mr. turley. it's far time for joe biden to stop lying to the american people about his shade did foreign business deals. he intentionally misled the american people by using complex maneuvers to pocket millions of dollars from our adversary. he lied when he was vice president, he lied as a candidate to gain the office of president of the united states and now this committee has uncovered the truth. it is time to impeach this compromised commander-in-chief. mr. chairman, i yield. >> gentle lady yields back. >> point of order. i didn't interrupt the gentle lady from colorado. you cannot engage in personalities against the president of the united states. >> we established that mr. ranking member. thank you. >> you cannot say that joe biden lied. he didn't lie -- >> mr. ranking member ---ed. >> you can't say it >> this is -- this is -- >> thank you. >> i can provide you all the cases -- >> reclaiming order. chair recognizes mr. ivy -- >> unanimous consent motion. i would like to reintroduce once agai

mr. turley, please. let's go with this. capacity of state and district courts to keep records an information sealed. that's one of the critiques we have about moving away from a fisa court because, oh, boy, there'll be leaks, as if there's been no leaks in the current scheme. so tell me your experience there and is it possible for state and federal courts to keep information sealed? mr. turley: i always hear this objection. it has no support at all. i deal with national security cases through regular article 3 courts all the time, throughout the years they have scif. they have training. they're cleared. there aren't these allegations of leaks. the issue with the secret court is that no one is objecting that you can have a secret court in the sense of a giant scif where secret proceedings can occur. you can have judges shreked and trained for that purpose. the question is whether the standard for u.s. citizens and u.s. persons should be different in that croom. -- in that courtroom. i don't semithat -- accept that to be the

mr. turley and mr. gerhardt testified in the judiciary committee the inquiry was in the intelligence committee. and in the intelligence committee, there were 17 first-hand witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations, and the public hearings had 12 witnesses all with first-hand. here we are in our first hearing. no one has any actual knowledge or evidence. there's nothing new here. so, why don't we have some of the fact witnesses here. you've brought them in. they've come in already. what about devon archer? mr. donaldson, the chairman, now want to disavow stir archer's testimony that mr. biggs entirely relies upon. they don't want him to come sit here. why? may be because he testified that joe biden never discussed business with hunter or other business associates. he got nothing from their businesses. and he never took any official acts related to the businesses. or maybe the american people might hear that this $3.5 million actually had nothing to do with hunter biden which is what devon archer

mr. turley, simple question for you. in your testimony today, are you presenting any first-hand witness account of crimes committed by the president of the united states? >> no, i'm not. >> you are not. >> ms. o'connor, second republican witness here today, have you in your testimony presented any first-hand witness account of crime presented by the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> mr. dubinsky, have you presented any first-hand witness account of crimes presented by the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> president gerhardt, given you are minority witness, i assume the same, correct? >> correct. >> thank you, to clarify two individuals presented today who have first-hand account surrounding progeny of allegations being blocked from testifying by republican majority and i want to explain why this is important. members of congress, all of us in this hearing, are not under oath. we are presently covered by the speech and debate clause, correct, mr. gerhardt? >> correct. >> covers all statemen

mr. turley.is far time for joe biden to stop lying to the american people about his shady foreign business deals. he intentionally misled the american people by using complex maneuvers to pocket millions of dollars from our adversaries. he lied when he was vice-president, he lied as a candidate to gain the office of president of the united states. now, this committee has uncovered the truth and it is time to impeach this compromised commander-in-chief. mr. chairman, i yield. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> point of order if i could, i didn't want to interinterrupt the good gentle lady from colorado, you cannot engage in personalities against the president of the united states. >> we've established that, mr. ranking member. >> you cannot say that joe biden lied. >> mr. ranking member we've established the hearing. >> you can't say it, mr. chairman, and parliamentarian. >> provide you all that-- >> reclaiming order. chair now recognize mr. ivy. >> unanimous consent. >> i would like to reintroduc

