or request that you are there. so byron, i think are we off into the great unknown now? >> well, we could be if he doesn't show up at all. as i was saying before it gets members of congress really mad and they could pursue contempt charges against him. the only problem there is the house can get all excited and find him in contempt of congress and then -- but the problem is the justice department has to enforce that. now during the january 6th committee investigation, we saw the justice department get really serious about contempt of congress. so when a couple of witnesses like steve bannon wouldn't show up or talk or produce anything, they were cited for contempt of congress and the justice department prosecuted them. here i don't think the biden justice department would be very

energetic in pursuing a hunter biden contempt of congress charge. >> bill: byron, stand by. 10:00 on the east coast and capitol hill. watching our continuing coverage of the hunter biden saga and what was scheduled to be a closed door deposition to begin 30 minutes ago at the moment it looks like this will not happen. i'm bill hemmer along with dana perino and our coverage continues >> dana: one he would show up, do the deposition, leave and get a transcript and wait for the next shoe to drop. the other option he goes to the deposition and ends up pleading the fifth. >> bill: or picking and choosing which questions to answer based on what his lawyer says. >> dana: i gave a long public statement which he said his father was not financially involved in his businesses, he also said that he was very proud of the degrees he had from georgetown and law degree. proud of his business career and he also said i've made mistakes and wasted opportunities and for

that i'm responsible and accountable and making amends. he went to great pains to make sure it was clear in his mind that he thinks ma republicans have impugned his character and invaded his privacy and went through a long list of grievances on that point. >> we see monitors that you can't see at home. a parade of press conferences in a moment. before they begin, let's go back to what hunter biden said 15 minutes prior. >> let me state as clearly as i can, my father was not financially involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of burisma, not in my partnership with a chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad and certainly not as an artist. >> bill: and then he went on to say there is no evidence because it did not happen. i saw jamie raskin from the minority party there from this

committee in front of a camera. i don't believe he started to speak yet. we do think we'll see james comer and he is the republican who is heading up a lot of this and what he says we'll wait to see, right? in the meantime chad pergram is watching all of this. we were not sure what to expect, chad, and i don't know if anybody had this on their bingo card but it is what it is for the moment. what's happening? >> we had a sense a couple of days ago that hunter biden was not interested in appearing for this closed-door deposition. he was under a subpoena and there was a letter sent by abbe lowell to the committee chairman james comer, the republican of kentucky saying i'm willing to show up on that date but i want to appear in an open hearing. of course, james comer knocked that down right away said the subpoena is not for an open hearing, it is specifically for a closed-door deposition. and then democrats tried to turn it around and say immediately james comer and others on the committee must be afraid of having hunter biden appear in an

open session. they don't want this. that's not what they wanted to do. james comer immediately countered by saying this is what we usually do and similar to what democrats did in their impeachment inquiry of former president trump in the fall of 2019. they had people in for closed-door depositions first and went to open hearings later and went to articles of impeachment on the floor. the other thing that's going on today here, we're going to have a debate on the house floor and a vote probably between 5:00 and 6:00 to open this impeachment inquiry against president biden. i'm told they have the votes here. i talked to two republican sources, senior republican sources this morning and they indicated that they would only lose one or two votes. remember the margin in the house of representatives is only three so they think this will be able to go through here. what's happened, what's changed in the past couple of weeks is they've gotten moderate republicans from swing districts, so-called biden districts, districts that president biden carried in 2020 on board and they are willing to say that they want an

investigation. at least to see -- we see all the smoke. is there fire? they will itiate this impeachment investigation today. you mentioned jamie raskin, the top democrat on the oversight committee there. he indicated yesterday he was going to do an off-camera gaggle with reporters just before this was supposed to start. and james comer never budged. he said we will have an open hearing with hunter biden at some point down the road but first we want to have this closed-door deposition. the other thing i was s struck in kind of the theatrics of all this is -- if you know the geography of capitol hill hunter biden was speaking on the senate side, not the house side. >> dana: jamie raskin is speaking. >> a repetition of everything we've seen over the last 11 months. we're in a remarkable juncture for the u.s. house of representatives. it is an impeachment inquiry where no one has been able to

define what criminal or constitutional offense they are looking for. we don't know what the crime is. you know, the mysteries are called a who done it because it starts with a crime and you try to determine who committed it. this is more like a what is it, not a who done it. we don't know what the crime is. and there are thousands and thousands of pages of evidence but it all demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that president joe biden is not guilty of any impeachable offense that we can determine. with that i am going to call on my colleagues to come up and take turns between oversight and judiciary, perhaps i can start with the vice ranking member of the oversight committee and go over to judiciary. >> thank you, ranking member raskin. the ranking member laid out what is happening here quite clearly.

