Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

UNDER OATH: Hunter Biden Impeachment Testimony On Capitol Hill

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 28, 2024 1:15 pm

UNDER OATH: Hunter Biden Impeachment Testimony On Capitol Hill

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1045 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


February 28, 2024 1:15 pm

Hunter Biden is testifying under oath today for the House Oversight Committee about his overseas business dealings (e.g., the Ukraine bribery scandal) and whether President Joe Biden was involved. Hunter also slammed House Republicans for the probe into his family and the impeachment hearings for his father. The Sekulow team discusses the Hunter Biden scandal and the deposition’s potential fallout for President Biden, the ACLJ’s victory in Nevada, the ongoing border crisis and possible impeachment trial for DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, President Trump’s primary victory in Michigan against former Governor Nikki Haley – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Today on Sekulow, happening now, Hunter Biden's impeachment testimony on Capitol Hill. 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. All right, welcome to Sekulow. So as we are talking to you, Hunter Biden is talking to congressional committees behind closed doors. There's two unique parts of this deposition that's taking place today, and this is in light of the opening of an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. So the questioning really goes to not just trying to take down Hunter Biden, who's got two active criminal cases, and if he's asked about those, he's going to take the fifth, but more about Joe Biden because the House will then have to decide after all these hearings and depositions, do they believe they've got enough information to put forward articles of impeachment and vote on those, just take some majority vote and then deliver them to the Senate for a trial. So this is probably one of the, or the most important person they will be interviewing and we won't see the video. There is no video. There will not be video, but what we will get is a transcript, maybe as soon as this evening, but they said at least within 24 hours, both sides, Democrats and Republicans have said they're only going to redact like anything classified or anything that would name a undisclosed witness for protection, things like that.

So they don't expect to have any issues. Both sides have come to a full agreement on what they have to remove from it and what everyone will see. So I think we will then get a transcript that will tell us everything about the direction of this impeachment inquiry, because they're either going to get some bombshells or it's going to be a lot of pushing back and a lot of maybe innuendo and smokescreens, but maybe not enough to actually put forward articles of impeachment.

We just don't know yet. And they're also, this comes off of the fact that they've had the big witness supposed to be the FBI witness with the 1023 ends up being a total bust to where they've actually, that guy's been arrested now twice. Hunter Biden is represented by a very good friend of ours, Abby Lowell, who you worked with and I worked with. He represented Jared and Ivanka Trump during the Mueller investigation. I would say Abby's in the top three criminal defense lawyers in the country. And I'd probably put him as number one. He's brilliant. He's going to be aggressive.

He is the reason that there is no video of this deposition. Right. So look, they'll get information that might be probative and helpful. If it touches on what issues he's been charged criminally with, any lawyer would instruct his client to assert his fifth amendment privilege.

Yeah. And this is really what we expect is, it's going to be interesting. Usually these depositions, just to give you kind of some inside information, maybe a couple of congressmen chairs participate. We are hearing that almost all members of Congress on these committees are preparing to take part. I don't know that they will all necessarily ask questions. One member of Congress was on TV before me on Newsmax this morning and said, he's a pretty new member on the committee.

So by the time it gets to him, there might not be anything left to ask, but he'll be there in the room. So this is going to be different than just, usually it's the councils to the committee and their staff who do the bulk of the questioning in these behind closed doors hearings. And then if they decide to do a public hearing, that's when the congressmen ask the questions.

Here, we're going to get a mix. So you're going to see the chief counsels for each of these committees likely ask questions, but you're also going to see in the transcript, people like Jim Jordan and Comer, names that you know, asking questions. And you have to understand what the questions are going to focus on because what you said, Jordan is right. This is a question about the impeachment of the President. So it's going to be issues related to that. If it's taxes or the gun charge, not going to happen. My question for you at 1-800-684-3110, do you think that this deposition will give them enough information to bring forward articles of impeachment?

Just I want to get your thoughts on it after you just heard what everything we said about how it's structured. 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. We'll take a lot of your phone calls. We're going to update you on what happened in Georgia as well. We're going to take you inside what a deposition looks like. Yes.

And of course, the Supreme Court has not yet issued its opinions on the 14th amendment or on the immunity stay by President Trump. We will give you some analysis of what we expect there as well. We get back on Sekulow. Share it with your friends and family.

All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. So let's go right into what it is like inside right now, the committee room where Hunter Biden is providing this deposition being questioned. He'll be questioned by both Republicans and Democrats. It looks like, unusually, he'll be questioned mostly by members of Congress. Usually they don't do as much questioning at this stage.

They do more if you do a public hearing, but they have all said they're going to be in the room. And so it's going to be a much bigger room than you would usually imagine. So a much larger room than you'd usually see if it was video, but this won't be videoed.

The difference is instead of no video, we're going to get as an immediate transcript as possible. Could be tonight, because this could go eight hours with breaks. So it could be late in the evening.

