friendliest place in the world for Hunter: Delaware, home state, Biden-friendly judge, we hear. Now this is an interesting case because my understanding is the facts of it are completely clear. There's no question of what happened, which is very interesting. How do you defend when the law has been broken and there is no question about the details of what happened? Yeah, there's no question that he said he was not addicted but he was when he got the gun. There's not much you can do with that. I mean, he's on video being addicted, etc.

But somebody said that his defense would be it's not his fault because he was high. So the defense would be, yes, I was a drug addict and I said I wasn't when I applied for the gun, but you have to understand that I was a drug addict and therefore I can't be totally responsible for saying I'm not a drug addict. And I have to say it's not the worst argument. It's not the worst argument because the whole point of being — let me just pull this together for you. The reason you don't want a drug addict to have a gun is what? Why do you not want a drug addict to have a gun? Only one reason: you don't trust that the drug addict can make smart decisions. Am I right? That's the one and only reason. Am I wrong? The only reason is that we don't trust a drug addict to make good decisions with the gun. But yet we do trust the drug addict to make a good decision filling out paperwork? Seriously? It's a weirdly good argument, but it can't be accepted.

The reason you can't accept it is because it refuses free will. So the problem here is that free will is what's on trial, not Hunter. They're actually trying free will. Because if he has free will, well then he's guilty and it doesn't matter if he took drugs because those are all his choices. If he doesn't have free will, then not only could you make an argument that on some moral grounds he's not guilty — although the law would say otherwise — but it would also refute all of the legal system. The entire legal system would have to be thrown out if you could say, well, it's not what I was thinking at the time, or you could say I didn't have free will. So it's an interesting story. I don't think his argument is wrong in a philosophical sense. I don't think it'll work as a legal argument, but what else does he have?

And then somebody said that the charge could be up to 25 years in jail. How many of you think that lying about your drug use to get a gun should put you in jail for 25 years? Do any of you think that sounds about right? I mean, it wasn't used in the commission of a crime, didn't have priors. How in the world is that fair? I hate to wake up and have to defend Hunter Biden, but there's no way I think you should be in jail for 25 years for lying on a form. We need to find some kind of perspective. It's making me wonder if this is political too. Is this trial only being pushed for political reasons? Why would you even do it?

Well, here's another question I'd like to ask you. If being a drug addict and then getting a gun, which requires you to sign something apparently in whatever state he was that says you're not a drug addict, don't you think that maybe 25% of all gun owners may have lied on the application in the same way? In my experience, at least 25% of the adult public is addicted to drugs, either alcohol or something else, pills or something. When you say 25%, so can you put somebody in jail for 25 years for doing exactly the same thing that maybe 25% of all gun owners did? And who gets to say if you're a drug addict versus you're between usages? For example, if you were a drug addict but you became clean, do you say you're still a drug addict? No, if you're a drug addict and you haven't had a drug for 20 years, you're still a drug addict, am I wrong? You're just a drug addict who's got it under control.

So if you're