Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer which is apparently a thing. In difficult times, one of the more useful things we can do is turn to history's greatest thinkers for wisdom. This week, we revisit Albert Camus writings on the French Algerian War and apply some of those lessons to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
He's trying to explain when we lose sight of those individual lives. We've lost sight of what it is that makes us fully human. Here more on this week's Grey Area, available wherever you get your podcasts. From CAFE in the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Stay Tuned in Brief. I'm Preet Barara. Last year, Special Counsel David Weiss, indicted President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, on federal gun charges after a failed plea deal. That trial is now underway in a Delaware federal court.
Joining me to discuss the charges, takeaways from the first week of trial, and what this could mean for President Biden's re-election campaign is Danny Svallos. Danny is a noted attorney and legal analyst at MSNBC and has been following the trial closely. Danny, welcome to the show. Oh, Preet, I cannot tell you how happy I am to be here. My father-in-law is a huge Preet fan. I would say he's a low to medium Danny Svallos fan.
So this day is a, is the day I finally get some street cred in his eyes. Maybe. I mean, I still have to overcome a lot of other of my own shortcomings, but this is it, Preet. I am, I am excited. Well, you know, you beat me to it because I was going to say the team forwarded me your email and response to the request to come on the show. And it is, I think, hands down the champion winner of most enthusiastic response. All caps. Heck, yeah.
What took you folks so long? Absolutely. I stand by that, Preet. And actually, let me tell you, I actually got to meet you back in 2017 at a party. And you had the nicest things to say to me and I went to a terrific analyst. Oh, thank you. And I went home to my father-in-law and I said, you're never going to believe who I met. I know I'm going to be on his show any day now. It's going to happen. And I've been waiting by the phone. But I get it, Preet.
I know you had to go through every other former federal prosecutor in American history before you'd have a criminal defense guy on. So I'm assuming I'm lucky enough to be here because some AUSA from Guam couldn't make it. Right? All right. And we're not going to have time to talk about 100 Biden if you keep this up. But I apologize. And we'll, and we'll, we will definitely have you on more Danny. Well, let's see how you do. Let's see how you do.
So can you explain to people very quickly for those who haven't been following closely because they have lives and other things going on. Why it is that we're at trial. As I mentioned in the intro. People may have a recollection that this thing was all supposed to be wrapped up in a plea deal. Yes. So last year Hunter Biden walked into federal court fully planning to enter into to enter a plea and enter into what's called a diversionary program.
And a diversionary program exists at both the federal and state level in some form or another. And it basically means that you enter into a probationary period. Sometimes you enter an actual plea. Sometimes you don't. It depends on the procedure in that court. And then it's kind of a wait and see. It's a combination of a wait and see and a one free bite at the apple. If you comply with your terms, you come back six months, whatever the deal is.
And you usually get the charges completely dismissed. It is really the best deal that you can get short of an acquittal. And in many ways, it can be better than an acquittal because you don't have to go through trial. And you can usually get your record expunged again, depending on the procedure, whether you're in federal court or state court. This blew up in part because the judge during the actual plea realized that there were some procedural issues.
Most notably that it placed the there was some disagreement on whether this was a global resolution. In other words, whether it deleted the possibility of additional charges being brought against Hunter. And also another problem the judge had at some point was the issue of continued monitoring by the court. And that was a fair observation because normally the courts don't monitor. That's probation's job. So that's why the plea fell apart.
Right. Just pause on that. Pause for a moment. I don't want to belabor because we talked about it before. And I want to get to the actual trial. But it seems a little bit odd because why would a defendant plea guilty, particularly a defendant of this type without having certainty that the case was over as to all matters relating to him. And David Weiss. Do you think the parties were being a little bit cute?
You know, at the time I found myself thinking, well, I would more chalk this up to an oversight by both sides or a lack of communication. I didn't get the sense that either side was being cute. And I probably on the defense side they were thinking, this is a good deal. Deversion is an amazing deal. I got to be honest with you, Pete. I've never even had an offer of diversion in any of my federal cases. I wasn't aware it even existed. That's how rare and how good a deal diversion can be.