It could be tonight, could be tomorrow. But they said their goal is no less, no more than 24 hours. That's an agreement between Republicans and Democrats and the Biden legal team. So dad, it's a different kind of questioning than you'd usually see for a congressional witness who would probably just be talking to a legal staff of the committee. So there are a couple of differences. What you're used to seeing in the external, when you see it on, you know, a live hearing or a big hearing is you have five minutes statements by the members and then some questioning. This is much more structured.

I want to take you inside the committee room. This is structured much more like a deposition in a criminal case or a civil case where you're actually asked questions that are then answered. So it's not a lot of grandstanding. Now the lawyers will interject, Hunter Biden lawyers will interject, Abbie Lowell interject if he thinks something's inappropriate, if he thinks it's subject to fifth amendment privilege, if he thinks it's outside the scope of the congressional standard is legitimate inquiry. Um, that's when you can look at this.

So it's a much more, um, I would say it's less TV and more substantive. That's what the idea is. Can you get evidence from him relevant to this issue? Here's the question. There's going to be no video. So we're going to have the transcript, but there is this, I think Jordan hanging over this, there's this pale of concern that after the last big witness blew up, totally blew up, you gotta be very careful how you proceed on all this. And what we're talking about that last big witness, that was the FBI, the 10 23 for me, I'm taking you back to remember Grassley.

They found, they said they know about a form and they were very careful. They said, this is just, I get an informant that, that, uh, put this information forward. So it hadn't been verified, but who had talked about this $10 million bribe, basically, uh, to the Biden's 5 million to Hunter 5 million to Joe Biden. And then, uh, through a Burisma deal, if, if, you know, if they did this for Burisma that for Brisbane, which would be the kind of thing you'd get impeached over because it'd be like bribery. And that person now who has been a paid informant by the FBI before was arrested for, uh, uh, just making that up.

And, uh, is it both, uh, Russian and Israeli, uh, citizen, but has been a paid FBI informant and has been arrested twice now, once was let out on their own accord. And then at their attorney's office in Vegas got arrested again, uh, because they feel like there's a risk here, uh, to something happening to this person who was this asset, but that has been found to be untrue. And, uh, they have brought the charges forward is that that is because that person had no contact with Burisma at all, that they've been able to document that they'll have to take that to court and actually prove it. Uh, but that certainly hurts because that would have been something that would have definitely been asked about, but for that person's now, uh, entire 10 23 being in doubt, he hasn't been found guilty yet, but, uh, it's been taking, it's been taken seriously enough by the U S government that he needs to remain behind bars because he is a asset that was filing, uh, uh, inappropriate or, or factual statements. And you don't want that about filed about you either, uh, because of some animus towards, uh, Joe Biden. And they went to the fact that, that he had no contact with Burisma. So he knew nothing more about Burisma than you or me. So this is a different situation because you've got Hunter Biden coming in as a fact witness.

So understand what that means. He, they are questioning him because they have specific questions. They want answered about transactions that may implicate, implicate the President. If they get into issues that implicate Hunter Biden as to his tax situation, which is subject to an indictment and he's pled not guilty to, or the gun charge, the lawyer, Abby Lowell and his colleagues will assert the privilege. The fifth amendment privilege means you do not have to testify and you cannot draw an inference from that invocation of the fifth amendment that you're guilty. Innocent people, Supreme Court case take the fifth, especially when they think it's an overzealous prosecutor.

By the way, a lot of witnesses that we were dealing with in the Russia probe took the fifth amendment too, not because they thought they were guilty, but because they did not trust the prosecution. So this is not a prosecutor, but all of this is part of the impeachment process. So I think we've got to be, go into it, understanding kind of the scope and nature of what's really at play here.

Yeah, I think so too. And I want to go to your phones 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Todd in Georgia on line three, because I think this will be an important one and we've got the sound for it, Todd.

Welcome to the broadcast, you're on the air. Yes. My question is, do you think the video of Biden bragging to the council on foreign relations about getting the prosecutor fired and the video of Hunter Biden, his interview on ABC, I think, where he admitted he had no qualifications to be on that board? Do you think that'll be part of this inquiry? You know, I think they will certainly ask about it. Let's play the flashback. This goes back to 2018.

And I'll explain to you how it could be relevant and how it could be irrelevant based off what other information they find out. But let's listen to now President Biden, this is when he was vice President again. President when he talked about this, vice President when it happened, bite 31. I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had, they were walking out to press conference and I said, I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the President. The President said, I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.

I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm going to be leaving here. And I think it was what, six hours.

I looked, I said, I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a... Got fired.

And they put in place someone who was solid. Here's the problem. He admits to using the leverage of the presidency or vice presidency, but the office of the President as well, to remove the prosecutor that was investigating the company that his son sat on the board of. I mean, that's what people need to be thinking about here. Now, doesn't that raise to a high crime and misdemeanor? The problem is the Democrats lowered the bar on impeachment so low that anything becomes a high crime and misdemeanor. So you got to tie it to, you'd have to tie that billion dollars and the firing to something that financially benefited Joe Biden.

