ching? The half of you who said that what Hunter Biden was doing was criminal or what Hunter and Joe Biden were doing collectively was criminal, do you know that there's not one lawyer involved with Trump's defense, there's no TV lawyer who's ever said it's criminal. Where are you getting this? I mean I'm on your side, you know, directionally I get what you're saying that there's something deeply wrong with this Burisma situation but where in the world did you see some news or an expert opinion that there was something criminal going on? Have you not noticed that no TV lawyer says it's criminal and I'm pretty sure the president's people would say it's a criminal act if it were. Here's the code. Here's what you violated. What is making you think it's criminal if the top experts who certainly would say it's criminal if it were, they're not even saying it? Where are you getting this? Where is this coming from?

But the third choice was legal but wrong. So I put the word wrong in there because the question is, is there any evidence of wrongdoing? And something you know close to half the people said it was legal but wrong. Uh-huh. Then so that's that. I'm giving you my opinion based on ten minutes ago but I've updated it. I've updated it.

So a Twitter user, Dr. Chris or this crisis or something, Dr. C-H-R-X is however you want to pronounce that, that's his Twitter handle, reminds me or tells me, sends me a link that JP Morgan Chase settled two years ago. They paid two hundred and sixty four million dollars to settle a case in which there was criminal behavior in which they had a program in which they were hiring the sons and daughters of important Chinese officials so that they could get more banking deals in China. And this was found criminal to the point that they had to pay a two hundred and sixty four million dollar fine. That's a big, big fine. Two hundred and sixty-four million dollar fine. That's not playing around. I mean they're a big company but that's a serious fine. And the reason of course is that it basically fits some US law about bribery. So in effect JP Morgan Chase was found guilty of bribing Chinese officials for banking business.

Now the bribery was in the form of hiring their unqualified kids and just giving them a salary for doing probably close to nothing. And now in this case there was no doubt about what they were doing because the investigation kicked up, well first of all the name of the program was the sons and daughters program internally at JP Morgan Chase. They actually called it the sons and daughters program. And they had spreadsheets that showed you know which son and daughter got hired and then on the spreadsheet you could see what new business they got related to that top Chinese official whose son or daughter was hired. So in the JP Morgan Chase case there was no doubt that they were using this as bribes, right? So the factual basis totally beyond dispute. And so JP Morgan settled two hundred and sixty four million dollars. Apparently they made something like or they got something like a hundred million dollars in new business. So this didn't work out for them at all.

Now here's the question. We have a law in this country that you can't bribe other countries to get business but do we have a law that says that we can't be bribed? And would that law say that we can't be bribed for political access? Because in the case of Hunter it's not the only person making money was Hunter himself. It wasn't the US making money. So is there a law that would make it illegal for a Hunter to do what he did given that we know if the situation were reversed and we were bribing, let's say if we were hiring the sons and daughters of various bigwigs to get some extra Burisma business for some US company that would definitely be illegal. But if you reverse it is there any statute that covers that?

This is reminding me a lot of, you are saying yes but I'm thinking probably no based on the fact that the people who know the most about this are not presenting it as an argument. Don't you think that somebody like Jay Sekulow or Dershowitz or somebody, don't you think somebody who knows how these things work would have said oh it's not just sloppy behavior, you violated this very specific law about foreign corruption? Nobody's making that argument. So I'm gonna guess that there is no domestic law that says that Hunter can't do that. It's just sloppy.

Now here's the question. When Alan Dershowitz was talking about what makes something a criminal enough situation to be prosecutable or to be impeachable he made the case that it doesn't have to be technically a crime. It just has to be at least crime-like. In other words there could be some technical reason why you can't prosecute it but if it's exactly like a crime that's on the books you still say well it's not technically a crime but it's so crime-like we're gonna impeach this guy anyway. This is that situation. It might be that while Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did doesn't violate a specific law technically but it is exactly what was happening with JP Morgan and that was a crime. So I think you could say that although there's no impeachment on the table here that was as crime-like as you could possibly get.

Now not necessarily for Joe Biden. There's no indication that Joe Biden did anything illegal or even crime-like or even swampy because he wasn't the one who made the decision to go work for Burisma. That was Hunter. So that's I guess the question I ask is, is it appropriate for CNN's opinion pieces to have an embedded fact in it that's so obviously wrong? Because by saying that there's no evidence of wrongdoing it challenges our own observation because we're looking at it. We're saying what do you mean there's no evidence? What you report about this situation is the evidence. CNN's own reporting: got a job, wasn't qualified, overpaid, clearly it was for political purposes. How was that not wrong? Even if it's not illegal.

Joe Biden said that in a recent town hall looking situation. He said this. He was asked, whoever he was asked about his VP pick and he said whomever I pick for VP must be capable of being president. Common thing. They always say that, right? I'm only gonna pick a VP who's capable of being a president. So it must be capable of being president because I'm an old guy. No I'm serious. That's what he said because people laughed when he said because I'm an old guy. He goes no I'm serious. Now I think he also talked about somebody younger and so in his context he said that there are several people, people of color he would consider as vice president running mate. There are some women he would consider. And of course because of his age the implication is there has to be somebody younger.

This is what I call foreshadowing. Let me ask you this. If Joe Biden had a choice of getting a woman who was also white, is that as good a choice for his purposes of running for president as a Democrat? Would that be as good as having somebody who is a person of color? Which is better to have, a woman running mate or a person of color? It doesn't matter because he could have both. Why in the world would he not choose someone who was both a woman and a person of color? That would be stupid, right? Am I right? That would just be stupid. You can't even make an argument for picking someone who is only one of those two things, either a person of color let's say Cory Booker or a woman let's say Elizabeth Warren. So I think it's just obvious that his first cho