The Political Aftermath of the Hunter Biden Verdict

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
I want to talk about the SouthernPoverty Law Center and I want to talk
about their designation of my buddy JonathanKeller as leading a hate group. Now,
those of you who are in theJohn Girardi orbit, the John Girardi

(00:21):
universe, know that it's not justthis show Monday through Friday sixty seven pm.
It's also Saturday mornings nine to tenam. We have Right to Life
Radio, which is the official showof Right to Life Essential California. And
usually for Right to Life Radio,I have one of my dearest dearest buddies,
Jonathan Keller. He comes on theshow and he's kind of like my

(00:43):
co host most of the time.And Jonathan is the director the CEO of
an organization called the California Family CouncilCalifornia, and I worked for California Family
Council for a year, so I'myou know, I'm a little biased here,
but let me let me go on. California Family Council is part of

(01:11):
a network of organizations that's kind ofit was kind of originally affiliated with like
Focus on the Family, So it'spart of this network of Christian pro life,
pro family nonprofits and they're affiliated withorganizations like Family Research Council, which

(01:34):
is based in Washington, DC withAlliance Defending Freedom, which is a big
nonprofit public service law firm, andit basically it kind of represents a sort
of Christian worldview with regards to lifeissues family issues. California Family Council was

(02:00):
one of the big backers of Propositioneight back in two thousand and eight,
which was frankly one of the mostastonishing social conservative victories in American history.
And Jonathan has done a really goodjob, I think of continuing of helping

(02:21):
stabilize the organization. It kind ofsort of sloped downhill after Proposition eight.
The whole history by the way ofProposition eight, where California, a majority
of Californians define marriage as being betweenone man and one woman, and somehow,
in spite of the fact of amajority of Californians defining it, so

(02:44):
somehow Proposition eight got struck down asunconstitutional and unenforceable. And the downfall of
Proposition eight is really its own showanyway, Jonathan. After the defeat of
Prop eight, California Family councils kindof in the doldrums. And my buddy

(03:07):
Jonathan has done a really good job. I think of revitalizing it, giving
it new sort of activities, sortof orient itself towards et cetera. Now,
the Southern Poverty Law Center has designatedCalifornia Family Council at an anti LGBTQ

(03:30):
quote hate group, a hate group. And you go to the Southern Poverty
Law Center and their website says acentral theme of anti LGBTQ organizing an ideology
is the opposition to LGBTQ rights orsupport of homophobia, hetero sexism, and

(03:54):
or CIS normativity, often expressed throughdemonizing rhetoric and grounded and harmful pseudoscience that
portrays LGBTQ people as threats to children'ssociety and often public health. So Jonathan's
organization has been deemed a hate group, and I want to talk about the

(04:17):
BS nature of Southern Poverty Law Center. So Southern Poverty Law Center, I
think, in the old days,used to have some kind of legitimate activity
identifying and working against white supremacist groupsback when it was founded. It was

(04:44):
founded in nineteen seventy one, soit's sort of a public interest law firm
and civil rights organization. But whathas happened is over time it's just become
another arm of the left, andit's got to this point where it's so
bought into all of the left wingideology relating to lgbt issues that basically they

(05:14):
are characterizing any organization that holds Christianviewpoints about the traditional Christian viewpoints about sexuality
and gender identity as basically a hategroup. Again, if you look at

(05:36):
their website's designation of what do theydeem to be an anti LGBTQ hate group,
a central theme of anti LGBTQ organizingan ideology is opposition to LGBTQ rights.

(05:57):
Okay, So basically, right offthe bat, if you are a
Christian, let's say a lowercase ohChristian, lower case lowercase oh, Orthodox
Christian. Okay, I'm not talkingabout Greek Orthodox. I'm just saying if
you have Orthodox viewpoints regarding sexuality,lowercase oh for Orthodox, which, in

(06:23):
case you're wondering what Orthodox means,it means like right teaching is literally what
it means, uh Greek uh orthostraight dox teaching, So like doctrine,
So Orthodox straight doctrine. Okay,not not like straight like gay straight,
just straight as in straight. Allright, So, if you're a lowercase.

