Phil Holloway, a retired US Navy officer, former police officer, and legal adviser to the Georgia Sheriff’s Department, discussed the President’s involvement in the subpoena process and the challenges to former President Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 primary ballot. Holloway emphasized the potential legal and political implications of these issues.
Holloway began by addressing the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, and his decision to defy a subpoena. He characterized Hunter Biden’s actions as “stupid” and questioned the judgment of both Hunter and his lawyer. The discussion extended to the potential involvement of President Biden, with Holloway emphasizing the political nature of the issue, as the House of Representatives decides what is impeachable.
The conversation shifted to the letter sent by the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, accusing the President of corruptly seeking to influence or obstruct the committee’s proceedings by dissuading his son from complying with the subpoena. Holloway noted that the details of the President’s involvement would determine whether legal consequences could arise. He underscored that it was primarily a political issue, with the House of Representatives having the authority to determine what is impeachable.
Regarding Hunter Biden’s decision to skip his deposition, Holloway questioned the wisdom of such a move, especially considering the ongoing impeachment inquiry. He expressed confusion about why Hunter Biden would choose not to cooperate, suggesting that if he were not the President’s son, there would likely be consequences for skipping a deposition.
The discussion then turned to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to reject a move to remove Trump from the 2024 primary ballot. Holloway highlighted the court’s stance that state law in Michigan does not give officials the authority to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He compared this to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Trump, emphasizing that the issue revolves around the interpretation of state laws.
Former President Trump praised Michigan’s ruling, and the conversation delved into the potential impact on the upcoming primaries. Holloway acknowledged that more than a dozen states were considering petitions to keep Trump off the ballot. He emphasized the urgency for the Supreme Court to address these issues promptly, especially given the temporary stay in Colorado, which expires on January 5th.
In addressing the legal aspects, Holloway explained that the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, cited in efforts to disqualify Trump, was designed for specific historical circumstances and may not be applicable to contemporary situations. He criticized the attempts to use legal maneuvers to hinder Trump’s political career, characterizing them as a liberal fantasy.
The interview concluded with a mention of the Colorado GOP’s official appeal to the Supreme Court, keeping Trump’s name on the primary ballot for the time being. Holloway emphasized the need for voters to decide Trump’s political fate rather than individual state election laws.
In summary, the interview with Phil Holloway covered the President’s involvement in the subpoena process and the legal challenges to former President Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 primary ballot. The discussion highlighted the legal and political intricacies of these issues, emphasizing the need for prompt Supreme Court intervention and the role of voters in determining political outcomes.