So maybe the defense rushed in thinking, okay, diversion. We're not going to ask a lot more questions. But I also think it's fair to say that both sides should have looked at this a little more closely and anticipated this being an issue. I just I don't think it was any side trying to be cute or trying to game the other side. I mean, this is an unusual investigation. It's a special counsel situation. And I think it was probably just something that was a mistake on both sides.
So before we get to this trial, there are two cases pending against Hunter Biden. Why are there two? One is a tax case. The other is this firearms case. And now they're being brought separately with the one now in Delaware proceeding.
We're almost finished with that one. And then Hunter Biden is in the central district of California on a tax case, which at the time procedurally they again, in an attempt to resolve this globally, the case had to actually be transferred dismissed and then re-broad by the government out in California. That was the tax case. But now they're proceeding separately. And that that was a jurisdictional reason. And now they're proceeding separately in this Delaware case is nearly over.
So the criminal case in Delaware relating to a firearm. Could you explain what the charges are? The three counts. This is really two different crimes. It's a possession crime. And it's also a false statements crime. On the false statement side, Hunter's charged with giving a false statement on what is called a form 4473. And it's a form that you fill out at the gun store. And one of the questions on it is, and I'm paraphrasing,
are you an unlawful user or an addict of a controlled substance? And the controlled substance is any of the schedules. And interestingly enough, that question omits alcohol abuse. That's not part of the statute. So the allegation is that Hunter Biden lied when he answered, no, I am not, because he was at the time, according to the government, an addict or an unlawful user.
And then the second is pretty closely related. It's just that portion of the statute 922 G3, which prohibits the possession of a firearm by an addict or an unlawful user of controlled substances in this case, crack cocaine. Now the overall statute, as I'm sure you know, 922 is brought all the time in federal court. My first trial ever as a federal prosecutor was a 922 GK. So that's very common on the ground, usually, that someone is a convicted felon and is not able to possess a gun.
Right. I don't remember certainly not as a line prosecutor and never came to my attention when I oversaw the whole office for seven and a half years. This other sub-provision of that statute being employed of not being allowed to possess a firearm if you were addicted to or have a substance abuse problem. What's your understanding of how common a charge that is?
Not only is it uncommon, not only is it only brought in a handful of circumstances, but when it is brought, it almost always is brought as an add-on to other crimes. So for example, the FBI execute a search warrant. They find a bunch of guns, a bunch of drugs. They have evidence of the commission of a crime.
And then normally that's when you might see this added on in this is anecdotal, but of the former prosecutors and defense guys I've talked to I'm not aware of a case where it was brought as a standalone charge we're talking about 922 G3. This is the addict or unlawful user in possession subsection. And I'm just not aware of that ever having been brought. I'm sure it has.
But this is the first that I'm aware of and pre you probably notice I've noticed I think which is that when it's prosecuted by itself like this it creates a kind of awkward unusual situation in that the government has to put on evidence that the defendant is an addict which they don't need in the vast majority of other drugs and gun cases.
I've never had a case where the government bothered to put on evidence that hey the defendant uses drugs. He's an addict. They just need to prove that the drugs were there or that a crime was committed or that a firearm was there. So this is actually from an evidence standpoint. Someone unusual for me to watch this go on and watch witness after witness testify that the defendant just wasn't addict or an unlawful user now from what you said about the frequency of this charge.
Can someone in good faith reasonably criticize it because it's so it's so uncommonly brought and might want to infer that that hunter Biden and I don't know if it's true or not is being treated differently and more harshly because his last name is Biden is there anything to that potential criticism. I think it's a fair criticism that because this is a charge that is almost never brought that I think you could fairly say that this could be this could have political undertones on the other hand.
Breed rarely do you have a situation where a defendant has written a book that anyone has read about his drug use during this particular time or has created his own evidence in the form of photographs or well text messages and photographs on social media that's something that the government and police mine all the time with a lot of success. I can't tell you how many defendants get themselves convicted because of what they post on social media or text message or even from a prison phone call.
