and I appreciate it. Let's go ahead and keep phone lines going. Let's go to Joanne, who's watching on ACLJ.org, which we really appreciate because you're there for us. We appreciate that. Joanne, you're on the air. Ohio.

Hi, guys. My question's kind of off the beaten path, but let's say this immunity thing didn't come up. Was there a possibility that this judge could have walked in and said, hey, the defense tried to defraud me, you know, can we, you know, this deal's not going through? You know, I mean, if you're going to play that game, I mean, could she have just shut it down with that before all this other stuff happened? If the defendant was involved in the misrepresentation, that would be one thing.

Yes, I think she could. On the other hand, it looked like it was going to be sanctions against the lawyer that made the misrepresentation basically saying, hey, look, she was acting like she was the defense lawyer for, I mean, the lawyer for the Congress when she was the defense lawyer. That's the allegation anyways. So the expectation was she would have been sanctioned. Can you punish the client for that?

Only if he was involved. Having said all of that, Joanne, none of this is off the table. This is, this is, you talk about a twisted turn today in the last two hours, this has been, folks, unbelievable what has happened here. We've got a ton of calls coming in at 800-684-3110. Logan, let's try to take another one.

Yep. Continuing on Mary in Maryland on Line 6, listening to radio. Mary, you're on the air. Hey, Mary. Thank you.

This is, I appreciate your taking my call. My one, I was just wondering if the reason that the Department of Justice said that it was a continuing case was so that when they get questioned before the House that they can say that it's a continuing case and they won't have to answer any questions. Mary, I think that's a great comment you made and I think that's true.

I think what the Department of Justice does not want to be in this situation is they go before Jim Jordan's committee and Logan, what happens is they say, no, the case is closed. Right. I think that would be a negative reaction for them. Yeah, and I think that's what we're going for right now. Hey, there's only a minute left in this segment.

We have a whole other segment coming up. And in that segment, we're going to take as many calls as we can because they're rolling in right now. We do have right now, because the amount of calls we just took, we got three lines open, so it's a great time to call. You probably won't get a busy signal. 1-800-684-3110.

1-800-684-3110. Hey, quick question as we head to this break. Yeah, but while we're on the air and while we're on the break, I'm going to encourage you to do something because I'm curious how things go. I want you to go to ACLJ.org slash poll. P-O-L-L. We have a poll up right now. It ties into this topic, but it certainly ties into the topic we had on yesterday.

It's a very simple question. It's very interesting to see your results because we had a lot of mixed results yesterday on air. Simple question on ACLJ.org slash poll.

Should President Biden be impeached? We want to hear from you. Do you think it's a good idea?

Do you think it's a bad idea? This all stemmed from Kevin McCarthy's statement on Sean Hannity saying that there was a possibility that this is the path they could go on. I know a lot of you have mixed feelings on it, but we want to hear from you. Just go to ACLJ.org slash poll. It's really simple. You put in yes, no, and you go from there. We'll be right back with more on the last segment of Sekulow. Sekulow taking your calls here on this final segment of Sekulow for the day. Give me a call at 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Let's jump first to a call and we'll explain some of the more updates that have come out. Let's go to line three. Susan's calling in Maryland. Welcome. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just hope everybody supports ACLJ financially.

Thank you, Susan. My question is that do we know the sequence of the felony and the misdemeanors? Because if the misdemeanors fell after the felony, wouldn't they have greater penalty for the felony?

Yeah, so that's another great – we have a great audience because you're asking great questions. So what they call is it's like a merger of charges. So what's happened here is they merged out the felony charges as it related to tax violation.

So no tax fraud charges. Failure to file, failure to pay, civil misdemeanor. It's a misdemeanor, but you don't go to jail for that.

So they kind of merged those out. That was part of the plea. And then as it related to the gun charge, that was a felony and there was nothing to plead that one, Logan and Susan, down to.

There was not a co-equal misdemeanor of that. So it was a felony. So the way they got rid of the felony was we're going to defer the prosecution. In other words, if you don't get in trouble in a year, we're going to wipe that out. That was the plea agreement.

Now, Hunter Bynes' lawyers thought it was a universal agreement. It was going to cover everything, including FARA violations and everything else. Instead, it looks like it's covering – now, it's still very broad.

It covers five years, but anything to do with taxes, drugs, or foreign governments, I guess, including during that period of time. So I don't know. I think that you have a situation right now where until we see what actually comes out of the court, we're not going to know.

Yeah. I mean, MSNBC and some of the others, like the more liberal news, are even now going back to no plea deal. So there is a lot of confusion going on. Well, and it's interesting because CNN is saying there's a deal, and it's related to tax offenses, drug use, and gun possession, and it covers a five-year period.

So even though there's only two charges, it will cover anything that happened in that five-year period would not include FARA violations. But most networks are saying, well, this is done, right? Not done. Not done. Not done.

No, they're all still saying – most of them are still saying falling apart. Hey, this is the last call, four phone calls. You want to give us a call?

1-800-684-3110. I want to take a minute here for all the brand new people that are watching. Yeah, we have a lot of them. Look, if you're brand new – We've got a lot of them. If you're brand new to the broadcast and you're watching on one of our social media platforms, I'm just going to ask you to do something simple, which is just click that subscribe button, click the like, click the subscribe, because you don't know.