(06:45):
Oh, Orthodox Christian, What doyou believe about homosexuality? You believe
that same sex actions are immoral,but it does not necessarily mean that you
think every person inclined towards homosexuality issome evil person. Catholicism, for example,

(07:06):
and most Protestant denominations I know ofthat even that do very strongly uphold
traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality,do not deem that someone is sinful for
being inclined towards same sex attraction.What they deem to be sinful is same

(07:28):
sex actions, okay, sexual conductbetween persons of the same sex or between
any person who are not married toeach other, and marriage being a certain
kind of union that is defined byconjugal relations and ergo a man and a
woman. So if you just thinkthat marriage, if you just think what

(07:56):
a majority of Californian's thought in twothousand and eight, that the right to
marry, that that legal marriage shouldbe restricted to men and women, you
are going to be deemed by theSouthern Poverty Law Center a hate group,
an anti LGBTQ hate group. Evenif you say, even if you firmly

(08:16):
believe that all persons have dignity,regardless of their sexual attractions. We think
that same sex sexual activity is wrong. We don't think that same sex attraction
is wrong, We think it isordered wrongly. And we extend true charity

(08:39):
and love and concern and oppose unjustdiscrimination against persons attracted to those of the
same sex. We love them asour brothers in Christ. That is pretty
much a good summary of what Jonathan'sorganization believes. That is a pretty much
a good summary of what California FamilyCouncil believes, And that's pretty much a
good summary of what most Christians,again lowercase orthodox Christians believe when it comes

(09:05):
to sexuality. That we judge actions, not persons. We judge actions,
not We don't judge people for inclinations, We judge people for actions. But

(09:28):
the Southern Poverty Law Center just labelsany entity basically that thinks the radical idea,
that the idea that like everyone inthe entire Western world believed in until
like five minutes ago, that marriagesbetween one man and one woman as a
hate group. And because Southern PovertyLaw Center developed a kind of nation sort

(10:01):
of respect on the national level forits work against white supremacist entities, the
media just gleefully glibly uncritically parrots theirdesignations of entities as quote hate groups.
So the Sacramento b has a piece. Oh yeah, look, California Family

(10:24):
Council is a hate group. TheSouthern Poverty Law Center says so because they
are anti LGBTQ, and Southern PovertyLaw Center says right on their page,
Da da dad. In twenty twentythree, the number of anti LGBTQ hate
groups listed by SPLC increased by aboutone third to eighty six. This is

(10:48):
the highest number of anti LGBTQ groupsSPLC has ever listed. The increase is
largely the result of the activities bygroups often described as family policy councils,
precisely Jonathan's group, which operate atthe state level in ways that mimic the
National Organization's Family Research Council and AllianceDefending Freedom. Yes, those are organizations

(11:09):
that Jonathan and California Family Council aredirectly affiliated with, and by a network
of groups that came into focus aspart of the survey of anti LGBTQ pseudoscience
conducted for the SPLC's Captain Report.All Right, buh bah so basically,
Southern Poverty Law centers like we're justgonna deem these groups as hate groups because

(11:33):
we just disagree with them politically,and that this is the problem, and
the left loves doing this, declaringvictory in an ongoing cultural battle. ADF
and Family Research Alliance Defending Freedom,which again is a nonprofit, nonprofit public

(11:56):
interest law firm, which is anincredibly successu full legal entity. Okay,
for those who don't know ADF,it's kind of like the ACLU for the
good guys. They've represented pro lifeclients, They've represented a lot of First
Amendment cases, They've been enormously successfulat the Supreme Court. They have a

(12:18):
very impressive, impressive track record ofwins at the Supreme Court. Like,
they're not some like fly by nightkind of entity, Like this is a
very impressive law firm, every bitas impressive a thing as the ACLU.

(12:39):
No one's calling the ACLU a hategroup or an extremist group, in spite
of the fact that it obviously isvery committed to very left wing ideas.
ADF is no more extremist than theACLU. If anything, I'd say it's
probably more moderately conservative than the ACLU. Is radically liberal, but what's SPLC

(13:03):
doing well. Southern Poverty Law Centersees Alliance Defending Freedom as a really effective
entity. It sees Family Research Council, which is a very powerful nonprofit educational
issue oriented lobbying. They're very influentialwith members of Congress. They see them

(13:24):
as really influential and effective. Andso they see Family Research Council, they
see Alliance Defending Freedom, and theysee them as threats. That's what's happening,
and so they call them hate groups. They stick them in the same
category as like, you know,the neo Nazi motorcycle brigade from you know,

