China, 100 percent of the people who heard me said no, it's just going to be more every year. 100 percent. 100 percent of everybody said that's not going to happen. I was the only one who was right, and 100 percent of the rest of you were wrong. Just if you're keeping track, keep track of that.

All right. Let's talk about some other things. I guess Attorney General Garland has appointed a special counsel for this Hunter Biden stuff. Mark Levin, who knows the law better than I do, so I'll just read his comment. He said a special counsel must be chosen from outside the Department of Justice. So how did Garland appoint Weiss the special counsel? Now that's an interesting sub-question, and I don't know the law well enough to participate in this one. But is that a thing? Did Garland actually pick somebody that's not really even the right person? And it was kind of interesting. Picked up somebody, this Weiss person.

Now, why is Weiss famous? What did Weiss do recently that we already knew about? Wasn't he behind the Hunter Biden sweetheart deal? Or is it right? What was he, bad Russia collusion? Somebody says I don't know about that. But he was behind the sweetheart deal, right? Yeah. So now if you appoint a special counsel, what do you think that does to the Congress's investigation? So Congress was in the middle of subpoenaing people and talking. Do you think that Congress can keep doing what they're doing once the special counsel is on board? I think the answer is no, right?

So this would shut down the Republicans, who were having great progress, by the way. The Republicans did great. Can we say that? You know, I spend most of my time criticizing bad behavior, but I gotta say this Comer fellow and Jim Jordan, and there may be some other people that I should mention, but have they not done a great job on this? I think they have. I think this is real service. I think the country should appreciate it. McCarthy, yeah. So you know, they don't only make mistakes. You know, I got lots of problems with both the Republicans and Democrats. But in this one situation, I would say there are several people who did exactly what I would want them to do as a citizen. So thanks for that.

But can we agree that this looks suspicious as hell? Suspicious as hell. It looks like it's a play or an op to keep Hunter safe. It does not look like any kind of justice the way you would recognize it. Can you agree that it does not look even slightly like a legitimate process? We all agree with that, right? It doesn't look legitimate.

Now, the argument that it is legitimate is that this is the person who was involved in the original Hunter investigations, and apparently he was limited in his abilities, although there's a big question because Garland said he wasn't going to be limited. But maybe there was. After all, we're not sure. That sort of might be more of a bureaucracy question. But this should authorize him to do everything that needs to be done to bring us to a good conclusion about Hunter and what he did and did not do and what to do about it.

So on one hand, you can make a real strong argument that it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, every bit of it looks crooked. Would you agree? They can definitely make the argument, oh, this is the right person because reasons, reasons, reasons. And you listen to the reasons, reasons, reasons. You go, okay, well those are all true. I mean, it does make sense that one person who knows the most and is already involved and he's available and blah blah blah. Yeah, finish the job.

On the other hand, this is very conveniently taking him out of the headlines when the election is coming. So it looks dirty to me. Would you agree? I would think that if they wanted something like a good conclusion, they would have picked somebody else. I think if they wanted a political conclusion, they would pick Weiss. So to me it looks crooked. Not illegal, but crooked.

All right. Let's talk about Hunter's gun charges. Have I ever talked about that? My opinion about the gun charges. My understanding — and I might have this wrong. I think there might be more to the gun charge than this. But isn't part of it that, or maybe the main part, they lied on his gun application and he said he wasn't an addict? Do I understand that correctly? That that's the biggest issue, that he said he wasn't an addict, so he lied on