Jill Biden interview raises CONCERNS: Attorney & Editor-at-Large for The Washington Times weighs in

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]I've never seen him like that.

[00:00:01]>> Never. No.

[00:00:02]>> What happened?

[00:00:04]>> I don't know what happened. I mean, when I as I watched it, I thought, "Oh my god, he's having a stroke."

[00:00:09]And it scared me to death.

[00:00:11]>> Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question. YOU KNEW ALL THE FACTS.

[00:00:17]>> [cheering] >> YOUR INITIAL reaction to the former first lady?

[00:00:24]>> Yeah, I think it's worrisome. Um I heard a former Joe Biden staffer say that they've seen her get in between him and protesters. That they've seen her chase down a priest. Um you know, if she was very concerned, I think during that moment, she would have taken action based on just those comments. Um I unfortunately, she's on this book tour and it would have been better, I think, if her team would have prepped her for that question to be a little bit more honest and focused because we all saw him have some gaffes throughout his presidency. And most notably, special counsel Robert Hur, when he was investigating the whole classified documents issue and what might have been communicated with the ghostwriter. His report noted that, you know, a jury would be too sympathetic to Biden, that he's an old man with memory issues. And this was all before the debate. So, you know, it's hard to say that she didn't see something like that when Robert Hur did.

[00:01:16]>> So, we do have the timestamp. So, obviously, when it comes to optics, there were concerns there. But I've also read some reports that it's been floated that Jill Biden could be charged with elder abuse. So, we will see where all of this goes. I want to get your take on former President Biden's lawsuit. If the audio recordings, Alex, are part of a special counsel investigation, does that trump any expectation of privacy? Uh we got the lawsuit pulled up here that they were recorded at home. Or could the former president have a case?

[00:01:47]>> Yeah, to your point, the president's team is arguing that these are private because they were recorded inside his home. Um I think that the public, though, will make the argument uh the DOJ that the public has a right to see these, that this was a president, this has to do with an issue of a national security concern.

[00:02:05]Um, the question becomes, it kind of reminds me, if you will, of when the Jack Smith report was sealed down in the Southern District of Florida. Some of the public wants to see that, but the judge said not so fast. One of the things as I'm a lawyer that comes to mind is there's still charges that the statute of limitations with the whole Trump prosecution down there wouldn't last by the time he left office. Not really sure with Biden if that's the same application. So, maybe, you know, want to withhold evidence if there was going to ever be any sort of charges that come through. The other aspect is, is, you know, Congress is investigating the use of the auto pen, and I'm sure Joe Biden wants to keep these under wraps because maybe there's something in there that he's worried would go to his competence and get some fuel to that fire.

[00:02:46]>> Back to that public access argument, I really need to ask you really quick, is is there an argument there?

[00:02:51]>> Yes, there is an argument there, and that will definitely be the DOJ argues, especially for the fact that, you know, we're talking about someone who's been in public service, that the the public would have a right to know what was said, especially when we're talking about even the fact that there was a special counsel investigation on this, that that was funded by tax dollars.

[00:03:09]>> Yeah, I only have about 20 seconds here on the topic of anti-weaponization fund lawsuits. Before you go, how strong do you think the officers' 14th Amendment argument is? And then the administration citing precedent, who do you think has the stronger argument?

[00:03:24]>> So, one of the officers that are challenging this, saying that there shouldn't be paid out because they were attacked at the Capitol, it has to cite the 14th Amendment which discusses an insurrection. Court has really called this an insurrection. If you're even Jack Smith did not call it an insurrection. I think there was a judge out in Colorado when they were trying to kick Trump off the ballot with the the section 14, I think, or three of the the 14th Amendment back when I covered that case.

[00:03:50]You know, even it was like one lone judge out in Colorado referenced that.

[00:03:53]No one else has. So, I think that officers will have an uphill a uphill climb there.

[00:03:58]>> Attorney and editor at large for The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer, thank you for joining us tonight.

[00:04:02]>> Thank you.