(13:50):
Sticksville, Texas or something like.No, this is not These are
not like fly by Night extremest fringeloco and La ca Beza organizations. These
are very mainstream right wing groups.Are the right wing yes? Are they

(14:16):
Christian oriented yes, But this notionthat they are hate groups because they disagree
about the contested political issues of whatdo we think that transgender interventions are a
good idea? Which, by theway, the medical literature in Europe is
highly conflicted on this question. TheBritish National Health Service not doing any more

(14:41):
gender transition interventions for children. Dowe think marriage would between a man and
a woman, a very highly contestedquestion of law and politics and philosophy and
ethics. When we return, Iwant to talk about this tactic of declaring

(15:03):
victory while the battle is ongoing thatthe left loves to do. That's next
on the John Girardi Show. I'mreacting to the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling
my friend Jonathan Keller's organization, theCalifornia Family Council, which I used to
work for, as a hate group, a hate group, and this uncritical

(15:26):
way in which the media just runswith it, like the Sacramento Bee is
just running with Oh, did youknow California Family Council is a hate group?
Southern Poverty Law Center says so.And it's this it's this thing where
the Southern Poverty Law Center has givenoff this facade, at least in the
eyes of the media, as beinga non partisan watchdog against Originally it was

(15:54):
against white supremacist groups, but thenit continued to promote this facade. And
very glad that you know. Idon't like white supremacist groups, don't think
they're very good. Fine with labelingthem negatively white supremacy not great, But
what's happened is that SBLC has justmorphed into another f It's just another left

(16:18):
wing organization and they're basically just labelinganyone with mainstream conservative social views as a
hate group, and as a hategroup that you can just place in a
box right next to you know,the neo Nazi motorcycle Brigade or you know,

(16:38):
something like that. Now, asidefrom the I think slanderous nature of
what they're doing here, and I'mI'm surprised there hasn't maybe there has been
an effort, and maybe it justcan't work because these are public entities,

(16:59):
so it's kind of harder to it'skind of harder to prevail in a defamation
lawsuit when you're a public entity asopposed to just a private individual. And
these groups that they're labeling as hategroups are public entities, so it's hard
for them to sue. It's hardfor them to sue the Southern Poverty Law

(17:19):
Center for a defamation claim when SouthernPoverty Law Center calls them a hate group,
designates them a hate group. It'skind of a very argumentative thing,
and it's it's a public policy thing, so people have more freedom to engage
in conduct that in the private spheremight be deemed as meriting a successful defamation

(17:41):
claim. The problem, there's oneproblem of like genuinely putting the safety of
people who work for these organizations atrisk. So Family Research Council was deemed
a hate group by Southern Poverty LawCenter. As I mentioned, they're DC
based Christian nonprop that advocates for anumber of pro life, pro family causes.

(18:04):
California Family Council is kind of astate level affiliate of Family Research Council.
Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Family ResearchCouncil as a hate group some I
think it was about ten years agoand a lunatic armed gunman broke into their
lobby of their building in Washington,d C. And shot the place up.

(18:29):
I don't believe anyone died, butbasically that's part of the I think
incendiary nature of what Southern Poverty LawCenter is doing. And they have basically
have never apologized for that and retainthis hate group designation, specifically even for
Family Research Council. And now they'resort of doubling down on it and saying

(18:51):
no, not just Family Research Council, but all of the organizations affiliated with
it, including Jonathan's group California FamilyCouncil. But there's also this, it's
this attitude of the left of declaringvictory while the battle's ongoing. And you
see it all month long during PrideMonth, where all these left wing organizations

(19:18):
just constantly are churning out article afterarticle, piece after piece after peace just
mainstream news outlets just talking about PrideMonth as if it's just yeah, everyone
agrees with this, talking about itthe way you talk about like, oh,
you know, the Fresno Bee isselling Kids' day newspapers for Valley Children's

(19:41):
Hospital. Actually right now in localmedia, Valley Children's Hospital is more politically
charged and has less universal support thanPride Month, a month promoting sex between
persons of the same sex uh andgender hormone transitions and various things that either

(20:07):
sizeable minorities in our community or outrightmajorities in our community do not support.
And it's this declaring a victory beforethe battle's even done because and why because
liberals have captured all of these organsof influence. They control the media,