I've often said I can barely remember the old days. I don't know how we convicted anyone before text messages. You're so right and you know I it's interesting because I first started noticing it in my juvenile cases you know many many years ago that's when that evidence started coming in because they were the early users of things like social media and text messaging and pretty quickly it spread to everybody but emails have been convicting people for a long time.
So I guess you could say that the government has been aided by some unusual evidence here which would be Hunter's book and a whole lot of evidence of his crack cocaine use. But yes, I mean I think just the real awkwardness for lack of a better word of this prosecution in that it's just rare to see someone with some some the government put on evidence that someone is just addicted as opposed to possession of drugs the existence of drugs the existence of a firearm the operability of a firearm.
So that has been unusual and I think it's fair to say that because it's unusual it is something that could have some political undertone. So from the perspective of many lawyers myself included the actual technical elements of the crime and you'll get to the evidence in a moment it's fairly easily made out if the government can prove that Hunter Biden was an addict and he purchased the gun.
It's fairly straightforward to prove to the jury that he lied and he was improperly in possession of that firearm but what about some of these other aspects of the case do they matter at all for example the testimony in the evidence suggests that Hunter Biden only possessed the gun for 11 days it was never fired it was never used it was never brandish so far as we know it was found by his girlfriend and then thrown in the trash she thought better of it and tried to recover it from the trash.
Do those circumstances of the brevity of the possession and the lack of its use have any bearing on the case at all they do to the defenses theory because the defenses theory is an interesting and I would say clever one which is the government's case as you I agree with you and for that reason I think the jury is going to quickly be unanimous one way or another because I don't think you can dispute possession I don't think you can dispute much about the form 44 73.
It really comes down to Hunter's awareness as to whether or not he was an addict so while I think they could go into the jury room and reach a conclusion on that pretty quickly I do think even though addict is defined in the US code there is a definition that they'll get I still think addict is something that different people will define differently from their life experience
and anyone who is a known someone who's struggling with substands abuse knows that that's the last person who thinks they're an addict it's everybody else in their family So I yeah, but this but the testimony has been both from Hundred Biden zone book and from various people with whom he had relationship that he was basically nonstop smoking crack at one point he was buying powder cocaine and he didn't trust his dealer so he was he was cooking unit to crack himself
And we're not talking about marijuana. We're not talking about, you know, some other lesser substance. We're talking about literally crack cocaine on a regular basis in and around the time that the gun was purchased. If not on that particular day, fair. Fair. But take a look at, there's this case, USB Daniels out of the Fitzcircuit. I'm sure you've heard of it. Hunter Biden has tried to raise
it to even get the case dismissed without success. And it's a really interesting case because it deals with a someone who was a lifelong admitted lifelong user of marijuana and the police found him with firearms and even I believe marijuana paraphernalia and possibly the maybe the drug itself. But the point was the defense was it was there was no evidence that he was anything but sober at the time
of possession. Now slightly different facts and slightly different outcome. But I mean, that has been the thrust of the defense here, which is yes, you may have evidence that I was a drug addict in the month of October or maybe in November of 2018 or October 2018. But have you proven beyond
a reasonable doubt that on these 11 days, I wasn't addict or an unlawful user. And even Halle Biden, who was I think by any measure that the government star witness admitted on cross examination, she wasn't sure her memory wasn't perfect as to whether or not during that span of time, he was addicted or under the influence of crack cocaine. So, you know, there may be a glimmer of hope for the defense here. Although, I mean, if I'm betting, I'm still betting heavily on the government
here. Is that too narrow with defense to try to parse out the particular hours, moments and days when Hunter Biden may or not have been using a drug? I mean, and combined with that is my question about what reasonable doubt means. So the government shows, look, he was basically talking about
