top of page

Could Juries Now Indict Hunter Biden And Hillary Clinton? - WERC (Birmingham, AL) Fox News Interview

I continued my recent interview series across our Republic discussing the recent indictment of former President Trump in Birmingham, Alabama, where, as you can tell by both my voice and the voice of WERC host J.T., pollen season is in full swing, but nevertheless, both of us persisted on. During our analysis, I highlighted how 60% of American believe these charges are politically motivated, not based on law, and how a majority also remain baffled at the non-stop barrage of attacks on Trump.

This is not only concerning him, but also the dangerous precedent this sets for politicians across the country - anything and everything I've done in my life, regardless of context, proof, or intent, is subject to investigation by partisan prosecutors. If I was Hillary Clinton or a member of the Biden family, as random, hypothetical examples, I would possibly be concerned about this.

To learn more about TBOR Action's efforts on topics including election integrity, please click here.

The following transcript from this interview is presented in its entirety with minor edits:


Trump, Independents, Barr, jury pool, Joe Biden, Republican, barrage, indict, outrage.


TBORA President John Pudner and J.T.

J.T. 00:00

John, welcome back, and thanks for being here.

John Pudner 00:02

Thank you, was just an Alabama for a week, so glad to be on.

J.T. 00:05

Well, I hope you grabbed some of that pollen on the way out of the state, because it's killing me this morning, just killing me.

John Pudner 00:11

My voice has been terrible, I'm drinking tea to do this interview, so I definitely got it.

J.T. 00:15

You and me both, John. We just played a cut of one of Trump's attorneys after the whole charade yesterday in the courtroom, where he spoke to reporters and people outside, and said, "if you took this indictment and take Donald Trump's name out of it, put John Doe in there, and show it to any legal expert attorney or prosecutor based on what they had, it would never go to court." Basically, he said it's hogwash. Do you believe that this, first of all, was politically motivated, and second of all, that it will be seen all the way through the process?

John Pudner 00:54

Well, I wouldn't say all the way through the process, but the good news for Trump is 60% of people agree with him. That obviously entails a lot of people who are normally critics, but roughly 60% believe this is politically motivated, not based on the law. So, he's certainly going to stick with that message as long as this goes on, and yeah, he's got a winning hand. There were a lot of people who maybe didn't like January 6th, or maybe don't like the term 'Stop the Steal', but they're with him on this.

J.T. 01:21

When you look at the non-stop barrage of attacks on this man since day one, before he even became president or when he announced, it just seems one thing after another, and boy, I'll tell you, the scales of justice certainly tip in favor of Democrats. I mean, where was the barrage of attacks on Hillary Clinton, and the accountability, and the arrest, and the indictment? Where is the arrest, and indictment, and investigation on Hunter and Joe Biden and their relationship with the Communist Chinese party? It just doesn't seem fair and there are two separate ways of justice in this country.

John Pudner 02:01

Well, you'd think Democrats would be very concerned with this precedent. They picked New York, a place where Trump's obviously going to be unpopular, where you're gonna have trouble getting any kind of fair jury, or a fair hearing. You don't think there are people all over the country who, you would think, would have some concern, or current elected officials that think, "Boy, this is setting a precedent. They can be coming after me next. Is there anything I've done in my life that I think a prosecutor of the other party will try to build a case out off?" So, I think you're right on, I think it's a real problem.

J.T. 02:38

A lot of Republicans in Congress are being called out for not being strong enough and coming after people, but we saw Jim Jordan and others in the Republican Party say, "We're not going to be putting up with a lot of things. We are bringing bills. We are going to go after people." Do you believe the Republicans have the stomach and steel to get after the Democrats like they promised they would when they gained control of the House? They've been a little bit slow-moving with all of the decorum and process.

John Pudner 03:08

There's always a process that' know the House, it can be messy and it takes a while, but I think so. The party has toughened up whether or not someone likes it or doesn't like it and I think it started with Trump - the way he toughened up and backed Supreme Court nominees when they were attacked, for example. I just don't see even most past Republican presidents standing by candidates after that first barrage, and he did it, so you'd think that example might play the other way here, where they're saying, "Look, this is one where the public's actually on our side on this one. They think this is political. We've got to defend them and the President." So, I think you will see it, but Congress is always gonna move slower than anyone would like.

J.T. 03:52

Well, I think that this is obviously 100%, in my mind, politically motivated, and they're going to drag this out as long as they can into the election cycle - the next hearings are not even scheduled until December 4, which is kind of bizarre to me. What happened to the Constitution and the right to a speedy and fair trial? Why not June 4 or July 4? Why are we waiting until December, do you think?

John Pudner 04:18

Well, I think the Democrat's political calculus is they believe this helps Trump be the nominee, so they're kind of picking the opponent that they think is easier to beat, whether right or wrong. That's the calculus. Now, the second part is they believe it also hurts him for the General Election, but that's the big question. I think everyone agrees they're right on the first one, making him much more likely to become the nominee, but does it hurt him or help in the General? That's an open question.

J.T. 04:43

Why do you believe they're waiting so long to drag it on and then make it a big deal in the election process? Can they do that?

John Pudner 04:52

I think so, but it guarantees they're in the news until December at least, even if nothing goes right for them once they do it. So, they get a whole year out of this.

J.T. 05:00

What are your thoughts on the final outcome on all this?

John Pudner 05:06

I'll trust Bill Barr to do my legal analysis on this, and he just said this is an extremely weak case, and Barr has obviously been very critical of some things that Trump has done, so he's not one who's just always behind them. He points out, that the Justice Department has looked at all of this and they've decided not to pursue anything, so why is it coming out in New York now? Seems to look like a complete breach of the normal process here.

J.T. 05:32

Absolutely. Well, John, thank you for being with me.


bottom of page