Black rifle coffee company seo founder Evan, Hey first started the company after twenty years, in the U S army as an instrument, special forces soldier and CIA contractor Evan founded Black Rifle and twenty fourteen, along with Army Ranger Matt best as combination of two passions, developing premium fresh, roasted coffee and honouring in supporting those serve on the front lines. Black rifle has donated over forty five thousand pounds of coffee or over one million cups of coffee. Two soldiers deployed overseas law enforcement officers, wild land, fire fighters and the West Coast and medical workers during the covert nineteen response. Just in this year,

alone for every coffee purchase you make throughout November. Black rifle will send a bag of its limited edition. Holiday rose to service, never currently deployed overseas, to be delivered by Christmas morning being founded and operated by. That's the team at black rifle knows what a quality cup of coffee means to active duty troops. Spending the holidays away from home went to support, cause, go to black rifle coffee dot com today and check out the freshest coffee in America. The team has spent thousands of ours tasting and sourcing and perfecting coffee from all over the world, lack rifle coffee, dot com and the promo code. An hour twenty promo code at our twenty gets you twenty percent of coffee, apparently gear as well. Twenty

off the first month of the coffee club, again black rifle coffee, dot, com, promo code and are twenty welcome to the Mccarthy report asked, where I read Lowry discuss with the Anti Mccarthy the latest legal and national security issues this week. What up at more on the post election litigation, including the Texas Supreme Court filing and the Hunter Biden investigation. Your listening to a national you, podcast or sponsor this week, is the carcass Europe more about that and do course he felicitous, Podcast NASH, review dot com or do I have you, but will be easier for you, a better for us to be made as part of your feet

The industry, MR forces out there from Spotify to Itunes, and please give this broadcasting Annie, Mccarthy the glowing indeed gushing, five star views they deserve on Itunes Now without further ado, I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle. The contracts feel tab app, none other than an Mccarthy Ritual Yeah I've got any hurry, you could. I was thinking you don't, let's change it up, election litigation, election litigation election. What occasion? So what are we gonna talk about? Besides that Hunter Biden, which was like the lasting we're talking? before a liking for the emotion felt, maybe someday we'll get new issues or or something, and I'm I'm almost done nostalgic for the mother, By that I mean there's more variety in the modern age,

So we have this Texas filing that's Supreme Court, which trump as called the big one. No one we ve all been waiting for. He had said ten eighteenth republican States file in support of taxes. Eve had reply briefs by four states targeted Miss again Wisconsin Pennsylvania and Georgia and I believe, also Texas, today were recording Friday afternoon also has replied to their plies or is about to what's what's important. Folks on here, yeah Texas did reply. As I understand it, rich. It's not clear to me that the Supreme Court ask them to reply. I think they just replied. Although The court may have done that. I haven't seen a schedule in order that contemplated that and

or, as I knew, that they hadn't done at this point, I think What's gonna happen, you don't just to cut to the chase. I assume that I wouldn't by son by closer business today. Are the Supreme Court will deny the motion to five a lawsuit. I guess we should done. We should make clear to people. Usually, when you file a lawsuit, you don't you go to court, you got the clerks office and you have a summons and complaint and you file the lawsuit, so it's filed and you know that you serve the parties and all that other jazz. This is a highly unusual lawsuit because of a provision of the constitution which is rarely involved, which allows a state to sue another state in the Supreme Court. In other words, the Supreme Court has what's known as original jurists,

diction over suits between. states where one sues another and it said Highly unusual process. This is a very unusual embarkation other because, usually when this comes up, it's over things like in a week their rights or the kind of you no sort of piddling tat territory. and commerce type things you can imagine come up. Often, they usually settled the things we are having to go to court, but when they do have these unusual cases, because this free court is not even a trial court. It's not a court. That is a finder of fact. What the court will customarily do is a sign. A man just read, or you know somebody to be the year supervisor of the litigation like a trial judge and that we will try. The issues as

