Well, House Republicans expanding the Biden impeachment inquiry. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan now investigating whether President Biden was involved with Hunter Biden's decision to defy a congressional subpoena earlier this month. They're demanding all documents and communications sent or received by the White House related to Hunter's deposition. Nicomer writing on ex, quote, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether President Joe Biden engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress. 

Such conduct could constitute an impeachable offense. The Republicans zeroing in on these comments from the White House press secretary after Hunter defied the subpoena. So watch this. President was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say. And I think what you saw was from the heart, from his son. Joining me now is judicial watch President Tom Fitton. So the president speaking from the heart, your reaction? Well, there you have the White House endorsing the obstruction by Hunter Biden explicitly from the president, Biden's spokesman from the podium. 

And it's not just an impeachable offense potentially to obstruct Congress in this direct way, but it also could be a crime. So if I were in Congress, I'd be not only asking for documents, I'd be asking for testimony from the White House lawyers who obviously were coordinating. And by their own admission in various reports, President Biden was in on it as well. So I don't know how they avoid this in terms of Congress grappling with it. 

And there has to be pressure on the Justice Department. There's got to be a contempt referral to the Justice Department here. And anyone involved in this crime potentially needs to be investigated, including the president of the United States. But I mean, what would constitute a crime? I'm just curious here from a legal perspective, and that would put President Biden in legal jeopardy. How would that work? I mean, because you're talking about a father and a know, they had a conversation over donuts and hunter says, I don't want to testify in Congress. 

I'm going to defy the subpoena. And dad says, oh, sure, son, do it. How do you find out exactly where the legal jeopardy is? Well, that's why you have an investigation. We have Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon both facing criminal sanctions, going to jail for alleged contempt of Congress. And so anyone who was involved in aiding and abetting that, enabling that could be subject to criminal prosecution. For President Trump, all bets are off. 

Anything he possibly thought or said as president is subject for criminal investigation. But Joe Biden, he's protected. And this is not the first story where it's come out that Hunter Biden is coordinating with the White House in his, quote, criminal defense in the other instance over the Justice Department investigations of him. I tell you, the Congress is just scratching the surface of what it needs to be investigating in terms of the obstruction of Justice Department inquiries in addition to not only this congressional inquiry that's ongoing. 

Okay, I'm glad you brought up the former president because the Michigan Supreme Court has just rejected an attempt to remove him from the state's 2024 republican primary ballot, stating that they were not persuaded that the case should be reviewed by the court. So the former president, reacting on True social, saying, quote, this pathetic gambit to rig the election has failed all across the country, including in states that have historically leaned heavily towards the Democrats. 

But also then let's move to Colorado. The republican party there is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn their state supreme Court's ruling disqualifying Trump from their state's ballot. What do you make of both of these legal cases, these efforts to remove the former president from the ballot? Tom? Well, for the most part, the courts have refused to join the left's efforts to rig the election by keeping Trump off the ballot. 

And in the case of Colorado, it's the exception that proves the rule where you had left wing activist justices on the Supreme Court of Colorado intervene in our elections by suggesting without evidence that Trump had engaged in some misconduct related to January 6 that requires him to be thrown off the ballot. Only a partisan would buy into that. And thankfully, for the most part, judges across the land have said no. 

But they're going to keep on pushing, and it's something the Supreme Court may have to resolve. In many ways, what Colorado did may not be important in the grand scheme of things because he's going to be on the ballot in Colorado under the Supreme Court's own ruling there in Colorado because of this appeal. So I think in the end, he's going to be on the ballot across the land. 

But this highlights that there's this desperate effort on the part of his political opposition to rig the election in improper ways rather than just competing guy to guy Biden versus Trump or whoever in the political process. All right, I want to bring in Tiana Lodesh. She's on set with me. So this was a four three ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court. And my understanding is that all these justices were appointed by the far left Democrat governor, the fact that it was split that much indicates that there was not unanimity in the progressive legal movement. 

When this does go to the Supreme Court, one, when can we expect their decision? And two, do we think that the democratic appointees on the highest court will be siding with the conservatives and throwing this out, or do you think they're going to join the progressive legal movement? I don't think there are deadlines that would require the court to move as quickly as the left might, like, know. 

The Colorado Supreme Court said their decision stayed. If the Supreme Court of the United States takes it up, so what's the rush on the part of the Supreme Court here? So if it does take it up, we may not hear until June, and by then, presumably President Trump or whoever will be the nominee of the Republican Party, and the case will be mooted out. But the left, now, to be clear, the left is going to continue to fight to try to keep them off the general ballots, and the Supreme Court is likely to have to deal with that. 

But on the other hand, if all these lower courts say no, we're not going to join, we're not going to accept your invitation to rig the election here. The Supreme Court may not have anything to worry about because everyone generally has said no to the left's effort. Tom Fetten, thank you for weighing in on all of the legal implications for these issues. Tom, it's good to see you. 

.