(20:32):
so therefore they'll just say, well, yeah, you know, American support
gay marriage now, so therefore PrideMonth is. You know, It's Pride
Month is no more controversial than AfricanAmerican History Month. As far as local
television news outlets, print news outlets, the Sacramento be Peace talking about California

(20:56):
Family Counselor Jonathan Keller's organization as anantiology hate group, it just kind of
blandly accepts it. And it blandlyaccepts the word of so called LGBTQ activists
and allies, you know, gayrights activists and allies who are just sort
of uncritically cited pro So it's thisbizarre it basically, it's this attitude of

(21:26):
yes, everyone agrees with this,acting as if there's no public debate,
acting as if there's no public disagreement, and we need to sort of remind
ourselves that no, there is publicdisagreement. There's a lot of public and
especially this was the smartest thing thatthe transgender movement ever did, was sticking

(21:49):
that tea at the end of LGBTbecause I think there's a decent number of
people who are pretty much fine withgay people, lesbianism, bisexuality, whatever,
but transgenderism is just another it isa very different, a bridge much

(22:11):
further that's involving a lot of differentthings. But because it was tacked on
the end of the L, THEG, and the B. Oh, therefore
everyone accepts it, everyone likes it. Oh, you don't support it,
Well, how could you. Everyonesupports LGBT. We've been supporting LGBT ever
since the abergent Field decision. Wellwait, the Aburge of Feild decision had

(22:32):
nothing to do with t Maybe hadsomething to do with the L, THEG,
and the B. But this isa constant thing that liberals do.
They managed to capture enough sort oftaste making media, government entities to just
sort of declare victory when frankly,not everyone is on board, and that

(22:56):
sort of almost coerces people, shames, the shames their kids into believing in
their highly contested view of things.So basically, Southern Poverty Law Center is
full of it. California Family Counselis not a hate group of any sort.
There's nothing about their ideology that ishateful. There is stuff about what

(23:22):
they believe that upholds certain ideas thatlarge majorities of Americans believe when it comes
to marriage, family life, etcetera. So I'm sticking up for my
boy. Jonathan Keller, Southern PovertyLaw Center can take a hike. When
we return. Our buddy, HunterBiden is found guilty, richly deserved.

(23:45):
We'll talk about it next on theJohn Girardi Show. Hunter Biden was found
guilty of all three charges regarding hisunlawful obtaining of a gun lying on a
federal background check. Basically, theproblem Biden faced is that to get through

(24:11):
a federal background check to get agun, you have to affirm that you're
not using drugs, and Biden hasa pretty rich history of drug use.
Now let's talk about I want totalk about this a little bit because first
of all, let's remember that thiswhole thing was going to get swept under

(24:33):
the rug, along with all ofHunter's various other peccadillos, because the US
Attorney in Delaware had been basically workingwith Hunters lawyers to put together a plea
deal, and the plea deal finallycollapsed because thank god, the federal judge

(24:55):
in Delaware who looked at this said, this is a highly regular plea deal.
Here. You're sweeping all of thisstuff, basically, all any crimes
he may have committed with his businessesand stuff like, all this stuff is
completely off the table, along withhis gun charge, his possible gun charges,

(25:18):
and tax evasion everything. The judgerealized what a ridiculous deal it was
and sort of shamed the prosecutor intobasically having to get out of the plea
deal, and the prosecutor had tobring these gun charges at the very least.
But the problem was they were pursuingthis plea deal for so long that
all of Hunter's worse crimes, possiblyhis failure to register as a foreign agent,

(25:45):
a lot of his tax pecadillos fromtwenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, twenty
fifteen, twenty sixteen, all thestuff when Joe Biden was vice president,
all the stuff when Hunter was atthe height of his work in Ukraine on
behalf of Arristhma, the big Ukrainianenergy firm. All that stuff's off the
table because by the time Hunter's pleadeal collapsed, the statute of limitations expired.