Correct. Or benefited his family. And that's what the investigators have to find.

And they have not found that yet. I mean, there was question about some people said he wasn't doing enough on Burisma. Others have said, no, he was fired because he was looking at Burisma too much.

It hasn't been finalized. There has not been a final determination of fact of whether or not he was fired. And there was a lot of other countries asking him to be fired so they can lean on that. But can you connect it to Joe Biden benefiting personally or Hunter Biden or the Biden family benefiting financially personally by having that prosecutor fired? That's how you'd have, that would have to, if you're going to get an article of impeachment out of it.

Does it all sound kind of, uh, yeah. What do you think is going to happen? You know, I think that the 1023 hit was not good. And I think I kind of agree with a lot of people out there, which is that they are upset with a lot of the Biden policies. I think that, you know, could you take the, what he's done at the border almost and what they did to Mayorkas instead of flip that to Biden.

You're also getting late in the game here. I mean, this is kind of like the 14th amendment case, not yet out by the Supreme court, you know, at some point the voters are really focusing on the next President and they're going to make decisions based off where the economy is in the next few months and not so much on these issues. Now, if there's a full impeachment trial in the U S Senate, which is not likely, which again, house investigators have not, they're not like a hundred percent, like they were with Trump, like they're getting to that.

If they feel like they're going to look like laughing stocks, bringing over these articles of impeachment, they won't have the votes. Well, so far, I mean, the situation with the 1023 was devastating. Can I say this to our audience?

And you, you said it, I had been warning about that Jordan for how long, two years? That watch it because all the 1023 is, is a witness statement and they could say anything. So that ended up being nothing. Now, the next question is let's get to this friend.

We only got about a minute and a half left. You had the hearing yesterday with Fawnee Wells. It'll be very, the closing arguments are Friday. I don't know if she gets thrown off the case or not. I think it's a, I don't know if they scored points yesterday or on this, even though the judge cleared the privilege issue, it seems like they could never quite hammer down. There may be enough to disqualify. We'll see what happens there.

Let me give a Supreme Court thing. I think Friday is going to be, I don't know this, but I think Friday is going to be a big day. I think we could see the immunity case where the stays either denied or granted or turned into a cert petition. I think we could see the disqualification case tomorrow or Friday. So I think by Friday, we're going to have a lot of answers on some of these cases.

I want to get more of your information too about Georgia. If you've got questions about what happened to that hearing yesterday involving Wade's former law partner and him not using privilege, 1-800-684-3110 to get your calls and questions in about the Fannie Willis matter. There's going to be closing arguments of that. Then the judge says he'll issue a decision I think next week. So it's not coming at the, there will be more this week. And the judge is up for election the next week. No, two weeks later. Yeah.

So I mean, it's got a lot of politics going on there as well. 1-800-684-3110 to join us on the air. And of course you can support our work as an ACLJ champion at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secchios. We take your calls 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We'll still get into the matter in Georgia explained yesterday. I know we've got some calls coming in about that. We'll get into that in just a minute. Kind of how that looks and what that looked like yesterday. The questioning of the former legal partner of Wade, who was the special counsel brought in on this case and the relationship issues and all of that. But I did want to get to, and we're going to get into even more of this later in the next couple of shows. But in ACLJ, we beat back a motion to dismiss. This was the case out of Nevada. Remember, I'll bring in C.C.

Howe. This was that teenage student who had, you put these monologues in, basically you randomly selected a monologue. Hers was filled with both profanity and really overly so vulgar that at the school board meeting, her mother tried to read it out just so that they would understand what they asked her teenage daughter to read and they shut her down.

It was interesting. They said the mother's claim can't go forward. The daughter's claims can from the classroom. The mother's claims can't go forward, the judge said, because having a restriction at a school board meeting to not allow profanity and that kind of language was content neutral and appropriate. So I thought that was, he was, by the way, you could argue whether it still should have go forward.

The case is going to go forward, but it was interesting. But in the classroom, it was very, very different. Absolutely.

You cannot say these profanities at a school board meeting, but a child forced, compelled to say them in class. Well, that's totally fine. And of course, it is not. That's exactly right. So we actually won.

Well, let's talk about what we, let's, let's set up what it is, because where we are. So I think it's important to point out what the status is. They filed a motion to dismiss everything to try to get the whole case thrown out. This was the second go round. So all they got thrown out was that the mother's being cut off at the school board meeting with a no-go.

Okay. And there were some immunity issues with some of the individuals. But what they did not get thrown out, now we get to go to court on and write back on first CC is the first amendment claim.

Yeah. So the first amendment claim that the student has survives. And then both her compelled speech claims against both the school board and the teacher survives. Her constitutional claim under Nevada law survives. And here's the key one.

Yes. So her assault and battery claims survives. And that's when the teacher actually grabbed her after verbally assaulting her, she grabbed her and held her. And so that assault and battery claims survived.