kind of the agent of the Supreme Court, and in that way the court doesn't have to testimony you're or fine fax. It cannot function, Wait usually does- is on a pellet court, so the way it works. But when you dealing with this free court. Unlike all the other courts, specially the federal system be Supreme Court, is the master of its own docket. It doesn't have to take a case. It's the only court that that doesn't, in other certain cases that Not, for example, somebody gets arrested and they get indicted. They get a trial in federal district court. The district court doesn't have the already decide Now- and I want to hear that case they after hearing the Supreme Court has the authority over its own docket, so it could take it or not. Take it, and as a rule what Texas has filed, even though we keep calling the young, the Texas lawsuit, because they had to attend that to what they filed

What they actually file is emotion. for permission to file what they call a bill of complaint, which is the lawsuit Oh that's a preliminary matter. The question is: does the Supreme Court take the lawsuit at all? You know, far from like it, to the marriage or anything else. Can you convince the Supreme Court that they should take this case, and I would think that the Supreme Court will not take The case, which does go too, though, to the merits of it. But there's a lot of other reasons. It won't take it as well, so that the claim is that the rights of taxes have been infringed upon by the practices of these states and by the way, the these other states of all violated. Allegedly the electors clause and the costume in which the state legislature should said the man determine the matter of the selection of lecturers. Instead, you had courts in elections,

and others setting the rules. The text says: that's unconstitutional edge, permitted all sorts of fraud, and irregularities which have deluded the vote of Texas and potentially harmed it s, Cobbler Harris as vice president, and will be able to break ties in the Senate where Taxes Two centres yeah, the young? the big problem. They have no reason they had to reach for the Kemal a parasite is they they have to show. Some way that Texas is actually harmed because, under the constitution, Every state doesnt have a right to a say in every other states electoral votes. The state has a right to its own electoral, about it's gotta cognizance all interest in its own

Electoral about taxes has no authority to Michigan that it must end force or not enforce the laws of Michigan against the citizens of Michigan. That's not taxes, business and taxes would probably this is remembered. This is don't mess with taxes right. That's the state. We're talking about taxes would be the first one to tell you if some other state try to dictate to Texas how it enforced its own laws that They should mind their own business and its telling I've been Gub one of them. things that we learn. I actually saw this unknown apiece via a cayley Magee, I think it up at the young amateur, but it also win the young in the state briefs. came in yesterday as well. I'm text itself did it.

Happily what their complaining about the other states doing so in Texas for example, the legislature proscribed processes for how people vote an governor rabbit his own unilaterally in response to the corona virus, issued an executive order, state executive order, which extended male in voting and extended. person boating like the statutory time for beginning early voting, and he did that on the circumstances where you know. Obviously, thought he was doing the right thing for the people of Texas dealing with the pandemic and and the issues that flow from that, but as matter of constitutional law was just as offensive as what Texas is complaining. the Pennsylvania, Michigan Wisconsin and Georgia that the yeah,

now that someone other than the state legislature ended up dictating the of how elections get conducted when the constitution says that that's up to the state, legislatures so that that's Texas is big complaint. I should say rich that EU interests- realizing how the first thing I said to you sounds the reason. I think that the Supreme Court will throw the case out before the closer business is not because I have a crystal ball. It's because it so happens that the court usually meet during the term on Friday's in order consider which petitions for reviewing cases it'll taken. words which cases little except for Review so. Those meetings typically happens on Fridays.

And today just happens to be not only Friday but the last Friday that the court is scheduled to meet in twenty twenty before they take their Reese recess for the holidays. So I just think the fertility of back their meeting but this is our meeting today assume their meeting remotely since the courts not open, but since justices, have to be today anyway and, more importantly,. Because Monday is today under federal statute, that the electoral colleges schedule to vote And also because we are already in the safe harbour period, which is another reason why taxes losses Gunnar, isn't going anywhere get to that in a second but the the safe on the period started out on Tuesday. So I think because the court, is not going to want to

this carry on into Monday and create any doubt, or certainty about whether the electoral college vote goes forward, I assume that it all little rule today and it'll dismiss taxes, the soup, but they that's the reason I said it'd be today just because they happen to be me. Let him so little pause and will hear from our sponsor them are diagnosed with more details. Then These are my back and forth. If you try to share your political opinions, are social media lately you know it can be a frustrating experience between. anger, the virtual shouting, even fake accounts, it seems like civil compensation, is a thing of the past. Luckily, now there's carcass room, dot com, social media network exclusively for Sir, Room is an online community for conserves to gather, encourage and engage locally. Only real people who are verified caterers can become caucus, room number

but cocksure, while never share information with anyone ever signed. A process ensures your communicating with reopen service, not thoughts or Trolls Cox. Room allows you to engage with you neighbors. You have no idea how many conserves are hiding in your neighborhood. It's a great way to get gazed on issues where you can make the biggest difference locally because I'm, u can participate and lie virtual meetings that are so secure. The platform played house to over a dozen virtual republican Party can vent this year. You can also share news, jokes and find ways to get involved with causes near you all without fear of Silicon Valley. the overlords stopping you cocksure was made by.

forecast orders to get work and eyes and make a difference. Joint caucus room got com which can be found in Google play and soon in the app store again carcass room dot. Com that see a you see you ass are: oh, oh, am dad car coxcomb dot com. Please check it out everyone. So, regarding that the deadline, Annie, Safe Harbour deadline and the vote coming up on Monday Electra, college. One of the contentious of the tax issue will not of these deadlines mean anything the only date that really matters is January twentieth. So please, Supreme Court. Don't feel that that you have to decide this this afternoon, there's plenty of time that that we have two still hash this out and investigate the elections. Yeah rich when we, when we ve taught

about this over the last few days is this has come up and this morning knowing that we're gonna talk about this again, I took a look at them a bush. We gore which we mentioned last week that happened on jet in in the year two thousand that the Safe Harbour day, which is today that dutch so everyone knows what we're talking about with the safe harbour. What Congress statute says that once you hit the Safe Harbour Day, what that means is that the state has certified its election result under its own law as far as The federal government, is concerned its conclusive as of that date and the There is something: that we discussed up until now, which is that you don't they. to get this wrapped up rapidly, because the only thing it's not like that only thing. That's of concern here is getting the

election to some, like you know, super exact status of the, who won in exactly by how much and all that stuff you off, we are up against the idea that under institution on January twenty Eightth, and this is why, as you just mentioned, something so the only thing that matters is January twentieth under the constant should, on January twenty. If that twelve o clock noon, the car presidential term ends. So we need to get this resolved because that needs to be a president up and running and ready to go as of noon? On John or a twentieth? What you know regard whether it was president like Biden nor President Trump could pull a rabbit out of a hat and continue into a second term as or of law. This term ends at noon on that day. So this out, but this has to be resolved. That's the reason Congress proscribes these deadlines and

I mention that I looked at Bush versus Gore because. interesting way. This is something that the EU the trunk campaign has seized on, but not the that the Texas hasn't ceased the trunk campaigns as the only date that matters is January, sex, not January twentieth, because by statue January Sixtus today that Congress Camps devotes well the reason that they say January. Sex is because Justice Ginsburg has a dissenting opinion in Bush. Verses Gore where she basically takes the court to task for putting too much stock in the fact that Congress as a safe by day and then a date that it set for the electoral college and she says, look the only thing that matters is that Congress can meet on January. Sixteen cap about and what the the

campaign. Does it mention when they describe? That is the fact that it was not only a dissenting opinion, which means the minority opinion. It was decided minority opinion so with Bush versus Gore, What most people remember is that it was a five to four decision that essentially meant that Bush would De Vigo the election because they stop the count in Florida. What they don't remember, as conveniently that that be the court's ruling, that it had to rule in time for the safe harbour date with seventy two so a suitor too, with a liberal judges are just a suitor injustice. Briar actually voted with the conservatives, because I said you know what Congress has the writers to set these. These dates so

The thing is, if you think the January twentieth is, it is an important date because it comes from the constitution, then you should, I understand from that that every other day also comes from the constitution, and that's because, between the we article two of the constitution and the twentieth amendment. The constitution makes begin Congress plea Neri power to set the dates and the processes for counting electoral votes and then ultimately setting the electoral votes in Congress and in proceeding with the constitution's procedure for carrying the votes, which has been supplemented by statute, so the the dates that Congress, such by statue, have constitutional underpinnings, just like January twentieth, does and in

which person Gore itself. The Supreme Court says we don't have the power where bound by those states just like everybody else's, because there's nothing in the constitution that suggested the supreme. Or rather than Congress has a say in what those dates are. That being the case, you know, Texas, and I should stress I should I make this clear echoes what I wrote about this. I got it wrong. Texas filed its law suit on he said: four seven which was Monday of this week, I said my in my column about this. They had gotten it in a little after midnight on the eighth. and the reason I said that was because taxes said that initially they put out a oppressors. He's from the governors or from me.

General's office saying that they had filed on December rave. But when you look the court stock it it was actually docketed on December. Seven and reason I think Texas thinks that that's significant is because December at the Safe Harbour day, so that what they suggesting is that as long as they got their lawsuit and before the Safe Harbour day their fine, but I don't think that's relevant. I think what the Safe Harbour day basically protects? Is the states certification of the vote, which will respect all as for state happened before, but the days before December race and the the safe harbour doesn't stop operating to protect those certifications. Just because some files, a lawsuit, so, in other words the same

aid under its own law, has already certified its final vote. The fact that catches got it law suit in you know before that date doesn't make any difference to that fact. So I think that's another reason why the Supreme Court can punch on this or just to actually not punted but deny it because this is the court can also take the position even without get into the lack of merit and the lack of standing and the other problems with taxes is lawsuit. They can say at this point because the safe harbour kicked in on Tuesday and based on how the court reason that out in Bush versus or they could say they can't consider this any more because, as far as they are concerned, under federal Laud, those states ratification to finalize of Tuesday and they're not good at delay the electoral vote, which is coming Monday,

it seems to me that term than do the real date should be generous exquisite. Did they don't really count until converse accepts them right in, and here there is provision for Congress objecting to electors. So It seems so Congress as the ultimate arbitrary Hogan back let this closely, but there is in Hawaii in nineteen sixty three businesses first present russian state and Anyone by a hundred fifteen votes, but Nix was a had initially in the governor signed for next election and then he had to reach out- and I realize now, if thy Kennedy One and then he signed the Kennedy electors, I think they, both when a Nixon was providing presiding, was cut it a dramatic use vice president and the said no in a cat Kennedy one and were accepting it the Kennedy electors. But I assume that all happened. You know pretty close to January yell

well, he this is actually goes to the essential point that I hope we would get then I like to make here which- and I think this is really been lost in a lot- coverage, and that is this the two track process- there is a legal component of it and then the political component of it and what this, Greenport says in Bush versus Gore. They say this emphatically and names in other cases as well, including in a very political processes like drawing congressional districts, What they say is that you know there's a very small role for the courts. Play in these political processes, and connected with elections. In particular, they say that

mainly for the state courts, does you know, there's almost no federal role. I mean they jumped in ambush versus Gore because they had to under the peculiar circumstances that case, but what they are. It would you know they're almost apologizing every other page from four, even get involved because they say, if you look at the constitution, the constitution very clearly commit this to the states and the political sphere. So I think rich, that a distinction here is that it thing to say that the federal courts will respect the same harbour day. and will say you- don't look of a state of certified as of December as we are knocking on revisit that. We're we're gonna, consider that sacrosanct That's not binding it all on Congress, because, ultimately, this is a political resolution? It's not it's, not one that gets resolved by the courts and the

that's. Why? I think a lot of what's going on with Texas is suit, and particularly with these States who were trying to join into it is, if you think about it, what they are asking is for the Supreme Court to do their heavy lifting, They really don't think that ten so and Michigan and Wisconsin and Georgia's electoral vote should count They have a remedy. It's not like if the court's turn a deaf ear to them. They can't do anything can show up on January Sixth, and they can vote, they can object to the counting of those boats and they can vote not to take them. Now. You're, a people's people, look at that and say well by. Where have we had a how without work I mean? That's that politicizing the whole thing? Yes, it does its political, its politicize goes its political and every important thing you don't we we are kind of conditions, especially over the last half century, plus, to think that nothing

a resolved until the courts have put their imprimatur on it, but the fact of the matter is most of the things that we if we're gonna be a self determining country most of the things that we decide are supposed to be done by our elected representatives in EC in an accountable political way and that happens on January six, so you know it's it's one thing for these guys to to beat their chests and say: yes, Supreme Court, don't don't count their vote certain say they violated, the constitution void their election, which, of course the Supreme Court is not going to want to be responsible for doing it's quite another thing to go into Congress in cannibal way and make that org knowing that what ever Texas does too Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, kids,

its fourth, and even their due to Texas and that's how our political processes work out. So I'm betting that these you know these eighteen states now, nineteen with taxes that better asking the Supreme Court to knock out these four states votes when they show up on January. Sixth, how many of them do you think we're gonna? Ask two not count the votes of those twenty million people in those four states I'd. I'd, be surprised if a single one does, although you know it, President Trump is calling the Supreme Court's court case the big one. I dont know what he's gonna call January but I imagine that January Sixth, is gonna, be the earthquake, because the way the president's conduct, himself. I imagine that he's gonna put a lot of pressure on the. Can. national delegations of all the republican leaning states to vote against the counting of the EU.

The balance, especially in these states, where the state legislatures a Republican, and they voted for Biden, but I dont think they're gonna do it. I have read that the Georgia reply briefly. said convincing to me- and they make a couple of points, one with its ghost I say generally stay qua. wrote role here and they say ok, but taxes is basically doing in a text so leginn these violations of the letter cause, as we mentioned earlier, that they're trying to vindicate supposedly purportedly the the rights of the Georgia legislature to write the rules so or should that be

the Georgia Legislatures concern one and two of their really worried about this. Come ensue in Georgia, and you know, and by the way this is our already been litigated in Georgia and none of its been successful and that they also defend themselves, and I have seen a Texas revise. It is therefore states reply or delved into this independently by seems pretty commencing in Georgia brief here that they point out the Georgia legislation passed the election code and in the election code there's this provision that gives the the election bored pretty wide wrenching authority tis to propagate the rules, in keeping with the statute to make sure things are working smoothly in their uniformly in and what not- and certainly in Georgia it just doesn't seem, is cut and dried. Want to argue text was to argue in and trumpet what are you in Georgia that the consent degree that wraps burger entered into is his violin

not law, on whatever its wisdom of entering into that prior to the election it. Seem to me, certainly is certainly not a black and white violation of the of the georgian election code right. I think that not only is that right, I think, be what you just described as their argument mirrors. What the third circuit? U S? Court of appeals said when it dispensed with the trunk campaigns claims in Pennsylvania, which the district court in Pennsylvania did as well, which is if you remember in connection with their standing argument, these citizens of Pennsylvania and a candid and a candidate for office trunk campaign. to raise these claims in Pennsylvania. So you would you would think that there are a lot closer to that, a violation of the elect,

and in the electors clause and all that stuff there are like do it. Then Texas is right, which is which is more attenuated than than a candidate was running for office in the state and the citizens of the state whose rights are supposedly impact it and yet court of appeal said: you have to raise in federal court April you'll arise, concrete, non, speculative injury to you so even though you are citizens of Pennsylvania, their fail. To follow. If they did the elections, laws and the electors clause is not something that particularly injured you in any way, you have the same injury that every other person in Pennsylvania has and courts are not supposed to address issues Political policy matters is supposed to redress actual injuries, so what they said NED

in denying standing to the trunk campaign and to the people in Pennsylvania was if any one was injured, hear it as the legislature of Pennsylvania, whose, hours have been allegedly usurped by the way the bureaucrats in the election boards in this, and the highest court of the state change the election law, so they would intimated was if, if the if the legislators of Pennsylvania want to come here and soon we might To attain that, because they ve they ve got a concrete injury, we're not going to entertain that in connection with anyone else quoting a candidate for office. So if that's help, if that's how the federal court, which is the highest federal court, has ruled on these disputes,

or, if that's, how they resolved an issue with respect to people in the state itself where they were, the problem arose. How on earth is Texas even ever get into the door. So before the one hundred right, let's hit one other thing, which is some more litigation in Georgia. The disease actually pre game because it has to do with the the Senate run offs, but tell me about this this effort. What like this, and it goes to what you were just talking about, which is the consent decree, which means by the way which interests lazo, gets any traction they're going to test exact. What you were just talking about, which is how much sorry did. The state legislature of Georgia give to the executive branch in them and the bureau-

we see, because what they are arguing that this is a suit that brought on behalf of the Republican Party and the two republican candidates. Leffler, per due for the Senate run off? Elections are disposed to happen on January fifth and what they ve basically gone to court and said: is you know, look let's not have same situation? We have with respected the November third election, let's not after five million. people have voted come in, complain about election integrity. Let right now deal with the fact that this consent decree changes the conditions for how male in voting and tabulating- is done as they were prescribed by the Georgia lead later, and it argues that using the young, but these these statistical analysis, they argue

that, given the number the massive number of male in boats that came in connection with the twenty twenty presidential election, which are five hundred times more than what came in. They allege enough. It twenty sixteen and four hundred times more than what came. and twenty eighteen, they are arguing. Is that those prior years, there was a rate of our probably around three percent. And in this past election and twenty twenty, the error rate went to point three. site, and it was almost no reporting of ballot with no signatures which, in the ass. They ve always registered that you know the number of balanced attracting because they didn't have signatures, So what they're saying is, if you look at how, in fact this works out what it shows

is that the consent decree has made has made reviewing signature is so resourceintensive by increasing the number of people who have to review them before they can be disqualified- that as a practical matter There is no meaningful signature matching. if you're going to ratchet up now in voting, if any, saying that would argue for ratcheting up, be the same your matching and other election integrity procedures, but worse than you could possibly do for, election integrity is to work. We're down by making it harder to do so? That's that's their theory and I think which admirable about it is that they are trying to get it resolved before the election, and I think in the especially in the factual contacts that wherein given the complaints that have been made,

the twenty twenty election of the presidential election thereon a lot better footing and rich. It's it's a much better approach. I mean, if you think about it, A lot of the things that Republicans in the trunk campaign are complaining about they signed off on. I mean this discontented He was an agreement in the background to this so people. Now his these progressive activist organizations are all over the country and they are very well funded on trying to push way and a road election integrity provisions like identification and wood this is and signature matching and all the things that you need to make sure that a vote is an authentic, valid so they're all over the country and what they are doing is they wear out, be election officials in the state government officials who have to litigate the stuff to the point where you nobody,

we how much, how aggressive the litigation is and how much the court's, many of which have the democratic judges on them, how much they get leaned on by the courts as well. They finally throw up there and they say, oh sure, what's what sign an agreement? Let's have a stipulation, let's avid consent, degree gives you a lot of what you want and then what up happening is widely states, even otherwise Soldiers, as we see it in the states that we talk about them in their taxes suit. Even a legislators are republican. Government is Democrat, another Executive branches, Democrat and name loosened the joints even more on these things like the concentric rings, I'm nothing. Happened in Georgia. Words where its Republicans, but it happens and other places in the country, so this should be a clarion call. What happened in this election to everybody

that if you want to worry about election integrity, the time to do it is before the election happens and don't make all these stupid agreements that you that you know, if I'm a court, I have to say, if I'm a judge, unlike If you want to complain now about election integrity, why did you sign off on this agreement, which would essentially, I won t that this would would happen so good for them for going and before the election, and maybe they're the lesson going forward to the next two year and four year federal cycles is you should be tightening up these procedures, not loosening them. Sell us move on two hundred Biden. He publicly acknowledged on. today these under investigation. We, you already knew this dangerous report it before the election. Every other media outlets, pretty much tried, did to bury it. What you would make of it.

well. I wouldn't put too much stock rich in what Hunter says he's being investigated for our own reporting guy, at an hour had a poster. I want to say it was to say, I think, was the same day moves the day after Hunter, one public, which was around Wednesday. These days run together anymore, but but our guys noted that there were tax, wanes by the IRS and the District of Columbia. That would put on some abiden some hunters Papa property in two thousand. Seventeen, two thousand eighteen. So I thank you. No between Hunter Biden and the Biden transition, the button interesting way by the way hunters statement was put out by that the buggy Joe Biden, inflation, which is very interesting since ceased to be like five,

and it's a go. Joe Biden said the pointer was gonna, be have nothing to do with with the administration right, so that, and now they are putting out these statements goes there obviously concerned so, but date I think, are just trying to minimize this by putting out a statement that acknowledges something that was already a matter of public record, which is it would what Hunter said was I've been advised that does under investigation for tax issues that relate to two? the eighteen or everybody already nosey, as tax issues related to twenty eighteen, because these leans involve non payment of taxes. But I wouldn t get from him there that he is accurately representing whatever he may have been told about the investigation or that he even knows what the full scope of the investigation is. But I imagine what has happened here is, Gary he's got a great piece out about this today. Bill bar

the much maligned butter. In general, the most political evil many general in the history of attorney general's history of the world, but just America, billboard has known that Hunter Biden was under investigation, since at least sprang. What we now know is that he labour to keep that under wraps, because you didn't want to be accused of politicizing the investigation. So once it became clear that Biden, I'm sorry for defining the election, so once it became, did I say that right bullet it? Well, politicizing you knowing that, I suppose the border, but a bar for a bar after it becomes clear that hunted that Joe Biden is going to be the candidate kept under wraps effect. Justice department investigating Hunter, and we remember in the two or three weeks we talked about it, a lot that President Tromp was

going crazy about not only you know why weren't they are putting out something about the investigation, but why? Why people in handcuffs you wanna know you're what not only your. Why wasn't Joe Biden indicted by now and slap, despite than under a lot of heat, to worm to politicize us and they didn't so suddenly now what has changed? well number one. The election is now over, so that the danger of accusing the Justice Department of trying to put its them on the scale is no longer a danger, but I think the important things that you just have to come to terms with at this point are, Biden won the election and he's going. the abiding justice Department, starting on January twenty, eight we already know we talked about this last week. Bar has now appointed Durham

should the Russia Gate Investigation as a special council, I would expect, with respect to Hunter Biden, the two things that happened is they ve gone over? with their investigation, because they probably need to, in other words the Durban Subpoenas that have been served, including on Hunter, which is why I his lawyers were obviously having communications with the Justice Department obviously demanding some information. The reason that there are some there's some stories out there now rich that, besides tax violations there, looking at the- u not potentially money laundering, securities, fraud, foreign corrupt practices, that doesn't mean he's done these things. It's just that you know you have if you're gonna, have an investigation you have to investigate it under our work that you have some credible evidence in connection with so

in order to advance the investigation, they obviously need to collect this information so that you so at a certain point. You have to go public to accomplish that, but the other thing is I would assume If they have a strong case already, he will be indicted before January twentieth there's been some reporting that he's been he's been told, is a target of the investigation, or at least at the Justice Department regards it as a target target, is a term of art in federal investigations there, a target subjects and witnesses target is somebody who the grand jury is highly likely to indict, whereas Object as somebody who the grand jury looking your conduct and maybe you'll, get indicted. Maybe you wanna witnesses. Someone is not suspected of doing anything wrong if it's been told these a target or if the Justice Department regards them as a target. That means they think they're gonna indict him. So I would think that their

be a special council appointed, and I would think if they have a charge on em they wore indicted before worry twentieth because other, why you run the danger of the case being disappeared by I shall just a little so who would appoint special council bar bar. yeah. I think the reasons you do it just because your debates at her conflict Rio. By not unworthy, he would be we would actually be sparing I mean they. They obviously won't see it this way, but would be sparing a big problem for binds incoming attorney general, because otherwise you leave it'll be like what JANET Reno went through without Gore back in ninety four, ninety six, whatever it was now if bar appoints

the special council, the next attorney general two things will happen. Number one. The next attorney general be able to say that ship sailed already does deserve special counsel report by the way to that too, binds attorney general subtle. It's not like there won't be any supervision, but the other important thing riches. This gives Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearing for buttons attorney general, something on Cree to go to now many whoever it is and say. Are you going to commit that you're not going to interfere with this lottchen, and I mean this investigation and you're gonna. Let it you don't forward without fear or favour, and if it turns out there now that is fine, but if it turns out this guy needs to be charge. You get to allow that to happen without interfering and male try to get some

let me out of the nominated now, sir. I I hate to push councils, and yet you you're, not enamoured with them, either but is this is a classic case three others, the I never thank you. Absolutely need one and the reason say that riches, let let's say that no, HU, the president was had somebody like what you don't like judge me, Casey, who, had a very solid reputation. I shouldn't put a name who, just you don't think of somebody who everybody regards as this was so I guess Bob Mahler Status back one right, but somebody that, regarded on both sides of the Isle as such Who is scrupulous and we'll do the right thing and won't feel political pressure if you,

a person like that in the Justice Department. I think Joram is such a person who should be by the way, but it wouldn't matter who the president was people would trust the prosecutor. So I've always thought that the persons reputation for competence Unscrupulousness is more important than the stick. sure of a special council, and since I hate special councils, I would rather see something who was in the Justice Department who could be trusted with a case like this, Then it's not like you assign a prosecutor and bring one in from outside, just to do once the targets, because then the pressure is on them to indict first, I'm staying in order to justify their existence wearing the prosecutor in the Justice Department would have to away this case against every other case in terms of what resources it deserved

I presume, we would dismiss it if there wasn't dropping investigation of there wasn't anything there. So I would much rather have someone from inside the Justice Department, but the classic case is number one if there is called herbal grounds for in it, segregation and prosecution. So that was the big problem with the Russia. Getting there really wasn't any basis to have a criminal investigation, but assuming you're at that hurdle. If the talks of the investigation of the subjects of the investigation or read that the president people close to the president, like Hunter Biden or People who are high ranking officials in the illustration. Then you have the floor. Word situation at the Justice Department, investigating a town superiors. Arguably and that's where you that's. Why argument is that you need someone from outside, but the though the most important thing. Maybe we can say it

This is that no, Oh, what structure gets employed fact of the matter is in constitution, law. The president runs the executive branch and prosecution is an executive responsibility. So, no matter what prevents and you put in including the special council rags to try to protect the special councils investigation, president can always removed. The special council So that's all the time we have. This part gases were produced by the incomparable. Sarah, sherry thanks to the cops room, dot com text I want for listing and thank you and, of course thank Church.