mr. turley, i'm going to ask you a question. if the brand and what you are selling is joe biden, the then vice president, and if joe biden or his family is receiving some kind of benefit by the sale of access or, you know, i'll leave it there, selling of access or even the illusion of access to joe biden, what does that lead you to conclude? >> well, if you look at actual cases i've cited in my testimony, benefits to family members can be viewed as a benefit of the principal. so not much debate about that. the issue of the inquiry is whether -- there has been -- stop and say there has been progress in the last few weeks that many people after the archer testimony said yeah, i get it, it's influence peddling. someone said it's the illusion of access. >> the new defense, is that -- >> i think calling it by its correct name is important and it is a form of corruption. the benefits to the family members can be attributed to the principal even under the higher standard of criminal cases. what remains is the question is did the presid

mr. turley and mr. gerhardt testified to it in the judicial committee and the inquiry was in the intelligence committee and there there were 17 first-hand witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegation and the public hearings had 12 witnesses all first-hand and here we are in our first hearing and no one has any actual knowledge or evidence and there is nothing new here. so why don't we have some of these witnesses here? you brought it in and they have come in already and what about devon archer? so now they want to disavow mr. archers testimony that mr. big relies upon, but they don't want him to come here. why? because he testified that joe biden never discussed business with hunter or other business associates and he got nothing from their businesses and he never took any official acts related to the businesses. or maybe the american people might hear that this $3.5 million from this woman had nothing to do with hunter biden, which is what devon archer testified and what about hunter biden's partn

mr. turley: could i add one thing to that? there was a case in the second circuit, i agree with everything that's been said. one of the barriers that we see in federal court is people have been denied standing in order to challenge these issues. mr. nadler: the number of searches among u.s. persons went from 3.4 million in 2021 to less than 120,000 in 2022. can you explain what remedial measures the d.o.j. put in place to reduce the number or do you consider the changes sufficient to protect americans from unwanted surveillance? ms. goitein: the f.b.i. impose nud training requirement, changed its data systems in various ways and these changes resulted in the searches, as you say, going from 3.4 million to 200,000 searches. now i would say that one warrantless search of americans' communications is too many. 200,000 warrantless search, that's 500 warrantless searches for our communication every day, that's a jaw-dropping number. the fact that the f.b.i. seems proud of that number tellus how little regard they have for americans

mr. turley.rofessor turley, in 2006, you wrote an op-ed in the guardian entitled, quote, stop persecuting polygamists. they are you like and polygamists to, quote, persecuted minorities and said polygamy is a practice with deep and good-faith religious meanings. isn't that what you said? >> i represented the sister wives family in challenging a polygamy persecution -- >> the answer is yes. you've been crusading for legalizing polygamy for years. in fact, in an op-ed in the usa today, you said a utah polygamist named tom green was also convicted of pedophilia for raping his 13-year-olded stepdaughter shouldn't have been charged with polygamy. mr. chairman -- >> can i respond? i criticized him. what i was dealing with was the constitutionality of what is calledou the morals legislation. and i admit i'm pretty libertarian -- [inaudible] >> was he convicted of pedophilia and rape? the answer is yes. mr. chairman, we are counting down the hours until a government shutdown and here we have a hearing wh

mr. turley and mr. gerhardt testified in 2019 in the official impeachment process in the judiciary committee, the inquiry was in the intelligence committee. and in the intelligence committee, there were 17 firsthand witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations and the public hearings had 12 witnesses all with firsthand. here we are in our first hearing, no one has any actual knowledge or evidence there is nothing new here. so why don't we have some of the fact witnesses here? you've brought them in, you've -- they have come in already. what about devon archer? now, mr. donalds and the chairman want to disavow mr. archer's testimony that mr. biggs entirely relies upon but they don't want him to come sit here. why? well, maybe because he testified that joe biden never discussed business with hunter or other business associates, got nothing from their businesses and never took any official acts related to the businesses. or maybe the american people might hear that this $3.5 million from the woman ac

mr. turley wants to address that during a number member " line of questioning, he can do that. we are on the five-minute clock. the chair recognizes ms. mace. >> in 2013, mr. raskin said , there is no formal constitutional or statutory, even house rule for help and impeachment inquiry is to begin. it means different things to different people i don't want to hear another word from the left or on the other side of the aisle about impeachment inquiries, this is total hypocrisy this morning. today, we will bring the facts, today, we will bring the evidence, in 2017, the joe biden family teamed up with chinese companies, to make millions off of granting access to joe biden and hunter arrange for joe biden share office space with the company. my democrat colleagues say none of this is relevant because joe biden was not vice president wallace family did that shady deals. turns out, that is complete and total he referred access to his father as keys to the families only access, those words will come back and haunt hunter biden. and his family forever. yesterday, the ways and means comm