Now let me talk about this for a minute. This is, folks, this is going to be a gigantic fight because we beat back the motion to dismiss, which is great, which means we can now proceed to discovery and then to the jury trial, to a jury trial. But they're going to fight back hard because that assault claim, let me tell you, of all the claims that that school board wanted dismissed, CC, the one they want to dismiss the most, trust me, was that assault and battery claim. Absolutely.

When you have a teacher that not only verbally threatens a student, but then goes further and grabs her and shakes her, holds her and scares her, that is a claim that you don't want to go forward. And by the way, the judge acknowledged that the teacher had reviewed the content of these monologues. Yes, absolutely. She had read the teacher had read the content of the monologues and she had approved it.

So she approved this explicit language to go through and have a student be forced to read it. Yeah. So that's where that is. We'll have more information on it next week.

Our team is out there right now, by the way, in Nevada, meeting with the client. The battle on this now really begins. They were trying to get the whole thing thrown out. Which on the first complaint they did.

We came in, amended the complaint and we accepted it. I mean, there was no pediological reason why this needed to go forward. In other words, it should not have been in a classroom. This is not educational in any way. The judge was appointed by Barack Obama.

Yes. So this is not, again, this is not some conservative judge leading without a conservative issue involving what's going on in the classroom. And again, this student, after the verbal assault, asked the school specifically said, do not put me in the room with this teacher one-on-one.

And they did. And that's when the assault and battery that she alleges occurred. And that alleging of assault and battery now moves forward into court, which as you said, that's when school districts, when it's not just, it's speech plus assault and battery. So it changes everything.

It does. But this is the kind of core work the ACLJ is doing now because when you're protecting students at the schools, and these are under 18 at some of these schools in the high school setting, you're not just talking about now their speech, but the speech they're forced to compel to give, which could be so damaging to them that that is a harm to them, this compelling speech. And also the way that they are attacked by faculty on these school campuses.

It's not a college campus, it's a high school campus. Yeah. So anyways, the case goes forward. It's going to be a major hearing, major trial, a lot of discoveries going to have to take place.

Our team is out there right now. So I just want to give everybody an update. We'll have more on it next week.

It's a long opinion, very pleased with the outcome. Let's go ahead and take, join some of these other calls that were coming in on some of the other matters we're talking about. Sure. Let's go to Ryan first.

It made online one. Hey, Ryan. Hey, good morning, guys. Question. This mess in Georgia, you know, isn't it not just impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety? I mean, do they even need to prove that this started beforehand? I mean, they do need to prove that it started beforehand because that's where the impropriety comes in.

But you're right. It's the appearance, the standard, the judicial standard is you have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And boy, I don't think they've avoided that here, Cece, in my view. And I think if you're watching it, they almost have proved that it was inappropriate. I mean- It's just the way they're reacting.

Yeah, absolutely. The hearing yesterday wasn't great. Bradley was very coy, but he did have one issue, which again, the judge wouldn't let into evidence, but the judge is making the decision and he heard it over and over. And this is a text message.

And it's one where they're playing, they're playing actually Bradley say, oh gosh, or something like, oh, darn, because when he reads it, and it's a text message between him and the defense attorney before he was like a witness or hostile witness. And the text message basically says, you know, don't you think they should either have just dated or just hired him, but not both? And then she said to him, do you think that they were doing both of that before?

You know, were they dating before she decided to hire him? And he said, yes. And then he came back in the hearing and said- Not sure.

He was just speculating. Now, this is a guy who was handling a divorce for, which again, you imagine some of these issues might come up in the divorce. And also was his law partner, a law partner who just brought in $700,000 to the firm.

Pretty big- Let me tell you the swing and the miss here. It wasn't allowed into evidence, but it's not a jury issue. The judge heard it over and over. And we talked about that appearance of impropriety, which I talked about on TV today too. That's different than this standard than like in a criminal case. Can I tell you where the swing and the miss was though in the hearing? When he said I was speculating, all the lawyers had to do is the next question, was say, what was the basis upon which you drew that speculation and conclusion? And they never did.

Inexplicable to me, but I'm not the lawyer doing it, so what can I say? But that's the question you would have asked. What is the basis of your speculation? Was it your observations? Was it communications? Was it chatter and talk in the office?

What was it? That's what you want to know. But you know what?

All these lawyers were on the payroll of Fawnee Willis, including this guy's firm, because he was Wade's partner. So it reeks. They need to throw that whole thing out. That's what they need to do.

There's a lot of politics at play. I think the right thing would be to do is she's gone, the DA's office is gone. Feel bad for the judge.

He's running for reelection like in two weeks. Yeah, the DA's gone, and this case should be done. But I don't know that that's going to be the case. I'm not confident yet of that. Certainly not confident after yesterday, but there will be- We'll see the closing arguments Friday. Yeah, there's going to be more arguments to it. And probably a decision next week. Yeah, so this took almost, this took a month to get to this point.