republicans do not have a case and let's also remind everybody that this impeachment inquiry by the republican party has already begun in a public forum. they launched an impeachment inquiry without a house floor vote already and their own witness, their own republican witness, said that there are from what he has seen, there are not grounds for an impeachment inquiry or rather frankly impeachment in general of president biden. but that has not deterred the republican side from continuing to try to force through a completely groundless and unsubstantiated, i won't call it an investigation. i will call it an exercise in futility. what we've seen from this deposition chairman comer himself told hunter biden you choose, whichever you choose, come in public and come in private. hunter biden in an attempt to clear his name from what has

been happening publicly, has stated that he is willing to testify to the public. but because the republican investigation has been debunked, exposed, and consistently covered exposed as having falsehood they decided they will take back and rescind their offer of a public investigation. >> bill: this will go on now with parade of democrats to the microphone and we can anticipate republicans at some point, too. what card james comer plays next is the next stage in the story here. andy mccarthy joins our coverage. good morning to you. top line thought at the moment is what for you? hello. >> well, i think this is all predictable actually. there seems to be some confusion. there are two different things going on. there is the subpoena which is an enforceable order to show up. then there is the fifth amendment privilege, which is a legal privilege not to answer

questions. he has to show up. he doesn't have to answer questions. now, i think he thinks -- hunter thinks that perhaps they can push back on the obligation to show up by arguing, as you just heard from the democrats who were speaking, that the impeachment inquiry is not authorized by the full house at this point. and i think what abbe lowell would argue the fact they are oaf in haste to try to have a vote as chad mentioned a few minutes ago demonstrates that they should have had the vote and had the impeachment inquiry formally authorized before issuing a subpoena to hunter. that will be his claim why he doesn't have to show up. he never had to testify. if you remember a couple of years ago, the democrats during one of the impeachment investigations of trump subpoenaed don mcgahn, white house counsel, who had a privilege not to fest file because of executive privilege

and then jackson issued an opinion that said he has to show up because it's a subpoena. but whether he has to testify or not will depend on a question by question basis whether he has a privilege or not not to answer that particular question. so i think he thinks he has got a basis to push back against the claim that he should be held in contempt. he will argue that the impeachment inquiry wasn't legitimate because it hadn't been authorized by a vote of the full house. in the meantime he was never going to testify because anything he says can be used in the criminal cases against him, number one, and number two, this is another instance of the democrats now having to live with the norms that they blew up during the trump years. so during the january 6th committee, what these guys did was they brought in a bunch of people who they have knew had fifth amendment privilege not to

testify. brought them into closed-door depositions and they all took the fifth. what ended up happening was the committee took that testimony and sliced and diced it so it could play it during the presentations that i won't call them hearings because they really weren't hearings in the traditional sense, but they would do these summary presentations of what they said their evidence was and kept showing on the screen people taking the fifth. and then they argued from that that taking the fifth should be presumed to be an admission of guilt. and that anybody who was doing that was, number one, guilty, and number two, obstructing the investigation by not providing information. hunter doesn't want to be in that position but i think he will end up being in that position because ultimately he will have to come, he will have to show up and they can make him take the fifth if they push him. >> bill: he will be sitting at that table and at that point he can say i exercise by

constitutional right and plead the fifth amendment. >> they'll put it out as an admission of guilt. what's good for the goose. >> dana: we see james comer working his way through a crowded hallway. what is the next move here and what's on his mind? >> what a circus was created by hunter biden. to show up on campus but not actually show up in the room begs the question why would you do that? i think what most people misunderstand about testifying before congress is it's not a court. it plays by different rules. and by the way, imagine if you just showed up at court but didn't actually go in to see the judge. would we stand for that if you had a court date and you didn't show up? what would be the consequence? same with the executive branch. congress gets treated as the second class citizen and he has a duty and obligation with a duly issued subpoena to attend.

he can plead the fifth to every single question but you still have to attend. >> bill: so when you said i'm paraphrasing what you just said, congress plays by different rules. define that. >> so the house of representatives passes a rules package and that's what they live by. they create their own law and those are the rules. and those are the law. you have to comply with those. when you have a duly issued subpoena. the fundamental problem for congress is they have no enforcement mechanism. the only way they can actually enforce this is to hold somebody in contempt but even then if they hold them in contempt and want to prosecute them they go to the department of justice run by joe biden. so it begs the question. >> bill: so this is going to play out during an election year for a long time to come based on that explanation. >> yeah. again, it begs the question if

you aren't going to attend why would you show up, walk around campus and go into the room? i don't think anything changed in those 30 minutes. you saw this coming. you get a week's notice to have this put out and in place. you can be defiant but, you know, if the democrats are going to be consistent, then they need to do what they did to people that, you know, were involved in the trump case. steve bannon is probably the poster child for that. >> bill: waiting to figure out what james comer and jim jordan with going to do. let's see what they have to say. initial reaction now. >> issued a lawful subpoena to the president's son and we expect him to come in and be deposed. this is a normal process in an investigation. this has been a serious, credible transparent investigation from day one. we published four bank memorandums. this is an investigation of public corruption at the highest