mr. turley wants to address that during a number member " line of questioning, he can do that. we are on the five-minute clock. the chair recognizes ms. mace. >> in 2013, mr. raskin said , there is no formal constitutional or statutory, even house rule for help and impeachment inquiry is to begin. it means different things to different people i don't want to hear another word from the left or on the other side of the aisle about impeachment inquiries, this is total hypocrisy this morning. today, we will bring the facts, today, we will bring the evidence, in 2017, the joe biden family teamed up with chinese companies, to make millions off of granting access to joe biden and hunter arrange for joe biden share office space with the company. my democrat colleagues say none of this is relevant because joe biden was not vice president wallace family did that shady deals. turns out, that is complete and total he referred access to his father as keys to the families only access, those words will come back and haunt hunter biden. and his family forever. yesterday, the ways and means comm

mr. turley.professor turley, in 2006 you wrote an op-ed in the guardian entitled, quote, stop persecuting polygamists. you like en them to, quote, persecuted minorities and said polygamy is a practice with deep and good faith religious meaning. isn't that what you said? >> i represented the sister wives family in challenging a polygamy prosecution. >> you have been cree siding for legalizing polygamy for years. an op-ed in the usa today you said a utah polygamist named tom green convicted of pedophilia for raping his 13-year-old stepdaughter should not have been charged with polygamy. now, mr. chairman. >> can i respond? it is not entirely accurate. i criticized him. what i was dealing with was the constitutionality of what is called morals legislation. i am pretty libertarian, i admit. i -- >> the answer is yes. mr. chairman, mr. chairman, we're counting down the hours until the government shutdown and we have a hearing where we have one witness who defended a polygamist convicted of pedophilia

mr. turley's thoughts on the matter. what do you think? >> a great many things. first, one might note that republicans, who are hardly left-leaning, in new hampshire, are bringing section 3 lawsuits. going back, concerned with section 3 is across the political spectrum. and section 3 is in the constitution. it's no more wacky than the first or second amendment. and in fact if you look at the history of section 3, originally it simply referred to people who participated in the late rebellion, limited to the civil war. but they changed it and the reason was, as they said, that we are worried about future insurrection. so one of those insurrections that people apply this to was by the clan. the clan went down and murdered people. that was an insurrection. only a few people, but it's still an insurrection. so again, the question is the definition of insurrection, as i've indicated, an attempt to resist the implementation of federal law by force or violence. that's the common-law definition. was president trump involved? if he was he should be disqualified. if not, he

mr. turley doesn't know what he is talking about the fact that there was no charge of incitement, no conviction not the point. if you engage in an attempt to overturn the government, you shouldn't be entrusted with power again. it is conservatives like judge will you twillywillyou tell wig. i'm afraid that jonathan turley is basically a hack. >> laura: i think old harry needs to look in the mirror. i think being called a hack by a so-called legal expert who once accused bill barr of shooting protesters with rubber bullets in lafayette park and supports court packing being called a hack by him is a huge compliment. jonathan turley, george washington university law professor fox news contributor joins us now. professor turley, your response? >> well, you know, i suppose i'm supposed to now engage in trash talking because that's how this goes, right? this is the license of the age of rage. and rage is addictive and professor transcribe shows th tt addiction. there was a time when law professor could say disagree and really argue the merits. tribe is a signature for attacking people. i got off ligh

mr. turley, he said 19 that impeachment requires a clear criminal act, is that right? >> no. in the trump impeachment i said repeatedly can impeach someone for noncriminal conduct. what i said then, i am saying that which is i strongly encourage you to look. >> that testimony is there. you can't. i have ten seconds left. you have said that lying is a president is not impeachable. you have said that there is an influence peddling campaign but you willing knowledge, will you not, that in order to have a criminal act of public corruption or bribery, there must be under mcdonnell an official act in connection to some sort of personal benefit. isn't that right? >> the gentleman's time has expired. please answer the question. figure i can point you to my testimony. >> just answer the question! >> it's a little more complex. >> no it's not! official act for personal benefit. >> the gentlest and has expired. >> sthe congressman is known asn gold gold men around town because he always seems to accidentally be bolstering the claims against the big guy joe biden. take a look. >> you tes