(26:12):
Okay, so what is a statuteof limitations. Statute of limitations is
basically the time frame within which youhave to bring your claim. So if
you want to sue somebody for aspecific action, well you have to bring
it. You have to file yourlawsuit within a certain time frame. If

(26:33):
you're the government, you're either afederal prosecutor or a state prosecutor. You're
at least a Smith Camp or you'rea US Attorney prosecutor, you know,
enforcing federal law. And you wantto charge somebody with a crime, well
you have to file your indictment withina certain time frame, and that time
frame can vary depending on the civilclaim or the criminal charge. Well,

(27:00):
all of the tax law violations thatHunter may have engaged in, and he
did and did engage in for yearsof you know, getting millions of income
and not paying his taxes, whichonce you get to that level of not
paying your taxes, it ceases tobecome an IRS administrative thing and becomes a

(27:22):
US Attorney prosecutorial thing. All thatstuff is off the table because they were
trying to work on this plea dealfor so long that the statute of limitations
expired and they didn't file the indictment. There's a six year statute of limitations,
and most of Hunter's tax shenanigans andall of the stuff that was happening

(27:45):
when Joe was vice president, allthe stuff with Barisma, et cetera.
That was all in twenty fourteen twentyfifteen, twenty sixteen, so the Statute
of Limitations passed for all of thatin twenty twenty two, the prosecutors didn't
file an indictment, which they manifestlyshould have done. And it's manifestly bizarre
that, you know, prosecutors usuallykeep a very careful eye on the Statute

(28:10):
of Limitations and try to make surethat serious crimes that they know about,
that they've got evidence of, don'tjust slip past them. That's why there's
so many, you know, twentyways to Sunday. As absurd as it
is that Joe Biden is saying thischarge would never have been brought if his
name was anything other than Biden,no, the fact that he was in

(28:32):
charged with way more stuff, wayworse stuff, way sooner. That's the
absurdity of Hunter Biden's situation. AndI'm pretty sure the only reason that those
charges weren't brought sooner, why thisridiculous plea deal was being sought for so
long, is because he's Joe Biden'skid. Nonetheless, the gun charge,

(29:00):
oh, they were able to gethim on the gun charge. Hunter is
found guilty, So I want totalk about it. It's kind of a
hilarious case. In this sense,it's hilarious what the legal strategy of Hunter's

(29:21):
attorneys are, what they're going whatit's going to be, because essentially Hunter's
dead to rights here, all right, as this federal statute's been interpreted for
the longest time, Hunter is hisgoose is cooked. He was using drugs
around the time, he had beenusing drugs before. I think he proceeded

(29:45):
to use drugs after that timeframe whenhe bought the gun. He's a druggie,
and he wrote on the form thathe isn't a druggie, So he
lied on a federal background check toget a gun, successfully obtained said gun,
and then used it precisely in theway that the people who wrote that
law were afraid that a druggie mightuse a gun, acting like a jackass

(30:11):
with it, alarming his then girlfriend, his sister, his dead brother's widow,
alarming her halle Biden, to suchan extent that she threw it away
in a garbage can near a school, which is a bad outcome. It's

(30:33):
the kind of thing like, whydid Congress pass laws requiring certain kinds of
background checks before you can get agun, and why did they have questions
about drug use before you could geta gun. Well, because druggies behave
erradically with guns, and bad stuffhappens to guns that druggies get. Hunter
Biden lied about his drug use,got the gun, and a bad outcome

(31:00):
resulted from it, the exact kindof outcome that the background check is designed
to avoid. So what was Biden'slegal strategy. Well, one of his
legal strategies was what's called jury nullification, where basically, you know that you're
guilty, but you're just gonna tryto convince the jury to ignore the law

(31:22):
and just acquit you anyway. That'scalled jury nullification. It's a theoretical possibility
within the jury system. Okay,jurors can vote to convict, they can
vote to acquit, they can voteto ac quit on the basis of they
can vote to acquit you even inthe face of overwhelming evidence of your guilt.

(31:45):
Maybe they just decide, you knowwhat, we don't like this law
very much. We know by theparameters of this law that the district attorney's
enforcing or the US attorney's enforcing thatthe defendant is to write s guilty.
But we don't like this law,or we don't like the conduct of this
prosecutor. So theoretically, in ourjury system, yeah, a jury can

(32:08):
acquit someone even when he is overwhelminglyand manifestly guilty. And it's and I
think the jurors sort of jury nullificationis a very delicate thing. You're usually
as an attorney not allowed to directlyadvocate for it or discuss it, but
the jurors can kind of figure outon their own. Wait, if we

(32:29):
acquit him, like, we won'tget in trouble, Like, there's nothing
nothing stops us from acquitting him,right, even if we think he's guilty
by the terms of the law.But if we just think this law stinks
or that this defendant got a rawdeal, we can just acquit him.
Okay. Now, So jury nullificationit's more of a hope than a strategy,