level. we accumulated mountains of evidence that is concerning. we have specific questions in there and allow you to see the piles and piles of documents, bank statements, emails, text messages that we worked very hard on in this committee over the last eight or nine months. we expect to depose the president's son and then we will be more than happy to have a public hearing with him. with that i will turn it over to chairman jordan. >> we're disappointed he didn't show up. he was just across the way at the capitol. think he could have come to sat for questions. to do an open format now you'll get filibusters, speeches, all kinds of things. what we want is the facts. when you get the facts in every single investigation i've been involved is you bring people in for an interview behind closed doors where you can get those facts. then as the chairman said we would love for him to come public. i would say this mr. biden's

counsel and white house have both argued the reason he couldn't come for a deposition was because there wasn't a formal vote for an impeachment inquiry. that will happen in a few hours. we think it will pass. we think the house of representatives will go on record with the power that solely resides in the house to say we're in an official impeachment inquiry phase. when that happens we'll see what their excuse is then. they should have been here today. once we take the vote we expect him to come in for his deposition and frankly, we'll also look at contempt proceedings as we move forward. >> why not call his bluff? he is here and not wanting to sit for a deposition. one chance to get to hear from him. call his bluff. >> the way -- every investigation i've been involved with clear back to the i.r.s. targeting conservatives to benghazi to the impeach. we do in a way they come in for private -- this is what the

democrats did. don junior had to testify twice in a deposition setting. to different committees. that doesn't apply to the biden family? it's not how it works. equal treatment. the same treatment under the law. >> he said his father had no -- >> that's not what devon archer said. we have know what happened with burisma in the december 4th-nine time frame where joe biden goes and leverages, conditions american tax money on the firing of the prosecutor who was looking into the executive of the very company hunter biden was on the board of. we have those facts. >> joe biden said he never met with any of these people or talked to any of these people. that was the narrative before we began this investigation. now we know he met with and talked to every single one of them. so the president hasn't been honest about his associations with these people who have been wiring millions of dollars to hunter biden. and the biden family.

look i think every american has a simple questions. what did the bidens do to receive the tens of millions of dollars from our enemies around the world. that's a simple question. >> do you acknowledge you haven't answered that question and found no evidence of wrongdoing or criminal conduct. >> we have very serious evidence. the checks, two checks to joe biden from his brother. the money to give joe biden was through influence peddling. one was through -- >> loan repayments. we showed you the loan documents. >> you don't understand the documents, i do. if i wrote you -- if you paid me back $240,000 for a loan repayment, i should have a check for >> you are accusing joe biden's attorneys. >> the law firm that represented all the shell companies. >> you think those lawyers have -- >> what do you think? you are defending them.

acting as if -- are you positive that money came from joe biden? we have a lot of questions. next question. >> are you going forward with contempt? >> we have the follow the court but we'll begin looking at that. the lawyers for the oversight and judiciary committee will move in that direction. congress has to come and testify. >> last thing we also found checks from one of hunter biden's shell companies that were going into an account for joe biden. that was -- everything is a loan repayment. hunter biden will have a chance to explain it. >> that you leaked from hunter biden's laptop. >> i would like to ask hunter biden. trafficking women across state lines. that would have been a good question. you don't seem to care about

that, though. >> are you going to call on the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the subpoena? >> bill: i want to bring in carey, who works legal matters with us here. carey, what happens when you are called to a deposition and you choose not to be there? >> you have to comply. and they have the power to subpoena and if you get a subpoena from the majority party in congress, you have to comply with that. if you don't, it is contempt of congress and contempt of congress is technically a crime. the reason i say technically is because d.o.j. and its history has typically chosen not to enforce the prosecute and enforce that except, in this last year and a half when they have chosen to prosecute contempt of congress against two top trump aides. steve bannon is facing four months in prison for doing what hunter biden is doing right now, blowing off a congressional

subpoena. curious to see if the committee will see and very curious to see if d.o.j. will treat hunter with respect to blowing off a subpoena the same way theyey've treated the top trump aides in the last year and a half. >> bill: jordan was asked about contempt. he said there is a process to follow. briefly explain that process, how long could that take to unfold? >> they can move as quickly as they want. there are all kinds of mechanisms where they have to take a vote whether to hold him in contempt and agree if he has, if he is guilty of this and has to be referred to the department of justice and the department of justice makes a decision as to whether or not they are going to prosecute this referral but again, how does d.o.j. not prosecute a referral from congress if they choose to refer given that they have been prowls cuteing trump aides for this exact same issue? >> bill: does that come out of committee or the full house? >> i would have to check that.