We'll be right back, second half hour coming up. Become an ACLJ champion, ACLJ.org slash champion. Find out about it. Be at the tip of the spear of the work that we do. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. We do have some breaking news involving the US Senate and the leader of the Republican Party has been the majority leader before, minority leader before, and that is Senator Mitch McConnell has announced that he will step down from his leadership role in November. At that time, he will step down as the longest serving leader in history.

So I think people expected this to be happening fairly soon because of his health challenges. He's not up for reelection for another few years. So I don't think he's leaving the Senate. So he's just stepping down from the leadership role.

He will take more of a backseat role in the Senate. He's gotten some flack, but Jordan and I can testify to this. Let me tell you something, during that impeachment trial, he was a rock star. He was incredible during that impeachment.

Yeah. It was a pleasure. He's been a pleasure to work with. We've had a great relationship with Mitch McConnell. He has served his country. He's had a set of health challenges that I think are...

I'm not a doctor, but they seem to be serious enough where he needs to step back and at 82, that's a good idea. And I think you're going to see what, John Thune or John Cornyn is probably the top two. Yeah, you'll see a whole group that'll come forward to run for that. Who do you think it'll be? I mean, I think, listen, you've got, you said Thune and Cornyn, I'm trying to think, Barrasso, could be others that we're not thinking, always someone that you're not thinking of, usually, because one of the more conservatives may try to go for it, like a Cotton or Ron Johnson, or even a...

I'm trying to think, Cotton or Ron Johnson, even a Hawley. I mean, you could have one of them. The younger ones?

Yeah. Try to go for it too and say, we need younger that are more connected to the MAGA movement. That'll now start happening, but he's not stepping down today.

He's stepping down November. Let's do Dan's call out of Minnesota. Hey, Dan, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Hey, thanks so much, guys. Say, can Donald Trump sue the state of New York for their improprieties, the travesty of justice that's there? Well, here's the problem. He was the defendant in the case and lost, and they did not counterclaim. So you can, in civil litigation, bring a counterclaim.

As far as I can remember, there certainly was not an adjudication on a counterclaim. So there's nothing for him to... Yeah. So all he can do at this point is the appeal. Right. Yeah.

The counterclaim, him not filing a counterclaim kind of indicates that he didn't think he had any claims to be brought. It could be adjudicated. Yeah. So Dan, the answer is yes, he could have, but he'd elected not to.

Yeah. It said they're appealing, and that appeal notice has gone out, then he'll post the bond. Still, he's got to post the bond.

It'll take a year or more. A lot of the appeal will be based on the financial penalty. It's being almost an... We talked about the Eighth Amendment. We talked about the Eighth Amendment. Yeah.

That includes financial penalties, the Eighth Amendment. Want to try to grab one more? Yeah. We can try to grab... Let's see. Let's go to Mary in Pennsylvania on Line 3.

Watch on Rumble. Hey, Mary. You're on the air. All right. Let's go to Mike in Ohio. I think, Mary, is there? No.

Let's go to Mike in Ohio. All right. Hi. I contribute to you guys.

You do great work. I'm going to make it quick. Why not offer Nathan limited immunity? You got eight hours to accept it, but you named every name in the White House you met with, in the state government, in the prosecutor's office, every name.

That's the problem, Mike. He's not being charged with a crime. Right now, it's just a disqualification issue, which is in a criminal case, but it's a procedural motion. If they do ever face criminal issues based off their testimony under oath, this case is likely already over. A new DEA, it's hard for me to imagine one to have to start from scratch with a brand new team and try to get this done before the election.

They'd have to start from zero, because all of this would be considered tainted, and the entire team would have to be replaced. Now, there could be someone looking at, the AG in Georgia could be looking at criminal issues involving their testimony under oath. It's weird, because this was a hearing that became a trial within a trial. Yeah.

It really did. I think the trial judge has done a good job. It's a very tough call he's got to make. Yes, and these are all elected officials. The judge is elected, and he's running with us. He's up in three weeks. Right.

Again, so a lot of that would happen later on. I think if you're President Trump right now, you just say, is she out? And if she's out, is anyone else, is the case done? That's the big win there.

Whatever else happens to them later on is not going to be so important come the Presidential election in November. We'll take your calls again, 1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us as well. You don't want to miss that. All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnell is joining us now.

Rick, I want to get right into this with you. First, with Hunter Biden, it's been a long time coming, but finally there was an agreement made between Hunter Biden's legal team and the Republican committees to have a testimony. It's behind closed doors, which it usually is. It's not being videoed, but instead of that, Republicans and Democrats agreed to release a full transcript at the latest within 24 hours. These can go on pretty long.

These would be eight and nine hours. So it might not be, it could be later on this evening, but with very little redactions. They said the only redaction would be made if there was something classified that they had to redact and that Republicans and Democrats have agreed to that to get this out quickly. So again, we also though, Rick, know that in light of this, this is focusing on the Joe Biden, whether there is grounds for impeachment within Hunter Biden's testimony. What do you think these Republicans, and we know now Rick too today, unlike most of these committee behind closed doors, where maybe a Congressman or two will show up to ask questions, that most of the questioning it looks like is going to be done by members of Congress. So what do you think we learned once we see this transcript? Well, first of all, I just really don't understand how the Democrats can deny this corruption that's happening.