himself as an addict. There's testimony that he used these, you know, very substantial narcotics before and some point after the user comments, sense, ladies and gentlemen, you can't have a reasonable doubt that during these 11 days, he was using the substance or can there be reasonable doubt based on the absence of the evidence that you've described? Yeah, there it is. You've honed in on what I believe will be the crux of closing argument. And I wouldn't be surprised if the government's
closing argument is pretty close to exactly what you just said. And that's going to be it. The government's going to say, look, we've got some bookends here. They're pretty good. People are also testifying he was using it every 20 minutes. So you can draw an inference that he was using it during these 11 days. And of course, the defense, and again, if we're balancing it out, does the
defense or the government have the stronger argument? I'd lean towards the government, but you know, that's the life of criminal defense in federal court is you got to try some long shot ideas. So I mean, it's a defense that they'll be able to argue. It's whether or not the jury buys it on any level. And they, you know, you're absolutely right. They may say, okay, we don't have time-stamped photographs of him using crack or any admissions that he was using crack while he had the firearm in
his possession. But they're going to be fighting against some very strong inferences. And that's going to be the magic word in the prosecution's closing. It's going to be inference. It's going to be you can draw an inference from all the evidence we put on. And don't be fooled by the defense suggesting that we have the burden to prove every moment of every day during the month of October 2018 that Hunter Biden was an addict or an unlawful user. And again, you know, we're also, we also
have the 4473, the false statement. So that's a slightly different burden. Was Hunter himself even aware? Did he knowingly lie on that form? If he himself believed that, hey, I've been clean and sober for 11 days. I'm on a brand new lease on life. I feel great. I am not an addict or an unlawful user. That might be the stronger argument for the defense. The tougher argument is saying that he was not addicted to an unlawful user during those 11 days in the face of all this evidence.
Can you describe the nature of some of this testimony? I've heard it described as emotional, wrenching, compelling, and also how the jury might be reacting to it. Even though we as lawyers are sort of parsing out the elements and talking about whether or not the government has an open and shut case, the flavor of the testimony. Can you talk about that for a moment? Sure. Again, I approach it from a criminal defense attorney standpoint. And I think about the witnesses that
have been called so far. At least the most compelling headline worthy witnesses have been Hunter Biden's ex-wife. Then his ex-girlfriend, who he met at a gentleman's club when she was working there. And she took the jury on a wild ride through Hunter Biden's life at that during that time of using drugs and partying. And then you heard from Halle Biden, who was the widow of Bow Biden and Hunter Biden's ex-girlfriend after Bow died. And yes, I mean, this had to be very emotional for
folks like Halle Biden for the entire Biden family. But it's really in service of the government showing that over an extended period of time, Hunter Biden was a user or an addict of crack cocaine. I think it's been also very compelling evidence because it just doesn't paint Hunter Biden in a fantastic light. And I don't know that a lot of people are saying that, but I mean, just strictly thinking about these witnesses in a criminal prosecution, the government's done a
good job of painting Hunter Biden as a guy who was out of control. And they're not doing that to be unsympathetic to the scourge of addiction. In fact, the more out of control Hunter Biden is that services the idea that he might have been an addict at the time that he possessed this firearm. But I think the government has done a good job of calling witnesses to create the atmosphere that during an extended period of time, Hunter Biden was using crack all the time. And that will
service their inference argument that they make in their closing. It has been emotional for a witness like Halle Biden who I who I view as a kind of victim in all of this. I mean, you know, she she's a tragic figure. She's gone through a lot of painful things. You know, could you say that her throwing the gun in the dumpster was inexplicable? Was it strange? Yeah, but I mean, I think doing criminal defense and I'm sure in your experience, people in times of stress do some strange things.
So as much as that might have been an odd choice, I mean, she was going through a really difficult time. So to that extent, I mean, in many criminal prosecutions, especially when addicts are involved, there are a lot of victims and victims are often family members who love them.