>> dana: i believe it does go to committee and then the full house. jason chaffetz. could you clarify? >> yeah, you can do either one of three things. the chairman can send that over. they can take a house vote or they can -- or committee vote or they can send it to the full house. obviously the more votes they have, the stronger it is. but chairman can do that today within the hour if he wanted to. >> bill: the gentleman you are seeing on the camera there is david weiss. if our audience is not familiar with him he is walking to the left side of hunter you'll be familiar with him soon. a well-known washington, d.c. lawyer who took on the case just recently and he took it on at a very sensitive time. a week ago, dana, a week ago tomorrow we talk about the charges out of -- i'm sorry, i apologize, my bad, abbe lowell. i take that back. a week ago tomorrow we had the

three felonies out of california. david weiss is the special prosecutor had to cut a deal with biden some time ago that would have allowed him to escape this if he pled guilty to two misdemeanors. that opportunity with weiss is gone now. >> there is a saying in washington in legal circles you only hire abby lowell if you are in trouble. and abby lowell has been making a lot of tv appearances and making a compelling case for his client. this is a risky move to blow off the subpoena and not be deposed today. >> dana: andy mccarthy, any insight into how the biden white house facing an impeachment inquiry vote today feels about abbe lowell's approach to these legal matters? >> i would think they are happy with it, dana. it wouldn't be happening if they

weren't. i think his appearance as carey just mentioned have been very effective. you have to bear in mind we're kind of like inside baseball former justice department lawyers, right? we know that abby lowell is very well paid. his job unlike the prosecutor's job. the prosecutor is supposed to be searching for the truth to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. defense lawyer doesn't have any of those worries. his job is to put the government to its burden of proof. he spins everything to hunter's benefits and when he won't answer hostile questions on cross examination the lawyer can say whatever he wants to say in a press conference or the courthouse steps. at this point they aren't confronting the evidence against him. i imagine the white house is happy. he is putting abbe lowell is a very effective communicator. he has the public perception that he knows the case because

he is hunter's lawyer and putting the best spin on everything for hunter while, i would add, vigorously defending joe biden in the process of doing all that. >> bill: on that point, andy, democrats might be watching this and cheering the reaction here. and -- >> dana: he fights. >> bill: i don't know if it's a legal question yet but did hunter biden win this round, andy? >> well, we're not at the end of the game yet, right? i do think there is some funky stuff that goes on on capitol hill. these fellows are going away on vacation in a couple of days, right? so it seems to me like they have gotten their scheduled screwed up. the sensible way to do this, if you were going to actually have a vote for the impeachment inquiry, is to vote for the impeachment inquiry so that you have it as, you know, the constitution imposes impeachment authority in the house, nifty the speaker. so you need the house to vote

for it. there is a good argument you do. then you get the president's son once you have that nailed down, then you get the president's son a subpoena where it is backed by a vote of the house and there is more pressure on him to show up and testify rather than giving him an argument. that they've done, that the subpoena is not legitimate because they hadn't authorized the inquiry yet. but i think this is all a function of they are trying to get their work done and get out of town and that wouldn't happen in a criminal justice proceeding. >> bill: just for the record your official phrase was some funky stuff. >> dana: indeed. you are looking at -- >> i didn't know that in the original latin but you know what i mean. >> dana: ask chatgpt. this is the room why hunter biden was going to have this deposition and so now you have the media taking some pictures of basically what is going to be an empty room. i believe when we have miranda

devine with us, is that right? >> dana: give us your take. you have been covering this issue inside and out. today hunter biden made an interesting choice. >> yeah, he sure did. the arrogance there of making that press conference and refusing to comply with the subpoena is understandable when your father has pardon power. no one really thinks that if push comes to shove that hunter biden is going to have to face the music. daddy will just pardon him. so the courage that it takes to flap the subpoena is 0. cleverly to try to manipulate the public narrative. that seems to be really more than a legal strategy. this is a public relations strategy to try and get the sympathy of the public. if you noticed that hunter biden as his lawyer always does constantly references his

addictions. in his indictment that's irrelevant because the felony part of it pertains to 2020 when he filed tax returns that the d.o.j. says were fraudulent. he was making these fraudulent deductions of millions of dollars and, you know, there is already probably $4 hundred thousand of tax he hasn't paid. so this isn't just late tax returns, this is lying on a tax return allegations while he was sober in 2020. and look, we just saw him saying that there is no way his father was involved in his business. he is emphatic about that. this is the line that the democrats were trying to run the other day in the hearing with gary shapley and joseph ziegler, the two i.r.s. whistleblowers. look, i think ziegler did a slam dunk response to that in which he just outlined just three

pieces of evidence and the timeline. you had first of all you had a situation where hunter biden is boasting in an email that he was given -- offered $10 million for introductions alone from the chinese energy company and then just a couple of days before that we had the whatsapp message that he sent to one of his cfc chinese partners in which he said i'm sitting here with my father. we want to know where is the money? where is the money? and then just a couple of months before that was the deal of cfc which included 10% for the big guy, which is hunter biden. this is all very, you know, evidence that needs to be investigated and why you have an impeachment inquiry.