mr. turley doesn't know what he's talking about.t that there was no charge of incitement, no conviction, that's not the point. this provision was written specifically as an all ternativ saying whether you're convicted or not. they didn't expect people to be convicted under president johnson. whether you're convicted or not, that's a separate matter but if you engage in an attempt to overturn the government, you shouldn't be entrusted with power. how many have to die before we enforce this? there were several who died at the capitol during the insurrection. that's all nonsense. it is conservatives like the judge and member of the federal society who agree with me. i'm afraid jonathan turley is basically a hack. he doesn't really know what he's talk talking about. >> he makes a legal issue. one other thing i want to give you a chance to respond to comes from one of the secretaries of state who would theoretically be charged with removing trump's name from the ballot. this is brad raffensperger, who stood up to trump when trump wanted

mr. turley, very clearly said that there is no evidence to impeach president biden was shocking to all thens in the room. us on the other side, as democrats, we agree with him. we agree with that, with his assessment there. i think that's just goes to show you how much of a sham and how political this is and how this is driven by donald trump and his campaign. it is a circus event. >> congressman robert garcia, i thank you very much for being with us this morning. appreciate it. >>> just moments ago, new york's attorney general just revealed who she plans to call to the stand in her civil fraud trial against donald trump next week. will he testify? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. s? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. >> tech: cracked windshield on your new car? you don't have to take it to the dealer. bring it to safelite. we do more replacements and recalibrations than anyone else. >> customer: thank you so much. >> tech vo: schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds

mr. turley. >>> coming up here on "kudlow," are we looking at a doom loop in commercial real estate?my gosh. we're going to ask mr. wonderful, "shark tank" investor kevin o'leary. plus, trump boom reverse us bidenomics bust. and, by the way, a new poll out today, swing state voters are clearly betting the over on trump. wow. swing states. we've got hogan gidley and deroy murdock up next when "kudlow" returns. ♪ ♪ j.p. morgan wealth plan, a digital money coach in the chase mobile® app. use it to set and track your goals, big and small... and see how changes you make today... could help put them within reach. from your first big move to retiring poolside - and the other goals along the way. wealth plan can help get you there. ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management. [coughing] when caroline has a cough she takes robitussin. so, she can have those one on ones again. hey jim! hey! can we talk about your yoga breaks? sure. get fast, powerful cough relief with robitussin, and find your voice. ♪ robitussin ♪ your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, it naturally begins to change, causin

mr. turley said earlier that this is a confirmed corrupt influence pedalling effort. he thinks that's what joe biden engaged in. by the wayed, that all happened even though the obama administration had just written the prosecutor general a few months earlier and said we're impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda i've your government. joe biden decides to do it. he decided on the plane. he decided on the plane. read "the washington post." september 15, on the plane, joe biden called an audible. quoted. it was time for a bigger punch. the loan guarantee was the main professor of leverage. he used the money that i represent to help his family. any one with a brain can see that. that was the point of leverage the vice president declared. so instead he would tell poroshenko, the loan would not be coming until shokin was gone. guess what? they didn't stop there. they made sure the next prosecutor dropped the charges against the very guy that requested this all to happen in the first place. the head of burisma, that have the case. that is the case. tha

mr. turley, you saidler in 2019 that impeachment requires a clear criminal act. is thact, is tt right. >> no. in fact, in therump trump impeachment, i said repeatedly, you can you can impeach someone for non-criminal conduct. what inoncrimi said i'm saying , which is i strongly encourage you to look at criminal law.. all right. well, that testimony is there. well, let's just knoyou ca tenws can't because i have 10 seconds left. you have said that lying l as a as a president is not impeachable. you have said that there's an influence peddling campaign, but you will acknowledge, will you notg knowle, that in or to have a criminal act of public corruption or briberiy ,there must be, under mcdonnell, an official act in connection to some sort of personal benefit. >> isn't that right? isn's experiment. question charlie, please answer the question. i can just point you to my testimony. re inti talk about. just answer the question because it's a little more common. no, it's noter t an official act for a personal benefit. gentleman's time's expired. now, the congressman