You get this show each and every day, Monday through Friday. We've been doing it for 25-plus years at this point, and obviously it's grown and grown. So we appreciate all of you who are joining us right now. If you are not new, I also want to tell you and encourage you to check out the work of the ACLJ.

And if you don't know what it is, we're going to explain to you what it is right now because we are at the very end of our matching challenge for this month. American Center for Law and Justice, by the way, has been around and its predecessors for 40 years. We've been in courts from the Supreme Court of the United States to your county court, to your school board, to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, to the European Court of Human Rights, to every appellate court in the United States defending free speech, religious liberty, challenging government overreach, going after government oversight, as we can do through our Office of Government Affairs. We have an office, a large office in Washington, D.C., literally behind the Supreme Court of the United States and next to the Senate office buildings, one block from the Capitol. We have offices throughout the country of lawyers around the globe, including an office in Jerusalem, Strasbourg, France, I mean, on and on it goes, defending life, defending Israel before international tribunals.

I mean, we're at the U.N. I just want people to know this, we're not just a daily broadcast, we're on daily. We do report the news sometimes and tell you about what's going on and really interpret the news so you have another voice in what you're seeing so you can understand it from experts in their field. So not only do we have this broadcast, we obviously have our mission in the legal world and also in the media side. So we encourage you to check out the work of the ACLJ. Just go to ACLJ.org. When you do that, you can obviously make a donation if you'd like. We also offer free legal help if it's within our scope. A lot of things that we offer at ACLJ.

And something else, Logan, here. Anybody that's listening to the broadcast right now or watching us on our social media platforms, if you haven't subscribed to wherever you're watching, do that for us right now. Subscribe right now. You said hundreds have subscribed today. Yeah, I'm trying to get the final number but it's coming in rapidly so hundreds have subscribed. So subscribe and share this feed with your friends even though we're in the last segment of the broadcast because it'll keep it in the feeds. We encourage you to do that as well.

Absolutely. Let's go to Joyce who's calling from Florida online too, watching on YouTube. Big, big day for YouTube. Joyce, you're on the air. Hey, Joyce. Hi.

Thank you for taking my call. I've got what probably is a dumb question. No, it's a good question.

The questions we're getting have been unreal so go ahead. Well, I was just kind of wondering if this stuff had been kind of like pushed beyond the 24 elections, would Hunter Biden, if President Biden was not in as President, would he be getting this kind of favor then if Biden wasn't in? I don't personally, I don't think so. I think that this was Presidential privilege, if you will, not from the legal standpoint, but I think that's a very good question, Joyce. I think also that there is more at play here than we know. Their networks are very still confused on what has actually happened.

We'll have obviously an update tomorrow on the broadcast. But look, when a President is sitting in office, he cannot be criminally charged. We argued that successfully before the United States Senate. I did the argument. I was on the floor of the Senate for three weeks on the first impeachment.

It was a lot of that. You can only impeach a President. Once impeached, you can bring charges. But you can't bring charges while they're in office. A sitting President cannot be indicted, and that's the way it should be.

The children of the President, it's different, but they still are protectees of the Secret Service. So you have that whole issue overriding all of this. But look, this is where people are wondering what in the world is going on and then the loss of faith in the institutions. Remember, it was just yesterday we reported that the FBI was surveilling a United States senator, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said how wrong that was, and the National Security Division of the FBI said there was no basis to do it. So all of this together is having an impact.

So are those hearings on Capitol Hill. All right, thank you for calling. Steve, we've got time for one last call.

Steve on Rumble from Texas, you're on the air. Yeah, I think it's pretty simple. I think just Garland and Wise want to avoid testifying before the House committees, so they can rely on their ongoing investigation excuse, and then Hunter is going to be released. I think that's what this is.

I think that's what this is. I think they want to be able to say, while we've settled the case, there's an ongoing investigation. Does that mean anything? Probably not. Because we know, at least it's been alleged, that they're not letting the U.S. attorney who's in charge in Delaware go to any other jurisdiction. Period. They're not letting them do it.

So what does that tell me? It's not going anywhere. Sure, we only have a minute and a half left on this broadcast, and I want to encourage all of you who are brand new to the broadcast to hit that subscribe button. We appreciate it. We will be back, and we hope you join us back tomorrow at the same time. So whether you're watching it, if you're watching it live, that is at noon Eastern time, work your way back as you will. We also need the show is posted regularly. Immediately following the show is posted, but there's also great additional content all available on our channels, also available on ACLJ.org. As we wrap this up, I want to encourage you to do one thing. Check out the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

We're at the end of our matching challenge. That means there are other donors. They offer their support, and they'll match your donation just for this month. So ACLJ.org, donate today. We also are running a poll right now, because we are really trying to get a feeling of our listenership, because yesterday, things were a little different than maybe you'd expect. It wasn't 100% people that said, yeah, impeach Joe Biden, because a lot of people wrote. Well, then you get a President Harris, and what does that look like?

Could be two terms of Harris. So we'd love for you to go to ACLJ.org slash poll. It's very simple. Do you think President Biden should be impeached? I want to hear from you. Do you feel that way?

That obviously stemmed from Kevin McCarthy's comments on Sean Hannity's show. All right, that's going to do it for today on Sekulow. Thank you so much to all the new people who are joining us and have been watching. We really appreciate that. We're here to support the work of the ACLJ. It keeps us broadcast on the air, gives you analysis like this, keeps our lawyers around the globe. ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. We will talk to you tomorrow.