impeachment is about bribery, high crimes, an misdemeanors. bribery, as andy mccarthy and jonathan turley and many other lawyers have pointed out, the bribery statute does not require joe biden to have a check written to him in his name. it just requires evidence of official actions given for benefits and the benefits are to the family members and that is just as much bribery as if the money went direct to joe biden. >> bill: just to put a button on this. hillary vaughn has some sound. two of the statements when hunter biden was speaking an hour ago. he said my father was not financially involved in my business. he said then there is no evidence because it did not happen. miranda, in 30 seconds you have been studying the story for four years at a minimum. how would you address those

statements? >> that's just untrue. it is more gas lighting from the biden camp. there is voluminous evidence, i just cited three pieces that showed that joe biden was involved. he met with, you know, many of hunter biden's overseas business partners both in person, he invited them to his vice presidential residents and went to dinner with them in georgetown but also spoke to them up to 20 times. i'm told it is more than that on speakerphone. he was the product they were selling and he was well aware of that. >> bill: miranda, thank you for jumping on. stand by we may come back to you. hillary vaughn is working the story on capitol hill and joins us now. not quite sure where you are. there you are. what do you have for us, hillary? >> at least hunter biden showed up after his lawyer said he would only show up if he was getting a televised testimony. he have delivered a short statement to the press but did

not take any questions from us. but we sure did try. >> was it worth it trying to sell the family name? do you want president biden to pardon you, sir? is it worth it selling the family name? >> how did you get into so much trouble? so now it's checkmate comer and jordan promised to hold hunter in contempt. the legal team called the subpoena illegitimate. house republicans are trying to change it with an impeachment resolution. it would put more weight behind the subpoenas. if they hold hunter biden in con sement and prosecuted he could

face up to a year of jail time. we'll see how it all shakes out. >> bill: you are jamie on the spot. >> dana: can you just explain the mood and franticness. they are trying to get out of town. are they going to try to do all this, get out of town. leave for four weeks, i guess, and come back and pick it up again? >> yeah. they are hoping to pass the impeachment resolution today. they are expected to leave for christmas and the holidays and come back and pick it up after the new year. what's interesting is once they pass this impeachment resolution, they may resubpoena hunter biden and ask him to comply. now that the impeachment inquiry is official he may be more inclined to follow it because he may be more afraid that he would actually be prosecuted if he were to ignore it like he did today. that's definitely something to watch after the new year.

so hunter biden's perspective, it is next year's problem. >> bill: move across the chad pergram now. once this kind of washes over us in an hour or so, chad, the focus will be on the floor of the house. and republicans at that point are going to move toward this impeachment inquiry. how would you play that out right now? >> well, this impeachment inquiry authorizing this, that will pass in the house of representatives later today probably debate about 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon and a vote in the late afternoon or evening. this will pass. i'm told they'll only lose one or two votes at most. something people talked about, about the power of this subpoena. you know, you have kind of the cart before the horse. this is kind of fire, ravedy aim. republicans were not on board to authorize an impeachment investigation until the past couple of weeks as i always say it's about the math. they have did not have the votes. they should have the votes today. and that's why they are willing

to go ahead and vote to authorize an impeachment investigation. why once they do that, if they were to reissue the subpoena for hunter biden they have more power to get him in. it will help us do the job more quickly. white house and administration and another associated parties will have to comply with the subpoenas. let me talk a bit about the the at -- they at tricks today. closed door deposition in the rayburn office house building. we got word that hunter biden and his attorney were going to appear on the senate side of capitol hill. why does that happen? you might have heard a question at the end of that james comer press conference where somebody said will you ask the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the subpoena against hunter biden? there is a little less weight behind that if you don't have an impeachment inquiry but right

now hunter biden is out of compliance with that subpoena for a closed door deposition. if he showed up on the house side an had the press conference he might be in more legal jeopardy. when he said that being somewhere where the house sergeant-at-arms does not have authority being on the senate side. that was stage craft to do it on capitol hill but not on the house side of capitol hill and inoculate his client from that subpoena by doing this on the senate side of the capitol. as i say a lot of times the house and senate are part of the legislative branch. they happen to be in the same building. they are distinct branches of government in the legislative branch and the power doesn't cross. by doing this on the senate side it helped them and the house had no authority on the senate side. >> bill: that was really interesting.