We've seen the text exchange from Hunter saying, I'm sitting here with my dad, he's using his dad. And then we see payments to Joe Biden for some sort of loan and they can't figure out how to push back and say, here's the loan. We don't even know what the loan is about, but clearly Joe Biden is getting money for a loan. Those two things right there show corruption. Now, if the Democrats want to say Washington DC is full of corruption and this doesn't rise to the level of a high crime, that's a different argument because everybody's corrupt and this is not that corrupt. That to me is what I'm hearing out of Washington DC is in the scheme of things, in the scheme of all of corruption in Washington, this doesn't rise to that high of a big deal.

Using your dad's name, if he's a Senator or Vice President or even President to get deals being done and throw it on the phone or have him show up at a dinner every once in a while to shake people's hands and take a picture, that that's a normal practice, even though there could be conflicts there and that doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offense. I mean, I think to be honest, Rick, right now, the Republicans handled it the right way, which is by, instead of the way Democrats rushed to impeach President Trump, they're taking it step by step. They're making sure they can ask the people the right questions. And if they don't think they have enough information to take to the US Senate, I don't think they will. I think that, again, they will expose as much as they can. And if they are stonewalled and we're getting too close to the election, which we're already starting to get pretty close to the election, that they're not going to come up and look like as ridiculous as the Democrats did in the first impeachment against President Trump and then the second impeachment against former President Trump. Look, I think what the Republicans have done very successfully is expose the hypocrisy of Washington, DC.

We all see the evidence there. And to have the media and the Democratic operatives say, well, this doesn't go to Joe Biden directly. And most people outside of Washington are like, look, this may be a Tuesday in Washington, DC. This is an occurrence that happens all the time. But this doesn't happen in the real world.

You don't use your dad's name when your dad is the vice President of the United States to scare people into submission. And so I think the corruption has been exposed. We all see it. And what we're seeing from Washington is a collective yawn that they are really not that serious about corruption. That is what the American people need to see and hear. Also, I want to talk about the immigration issue, because, you know, Democrats, they get close to the election and they realize, wait, this issue is number one amongst Republicans.

And now it's starting to poll number one amongst Democrats as well. And so you've got Joe Biden today in the Del Rio district. And then you've also got President Trump is in Del Rio. Biden is scheduled to be more in the Brownsville area.

Del Rio has a lot more action where President Trump is going in Eagle Pass. But there's even been talk about, you know, reissuing some of these Trump executive orders on the border under different names quickly to try and get things done. Even talk about Rick shutting down the border for a period of weeks or even a month because of these recent crimes that have been connected to illegal immigrants who have, you know, been in prison before, been arrested before and are out, you know, once or twice. Doesn't sound like that would happen to any of us as Americans in a system like this.

But somehow they keep getting released and end up killing people. And that this is no longer just a Republican top issue for voters. It's a top issue for Americans. And so they're going to I feel like, Rick, you know, we're political guys, too. They're going to rush to try and make it look like they're doing something.

Yeah, there's no question. We spent three years with Democrats denying that anything was wrong. And then they moved into blaming Republicans for what they admitted was something wrong at the border. And now they're in complete political chaos and just scrambling to come up with something to do. This is an admission by the Democrats that they failed. They failed to close the border and they failed to realize that the American people were mad about it. And so now that there's violence, they're seeing the evidence.

Look, I'm beginning to believe that independents see this and we could see a blowout for Donald Trump in November because people have had it and they're not falling for the trickery in Washington, D.C. Problems and the deaths we've seen from the drugs. We've seen the crime now. You don't have to be a border state to have these issues. You know, it can be in Athens, Georgia, and it can be in, you know, upstate New York.

It can be. So it's not just California or Arizona and Texas. Of course, those are serious places because of the amount of people that are flowing there. But then it's hitting every community all across the country, whether it is the drugs, but the individuals too and criminal individuals like President Trump talks about. Who do you think these countries are happy to let go?

And a lot of times it is some of the worst actors in those countries who are willing to go through this process or work with cartels to both go across the border and smuggle drugs. And so, again, it becomes a number one issue. It's whether or not Joe Biden, who we've seen Rick go kind of like pro-Palestinian-ish for younger voters, does he try to go tougher on the border for more mainstream American voters?

But I wanted to get to this topic as well, because I think it's important. And that is Super Tuesday, where a lot of the early voting is starting to come to a close. I know it did in my home state, which is Super Tuesday state. So now we head to Super Tuesday. Do you think that, I mean, I think President Trump is the presumptive nominee already, but I think it's over the Republican race once the Super Tuesday numbers come in.

