--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Host (John Bickley): The NFL is back, and FanDuel's got everything you need to play your game. From same-game parlays to live betting. Right now, new customers bet $5 and get $300 in bonus bets if you win. 21-plus in president select states. 18-plus in Kentucky and Wyoming. Must be first online real money waging. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Hunter Biden shows up on Capitol Hill, but not for his deposition with congressional investigators. Here I am, Mr. Chairman, taking up your offer when you said we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose. Well, I've chosen. Will he be charged with contempt of Congress? And how does this tie into the impeachment effort? I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley. It's Thursday, December 14th, and this is Morning Wire. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could affect hundreds of January 6th cases. This statute wasn't intended to sweep this conduct in. What could this case mean for President Trump? And the controversy around Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, intensifies as new reports reveal the university attempted to cover up claims about plagiarism. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know.
--:-- Host (Georgia Howe): Hunter Biden appeared on Capitol Hill Wednesday to give a statement to the press, but did not show up for his deposition to the House of Representatives, sparking threats of a contempt charge from Republican lawmakers. Joining us to break down the remarks and their implications is Daily Wire contributor David Marcus. Hey, Dave, before we get into the meat of this statement, what exactly happened? It wasn't what anyone really expected.
--:-- David Marcus: Morning, and no, it was not. The expectation was that Hunter Biden would attend the closed-door deposition before the Oversight Committee and either testify or plead the fifth, given his multiple indictments. Instead, he showed up 15 minutes late on the Senate side of the grounds, where the House sergeant at arms could not potentially enforce his subpoena, and gave a speech without taking questions. He then left without attending the deposition, which left GOP members fairly irate and threatening to hold the president's son in contempt, a process Jim Jordan and James Comer said they are initiating. So it was a bit of a wild ride.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Yeah, it was. So moving to Hunter's statement itself, what did he have to say about the impeachment inquiry and his refusal to testify before the House?
--:-- David Marcus: On the latter, all he said was that he would be willing to testify in public, but that's not what the subpoena was for. As for the impeachment inquiry, he said it was a farce run by MAGA extremists, something we anticipated on the show yesterday, and also accused the GOP of ridiculing his addiction. The thing that jumped out to many observers was Hunter Biden's careful phrasing when he talked about his father's connection in his business dealings. He used the phrase, quote, not financially involved in my business, end quote, in regard to Joe Biden.
--:-- Georgia Howe: 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 So the important context here is that when this all started, Joe Biden said he had never even had conversations about Hunter's business. Then that changed to he wasn't in business with his son. And now we have arrived at he was not financially involved. I mean, that's more carefully worded than a 75-point Scrabble turn.
--:-- David Marcus: The obvious question being asked by Republicans in the wake of that statement is, well, okay, how was Joe Biden involved in Hunter's business? And that is a question the impeachment inquiry is tightly focused on.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Now, the backdrop here was yesterday's vote by Republicans to launch this into a formal impeachment inquiry. Would that force Hunter to come back and testify?
--:-- David Marcus: It may well, in large part because Hunter's lawyers used the lack of a full House vote to justify his refusal to testify in yesterday's deposition. Presumably now that the vote has occurred, that excuse goes up in smoke. This is especially true because there will be enormous pressure on the Department of Justice, which charged both Trump advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for failing to obey very similar subpoenas.
--:-- Georgia Howe: So he may have to charge Hunter whether he or the administration want that or not. Here's what Jim Jordan had to say on this very question. Well, it's supposed to be equal treatment under the law. We know how aggressive they were with other individuals who've been held in contempt. We'll see what happens here.
--:-- David Marcus: It seems like every day now the White House and Biden campaign have to deal with questions about his son. Were they any more forthcoming on Wednesday? Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre did confirm that Joe Biden was familiar with the remarks before they were made, though declined to answer as to whether there was any coordination or if the president helped draft it. Beyond that, she mostly referred reporters to Hunter's lawyers. But listen, the we can't comment on an ongoing investigation thing is a rock that the administration can hide behind. But that's much harder for the campaign because there's nothing that precludes Biden from sitting down and answering questions about the scandal.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Well, like you said, a wild ride at the Capitol yesterday with more drama to come. Dave, thanks for joining us.
--:-- David Marcus: Thanks for having me.
--:-- Host (Georgia Howe): The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a monumental case on a federal obstruction law that could undo hundreds of January 6 cases and directly impact Jack Smith's case against former President Trump. Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Prestigiacomo. So Amanda, first, tell us about the dispute over this obstruction law. What exactly is the Supreme Court going to be hearing?
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: Hey there, Georgia. Basically, the court is going to weigh in on the scope of 18 U.S. Code 1512. That's an obstruction law and specifically provision C2 of that statute. That states, quote, whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. The court will examine how the Department of Justice has been using the provision, possibly in context with that broader statute, to prosecute J6 defendants.
--:-- Georgia Howe: I note that this obstruction law has been used by the DOJ against more than 300 January 6th defendants so far And as John noted it one of the charges Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged President Trump with in a trial currently scheduled for March In other words, this Supreme Court ruling could have significant ramifications. So what's the argument being made?