to nerds like us who follow this and you know the ins and outs of how everything works, and you are right, that was smart of abbe lowell to do that particular staging, wow. >> bill: it's one i hadn't seen before. >> bill: that's why we keep you around. >> dana: stick around for a moment. the editor in chief of -- let's get raw politics, josh. we know how close the margins are in the house and we also saw a redistricting decision by the new york supreme court yesterday that will throw the house map back into disarray going into 2024 election. you have a lot of republicans who won in biden districts and now you have this development plus an impeachment inquiry. what are they thinking today? >> it's the worst possible news the white house did not need another headache involving hunter biden at a time when

there is base issues with the party. trump is leading in match-ups in almost every national poll that's out there. look, we talk about the down ballot and the battle for congress, dana. there could be negative coattails. an issue that could end up if trump ends up winning the white house or if republicans have the wind at their backs this could help some of these swing district republicans reminding a lot of voters that even if you don't like trump there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding the current white house and hunter biden. this is not an issue that the white house wants to be talking about in an election year. hunter biden playing a public role showing up. >> dana: what do you think of hunter biden several times in his statement saying that this is all just done -- being pursued by maga republicans and extremists. you have someone like the senator from connecticut a

democrat saying that the charges are legitimate. >> the spin that the white house held for such a long time it's a non-issue that doesn't affect the president. a lot of voters aren't buying that explanation. this may not be the number one issue. voters are concerned more about the economy, about the bread and butter issues that affect their daily lives but this is just the kind of scene music that reminds voters that both parties that everyone seems to be corrupted and hunter biden is a headache that continues to be a major problem for this white house. >> bill: two parallel tracks going into 2024. trump in and out of courtrooms across america and competing in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina first tuesday in march. what and how will republicans counter that in the house as they try to keep the biden issues front and center? >> politically the goal of republicans is going to try to

muddle the legal picture. i had the mid- march date circled for donald trump eva's trial. it is the one big question where trump's standing is long term in 2024. if you are a republican, if you are trump, down ballot republican running for office you can muddle the picture and talk about the hunter biden scandals and biden's lack of credibility and his dinners and ties to some of hunter biden's business dealers. >> bill: the parties can say your guy is worse than my guy? >> that's what the public feels right now. you are talking about a potential biden/trump match-up featuring two of the least popular politicians in the country right now. a lot of americans believe both candidates are tied to scandal and corruption. so if you have a throw the bums

out mentality, if you have a very disillusioned electorate it could play in the republican party's benefit. one of the big opportunities democrats thought they had is making trump's legal issues the big issue and his threat to democracy. if biden and his family and his son is facing serious legal challenge front and center it could muddle that political picture. >> bill: josh, thank you. he jumped on the line with us. we have a bevy of guests here. andy mccarthy and carey and jason chaffetz. i'm missing somebody. >> dana: byron york is here with us. >> bill: dana gets her next choice. >> dana: byron, one of the things that hunter talked about was his addiction, right? he said that republicans have ridiculed my struggle with addiction. belittled my recovery and tried to dehumanize me. we have jas comer speaking again. >> transparent invest that

produced a lot of troubling evidence. we have lots of questions, hopefully you all have had an opportunity to go into committee room and see the boxes of documents that we have accumulated. tens of thousands of pages of documents. we have lots of specific questions. this is an investigation about public corruption at the highest levels of our government. the american people expect congress to investigate this because i think one thing that chairman jordan has proven is the f.b.i., d.o.j. and the i.r.s. as we've heard from the whistleblowers, have all dropped the ball. so the house oversight and judiciary committees are conducting the investigation that americans want. we have specific questions for the president's son. he does not get to dictate the terms of this subpoena. >> i have had a chance to review what hunter biden said in his press conference. i think he made an interesting statement. he said his father was not

financially involved in the business. i think that qualifier the word financially is important because once again it shows another change, another change in the story. first it was no involvement, no, i never talked to anyone, then we find about about the dinners and meetings and phone calls. he wasn't involved nft business financially. i think it's important and one of the reason we want to talk to hunter biden. second thing i would say is this. in a few hours i think the house of representatives will pass the impeachment inquiry. that's an important step if you talk to any scholars. i think we can proceed as we did, but this is an important step. impeachment power resides sole with the house of representatives. if we are in an impeachment inquiry it carries weight and help us get witnesses in and this morning's activities, this is the argument that the white house and hunter biden's counsel used to say he shouldn't come. okay, we disagree.

we thought he should have been here but when we take the vote this afternoon. we think he should come in. if he doesn't we'll move forward with contempt proceedings. a process we plan to follow and we'll do that. >> hunter biden didn't come in today. do you think some republicans would have backed off on the inquiry tonight or hell bent going forward no matter what with this? >> they won't hold back. we requested thousands of emails that they haven't turned off. white house staff instructed not to come. this white house continues to obstruct. a clear message from the house today for the white house to cooperate with this investigation. >> what is the latest on that? >> she is coming. she is coming. definitely coming. >> the timeline. >> a report filed -- we are

scheduled to depart for christmas break tomorrow. we'll begin with the report with the lawyers on the oversight committee and judiciary and oversight committee to get it ready. there is a process you have to go through. we will initiate that process. >> are you concerned if you are able to pass a contempt resolution and refer it to a biden justice department how they might handle it? how does that process play out? >> it is supposed to be equal treatment under the law. we know what they -- we know how aggressive they were with other individuals held in contempt. we'll see what happens here. all we can do is do our job and we'll do that. >> do you think it's social the counsel should handle? >> i respond you can look at the letters. i never said no it to and how the process would work. they didn't do a darn thing.