I mean, I don't know what Nikki Haley will exactly do, but I think that for the purposes of following it closely, President Trump can switch into a general campaign mode. Yeah, I think for all practical purposes, this race is over. I actually saw some really great news out of Michigan last night when the Republicans voting far outnumbered, the Democrats voting. What that means is there's excitement on the Republican side. Now, CNN and all the others are going to try to pretend like there's still a race, but I don't believe that there is a race. I think most people realize this is over and it's just a media thing. And so Donald Trump is focused on Joe Biden. There's excitement for Donald Trump and there is not excitement for Joe Biden. So we're going to see this race begin to go head to head.

I've also become convinced that Joe Biden is going to be their nominee. Later and later, putting someone else in that place, it's too late. It's too complicated to do. Rick, I always appreciate your insight and talk about all these issues with you. It's part of our team at the ACLJ. And folks, when we come back, I'm going to be taking your phone calls. You got a lot of phone calls about all these different cases going on. We're going to get into all of them. So hang on the line.

One line's open for you if you want to call it now, 1-800-684-3110. But I do want to mention too our ACLJ champions. Our ACLJ, we kept doing it briefly the last couple of days, but you are engaged in the biggest battles we face as ACLJ champions. We're seeing corruption running rampant at every level of our government schools. We talked about the Nevada case today, our case, local governments, state, the federal government. We're fighting to expose that corruption as we represent whistleblowers as well.

Weed out the deep state operatives behind it. You know how difficult of a job that is because they're fighting back as well. But your donations keep us fighting, whether it's Nevada and that student, whether it's that FBI whistleblower, whether it's the Jewish student with the pro-Israel shirt and making sure that is handled, she's being reprimanded and pulled in by a deed. And instead it was flipped on them because the ACLJ gets involved and they knew to contact us and that was great. They know to contact us because again, your financial support helps get our name out there at the ACLJ out there that we're available, that it doesn't cost to get our assistance and you get the best attorneys that you wouldn't even be able to afford.

These are attorneys that represent Presidents of the United States and Supreme Court cases, Court of Appeals cases that are experts in these areas of the law. And of course, we see the life issue, which is huge in the post row error. So we're grateful to our over 19,000 champions who fight alongside us here at the ACLJ. Those are individuals who have chosen an amount that they automatically donate monthly. So if you choose the amount that you're comfortable with and you put that in at ACLJ.org slash champions, and that comes out of your account each month.

So if it's $20 or $50, just what you're comfortable with, you are really at the tip of the scale. The tip of the spear fighting with us at the ACLJ because we know the resources we're going to have automatically because of our 19,000 champions. Let's get it to 20,000 today.

All right, welcome back to Secchia. We got a lot of calls to take. I do want to get though to, of course, last night we know with Michigan, President Trump, I've said this before, but once he got past New Hampshire, where you had a lot of people playing and they had that quick, the field got small real quick. You get past New Hampshire with a big win, which he did, and South Carolina with an overwhelming majority win, which he did.

Then you want to start getting big wins. And so that the media, left wing media stopped saying, oh, 40%, 45% of the Republicans still don't like you. And that's not usually the case just because they necessarily chose someone else in a primary. But in Michigan last night, where Nikki Haley was able to spend some resources, but not as many as she did, like in South Carolina, I've said for the game, you need to start seeing President Trump get to 70 to 75%. So on Super Tuesday, that's that key number.

And that's about where he got last night. So if you get there, you're basically put it into this campaign by next Tuesday. And Logan, 15 States, when one U.S. territory are voting on Super Tuesday, the early voting is done in some of these, not all of these States, but where we are, it is. And there's a different ways they're all set up.

I just want so people know, and what they can expect is realistic. So there's 874 delegates available on Super Tuesday, but about two thirds are in States with open or semi or semi open primaries. Let's go through what that means. An open primary is Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Minnesota. That means you go to the primary or caucus and you decide, yeah, you can only pick one party, but you can decide that day, which party you want to vote within for the Presidential nominee and others running within like the Republican or Democrat parties. You don't have to be registered independent or registered with that party to ask for that party's ballot. In fact, you could be registered Democrat and ask for a Republican ballot. Just means you can only vote in that one. So that's seven, again, big States. I still expected all of those, President Trump to win big.

Yeah. At this point, I don't see how he does it. Maybe there's some voters that go in and decide to try to cause a little bit of disruption there, but I really don't see it, especially in States like Tennessee and some of these big States where President Trump has won sort of landslide victories in the past. I don't see that really changing much. You brought up those sort of open primaries since we have here, we walk in and say out loud, which is always a little awkward, to be honest, of which ballot do we want?

And then they put it on the chip and put it in the digital reader. So it's an odd time. We've got so many calls though, and only a limited amount of time.

I want to walk through one thing though, just so people know. Before we get just this, there's two semi-closed primaries. And now for Republicans in a primary, these States are big. In the general election, they're much tougher States.

It's California and Colorado. Remember in Colorado is the case that stands right now. But remember the judge said, and the Supreme Court said, President Trump will remain on the ballot and the votes will be counted until the Supreme Court says yes or no. I think the Supreme Court will say yes or no before Super Tuesday. It didn't happen today yet. It could happen tomorrow.