(32:50):
a strategy that's it's hard to pulloff a jury nullification defense. What
Hunter's attorneys are I think really morefocused on is getting this conviction overturned on
appeal. And Hunter's attorney is avery sharp attorney. His name is Abbi
Lowle, who hilariously has also representedJared, Jared and Ivanka. So he's

(33:15):
represented Joe Biden's kid and he's representedDonald Trump's kid. He's an equal opportunity,
very successful DC area attorney. AndAbby Lowell is basically trying to pursue
this Second Amendment argument on appeal thatwould make the NRA blush. And this
is the hilarious thing. Here's JoeBiden, you know, a gun control

(33:37):
advocate, you know, always criticizingRepublicans for opposing gun control measures. And
what Hunter is going to argue isgoing to blow your mind. Basically that
any restriction, that almost any restrictionon gun ownership based on being a drug
addict should be held unconstitutional. Well, I'll explain it next. This is

(34:00):
the John Girardi Show on Power Talk. Hunter Biden has been found guilty of
his various gun charges and get aload of what his defense is going to
be. All Right, the SupremeCourt in its recent case on guns,
they have this recent case about concealedcarry stuff out of New York and basically

(34:22):
they affirmed gun ownership is an individualright protected by the Constitution. Individual gun
ownership and possession is protected by theSecond Amendment that's applied against the States via
the Fourteenth Amendment. Individual gun ownershipis a right, if you're going to
restrict gun ownership, you have touse some kind of historical analog some kind

(34:45):
of historical analogy to historically commonly usedgun restrictions. Okay, so we have
certain restrictions on firepower that are historicallyrecognized. All right, Most states,
I think pretty much all states don'tallow the sale of automatic weapons as opposed

(35:07):
to semi automatic weapons. Automatic weaponsmeans you hold down the trigger and it
goes. Okay, So one triggerpoll for multiple multiple shots as opposed to
semi automatic is one shot for triggerpole. There are other kinds, And

(35:28):
basically the idea is, if you'regonna have a gun restriction, it has
to be consistent with the kinds ofgun constriction, gun restrictions that were allowed
either at the time of the foundingor at the time of the adoption of
the fourteenth Amendment in the eighteen sixties. And Hunter's defense is going to be,
Yeah, I was using drugs beforeI got the gun. Yeah,

(35:52):
I was using drugs after I gotthe gun. But on the day when
I was buying the gun, Iwasn't on drugs. Okay, in the
timeframe when I got the gun,I wasn't on drugs. I was just
drinking heavily, but I wasn't ondrugs. And yes, there may have
been historical examples where people under theinfluence of alcohol or something were temporarily restricted

(36:19):
from having their gun, and couldlegitimately legally temporarily be restricted from having their
gun in the nineteenth century, inthe late eighteenth century, but you couldn't
just permanently ban someone from owning agun on the basis of him being an
alki or some other debility like that. Basically, Hunter Biden is going to

(36:45):
use this like like this is anargument that the NRA I think would blush
to make. Hunter is going totry to argue that basically, the mere
fact that I was a drug userdoes not permanently vitiate my Second Amendment rights.
I still have Second Amendment rights evenif I was a druggie. And

(37:07):
while I'm not on drugs, thestate has no business restricting my ability to
get a gun. So he's goingto try to pursue this line of reasoning
on appeal in order to get hisconviction overturned. And I gotta say this

(37:28):
has to be I mean, obviously, this is an embarrassment to the president.
You know, his son gets convictedof a crime, and a gun
crime while he's, you know,mister gun control advocate, and while he's
you know, criticizing the prosecution,which is hilarious. How Biden, out
of one side of his mouth says, oh, it's terrible that Republicans are
questioning Donald Trump's conviction, and theother side of his mouth he's saying,
the only reason my son's being prosecutedis it's unfairer that law. Oh so

(37:52):
we're allowed to criticize the judicial processwhen it's your kid, but not when
it's Donald Trump. But even moreso, that Hunter would pursus to do
this on appeal is insane. Ithink if Biden loses, I think he
might pardon Hunter, even just forthe sake of him not pursuing that legal
argument on appeal. That'll do itfor John Girardi Show. See you next

(38:15):
time on Power Talk.