>> one thing hunter biden said this morning was republicans mocked his addiction. chairman comer, what do you think of the idea that he is saying you guys are mocking addiction. >> we've never mocked his addiction. this is an investigation of joe biden. hunter biden is a key witness because we have a simple question and the majority of americans have a question. what did the bidens do to receive tens of millions from our enemies around the world? it's a simple question. every american wants to know, what did you do to receive the money? and we also want to know what role joe played. quite frankly, it is hard for me to believe, i will speak for myself, that all these oligarchs and the chinese communist party were wiring hunter biden millions of dollars because they liked him because he added value to something. we believe as what archer testified in the transcribed interview they were selling the brand, joe biden was the brand.

we believe joe biden has known about this all along. he hasn't been honest with the american people. his story continues to change. in the beginning he said he never met with any of these individuals. now we know he met with all of these individuals. the narrative when we started this investigation was that no money ever transferred to the bidens while joe biden was vice president. a huge percentage of the money transferred then. the majority of the shell companies were incorporated while joe biden was vice president. we have a lot of questions about some very concerning transfers. it's why we have the thousands of pages of bank records. we've been very transparent with the media. this has been, i think, the most transparent political -- congressional investigation since i've been in congress for seven years. we proud four bank memorandums with specific bank statements. this is a concern. this is about public corruption at the highest level.

and the president's son does not get to set the rules. he has had a pretty good run with the department of justice, with the i.r.s. and with f.b.i. but these two committees are going to hold firm. we have taken steps to go by the book in this investigation. now we're in the phase where we do the deposition. and what he did today is unacceptable. >> some republicans i talked to on the committee -- [inaudible]. they want to file articles of impeachment. do you feel like you have seen enough now? >> i have said i think the evidence is compelling but we still need to talk to some other witnesses. we need to talk to the two individuals part of blue star strategies, sally painter and another one. those are people we need to talk to. with the vote we get those individuals in in a more timely fashion and get the documents we want. one hour ago the biggest

takeaway was the statement from mr. biden where he said my father was not financially involved in the business. that is a huge change which means sort of means he is involved. i think that's how anyone would read it. he has been involved. not finish plea. that's a huge departure for everything they've said for the last 3 1/2 years. the white house's story changed multiple times. justice department story has changed multiple times how they handled this investigation. the story that hasn't changed, the testimony consistent and stood up to cross examination is the two whistleblowers. their story hasn't changed and reinforced. we've done eight depositions of people involved in the investigation at the justice department. none of those refuted what they said. over time it keeps changing from the white house. this statement today i think is the biggest news of the morning i guess along with the fact he didn't show up that he was supposed to do. thank you very much. we have to go. >> bill: let's go ahead and

dissect that point that jim jordan made twice there. my father was not financially involved in my business. let's try to get everybody around the horn. start with karrie. go ahead and define what his statement is trying to say there. when you think about the allegations of president biden on the speakerphone, when you think about the trips on air force two to china and the dinners with photographs in washington, d.c. restaurants. go. >> very intentional in the statement to say not financially involved. remember, bill and dana and everyone on this panel. we all know a statement like that requires a lot of lawyers looking at it. i'm sure the white house, there was some conversation between what would be in that. a lot of eyeballs. every word is carefully chosen. the fact that he chose to characterize his father's

involvement as not financial i think says a lot. if anything, i think hunter may have won the hour by getting out of being deposed right now but joe lost with that statement because i think it's indication that the committee should go forward and say okay, what involvement exactly was there? >> dana: i can't help but put myself in the shoes of the white house press secretary day, byron, who have a press conference at 1:00 p.m. we have had this little incremental changes in language in response to these questions over time. then it falls to the white house secretary to explain it. she won't be able today, although she might try to say it's under investigation, i can't comment. no, the president's son just used that phrase very specifically. how do you think she will handle it today? >> i think she will refer it to hunter bidens and try to not answer it.

indeed, even the word financial is -- could have lots of meanings. does it mean joe biden did not receive any money from hunter's business? does it mean he didn't have an equity state in it? there could be all sorts of meanings for the word financial. one bigger picture. this stunt that hunter biden did today was a bad faith exercise. really gave the finger to republicans in congress. and that's going to make them really mad. it makes a bad situation worse. karrie was right, he may have won the hour but lost by doing this today. >> bill: miranda devine, to you. >> look, byron is absolutely right. the shifting goalpost about joe biden's involvement are staggering. we've gone from i know nothing about my son, hunter'sover seas