You know, it also occurs to me as you're describing the way the government is putting in its evidence that part of what it may be doing either directly or incidentally is trying to show the jury, you know, even though they don't have to prove this, this wasn't a guy who had a joint in his apartment
that occasionally used and possessed a firearm. This was an addict control person on very, very serious drugs and the underlying theme of which is he had no business having a firearm because that's dangerous and that's problematic and that's why we have the statute. So that's an observation I just had when I heard you speaking. My other question is, which of the following dynamics do you think is more likely
to prevail? On the one hand, will the jury be impressed by the fact that most of these witnesses are people who were love interests of Hunter Biden, close to him, may still have strong feelings for him still and think, well, that's pretty incriminating if the people closest to him are coming forward and incriminating him in this crime or to the contrary, are they repelled by that and will it backfire because the government is using former love interests of Hunter Biden
to make their case to put him away and lock him up? You know, that's an interesting question. I go back to the point that it's unusual for the government to have to put on evidence that somebody is just hopelessly addicted to drugs. That's the nature of this particular subsection of the statute and who better to do that than the people who are with Hunter at all times, who are with the defendant at all times. Those are family members and their paramores, their girlfriends, ex-wives.
But you also hit on a point that I think is really compelling and just to go back a week ago to the Donald Trump trial in New York, that featured several witnesses who hated Donald Trump. And I always think it's very compelling when the government calls witnesses that really don't have it in for the defendant. They're not looking to burry him. None of these witnesses are cooperating witnesses of the kind that I've seen where they bring them in in the shackles and
their prison grays. And they're obviously people with terrible criminal records and who have motivations to lie. None of that is really going on. Yes, there is some, there is some element of cooperating witness in the Hunter Biden trial, but the on the whole, especially the family members, they're people that don't want to do damage to Hunter Biden, presumably, or at least they don't
seem to have any eye for him on the stand. I think that's the best kind of witness. The best kind of witness is the witness who likes the defendant who would rather not be there or is even neutral about them. And so I think those are really good witnesses. I don't think it backfires on the government at all because I don't think they've done it in a taudry way. I mean, just to give you an example, also just some momentary examples of how good the government is at finding evidence.
At one point, they introduced a photograph of Hunter with a t-shirt and it's kind of a play on the Adidas symbol, I believe, and it says addict. I mean, how on the nose can you get the government's really good at coming up with evidence like that and putting it in and it's little things like that really make their case. I mean, that's why that's why they have a 95% conviction rate. I mean, this is they're putting on good evidence here. Yeah, but we're also selective.
What we bring and what we don't bring it's a self-selecting process. Could you talk for a minute about who this jury is and how you think it plays for the defense versus the prosecution and what the theory of jury nullification might be here? So in asking me what the jury, I mean,
it's I understand that it's a diverse jury. It's a Delaware jury and I'm actually from not too far from this area and this is a state where, you know, as I predicted this would happen during jury selection, it wasn't a case where everybody on the people on the jury more had not views of Joe Biden as president. There was a problem on the selecting a jury of people who actually knew the Biden's
because that it's a small community. I think this is a pretty good jurisdiction for the defendant and I also think that the issue of addiction could come up if you're talking about jury nullification. I think the issue of addiction is a really interesting one. It's like I said before, it's a rare issue to be deliberating over and I think everybody comes to the table with different views about addiction and it can cut both ways. I mean, not everyone with an addicted person in their family
is sympathetic to that person. In fact, a lot of times they're really they've had it up to hear with that person. And so I, you know, if you're talking about jury nullification, that might be an issue. I don't know if I seized on some of the points you were hoping I'd hit, but in terms of, you know, knowing the Biden's, I think it's a name in this part of the country in Delaware that people recognize and they actually know and that might be a good thing for Hunter Biden.
And, you know, this area of Delaware too, I know happens to have a really big drug problem. So as much as you may have gotten potential jurors out during voidier who have two stronger feelings, I think everybody from that, that area of the state has a general understanding about the scourge of addiction. Right. You know, I've made an observation about this case.