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: The base argument on the part of the defendants is that the provision does not apply, and that's largely because the broader law concerns tampering with a witness, victim, or informant, and preserving the integrity of an adjudicative process. The C2 provision is being read in isolation and effectively wiping out the broader meaning of the statute in really what's an unprecedented way.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Morningwire spoke to Tom Casso, a senior legal fellow at the Claremont Institute, about just how unprecedented this application is. And here's what he told us. The amazing thing is if you look at the way the government is portraying this statute, you kind of wonder why it hasn't been applied before. It's kind of strange that the statute has only now been discovered. It's been on the books for quite some time. It's never been applied in this particular manner before when there are a lot of folks who all the time try to impede a congressional proceeding. I mean, we had a congressman pull a fire alarm to try and stop a vote.
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: Now, conversely, what's the government arguing? They're clearly reading the provision in isolation to prosecute these J6 defendants. They're arguing, and this is a quote, it's natural to say the defendant obstructs an official proceeding by physically blocking it from occurring, as happened here where petitioners and others violently occupied the Capitol for several hours and thereby prevented the joint session of Congress from doing its work.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Now, if successful, how would this ruling affect the J6 defendants and or Trump? Is this central enough that it would actually overturn their cases?
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: It could. 1-J-6 defense attorney Keira Ann West said the Supreme Court, if they do find the DOJ was misapplying the law, would, quote, undo a whole bunch of cases. And when it comes to Trump, this could potentially slow down Jack Smith's prosecution of the former president. And we know Smith wants that to be done as soon as possible before the 2024 election, while Trump is working to delay that trial.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Here's Casso with more on that. Since this statute is key to Jack Smith's prosecution and the Supreme Court ruling on this case is not likely to come out until the end of June, that could hold up the trial until after the Supreme Court rules.
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: Casso added that it's really unclear which way the Supreme Court will go on this. The court doesn't usually interpret a small provision to wipe out the rest of the language of a statute, and that would fall in favor of the defendants. But on the other hand, he said the court could just want to look at the words alone in situ and thus uphold the government's position.
--:-- Georgia Howe: So a huge amount of pressure on this case. Amanda, thanks for reporting.
--:-- Amanda Prestigiacomo: You're welcome.
--:-- Host (Georgia Howe): Harvard is largely dismissing allegations of plagiarism against its embattled president, Claudine Gay. But critics say the elite university covered up its investigation of academic misconduct and is now rewriting the rules to protect her. Here with the latest is Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham. So Megan, Harvard's board said they looked into the allegations that Gay had plagiarized other scholars back in October. That was months before this story broke What prompted the school to look into it then
--:-- Megan Basham: So the October probe appears to have been a reaction to an investigative story the New York Post was working on And the Post says that when they asked Harvard about 27 instances where Gay appeared to use phrases and passages from other scholars' work without citation, the school actually threatened them with a lawsuit.
--:-- Georgia Howe: So the Post said that they had received an anonymous tip that Gay's work borrowed from other academics without attribution. The Post investigated, they determined that the tip was accurate, and then they reached out to Harvard for comment on October 24th. They say that Harvard's senior executive director of media relations asked them for a couple of days to review that evidence. Instead, the Post says that two days later, they then received a 15-page letter from a high-powered attorney who threatened them with a defamation suit.
--:-- Megan Basham: So you fast forward to today and Harvard isn't conceding plagiarism or research misconduct, but it is saying that Gay is requesting four corrections in two publications to insert citations and quotation marks. And I think it's important to note here that Gay does not have much of a publication history. Over the course of 20 years, she has published only about 20 peer-reviewed articles.
--:-- Georgia Howe: So how are the people Gay allegedly borrowed from responding to this? Well, some of them are downplaying the claim, but political scientist Carol Swain told us Gay absolutely did plagiarize her work. I would argue that it is plagiarism and that a journalist would lose their job over it. And it's particularly troubling because it wasn't just her dissertation. It also included the published works that she presented for tenure.
--:-- Megan Basham: What's more, Swain says that Gay's failure to cite her work caused her real professional harm. And even though she has one cite of me in her bibliography, normally when you draw on the research of a leading scholar in a particular area, you have to engage that work. She did not engage my work either to refute it, to affirm it, to acknowledge it. And I would argue that that harmed me in my career because in academia, your statue depends on how many times you're cited. If someone is in the area where you are the pathbreaker and they are not engaging your ideas, then it has long term consequences.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And what did Swain say regarding Harvard's response? Well, she believes that they're protecting gay for political reasons. I see it as a low point for American higher education that Harvard University would try to redefine plagiarism so that it can retain its first ever Black president, who was clearly promoted based on diversity, equity, and inclusion standards.
--:-- Megan Basham: And I would argue that her record, even if she had not plagiarized her articles would not normally have supported tenure in the Ivy League. And I say this as someone who was tenured early at Princeton.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Just a growing storm around gay here. We'll see how Harvard responds to this. Megan, thanks for reporting.
--:-- Megan Basham: Anytime. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back this afternoon with more of the news you need to know. Bye.