business dealings to my father was not financially involved in my business. there is so much that the i.r.s. whistleblowers could have found out in their investigation of hunter biden but they were constantly obstructed, slow walked, and eventually thrown off the case. but the documents and the testimony that they have given to the house ways and means committee, i think an open and shut case against joe biden's involvement and his financial involvement. you know, there is, for instance, they talked about a search warrant that the f.b.i. had signed off to do with foreign agent registration act violations by hunter biden, which, of course, leads to joe biden because that's the person he is lobbying. and those -- that search warrant they had to take out the name of i think they called him political figure one and that

was joe biden. that was the david weiss and his prosecutors there in delaware insisted that joe biden, even his code name for joe biden, had to be removed from the search warrant. every step of the way they were blocked from following those avenues. it doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. and as they pointed out, you know, the 10% for the big guy emails. and numerous, you know, meetings that joe biden had with hunter biden's overseas business partners. his willingness to make himself available to talk on the speakerphone to hunter biden's benefactors when these millions of dollars were coming in from corrupt regimes overseas and, you have know, our adversaries, these countries that joe biden was point man for under the obama administration where he had enormous power and influence.

that's the question, of course, that comer would have been asking hunter biden if he showed up for his testimony today. basically did you use your father's name, your father's influence and his high office to extract money from these overseas countries? >> dana: let's go to more people here. three more people. andy mccarthy, a prosecutor and heard him say a couple different times my father was not financially involved in my business. your prosecutorial mind, where did it go? >> where it has been from the beginning, dana, which is they've teed this up for presentation to the public the wrong way. this was not hunter's business. joe biden was the business. there is no business without joe biden. that's the only way a prosecutor would have teed this up for a jury to look at. i will go back to something you said, dana, one of the first times that we talked about this, which i wish i had been smart enough to think of myself, but

there is all kinds of self-dealing provisions in federal law that people have to comply with, which is a long winded way of saying there is one person in this equation that could have shut this business down in five minutes if he wanted to. it was joe biden. he allowed this to happen. it could not have happened. they could not have made this $24 million unless joe biden willfully allowed it to happen. >> bill: on that same point then, if hunter had accepted the misdemeanor deal on the table, would this ever have gotten to this point today? >> dana: great question. >> it would have gotten to this point, bill, with the committee. but the justice department would have just made this go away. and it was very foolish of them not to take that deal because it is perfectly obvious that weiss has absolutely no intention of

bringing more serious charges. he is not getting into the bribery and the money laundering and the foia stuff. i think they overlawyered it for that deal. >> bill: jason chaffetz. we have three minutes. fill one of them. >> there has been -- it has been said hunter biden won the hour. i totally disagree with that. he did the number one job of strengthening the hand of house republicans to have the political guts to go to the floor and vote for the impeachment inquiry. he is exhibit a to prove this inquiry cannot move forward unless the full house votes. the republicans better deliver. they put all those eggs in that basket on this vote this afternoon. they better actually pass that. and as far as the evidence, you don't get a chance to say i'm not going to show up. you couldn't do that in a traditional court. you can't do it to congress. a subpoena for him to say joe

biden wasn't financially involved? every single one of his family members was, including his grandkids who took $1 hundred thousand and the person said we would like to do more business with you and your father. there is a lot of evidence that joe biden directly -- >> bill: you used to run those committees. if a witness did not show, what would you do then? >> well, you issue a criminal complaint. you refer that to the department of justice. what the department of justice does then gives it to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia where it goes to die. it was one of my biggest frustrations, congress has no enforcement mechanism. >> bill: so whoa, are you saying that this could die? >> do you think the department of justice is actually going to prosecute this? do you not think that joe biden at some point can't just pardon

his son? >> dana: i do because in for a penny, in for a pound. we have a guest who has been with us the whole time, josh. the merits of all of this. what about the politics of it? >> well, dana, what's in hunter's legal interest is not in joe biden's political interest. and the language miranda was talking about earlier, the changing goalposts is very, very significant because joe biden is going to get heat from the moving the goalpost. now the hunter biden team is saying joe was not financially involved. that's a big difference with what the white house was saying not that long ago and that's where the political rubber hits the road. what's in hunter's legal interest is coming to a clash with the joe biden re-election campaign. >> bill: josh, thank you, andy, byron, miranda, jason, karrie. great panel. >> dana: we knew it would be a big day. >> bill: we'll find out which one of you are correct over

time. >> dana: i might be wrong, maybe the justice department will take a pass and not do it. >> bill: before we get out of here the line everybody is hanging on. here is hunter biden from 90 minutes ago. >> let me state as clearly as i can, my father was not financially involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of burisma, not in my partnership with a chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad. certainly not as an artist. >> bill: so we had a plan when we came on the air today. >> dana: i like it when it gets thrown out. >> bill: it is all out the window. >> dana: the white house press secretary will have to answer this at 1:00 p.m. >> bill: you have that and the big vote in the house. see how it goes. we'll follow every turn as it happens. >> dana: martha maccallum is in for harris. turn it over to you. >> martha: we have continuing coverage