It does make for a little bit of a strange bet fellow situation. If it wasn't Hunter Biden ordinarily, your average progressive would say, we need to enforce very aggressively these gun laws. And whether you're somebody who has been a convicted felon, you shouldn't have a gun. And that's why we have 922 g or if you've engaged in domestic violence, you shouldn't have a gun. Or if you're an addict, you just shouldn't have a gun. And then the other hand, there are conservatives ideologically
who would in the ordinary case and they're fighting these things in court right now. There's a case in the Supreme Court relating to 922 g and they would say you have a constitutional right to have a firearm and just because you're a convicted felon, once you've served your time, you shouldn't be precluded from having a gun for the rest of your life. This addict's subsection of the statute is vague. It's difficult to understand when you're talking about a constitutional right.
Is there anything about that that strikes you as a odd house? You know, you can tell how someone feels about the case based on what tribe they're on, notwithstanding what their otherwise ideological preferences would normally be? Well, sure. I mean, an even simpler analysis is a week ago. You know, people who are pretty far along on one side or other of the ideological spectrum were very pro-defense,
were like defense attorneys in the Trump New York trial. And now those same folks are very pro-prossicutions. So I mean, that's kind of a simple litmus test that I've just noticed from week to week. I mean, there are people who are who sounded like defense attorneys last week who are now very pro-prossicutor mentality folks. So yes, I think so. I think you're on to something there. And I think that folks who
are sympathetic to Hunter Biden probably see this as an unfair prosecution. But I do agree with you that here's the thing about this particular subsection. And you know, it's kind of more a philosophical debate because of how rarely it's brought. If it were brought more often, it might be more of a policy debate, but it's scarcely ever brought by itself, this addict and possession part of the statute. But 922 itself is a very important statute. And it's very much under attack. I mean,
it's literally in front of the Supreme Court right now in a case called Rahimi. And it's going to be before the Supreme Court again in a case called range. And just what in the last month, the Solicitor General Prilogar, made the argument to the Supreme Court that, you know, there's one thing we need to make sure of. And it's that irresponsible people. And she clarified she meant people who are not responsible for their own actions should not have firearms. So I think the policy behind
a 922 G3 and addict and possession statute is very strong. I mean, when we're talking so much these days about the classes of people who should be disarmed, you know, the case before the Supreme Court right now is about whether you're under a domestic violence order. Some of the others are about even the felon and possession statute. What if you're a nonviolent felon from 20 years ago? But one of the things I think is a has a pretty strong policy and is even rooted to some degree in
the history and traditions is disarming people who are habitual drug users. And Hunter Biden's defense team already tried this motion, a facial challenge, based on, you know, the idea that that this statute should be invalidated. And that was already denied. So I think this is a case where the policy behind this statute is a good one. But the when it actually comes down to prosecuting it,
the burden of proof is difficult. It's a strange position. I just I can't think of another time where either the government or a state prosecutor put on evidence witness after witness to say that my client or a defendant was just an addict. Hey, this person is an addict and that was an
element of the crime. Yeah, it's very interesting as a constitutional matter. If you're a person who believes in the inviability of the right to bear arms in the right to possess a firearm under the second amendment, your argument about this section, which makes sense from a policy perspective in many ways. The argument I suppose is, yeah, but like there's not been a due process adjudication of someone being an addict in any way, shape or form that's part of what's going on in the
domestic violence example or the temporary restraining order example as well. If you're going to go and take someone's basic fundamental constitutional right away, if that's your view, how can it be on some Lucy Goosey understanding of whether someone is or is not an addict? We don't take away someone's right to vote, right? So casually. And you know, I don't know if I'll have any store in the intermediate courts, but I don't know, frankly, how arguments like that will fare in
the Supreme Court, I guess we'll find out. You're not a political analyst nor am I. But hey, do you have any view about how this might affect the election and be, is it wrong that we're even spending so much time talking about Hunter Biden, who is not running for president, who is not a political figure in any way, who's a private citizen, who happens to be the son of the president? Are we are we doing something wrong by giving it so much attention on TV and on this podcast?