It could even happen Monday. But I think if you're a Colorado Republican voter who voted early or is going to be voting on Tuesday, you can be confident that your vote is going to be counted if you vote for President Trump. And I think that will be made clear by the Supreme Court, I would hope by then.

Yeah. There's a lot of also, a lot of you said local races. So make sure, even if you think like, oh, this is a shoe in, I shouldn't even vote. A lot of them have local races with real impact. Go ahead and vote. If you want the Republican primary over with, like if you want Donald Trump to be the nominee, help his margin of victory. Because if you think, well, he's going to win, it likely will. If you want to make a statement the other way. Yeah, that's true too. If you want this race to continue, it's only going to happen. Like the sheriffs running, stuff like that, that really does matter in your area.

So make sure you stay tuned for that. Let's go to Ken who's calling in Virginia on Line 5. Ken, you're on the air. Hey, Ken. Hey. Good morning, guys.

Actually, good afternoon. The thing that I would say is in the Constitution, the second, second eighth amendment protects this type of judgment coming from that judge in New York against someone that's in politics, and they're trying to ruin them financially because there's no fraud, there's no bank loan that was not paid back. They've done everything they need to do, and all they need to use is the eighth amendment to stop this judgment from the judge. Well, the notice of appeal kit has been filed. That could certainly then. So in New York, you can file the notice of appeal, then you have to post the bond.

That's that almost $500 million has come to now. Then you get to file the appeal. I would imagine in that appeal, if they think they could have success there, that issue could certainly be raised. And you'd also want to look at provisions that were similar to that in the New York state constitution. State constitutions are able to take constitutional rights that we have, rights like against cruel and unusual punishments or excessive financial penalties, and they can actually expand those rights. They can't take away rights in the constitution, but you can give more rights than the US constitution does in a state constitution. So I think if those attorneys, you're going to work on that appeal, you're going to look at the eighth amendment, but you're also going to look at, is there anything similar in the New York state constitution or laws that you could even make an easier argument for to cut down that penalty to something even more reasonable while you continue to litigate this case in this bizarre part of New York law that allows New York to bring a fraud charge, even if there's no one alleging an outside harm.

None of the parties that gave out the loans have alleged that there was any wrongdoing, but New York thinks the way that Trump got the loans or the Trump organization got the loans was fraudulent because of how they put what they were worth on it, even though they got the loans and they repaid them back. It's goofy, but yes, that could certainly be raised later on. You want to take another call Logan? Yeah, let's go to Wayne who's calling in Texas online.

Wayne, welcome. Hi, I'm just kind of looking over the impeachment inquiry itself is focusing on actions that Biden did as a vice President. There were some issues about impeaching Trump post-presidency. So should an impeachment focus just on actions that someone does while in that office of presidency? Or is this a legitimate thing to go back and look at what he did, what he was doing prior to becoming President?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think you look at what they were doing previously. You have to connect it to what they're doing now, like what Hunter Biden is doing now. I mean, that's what these investigators have to do today is they've lost some of the best potential evidence. And that is, it looks like that 1023 has been discredited, the $10 million bribery, Burisma bribery. And we always said from the beginning, including Republicans who wanted that made public, that again, that was just something filed by an FBI informant with no one saying whether it was right or wrong.

And now they did. And they looked into it and they arrested the person who was their informant and have charged them with feeding improper information. So they actually, they had no, in the past they've provided good information. This time they had no connection to Burisma. They had no way of knowing any of this.

It was in their mind, in the US government's mind, completely fabricated. So you've got to point to some other issues. So yeah, I think you can look at what they did as vice President, but you want to connect it to what is happening during the presidency. Hunter Biden has continued to benefit economically. That's true. And we're going to get to see the transcript today.

Do the Republicans unearth anything new or tomorrow when we get the transcript, or is it the same old information? Yeah, absolutely. Hey, Tammy wanted to call in. I don't know if we have time to get to her. We only had one minute. We can do it real quick. Tammy, you're on the air very quickly.

You got like 20 seconds. Hi. I just wanted to say that I think the American people would be interested to know the reception that Biden gets from the people in Texas versus the reception that Trump is going to get. Well, here's the thing. They're going to different places. President Biden is going to be very, very controlled. So he's not going to see a lot of normal people. He's going to see a lot of government agencies going to a place where there's not nearly as bad of an issue.

I think there's only been like 12 people caught crossing the border. But President Trump's going to one where I think there's hundreds each day. It's going to be the closest they're going to get together the entire year. It might. It should be interesting.

I would imagine President Trump's will be a lot more interesting, to put it that way. All right. Thanks for watching today. Make sure you subscribe if you're watching on YouTube and support the work of the ACLJ. Become an ACLJ champion today. Go to ACLJ.org slash champions. Become a recurring donor. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-28 15:56:40 / 2024-02-28 16:17:50 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime