Daniel Penny is now twenty six years old.

Daniel Penny is now twenty six years old.

He is a marine who left class on May first, twenty twenty three, boarded an uptown f train in Manhattan to head to the gym.

He is a marine who left class on May first, twenty twenty three, boarded an uptown f train in Manhattan to head to the gym.

And what did he see?

And what did he see?

Jordan Neely, a guy with forty two prior arrests, including four from alleged assault, who got on the same subway train that day and said somebody is going to die today.

Jordan Neely, a guy with forty two prior arrests, including four from alleged assault, who got on the same subway train that day and said somebody is going to die today.

He said he was ready to go to rikers.

He said he was ready to go to rikers.

Witnesses described him as insanely threatening, sickening, a satanic bent.

Witnesses described him as insanely threatening, sickening, a satanic bent.

They thought they were going to die that day.

They thought they were going to die that day.

They also saw a fight ensue between Daniel Penny, who said that he had to stand up for the women and children on that train who we had to protect.

They also saw a fight ensue between Daniel Penny, who said that he had to stand up for the women and children on that train who we had to protect.

Yet, Daniel Penny.

Yet, Daniel Penny.

Is facing charges of second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordaneely, the man who stepped on the train that day and said somebody is going to die. Yet, Daniel Penny, the marine, is the one who's on trial right now.

Is facing charges of second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordaneely, the man who stepped on the train that day and said somebody is going to die. Yet, Daniel Penny, the marine, is the one who's on trial right now.

So we're going to get into that case.

So we're going to get into that case.

What do you need to know, what's happening with it, what does it mean, and where is it going. We're also going to get into this extremely broad pardon of Joe Biden, this pardon of his son dating well beyond the gun charges and the tax charges that Hunter faces. Also going back to January first, twenty fourteen, one Hunter joined the board of Brisma. So is Joe Biden Is this just an act of fatherly love or is it an act of self preservation.

What do you need to know, what's happening with it, what does it mean, and where is it going. We're also going to get into this extremely broad pardon of Joe Biden, this pardon of his son dating well beyond the gun charges and the tax charges that Hunter faces. Also going back to January first, twenty fourteen, one Hunter joined the board of Brisma. So is Joe Biden Is this just an act of fatherly love or is it an act of self preservation.

We're going to get into all these.

We're going to get into all these.

Topics with Andy McCarthy, who know from Fox News. He's a Fox News contributor. He's also a former Chief Assistant US Attorney, a best selling author, and a contributing editor National Review and a fellow at the National Review Institute.

Topics with Andy McCarthy, who know from Fox News. He's a Fox News contributor. He's also a former Chief Assistant US Attorney, a best selling author, and a contributing editor National Review and a fellow at the National Review Institute.

We've had him on the show a bunch.

We've had him on the show a bunch.

She always does a great job explaining complicated matters in ways that we can understand, so important topics. Stay tuned for Andy McCarthy. Well, Andy, it's great to have you on the show. I love having you on because I always learn from you. And then you also have a great job. You great job of sort of breaking down, you know, complicated legal matters into a way that we can digest as non lawyers. So I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show.

She always does a great job explaining complicated matters in ways that we can understand, so important topics. Stay tuned for Andy McCarthy. Well, Andy, it's great to have you on the show. I love having you on because I always learn from you. And then you also have a great job. You great job of sort of breaking down, you know, complicated legal matters into a way that we can digest as non lawyers. So I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show.

It's always a pleasure, Lisa, thank you so much.

It's always a pleasure, Lisa, thank you so much.

So I wanted to start with this Daniel Penny trial. He's twenty six now facing charges of second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide and the death of Jordan Neely. You know, first of all, I guess you know big picture, you know, what do you make of the charges? And then where do you think this thing is heading at this point in the trial for Daniel Penny.

So I wanted to start with this Daniel Penny trial. He's twenty six now facing charges of second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide and the death of Jordan Neely. You know, first of all, I guess you know big picture, you know, what do you make of the charges? And then where do you think this thing is heading at this point in the trial for Daniel Penny.

Well, I think as an old prosecutor, I recognize here a prosecutor's trick with respect to the charges, and that is brag I think, Lisa, this case is obviously one that should never have been brought. And in terms of prosecutorial discretion and the things that should weigh on whether you would bring charges in a case like this, you know, the old saying is, of course that when every second counts, the police are only minutes away. Right in a place like New York where you have a lot of crime, it's going to be a much more dangerous city and there'll be many more people fleeing from it if someone like Daniel Penny, who is you know, capable and courageous, is discouraged from intervening under circumstances where you have this crazed lunatic who actually was just that of Rikers Island after belting some old woman in the face and breaking a bunch of bones in her face. She had done I think he had done close to two years at Rikers over that. So this isn't somebody I mean, Penny obviously wouldn't have known that, but this is someone that we have to speculate about whether this was a dangerous person who's obviously a dangerous person and the people on the subway were scared to death of them. And what really galls me about the case. I know you asked me about the charges, and I'll get back to them, but there's not any indication at all in a common sense way that this was a racial incident. A number of the best witnesses for Penny in the case were black people who were scared of what Neely was doing on the subway and the threats that he was making on the subway. And Penny was not the only one who intervened. There were two other men who intervened in helping Penny restrain this guy, and they were neither one of them was white. And yet when you hear the prosecutors from Bragg's office. Now, Bragg is the paragon progressive prosecutor, right where everything in life is like race is their full field explanation for every phenomenon on the planet. And they've turned this thing into you know, the prosecuted keeps calling Penny the white defendant, as if like race entered into this under circumstances where it didn't. But the whole reason for bringing the case is because Bragg's political base are these woke progressives, and he's white and the guy who died was black, and they don't need any other explanation the oppressed, the oppressor lives, and the oppressed died. That's their whole explanation for what happened here. So that's the reason the case got brought, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the reality of what happened that day. The two charges, one is basically negligent homicide. And if you're going to talk like common sense here, the only real legal issue to me in the case. And I say this having prefaced this, that I don't think this case should have been brought at all. But if you want to indulge a legal issue, the question is once he had Once Penny had this nearly in the chokehold, did he hold on for too long? And there's no evidence that there was any cruelty about this or anything like that. So it's strictly a question of negligence. Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances have released the hold out of appreciation that nearly could be in a near death situation And that's really the issue. But what Brad did here was he added a reckless homicide charge. That's the second degree manslaughter, and I don't think there's any evidence for recklessness in this case. To prove recklessness, what you have to show is that the defendant fully appreciated a risk of death and basically, with an evil purpose, completely recklessly disregarded something that he appreciated might result in the death of the person. That's not the evidence in this case. And in fact, there's video of Penny speaking with the police afterwards. He doesn't even know at that point that Neely died. The police didn't tell him that, and he's explaining himself in terms of I'm not trying to hurt the guy, I'm just trying to protect the people all around. There's no evidence of recklessness. But what I think very cynically and callously Bragg did here was he added the recklessness count, figuring that you might get some people on the jury who basically feel like something needs to be done to Penny because Neely died. And I think if it was just a one count negligent homicide case where you had to vote up or down, uh, that ends up in an acquittal. But what Bragg is hoping is that by adding the second count, if you have some people on the jury who say something has to be done here because Neely died, you'd have other people on the jury who say, well, you know, we'll equit him on recklessness, and then we can feel good about convicting them on negligence because we parsed this carefully and we were very fair and in the me you know, that's what the that's what he did here. He took a count Bragg did where I don't think there's any evidence for it, but he threw it in there in the hope that maybe it would induce the jury to compromise into convicting him on the negligence. And I don't know if it's going to work. It's you know, there's there's been three days of jury deliberations. It's not a complicated case, as you pointed out, it's two counts. I'm not saying there aren't complications underlying it, but you know, you can only talk so long about something that's only two counts. And yet we're in the third day of deliberation. So I fear that we're headed to hung jury.

Well, I think as an old prosecutor, I recognize here a prosecutor's trick with respect to the charges, and that is brag I think, Lisa, this case is obviously one that should never have been brought. And in terms of prosecutorial discretion and the things that should weigh on whether you would bring charges in a case like this, you know, the old saying is, of course that when every second counts, the police are only minutes away. Right in a place like New York where you have a lot of crime, it's going to be a much more dangerous city and there'll be many more people fleeing from it if someone like Daniel Penny, who is you know, capable and courageous, is discouraged from intervening under circumstances where you have this crazed lunatic who actually was just that of Rikers Island after belting some old woman in the face and breaking a bunch of bones in her face. She had done I think he had done close to two years at Rikers over that. So this isn't somebody I mean, Penny obviously wouldn't have known that, but this is someone that we have to speculate about whether this was a dangerous person who's obviously a dangerous person and the people on the subway were scared to death of them. And what really galls me about the case. I know you asked me about the charges, and I'll get back to them, but there's not any indication at all in a common sense way that this was a racial incident. A number of the best witnesses for Penny in the case were black people who were scared of what Neely was doing on the subway and the threats that he was making on the subway. And Penny was not the only one who intervened. There were two other men who intervened in helping Penny restrain this guy, and they were neither one of them was white. And yet when you hear the prosecutors from Bragg's office. Now, Bragg is the paragon progressive prosecutor, right where everything in life is like race is their full field explanation for every phenomenon on the planet. And they've turned this thing into you know, the prosecuted keeps calling Penny the white defendant, as if like race entered into this under circumstances where it didn't. But the whole reason for bringing the case is because Bragg's political base are these woke progressives, and he's white and the guy who died was black, and they don't need any other explanation the oppressed, the oppressor lives, and the oppressed died. That's their whole explanation for what happened here. So that's the reason the case got brought, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the reality of what happened that day. The two charges, one is basically negligent homicide. And if you're going to talk like common sense here, the only real legal issue to me in the case. And I say this having prefaced this, that I don't think this case should have been brought at all. But if you want to indulge a legal issue, the question is once he had Once Penny had this nearly in the chokehold, did he hold on for too long? And there's no evidence that there was any cruelty about this or anything like that. So it's strictly a question of negligence. Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances have released the hold out of appreciation that nearly could be in a near death situation And that's really the issue. But what Brad did here was he added a reckless homicide charge. That's the second degree manslaughter, and I don't think there's any evidence for recklessness in this case. To prove recklessness, what you have to show is that the defendant fully appreciated a risk of death and basically, with an evil purpose, completely recklessly disregarded something that he appreciated might result in the death of the person. That's not the evidence in this case. And in fact, there's video of Penny speaking with the police afterwards. He doesn't even know at that point that Neely died. The police didn't tell him that, and he's explaining himself in terms of I'm not trying to hurt the guy, I'm just trying to protect the people all around. There's no evidence of recklessness. But what I think very cynically and callously Bragg did here was he added the recklessness count, figuring that you might get some people on the jury who basically feel like something needs to be done to Penny because Neely died. And I think if it was just a one count negligent homicide case where you had to vote up or down, uh, that ends up in an acquittal. But what Bragg is hoping is that by adding the second count, if you have some people on the jury who say something has to be done here because Neely died, you'd have other people on the jury who say, well, you know, we'll equit him on recklessness, and then we can feel good about convicting them on negligence because we parsed this carefully and we were very fair and in the me you know, that's what the that's what he did here. He took a count Bragg did where I don't think there's any evidence for it, but he threw it in there in the hope that maybe it would induce the jury to compromise into convicting him on the negligence. And I don't know if it's going to work. It's you know, there's there's been three days of jury deliberations. It's not a complicated case, as you pointed out, it's two counts. I'm not saying there aren't complications underlying it, but you know, you can only talk so long about something that's only two counts. And yet we're in the third day of deliberation. So I fear that we're headed to hung jury.

Well, you know, and I think he could try him again, but before we get to that, or he could bring.

Well, you know, and I think he could try him again, but before we get to that, or he could bring.

Well I'll get to that in a second. I'll get your take on that.

Well I'll get to that in a second. I'll get your take on that.

But you know, you had mentioned that this hinges on if he held him a choke hold too long. But what's interesting is when I was reading through some of the witness accounts, one woman said it didn't look like Daniel Penny really had control of the situation. Should mention that there was a fight back and forth. And then also, if you're Daniel Penny, would be led to believe that Neelie was still alive because he was he still had a pulse, and Lee had admitted that they didn't administer mouth to mouth to him because they were worried because Neelie was so you know, he was homeless, they knew he was on drugs, they he probably had diseases, and the police to not have the proper equipment for breath to bread or mouth to mouth, and so they didn't do that. And so if you're Daniel Penny, you know, one, you'd had every right to believe that he's still alive because he was. And then secondly, how do you determine if the choke hold was too long? If there was a fight that ensued and you have someone with drugs in a system, which also leads to you know, other behavioral issues, right, and so it's like, you know, how do you that's such a subjective thing to say he held him too long if there was a fight between them, and witnesses didn't even feel like Penny had.

But you know, you had mentioned that this hinges on if he held him a choke hold too long. But what's interesting is when I was reading through some of the witness accounts, one woman said it didn't look like Daniel Penny really had control of the situation. Should mention that there was a fight back and forth. And then also, if you're Daniel Penny, would be led to believe that Neelie was still alive because he was he still had a pulse, and Lee had admitted that they didn't administer mouth to mouth to him because they were worried because Neelie was so you know, he was homeless, they knew he was on drugs, they he probably had diseases, and the police to not have the proper equipment for breath to bread or mouth to mouth, and so they didn't do that. And so if you're Daniel Penny, you know, one, you'd had every right to believe that he's still alive because he was. And then secondly, how do you determine if the choke hold was too long? If there was a fight that ensued and you have someone with drugs in a system, which also leads to you know, other behavioral issues, right, and so it's like, you know, how do you that's such a subjective thing to say he held him too long if there was a fight between them, and witnesses didn't even feel like Penny had.

Controlled the situation.

Controlled the situation.

Yeah, and Penny is still alive and if you release the hold, he could recover and start fighting again, which is always what the police are worried about in these kinds of situations. I think the other thing you hit on with that, Lisa, that's very important here is the case is probably going to come down to whether whether the jury concludes that what Penny did was justified or not. But I think this is a very important issue of causation lead to an acquittal, but it may be part of the reason why at least some members of the jury are like, there's no way that they're going to vote to convict Penny. And that is, as you mentioned, there were drugs in this guy's system. And it turns out that the medical examiner did not do a toxicology report and when she testified, and evidently the jury asked for this testimony and it was read back to them or that it was submitted to them for their deliberations, but they're obviously there's some members of the jury that are very curious about this. What the medical examiner said was that even if there was enough fentanyl or whatever, okay to it was that was in this guy's system to put down an elephant, she saw enough from the video to determine that it was to choke hold that caused death and that's why she listed it as a homicide. And my belief and I thought this was the case in there's a different angle on this, but in the George Floyd case, this was a big to do as well. I think she didn't do the toxicology report because she didn't want to create a reasonable doubt issue that it wasn't the chokehold that caused death here. It was all of the drugs that this guy had ingested, coupled with the high tension situation that he caused on the subway by carrying on the way that he did. And I think there's some members of the jury who are apt to say, it's not even an issue of whether the choke did it or didn't do it, because this guy had so much drugs in his system that we can't say for sure that the choke hold is the reason for his death. And they may be fortified in that conclusion by the fact that the state went out of its way not to give them that evidence.

Yeah, and Penny is still alive and if you release the hold, he could recover and start fighting again, which is always what the police are worried about in these kinds of situations. I think the other thing you hit on with that, Lisa, that's very important here is the case is probably going to come down to whether whether the jury concludes that what Penny did was justified or not. But I think this is a very important issue of causation lead to an acquittal, but it may be part of the reason why at least some members of the jury are like, there's no way that they're going to vote to convict Penny. And that is, as you mentioned, there were drugs in this guy's system. And it turns out that the medical examiner did not do a toxicology report and when she testified, and evidently the jury asked for this testimony and it was read back to them or that it was submitted to them for their deliberations, but they're obviously there's some members of the jury that are very curious about this. What the medical examiner said was that even if there was enough fentanyl or whatever, okay to it was that was in this guy's system to put down an elephant, she saw enough from the video to determine that it was to choke hold that caused death and that's why she listed it as a homicide. And my belief and I thought this was the case in there's a different angle on this, but in the George Floyd case, this was a big to do as well. I think she didn't do the toxicology report because she didn't want to create a reasonable doubt issue that it wasn't the chokehold that caused death here. It was all of the drugs that this guy had ingested, coupled with the high tension situation that he caused on the subway by carrying on the way that he did. And I think there's some members of the jury who are apt to say, it's not even an issue of whether the choke did it or didn't do it, because this guy had so much drugs in his system that we can't say for sure that the choke hold is the reason for his death. And they may be fortified in that conclusion by the fact that the state went out of its way not to give them that evidence.

We've got more with Andy, But.

We've got more with Andy, But.

First, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews wishes you a blessed beginning of the holiday season as you gather with your families, grateful for the blessings that God has given us all. But let's also remember those who are facing unbelievable hardship in need of food, fellowship, and hope. That includes the people of Israel, who are threatened daily by attacks from enemies on all sides, and during these hard times, Israelis are thankful to the Fellowship for food and basic assistance, truly life saving aid, when the rest of the world seems to have turned its back on them. Your gift of just twenty five dollars will help provide a food box to an elderly Jew or Jewish family her suffering and in desperate need.

First, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews wishes you a blessed beginning of the holiday season as you gather with your families, grateful for the blessings that God has given us all. But let's also remember those who are facing unbelievable hardship in need of food, fellowship, and hope. That includes the people of Israel, who are threatened daily by attacks from enemies on all sides, and during these hard times, Israelis are thankful to the Fellowship for food and basic assistance, truly life saving aid, when the rest of the world seems to have turned its back on them. Your gift of just twenty five dollars will help provide a food box to an elderly Jew or Jewish family her suffering and in desperate need.

A gift of one hundred dollars.

A gift of one hundred dollars.

Will help provide four of these life saving food boxes this Christmas season. Please consider standing with Israel and the Jewish people. Go to support IFJ dot org to make a gift now that support ISDJ dot org. He call to give it eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight eight eight or three two five. Is it a homicide? If you know? And I'm not putting the blame on the police. I don't blame them, you know, I'm not saying that they should have put their their potential lives at risk and contracting diseases from newly But is it a homicide if the police didn't do everything they could to keep someone alive? Is there not knowligence on behalf of the police in that instance?

Will help provide four of these life saving food boxes this Christmas season. Please consider standing with Israel and the Jewish people. Go to support IFJ dot org to make a gift now that support ISDJ dot org. He call to give it eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight eight eight or three two five. Is it a homicide? If you know? And I'm not putting the blame on the police. I don't blame them, you know, I'm not saying that they should have put their their potential lives at risk and contracting diseases from newly But is it a homicide if the police didn't do everything they could to keep someone alive? Is there not knowligence on behalf of the police in that instance?

Yeah, I shouldn't lapse into these terms that actually have legal right, because there's there's there's like the rhetorical way that we talk about homicide, right, and then there's the technical legal what it what it means?

Yeah, I shouldn't lapse into these terms that actually have legal right, because there's there's there's like the rhetorical way that we talk about homicide, right, and then there's the technical legal what it what it means?

Right? Well, and I'm like legally blonde using uh, you know these.

Right? Well, and I'm like legally blonde using uh, you know these.

I'd love to I'd love to have something up there that I could turn blonde or something, you know. But but but homicide simply means that the determination was made that the death was caused by another person. It doesn't mean murder, it doesn't mean criminal homicide. All it means is that the person didn't commit suicide that you know, and that and the death was not an accident, although it could have been an accident. All homicide means is that an outside agent caused death. That is not a way of reading into anybody's mind or reading into anybody's actions. It's just a medical determination that's something other than the person's own hand caused death. So what the medical examiner determines is that an outside agent caused death, and she drew the conclusion that it was the choke hold. Even that is not an assignment of murder or criminal culpability. Because, as we've been discussing, there's a lot of things that went too that determination. Right, you can't have murder without intent, although there's some I don't want to take us for afield by talking about felony murder and all that other stuff, which is simply stated, murder has to be an intentional homicide, and then you get into these gradations of non intentional homicide. So if you have reckless disregard for an obvious threat of death, that's usually charged, as it was here, second degree manslaughter. And the usual example for that that they give in law school is like the person who shoots a gun into a crowd. He's not aiming at any particular person, he's not trying to kill any particular person, but he's obviously caused a significant risk of death with a very callous action, and for that you can you can get a homicide a reckless homicide charge. And then there are situations where people die because of some action that you took. Nobody thinks that you intended to cause death, no one thinks that you were reckless, that you had a cavalier disregard for human life, but the judgment is made that you did not exhibit the standard of care that the average person would have exhibited under the circumstances, and that's negligent homicide. So when we say something's a homicide, wouldn't say it's necessarily a crime.

I'd love to I'd love to have something up there that I could turn blonde or something, you know. But but but homicide simply means that the determination was made that the death was caused by another person. It doesn't mean murder, it doesn't mean criminal homicide. All it means is that the person didn't commit suicide that you know, and that and the death was not an accident, although it could have been an accident. All homicide means is that an outside agent caused death. That is not a way of reading into anybody's mind or reading into anybody's actions. It's just a medical determination that's something other than the person's own hand caused death. So what the medical examiner determines is that an outside agent caused death, and she drew the conclusion that it was the choke hold. Even that is not an assignment of murder or criminal culpability. Because, as we've been discussing, there's a lot of things that went too that determination. Right, you can't have murder without intent, although there's some I don't want to take us for afield by talking about felony murder and all that other stuff, which is simply stated, murder has to be an intentional homicide, and then you get into these gradations of non intentional homicide. So if you have reckless disregard for an obvious threat of death, that's usually charged, as it was here, second degree manslaughter. And the usual example for that that they give in law school is like the person who shoots a gun into a crowd. He's not aiming at any particular person, he's not trying to kill any particular person, but he's obviously caused a significant risk of death with a very callous action, and for that you can you can get a homicide a reckless homicide charge. And then there are situations where people die because of some action that you took. Nobody thinks that you intended to cause death, no one thinks that you were reckless, that you had a cavalier disregard for human life, but the judgment is made that you did not exhibit the standard of care that the average person would have exhibited under the circumstances, and that's negligent homicide. So when we say something's a homicide, wouldn't say it's necessarily a crime.

Well, because even if you go through this series of events like so, you know, the duration of the troke holding question, I feel like is negated by the sequence of events, you know, particularly the fact that there was a fight that ensued, because if you're fighting with someone, you might hold them in a choke hold longer than you would have if they're not fighting back.

Well, because even if you go through this series of events like so, you know, the duration of the troke holding question, I feel like is negated by the sequence of events, you know, particularly the fact that there was a fight that ensued, because if you're fighting with someone, you might hold them in a choke hold longer than you would have if they're not fighting back.

So that's one, you know.

So that's one, you know.

Secondly, you've got a farmer marine who's leaving class and heading to the gym, who's you know, doing the right things in his day, trying to better his a.

Secondly, you've got a farmer marine who's leaving class and heading to the gym, who's you know, doing the right things in his day, trying to better his a.

Life, gets on a train. You've got this.

Life, gets on a train. You've got this.

Lunatic who said, you know, we know who has forty two prior arrests. Obviously he didn't know that that day, but he knows that. This guy gets on says someone is going to die this day, or someone's going to die today.

Lunatic who said, you know, we know who has forty two prior arrests. Obviously he didn't know that that day, but he knows that. This guy gets on says someone is going to die this day, or someone's going to die today.

He's ready to go to rikers.

He's ready to go to rikers.

He's described as insanely threatening, sickening, a satanic bent. A mother hid behind a stroller with her child. They thought they were going to die that day. Your penny looking around as a former marine worrying about women and children. This is someone who signed up to serve her country, feels like this is his duty to protect the people on his train. And then you know, a fight ensues with the guy who's got drugs in a system who said that he is, you know, which.

He's described as insanely threatening, sickening, a satanic bent. A mother hid behind a stroller with her child. They thought they were going to die that day. Your penny looking around as a former marine worrying about women and children. This is someone who signed up to serve her country, feels like this is his duty to protect the people on his train. And then you know, a fight ensues with the guy who's got drugs in a system who said that he is, you know, which.

Is probably clearly he was pretty obvious.

Is probably clearly he was pretty obvious.

He was probably on something or mentally ill, saying someone's going to die today, I'm ready to go to rikers. So like, at that point, you know, I think feel like the duration of the choke hold is sort of negated to that point because at this point it's his duty to protect the fellow train riders. And then also after a fight being ensued, it would be his duty to try to keep the guy subdued until you know, some sort of other authority shows up, like the police, to arrest him.

He was probably on something or mentally ill, saying someone's going to die today, I'm ready to go to rikers. So like, at that point, you know, I think feel like the duration of the choke hold is sort of negated to that point because at this point it's his duty to protect the fellow train riders. And then also after a fight being ensued, it would be his duty to try to keep the guy subdued until you know, some sort of other authority shows up, like the police, to arrest him.

Yeah. I think what you just marshaled is what should go into a determination in terms of exercising prosecutorial discretion about whether to bring the charge in the first place, and what you just laid out about all the things that would go into you know, whether it nullified the duration of the of the choke hold, or you know, balanced it on some scale of the different equities here, the bottom line is, if a prosecutor can't confidently say, uh, yet, this guy caused the death and it was done in a way that was sufficiently culpable that we really need to charge it and let a jury decided. That's not what's supposed to happen at this at the at the point where a decision like this, which could ruin Penny's life, right at the point that that decision has to be made, that's supposed to be when the prosecutor decides whether to bring the charge in the first place, not you know, not whether you dump into the jury's lap something that you as reasonably couldn't have decided yourself. And I think an interesting thing, Lisa, that that I saw in looking at the reporting today is that uh Neely's parent or I guess his father has now has now sued Penny for wrongful death.

Yeah. I think what you just marshaled is what should go into a determination in terms of exercising prosecutorial discretion about whether to bring the charge in the first place, and what you just laid out about all the things that would go into you know, whether it nullified the duration of the of the choke hold, or you know, balanced it on some scale of the different equities here, the bottom line is, if a prosecutor can't confidently say, uh, yet, this guy caused the death and it was done in a way that was sufficiently culpable that we really need to charge it and let a jury decided. That's not what's supposed to happen at this at the at the point where a decision like this, which could ruin Penny's life, right at the point that that decision has to be made, that's supposed to be when the prosecutor decides whether to bring the charge in the first place, not you know, not whether you dump into the jury's lap something that you as reasonably couldn't have decided yourself. And I think an interesting thing, Lisa, that that I saw in looking at the reporting today is that uh Neely's parent or I guess his father has now has now sued Penny for wrongful death.

And by the way, he has been totally out of his life, Like clearly, you know, oh terrible father doesn't care about your kid. Now you care about him when there's money to make and you know, you get attention.

And by the way, he has been totally out of his life, Like clearly, you know, oh terrible father doesn't care about your kid. Now you care about him when there's money to make and you know, you get attention.

Yeah, but and I think that's all true. My point just as someone who was in the criminal justice system for a long time, you know, I prosecuted terrorists. I prosecuted mafia guys and fraudsters and drug uh you know, organizations and all that stuff. And I really, after twenty years, I came away with a real conviction. Pardon the punt that the criminal justice system is for intentional wrongs and we shouldn't bring cases in the system where you don't have intentional wrongs. I understand that those laws are on the books, and I'm not saying that prosecutors should exercise their discretion in a way that basically negates laws that the legislatures have put on the books. But you know, in New York in particular, we have lots of crime, and we have a progressive prosecutor who's better known for pleading felonies down to misdemeanors if he charges them at all. We have very limited police resources, court resources, prosecutorial resources. I think what we have or to be directed at the people who commit crimes intentionally and prey on people intentionally. And you, as this lawsuit that we just discussed shows, you have this whole civil justice system where you can resolve if the father here really thinks that what Penny did was was caused death here in an actionable way. Let him sue him civilly and let's see how that goes. But to bring somebody in the criminal justice system when it wasn't an intentional act and there was no recklessness of the kind that it's right for the for the law to prosecute, like you know, my example about shooting a gun into a into a crowd or something like that. These cases don't belong in the criminal justice system. And that's that's not a I'm not making a political statement about this. The last time I had the occasion to make this argument was in connection with Alec Baldwin, right, who I wouldn't you know, I probably wouldn't agree with Alick ball went about what time it is, But that's good. You know, politics has nothing to do with it. There was nothing in that case against him that indicated that he did anything intentional to harm anyone. It was just a tragic, tra tragic accident. And you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Neely in this situation. I'm always said.

Yeah, but and I think that's all true. My point just as someone who was in the criminal justice system for a long time, you know, I prosecuted terrorists. I prosecuted mafia guys and fraudsters and drug uh you know, organizations and all that stuff. And I really, after twenty years, I came away with a real conviction. Pardon the punt that the criminal justice system is for intentional wrongs and we shouldn't bring cases in the system where you don't have intentional wrongs. I understand that those laws are on the books, and I'm not saying that prosecutors should exercise their discretion in a way that basically negates laws that the legislatures have put on the books. But you know, in New York in particular, we have lots of crime, and we have a progressive prosecutor who's better known for pleading felonies down to misdemeanors if he charges them at all. We have very limited police resources, court resources, prosecutorial resources. I think what we have or to be directed at the people who commit crimes intentionally and prey on people intentionally. And you, as this lawsuit that we just discussed shows, you have this whole civil justice system where you can resolve if the father here really thinks that what Penny did was was caused death here in an actionable way. Let him sue him civilly and let's see how that goes. But to bring somebody in the criminal justice system when it wasn't an intentional act and there was no recklessness of the kind that it's right for the for the law to prosecute, like you know, my example about shooting a gun into a into a crowd or something like that. These cases don't belong in the criminal justice system. And that's that's not a I'm not making a political statement about this. The last time I had the occasion to make this argument was in connection with Alec Baldwin, right, who I wouldn't you know, I probably wouldn't agree with Alick ball went about what time it is, But that's good. You know, politics has nothing to do with it. There was nothing in that case against him that indicated that he did anything intentional to harm anyone. It was just a tragic, tra tragic accident. And you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Neely in this situation. I'm always said.

To have I don't have died. I mean, yeah, but I died.

To have I don't have died. I mean, yeah, but I died.

You know, I mean, look, I'll give you he died, you know, and we care about it. But no, but no, Yeah, But.

You know, I mean, look, I'll give you he died, you know, and we care about it. But no, but no, Yeah, But.

Alternatively, you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who you know, goes out and you know, intentionally, Like I don't have it for a you know, mass killer who goes out and kills people if he gets the death penalty, I don't, you know. So same with Neely, Like I don't have a lot of sympathy for a guy who gets on a train who knows what he would have done if Daniel Penny hadn't have protected the forty two prior arrests. You tell people you want to die, you don't care about going to rikers. You're you're clearly threatening the lives of others on the train. So like, yeah, I don't know my you know, my empathy factor, you know, gets greatly reduced like that.

Alternatively, you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who you know, goes out and you know, intentionally, Like I don't have it for a you know, mass killer who goes out and kills people if he gets the death penalty, I don't, you know. So same with Neely, Like I don't have a lot of sympathy for a guy who gets on a train who knows what he would have done if Daniel Penny hadn't have protected the forty two prior arrests. You tell people you want to die, you don't care about going to rikers. You're you're clearly threatening the lives of others on the train. So like, yeah, I don't know my you know, my empathy factor, you know, gets greatly reduced like that.

You know, I'm with you on that. And when I say that we have a whole civil justice system for that, I'm not saying that that Penny should have been found liable in the civil justice system. I think if I'm majority on the civil case, I acquit or I find him not liable for all the reasons that you just laid out, because I think if you're going to judge Faultier, you know Neely was much more in the wrong obviously than Penny was. All I'm saying is these cases just don't belong in the criminal justice system. And Penny doesn't. You know, whatever you think of what he did, he doesn't deserve to be in a situation where he could be sent to jail over this. Well.

You know, I'm with you on that. And when I say that we have a whole civil justice system for that, I'm not saying that that Penny should have been found liable in the civil justice system. I think if I'm majority on the civil case, I acquit or I find him not liable for all the reasons that you just laid out, because I think if you're going to judge Faultier, you know Neely was much more in the wrong obviously than Penny was. All I'm saying is these cases just don't belong in the criminal justice system. And Penny doesn't. You know, whatever you think of what he did, he doesn't deserve to be in a situation where he could be sent to jail over this. Well.

I said this on Fox the other day, and you had mentioned how the fact that Daniel Penny's white is being brought up during the trial. I said, this wasn't a racially motivated killing, but these charges are racially motivated. Even in the news coverage, you know, the Fox five referring to him as the killing of a black man, Penny a white man.

I said this on Fox the other day, and you had mentioned how the fact that Daniel Penny's white is being brought up during the trial. I said, this wasn't a racially motivated killing, but these charges are racially motivated. Even in the news coverage, you know, the Fox five referring to him as the killing of a black man, Penny a white man.

You've I've got someone.

You've I've got someone.

Like Alvin Bragg, a black man who has made it his mission to let criminals roam the streets of New York City, who you know, by the way, they're killing innocent black people, but he doesn't seem to care about that. You have a cross secutor, a Manhattan prosecutor, Daphnut Yurin, who's throwing the book at Penny, who reduced a sentence for a black man who murdered an Asian college professor as he was a drawing cash from inn atm. She said that it was under the guise of restorative justice ended up giving him only ten years for manslaughter when he was originally charged with murder. So you've got, you know, a woke prosecutor here who clearly has an animus, you know, for anyone who's not black. So for me, you know, Daniel Penny, if he weren't white, he wouldn't be facing these charges. If Daniel Penny was black and jordan Neely is black, no charges. If Daniel Penny white and Jordaneelly was white, no charges. Literally, the only reason Daniel Penny is being punished, in my opinion, is because these two things that democrats hate. He's white and he's a patriot, and if it was anything other, he would not be facing charges in my opinion.

Like Alvin Bragg, a black man who has made it his mission to let criminals roam the streets of New York City, who you know, by the way, they're killing innocent black people, but he doesn't seem to care about that. You have a cross secutor, a Manhattan prosecutor, Daphnut Yurin, who's throwing the book at Penny, who reduced a sentence for a black man who murdered an Asian college professor as he was a drawing cash from inn atm. She said that it was under the guise of restorative justice ended up giving him only ten years for manslaughter when he was originally charged with murder. So you've got, you know, a woke prosecutor here who clearly has an animus, you know, for anyone who's not black. So for me, you know, Daniel Penny, if he weren't white, he wouldn't be facing these charges. If Daniel Penny was black and jordan Neely is black, no charges. If Daniel Penny white and Jordaneelly was white, no charges. Literally, the only reason Daniel Penny is being punished, in my opinion, is because these two things that democrats hate. He's white and he's a patriot, and if it was anything other, he would not be facing charges in my opinion.

You don't have to agree with me on that, but that's where I am. Well.

You don't have to agree with me on that, but that's where I am. Well.

The only thing I even potentially disagree with you on is that I'm not sure that Bragg wouldn't charge him if the victim was white, just because that's who Bragg is. But it all is a racial morality play for these guys, and I just think, you know, I think we need to be mindful of the fact. Like I often talk about how, you know, we have conservatives and progressives who are like ships passing in the night, because you have we on the conservative side who are saying they're using the procedures of the justice system in a punitive way against their political enemies, and everything's about race, race, race, and it's like we expect them to say, no, that you don't understand, and instead what they're saying is, you're damn right, that's what we're doing. So I think we need to understand and this is the reason why these people have to be defeated and not allowed to power. We're dealing with a movement of people who don't feel like they have to hide anymore because they believe philosophically that it's proper to use the the levers of power in the system against their political enemies for no other reason than that their political enemies. And it has an interrorum effect on you know, people who were similarly minded, and when they say, you know, like this prosecutor that that has this case that you just mentioned, you know, when she brags about taking somebody who committed a brutal crime and getting it pled down to something else strictly because of what the guy's race was. That's who these guys are. They want us to understand and assimilate life as if it were a Howard's Enn textbook, and there are oppressors and oppressed and the way things are supposed to come out has nothing to do with objective fault or objective facts. It's all it's got to line up to what their little morality play is.

The only thing I even potentially disagree with you on is that I'm not sure that Bragg wouldn't charge him if the victim was white, just because that's who Bragg is. But it all is a racial morality play for these guys, and I just think, you know, I think we need to be mindful of the fact. Like I often talk about how, you know, we have conservatives and progressives who are like ships passing in the night, because you have we on the conservative side who are saying they're using the procedures of the justice system in a punitive way against their political enemies, and everything's about race, race, race, and it's like we expect them to say, no, that you don't understand, and instead what they're saying is, you're damn right, that's what we're doing. So I think we need to understand and this is the reason why these people have to be defeated and not allowed to power. We're dealing with a movement of people who don't feel like they have to hide anymore because they believe philosophically that it's proper to use the the levers of power in the system against their political enemies for no other reason than that their political enemies. And it has an interrorum effect on you know, people who were similarly minded, and when they say, you know, like this prosecutor that that has this case that you just mentioned, you know, when she brags about taking somebody who committed a brutal crime and getting it pled down to something else strictly because of what the guy's race was. That's who these guys are. They want us to understand and assimilate life as if it were a Howard's Enn textbook, and there are oppressors and oppressed and the way things are supposed to come out has nothing to do with objective fault or objective facts. It's all it's got to line up to what their little morality play is.

I guess for me, you know, I feel very conflicted about what Republicans should do moving forward. You know, I know that there's a notion of you know, not responding in kind and not doing to them what they've done to us. And I understand that perspective. But then alternatively, it's like, you know, you look at terrorists, right, they only respond to power and strength, and to some degree, will these people ever stop until they are on the receiving end of what they've done to others?

I guess for me, you know, I feel very conflicted about what Republicans should do moving forward. You know, I know that there's a notion of you know, not responding in kind and not doing to them what they've done to us. And I understand that perspective. But then alternatively, it's like, you know, you look at terrorists, right, they only respond to power and strength, and to some degree, will these people ever stop until they are on the receiving end of what they've done to others?

So I don't know. This is a mental dance.

So I don't know. This is a mental dance.

I go back and forth in my head constantly about sort of what the right direction is moving forward for Republicans after all this weaponization of the law, particularly against Trump.

I go back and forth in my head constantly about sort of what the right direction is moving forward for Republicans after all this weaponization of the law, particularly against Trump.

Yeah, look, I agree with that. You know, I feel the same tension myself, having been in the system. I feel strongly that it shouldn't be used as a political weapon by anyone. But the only silver lining I see in trying to work that out, Lisa, is that the voters didn't like it. I mean, I think in the end, part of the reason that Trump became president wasn't so much that, you know, there was an outbreak of great admiration for Trump that changed the public's mind. I think there has been some of that. I mean, I was totally wrong in thinking that he had a hard ceiling of like forty six forty seven percent that he could never get past. And he obviously got, you know closer. Whether he gets slightly over or slightly under fifty, we won't know for a while yet. But he obviously had an upsurge in popularity. He still got a lot of people who don't like him, but even reasonable people who are not Trump fans or fans of people who are fans of Trump, saw what progressive Democrats we're doing in exploiting the apparatus of law enforcement to go after their political enemies, and the more sensible among those people realized that if they could do it to Trump, they can do it. They not only can do it to anyone, they do do it to others. So the uh. I don't think that progressives are going to have a change of heart in terms of, you know, gee, we just need to do the right thing here. I think if they see that this hurts them, they'll modify their behavior. And I think the only silver lining I see in this is that it hurt them. You know. I think Trump may be president because they did this.

Yeah, look, I agree with that. You know, I feel the same tension myself, having been in the system. I feel strongly that it shouldn't be used as a political weapon by anyone. But the only silver lining I see in trying to work that out, Lisa, is that the voters didn't like it. I mean, I think in the end, part of the reason that Trump became president wasn't so much that, you know, there was an outbreak of great admiration for Trump that changed the public's mind. I think there has been some of that. I mean, I was totally wrong in thinking that he had a hard ceiling of like forty six forty seven percent that he could never get past. And he obviously got, you know closer. Whether he gets slightly over or slightly under fifty, we won't know for a while yet. But he obviously had an upsurge in popularity. He still got a lot of people who don't like him, but even reasonable people who are not Trump fans or fans of people who are fans of Trump, saw what progressive Democrats we're doing in exploiting the apparatus of law enforcement to go after their political enemies, and the more sensible among those people realized that if they could do it to Trump, they can do it. They not only can do it to anyone, they do do it to others. So the uh. I don't think that progressives are going to have a change of heart in terms of, you know, gee, we just need to do the right thing here. I think if they see that this hurts them, they'll modify their behavior. And I think the only silver lining I see in this is that it hurt them. You know. I think Trump may be president because they did this.

Well, you know, before we get to I want to get to your take on the Biden pardon for Hunter. I also just don't even know how he endured all this, to be honest, it's like he's not even human, like I personally, Like I had multiple federal charges, you know, being pointed to my direction, and then after going through the civils stuff in New York, the criminal stuff in New York, and then also being shot at once and then almost twice. I think I would be I think I would be in the corner of a room crying somewhere. So I don't know how the man has been able to withstand all that and then go on to win.

Well, you know, before we get to I want to get to your take on the Biden pardon for Hunter. I also just don't even know how he endured all this, to be honest, it's like he's not even human, like I personally, Like I had multiple federal charges, you know, being pointed to my direction, and then after going through the civils stuff in New York, the criminal stuff in New York, and then also being shot at once and then almost twice. I think I would be I think I would be in the corner of a room crying somewhere. So I don't know how the man has been able to withstand all that and then go on to win.

It's it's it's truly uh remarkable.

It's it's it's truly uh remarkable.

I just I don't even know how anyone does that, to be perfectly honest, It's uh, it's truly remarkable.

I just I don't even know how anyone does that, to be perfectly honest, It's uh, it's truly remarkable.

He's a different kind of cat, for sure.

He's a different kind of cat, for sure.

It's a different kind of cat. I think that is all right. So now let's get to Joe Biden and Hunter.

It's a different kind of cat. I think that is all right. So now let's get to Joe Biden and Hunter.

You know, obviously, what makes this pardon so strange is how broad it is and the fact that it goes way beyond the tax charges and the gun charges that he faced and or we're convicted of in terms of the gun charge or yet if he could reach the plea deal deal and the tax charges. But what's interesting is it does start I believe it's on January first, fourteen, when Hunter joined the board of Bresma that year.

You know, obviously, what makes this pardon so strange is how broad it is and the fact that it goes way beyond the tax charges and the gun charges that he faced and or we're convicted of in terms of the gun charge or yet if he could reach the plea deal deal and the tax charges. But what's interesting is it does start I believe it's on January first, fourteen, when Hunter joined the board of Bresma that year.

So, I guess what do you make.

So, I guess what do you make.

Of the long parden, the broad pardon, and then what do you think that is really about?

Of the long parden, the broad pardon, and then what do you think that is really about?

Well, I think here's the obvious thing. Although I think you know you have to you have to go back in time in the story to appreciate this. They tried to do the sweetheart deal for a hunter in it was a jew. I think it was June July twenty twenty three was when they went into It was July when they were in Judge Norika's corporate Now, why did the plea break down? It broke down because they did something that was very funky that the judge caught, which is that in a plea agreement, one of the most important term obviously is what the guy is pleading guilty to. The second most important term is what is the immunity bath that he's getting. In other words, in exchange for pleading guilty, as I the defendant am about to do. The government lays out explicitly in the plea agreement, these are the things we can no longer charge you with in return for your pleading guilty to satisfy the indictment. In this case. That's every single plea agreement, so it's always explicitly laid out, this is what we can't do to you anymore, and everybody has to have their eyes open about that. Otherwise the court is not supposed to take the plea. Because a plea agreement is just a contract. There has to be a meeting of the minds about what the fundamental terms are. So in Hunter's plea agreement, weis the Delaware District attorney later Foe special counsel. What they did was there was a plea agreement to two puny tax misdemeanors charges, which were supposed to make all of the tax charges, including the felonies, go away. And then what I think is against Justice Department rules, they took the gun charges and they put it in a diversion program, meaning that you keep your nose clean for X number of months and then that disappears. Two. You're not supposed to do that with gun charges in the Justice Department. But here's the thing, even though he was pleading to the tax charges, they tried to hide the immunity term in the diversion agreement, which is what got the judge a little bit taken aback at the beginning when she looked at all us then when you look at the immunity term. They hooked that up to a narrative of what happened from twenty fourteen going forward, which was obviously written by Hunter's lawyers, and the objective here without coming out and saying it, was to say that anything that was within the framework of the narrative that was attached to the diversion agreement was no longer going to be available for prosecution against Hunter. So that was so elliptical that the judge said, whoa, whoa, whoa, Wait a minute, that doesn't tell me anything. What are you saying he can't be charged with anymore? And what the Biden lawyers wanted was for Weiss to get up in court and say, any conceivable federal crime going back to twenty fourteen to the present day is off the table. Hunter can no longer be charged. And Weiss would not get up in open court and say that why because Biden was seeking reelection, and the whole point of this was to not articulate what the immunity bath was because that would be so scandalous it would hurt Biden's reelection effort. So what they were trying to do was do the least they could do to write an elliptical, confusing, vague agreement in the expectation that the judge would just like rollerize, they would slam it past her and that would be the end. And instead she wouldn't take the plea because she asked what is he getting immunity for? And Weiss wouldn't get up in court and say what he was getting immunity. For the reason I lay that out, Lisa, is if you look at the sweep of the pardon, it's exactly what Weiss wouldn't get up in court and say it's totally the same. It's the mirror image. The only difference is the immunity in the pardon now goes up to December first, twenty twenty four, because that's when the pardon was signed. The plea was July of twenty twenty three, so you know it was going to take it from twenty fourteen to July twenty twenty three. Now it goes to December first, twenty twenty four. But it's the same thing. So what's the difference here. The difference is now the election is over. So prior to the election, knowing how scandalous it would be, they wouldn't say what the immunity was, and now we're seeing what the immunity was. But that was the reason the plea broke up blew up in the first place. So that's what this is all about. And what makes me insane is to hear things like Biden says he now changed his mind. He repeatedly said he would not pardon Hunter but then last weekend he had a change of heart. That's nonsense. This is like the same exact understanding that was on the table at the time of the plea. And as somebody who carefully watched both litigations, the gun case and the tax case, Hunter's litigation strategy in both those cases can only be understood if he knew he was getting a pardon. So on the gun case he basically won't admit fault. The evidence is overwhelming, and the jury convicts him in like two seconds of all three charges. He never tries to negotiate a plea, he never acknowledges any wrongdoing. He just lets himself get convicted on three charges. The tax case is even worse the tax cases September. September fifth was the day they were picking the jury, which is like eight weeks before the election, and Hunter would have gone to trial in that case too and done the same thing that he did in the gun case, except the Democrats, even with Biden by then replaced by Harris, they could not afford to have a six week trial, which would be about the income that Hunter earned and didn't pay taxes on that he derived from the Biden family influence. Peddling scheme. So that was the reason he was desperate not to go to trial in that case. But if you remember, there was a highly unusual plea where he agreed to eat the whole indictment. He agreed to plead guilty to all nine charges. He never tried to negotiate a plea. He never did whether a normal defendant does and says, you know, I'll plead guilty to one count with just three years of exposure to prison, and you dismiss everything else. That's the usual kind of plea negotiation. Hunter doesn't get into those niceties. Yeah, I'll plead guilty to every count. The one thing I won't do is admit guilt. And the judge let him get away. This is a it's called an Alfred plea. It's an unusual plea proceeding. But the judge and I kind of understand. I didn't agree with what the judge did here. I think he should have told Hunter, you either plead guilty like everyone does and admit wrongdoing, or else we go to trial. But the judges, figuring everybody knows Hunter's going to get a pardon at the end of this, so why should I consume the court's reason horses and make a jury sit here for five or six weeks when the guy is willing to plead guilty, and you know we would otherwise have to have this this long trial.

Well, I think here's the obvious thing. Although I think you know you have to you have to go back in time in the story to appreciate this. They tried to do the sweetheart deal for a hunter in it was a jew. I think it was June July twenty twenty three was when they went into It was July when they were in Judge Norika's corporate Now, why did the plea break down? It broke down because they did something that was very funky that the judge caught, which is that in a plea agreement, one of the most important term obviously is what the guy is pleading guilty to. The second most important term is what is the immunity bath that he's getting. In other words, in exchange for pleading guilty, as I the defendant am about to do. The government lays out explicitly in the plea agreement, these are the things we can no longer charge you with in return for your pleading guilty to satisfy the indictment. In this case. That's every single plea agreement, so it's always explicitly laid out, this is what we can't do to you anymore, and everybody has to have their eyes open about that. Otherwise the court is not supposed to take the plea. Because a plea agreement is just a contract. There has to be a meeting of the minds about what the fundamental terms are. So in Hunter's plea agreement, weis the Delaware District attorney later Foe special counsel. What they did was there was a plea agreement to two puny tax misdemeanors charges, which were supposed to make all of the tax charges, including the felonies, go away. And then what I think is against Justice Department rules, they took the gun charges and they put it in a diversion program, meaning that you keep your nose clean for X number of months and then that disappears. Two. You're not supposed to do that with gun charges in the Justice Department. But here's the thing, even though he was pleading to the tax charges, they tried to hide the immunity term in the diversion agreement, which is what got the judge a little bit taken aback at the beginning when she looked at all us then when you look at the immunity term. They hooked that up to a narrative of what happened from twenty fourteen going forward, which was obviously written by Hunter's lawyers, and the objective here without coming out and saying it, was to say that anything that was within the framework of the narrative that was attached to the diversion agreement was no longer going to be available for prosecution against Hunter. So that was so elliptical that the judge said, whoa, whoa, whoa, Wait a minute, that doesn't tell me anything. What are you saying he can't be charged with anymore? And what the Biden lawyers wanted was for Weiss to get up in court and say, any conceivable federal crime going back to twenty fourteen to the present day is off the table. Hunter can no longer be charged. And Weiss would not get up in open court and say that why because Biden was seeking reelection, and the whole point of this was to not articulate what the immunity bath was because that would be so scandalous it would hurt Biden's reelection effort. So what they were trying to do was do the least they could do to write an elliptical, confusing, vague agreement in the expectation that the judge would just like rollerize, they would slam it past her and that would be the end. And instead she wouldn't take the plea because she asked what is he getting immunity for? And Weiss wouldn't get up in court and say what he was getting immunity. For the reason I lay that out, Lisa, is if you look at the sweep of the pardon, it's exactly what Weiss wouldn't get up in court and say it's totally the same. It's the mirror image. The only difference is the immunity in the pardon now goes up to December first, twenty twenty four, because that's when the pardon was signed. The plea was July of twenty twenty three, so you know it was going to take it from twenty fourteen to July twenty twenty three. Now it goes to December first, twenty twenty four. But it's the same thing. So what's the difference here. The difference is now the election is over. So prior to the election, knowing how scandalous it would be, they wouldn't say what the immunity was, and now we're seeing what the immunity was. But that was the reason the plea broke up blew up in the first place. So that's what this is all about. And what makes me insane is to hear things like Biden says he now changed his mind. He repeatedly said he would not pardon Hunter but then last weekend he had a change of heart. That's nonsense. This is like the same exact understanding that was on the table at the time of the plea. And as somebody who carefully watched both litigations, the gun case and the tax case, Hunter's litigation strategy in both those cases can only be understood if he knew he was getting a pardon. So on the gun case he basically won't admit fault. The evidence is overwhelming, and the jury convicts him in like two seconds of all three charges. He never tries to negotiate a plea, he never acknowledges any wrongdoing. He just lets himself get convicted on three charges. The tax case is even worse the tax cases September. September fifth was the day they were picking the jury, which is like eight weeks before the election, and Hunter would have gone to trial in that case too and done the same thing that he did in the gun case, except the Democrats, even with Biden by then replaced by Harris, they could not afford to have a six week trial, which would be about the income that Hunter earned and didn't pay taxes on that he derived from the Biden family influence. Peddling scheme. So that was the reason he was desperate not to go to trial in that case. But if you remember, there was a highly unusual plea where he agreed to eat the whole indictment. He agreed to plead guilty to all nine charges. He never tried to negotiate a plea. He never did whether a normal defendant does and says, you know, I'll plead guilty to one count with just three years of exposure to prison, and you dismiss everything else. That's the usual kind of plea negotiation. Hunter doesn't get into those niceties. Yeah, I'll plead guilty to every count. The one thing I won't do is admit guilt. And the judge let him get away. This is a it's called an Alfred plea. It's an unusual plea proceeding. But the judge and I kind of understand. I didn't agree with what the judge did here. I think he should have told Hunter, you either plead guilty like everyone does and admit wrongdoing, or else we go to trial. But the judges, figuring everybody knows Hunter's going to get a pardon at the end of this, so why should I consume the court's reason horses and make a jury sit here for five or six weeks when the guy is willing to plead guilty, and you know we would otherwise have to have this this long trial.

And you're the first lady attending.

And you're the first lady attending.

Yeah, well that was just unbelievable. Unbelievable, and not only attending the trial. I've seen that a million times. I was a prosecutor for a long time, but attending jury selection. Nobody goes to jury selection, but she was there for jury selection just to look at the people who were being brought into decide the case.

Yeah, well that was just unbelievable. Unbelievable, and not only attending the trial. I've seen that a million times. I was a prosecutor for a long time, but attending jury selection. Nobody goes to jury selection, but she was there for jury selection just to look at the people who were being brought into decide the case.

We've got more with Andy, but first, protecting our families and homes is essential, but.