So I talked about this yesterday. I was filling in from Michael Smerkhanish on his series XM show and I think that Donald Trump's conviction last week helps him. I think Hunter Biden's conviction or acquittal either way doesn't hurt Joe Biden. I think if anything, Joe Biden has come off and Jill Biden have both come off as sympathetic figures here because I think almost everybody in the United States knows someone who has struggled with addiction and they they get that.
You can conclude, and I think fairly that Hunter Biden is not a great guy. You can conclude in your opinion that he's a guy who's had a lot of opportunity and he's squandered it. He's not the typical drug addict who came from nothing and had few options and drugs was just another of a very limited set of options. But I don't think that really harms Joe Biden. And to your second question on whether we should be covering this, I mean, I always find fascinating any prosecution like
this that is rare. I think it's a good thing to test statutes like this that are rarely prosecuted. I find it interesting from a criminal defense perspective, but should it be something that the eyes of the country are on? Well, yeah, I know in an election year, I think there's an argument to be made that if it's the son of the sitting president and it's never happened before to the son of a
sitting president. I think it's interesting enough. And I mean, simply from, as I've said, from a criminal defense perspective and the statute itself, I'm doing a fair amount of watching if for no other reason than I just find it interesting that a statute, a subsection that is so rarely prosecuted is being prosecuted. Last question. Joe Biden has said, and I was a little surprised by this. He has said that he will not pardon his son, even if convicted. Do you buy that? That was
the biggest shock to me in the news of the last week because I didn't need to say that. I don't know what he could have said otherwise. And I don't want to, I don't want to debate the merits of it. But when or lose, if he gets convicted, I think there's a serious likelihood that the father pardons the son, don't you? Not only that. Let me yes, and to what you just said, and not only that. And I don't want to be macabre, but I'm sure Joe Biden realizes that let's say he wins another
term. He might not want to wait until the last day of his term, you know, the way most presidents do. If you're going to do something like Bill Clinton and pardon your brother, you want to wait till close to the end of your term. I mean, Joe Biden, I mean, if you just go by the actuarial tables, and I really, I don't mean to sound so dark, but you know, there's a possibility he may not make it to the end of his second term. So not only do I think he will pardon him, I feel like I have no
doubt that he will. I mean, I just think about as a parent, I think any parent would do that. And I would expect that if he wins the election, he might do it relatively soon after he is inaugurated to his second term or after he wins the election. Because who wouldn't do that? I found that to be the most surprising piece of news of the last week that Joe Biden said that. And honestly, I wouldn't even not only would I not be surprised, I wouldn't even fault him that much if he goes
back on that promise because he's a father and hunter is his son. Look, and then he has an argument. We discussed earlier and I don't have a particular view on it. You know, he has a plausible argument to himself, his conscience. And a lot of the voting public that it was a politicized prosecution that wouldn't have occurred given the infrequency of it generally, that wouldn't have occurred if the father weren't in fact Joe Biden. So we will see how all this unfolds. We went longer than usual,
Danny, because it's great to talk to you. We will have you on again. Oh, thank you. That was what I was waiting to hear. You did great. So thrilled. I cannot tell you. It is really an honor. I've been looking forward to this. And I am just thrilled to be on your show. Thank you so much for having me. Danny Savalos, thanks so much. For more analysis of legal and political issues making the headlines, become a member of the cafe insider. Members get access to exclusive content,
including the weekly podcast I host with former US Attorney Joyce Vance. Head to cafe.com slash insider to sign up for a trial. That's cafe.com slash insider. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. Tweet them to me at Pritbarara with the hashtag AskPreet. You can also now reach me on threads
or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That's 669-24Preet. Or you can send an email to letters at cafe.com. Stay tuned is presented by cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tadashore. The deputy editor is Celine Roar. The editorial producer is Noah Azalai. The associate producer is Claudia Hernandez. And the cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner and Jake Kaplan. Our music is by Andrew
Dost. I'm your host, Pritbarara. Stay tuned.