We've got more with Andy, but first, protecting our families and homes is essential, but.

Are we truly prepared?

Are we truly prepared?

Breakings happen every twenty five seconds, and even with the security system, can it really keep intruders out. That's why you should layer your defenses to buy yourself some time. You can start with Sabers driveway alerts to know when someone's approaching, pair of that with bloodlights to deter them. Sabers door security bars reinforce your front and back doors, stopping up to six hundred and fifty pounds of force to secure entry points even when you're not home. And even if you are home, many invasions happen at night. Sabers Home Defense Launcher is the ultimate choice to protect yourself and your family because Saber projectiles hit hard, causing intense pain and can still be effective even if you miss because intruders within the six foot pepper cloud experience sensory irritation. Plus, Sabers Home Defense Launcher is the only sixty eight caliber launcher with the seven projectile capacity, offering up to forty percent more shots than the others. Stay secure night or day with Saber solutions. Visit saberradio dot com. That's Sabre radio dot com or call eight four four eight two four safe to protect what matters most. I've already said this on TV buns, So if it's wrong, just like, be gentle.

Breakings happen every twenty five seconds, and even with the security system, can it really keep intruders out. That's why you should layer your defenses to buy yourself some time. You can start with Sabers driveway alerts to know when someone's approaching, pair of that with bloodlights to deter them. Sabers door security bars reinforce your front and back doors, stopping up to six hundred and fifty pounds of force to secure entry points even when you're not home. And even if you are home, many invasions happen at night. Sabers Home Defense Launcher is the ultimate choice to protect yourself and your family because Saber projectiles hit hard, causing intense pain and can still be effective even if you miss because intruders within the six foot pepper cloud experience sensory irritation. Plus, Sabers Home Defense Launcher is the only sixty eight caliber launcher with the seven projectile capacity, offering up to forty percent more shots than the others. Stay secure night or day with Saber solutions. Visit saberradio dot com. That's Sabre radio dot com or call eight four four eight two four safe to protect what matters most. I've already said this on TV buns, So if it's wrong, just like, be gentle.

Don't make me feel a complete idiot. But already out there on this.

Don't make me feel a complete idiot. But already out there on this.

But to my perspective is this isn't an act of fatherly love. It's an act of self preserve because, as you pointed out, part of why Hunter are pled on the tax charges is because Biden and the Department of Justice on every angle they've tried to cut off any avenue to Joe. Biden and his culpability with the Sun's business dealings. We know that he's long lied about his son's built business dealings ten percent for the big Guy. He's been involved in phone calls, meetings, flying a Sun on air force to greasing the wheels for these business dealings. Hunter as a result, has brought in millions of dollars from all these different countries, particularly Hunter. The date of the pardon goes back to when Hunter first joined the board of Barizma. We've already seen Joe Biden on camera prag about threatening to withhold a one billion dollar US loan guarantee to get the Ukrainian Prosecutor General fired, who by the way, is investigating Barreizema holdings. And then you have these irs whistle blowers come forward and say one FBI officials prevented them from accessing Hunter Biden's laptop, which of course had relevant information for Hunter. Biden and David Weiss in the Department of just has allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on the Bresma money. So to me, this all points to Joe Biden not pretending this isn't about his son, because he's already used his son as a pawn to go and make him money and putting him son in his son in you know, potential legal jeopardy as a result. So clearly he doesn't care about his son. This is all about the big guy and an act of self preservation. That's my argument.

But to my perspective is this isn't an act of fatherly love. It's an act of self preserve because, as you pointed out, part of why Hunter are pled on the tax charges is because Biden and the Department of Justice on every angle they've tried to cut off any avenue to Joe. Biden and his culpability with the Sun's business dealings. We know that he's long lied about his son's built business dealings ten percent for the big Guy. He's been involved in phone calls, meetings, flying a Sun on air force to greasing the wheels for these business dealings. Hunter as a result, has brought in millions of dollars from all these different countries, particularly Hunter. The date of the pardon goes back to when Hunter first joined the board of Barizma. We've already seen Joe Biden on camera prag about threatening to withhold a one billion dollar US loan guarantee to get the Ukrainian Prosecutor General fired, who by the way, is investigating Barreizema holdings. And then you have these irs whistle blowers come forward and say one FBI officials prevented them from accessing Hunter Biden's laptop, which of course had relevant information for Hunter. Biden and David Weiss in the Department of just has allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on the Bresma money. So to me, this all points to Joe Biden not pretending this isn't about his son, because he's already used his son as a pawn to go and make him money and putting him son in his son in you know, potential legal jeopardy as a result. So clearly he doesn't care about his son. This is all about the big guy and an act of self preservation. That's my argument.

No, I think that's absolutely right.

No, I think that's absolutely right.

These I would have felt.

These I would have felt.

Really no, I think no, I'll get but I'll give you I'll give you more ammunition. Okay, yeah, yeah, you know what the case what what this was about the way that Weiss handled the investigation under uh, you know, the the guidance of Merrick Garland. Uh. The most egregious, not just barisma, the most egregious misconduct in the Biden influence peddling scheme is the period between twenty fourteen to the end of twenty sixteen. And that's because that's when Joe Biden's influence during the course of the scheme, which runs to twenty nineteen. You could arguably say it went into twenty twenty, but it's during during that six year period. The time when he's most influential, which means when his influence is most saleable, when it's most valuable, is that period from twenty fourteen to twenty sixteen, and in that period we not only see the Barisma stuff. We see the million that comes in from the Romanian guy. We see the three and a half million that comes in from the Russian billionaire who is the widow of the Putin crony who was mayor rot Moscow. The Chinese payments, you know, the two Chinese schemes, they both arise out of. Remember, on the Bohai scheme, Hunter actually goes with Joe Biden on Air Force two to Beijing to meet with the guy to nail the agreement down. And on the CEFC stuff, the pay meant start as a result of things that go on twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen. I think it's really twenty fifteen twenty sixteen. So all of the most egregious conduct is in that window when he's most valuable. And one of the reasons we know that Lisa is what happened the minute he was out of office. As soon as he left office in twenty seventeen, Barisma slashed Hunter's salary in half. I mean, it couldn't be more crass that, Like, what they're paying for is access to Biden and his influence. So all of this was always done in a way to protect Biden. I've always said that in the Justice Department's handling of what they call the Hunter case, but was really the Biden investigation at LEAs should have been. Hunter is the ancillary benefit, beneficiary of the favorable treatment that the Justice Department wouldn't have given anybody else. But their main mission at the Justice Department was to protect the president. It so happened that like, if they could protect the president and help Hunter at the same time, they'd help Hunter. But the main thing was to protect the president. So all of this was about protecting Biden. All of it was about not ruining the reelection effort. And the thing I think is so precious for him to be coming out now talking about the you know, the father's love for his son. You know, I have sons, and I would probably be inclined if I was the only person on the planet who had the power to make criminal charges go away so that my sons wouldn't go to jail. Would I use that power? Yes, I think that, you know, the honorable thing to do would be to resign after you do it, because it's a terrible abuse of power and it's a violation of your oath of office. But I think humanly we can all understand this. Here's what you can understand if that's the way Biden feels, If this is all about fatherly love, how do you let your kid get indicted? How do you let him go to trial not once but twice? How do you put him through all of this public humiliation? If that's what you're concerned about? But what did Hunter? What did Biden prioritize here? He didn't prioritize Hunter. He prioritized the twenty twenty four election campaign, and had if it looked like they were giving Hunter the kind of break that he ultimately gave Hunter, it would have been catastrophic for the reelection campaign. So that's what he was concerned about. It's always been about his own exposure, and it's always been about the election campaign. And I'm not saying he doesn't love the son. I mean, I'm sure on some level he does, but this is a bunch of crap. How like you know, the last you know, the last weekend, it finally dawned on him that a father's love compelled him to pardon. I mean, you're kidding me?