Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Hunter Biden Case: Never Say "Never"; New Charges Filed Against Trump, Including Obstruction; Has Government Been Hiding Signs of Extraterrestrial Life?; Confidence in U.S. Military is Falling. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 29, 2023 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:33]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Never say never. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

In September of 2019, Joe Biden was asked how many times he'd spoken to son Hunter about his overseas business activities. The then candidate's answer was this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've never spoken to my son about the overseas business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: And that has remained his answer until this week. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about this issue, only this time her answer was different. She said that she'd been asked the question a million times and that the answer, quote, "remains the same." But in fact, for the first time, instead of saying the President had never spoken to Hunter about his business dealings, she said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President was never in business with his son.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, on Wednesday, Phil Wegmann. From Real Clear Politics pointed out the inconsistency, but Jean-Pierre insisted the answer was the same.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL WEGMANN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REAL CLEAR POLITICS: I just want to clear this out once and for all. The President has previously said that he has never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the White House now says that the President has never been in business with his son. So, why the updated language? Which statement is true? Or is the semantics and they're both true?

JEAN-PIERRE: As I stated on Monday, when I was asked this question multiple times, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed on this --

WEGMANN: So both (INAUDIBLE)?

JEAN-PIERRE: Nothing has changed on this. And so, could ask me a million different ways on this question, nothing has changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Well, it's understandable that the President would like to redo his initial response from 2019. His outright denial, it never made sense. What parent does not discuss their children's work, especially where the parent is in the midst of a years long effort to save that child from self-destructive behavior. And in this case, it's been well documented that in 2013 Hunter Biden accompanied Vice President Joe Biden on a trip to China where it was later discovered Hunter was meeting with a business associate.

As detailed later by Josh Lederman, one of the reporters who went on the trip, he wrote this quote, "What wasn't known then was that as he accompanied his father to China, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund that associate said at the time was planning to raise big money including from China. Hunter Biden has acknowledged meeting with Jonathan Li, a Chinese banker and his business partner in the fund during the trip, although his spokesman says it was a social visit. The Chinese business license that brought the new fund into existence was issued by Shanghai authorities 10 days after the trip with Hunter Biden a member of the board."

The story continues to evolve and no doubt that's one reason why Wednesday's plea agreement hearing was anything but routine. Ten days ago, IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler testified before the House Oversight Committee. They were credible. Ziegler will join me in just a moment. They testified under oath that between 2014 and 2019, Hunter failed to report or pay tax on perhaps $17 million that he received from foreign sources.

They said that their investigation into Hunter's taxes had been forwarded. And they had recommended charging Hunter with far more serious crimes than what he had agreed to plead guilty to. Now, I hear some of you saying there's always a tension between investigators and prosecutors and that's true. But it's a fair question to learn whether this was that norm or the result of political influence.

A day after the whistleblower testimony came Senator Chuck Grassley's a release of the FBI so called the FT 1023 form, which memorializes claims for an FBI informant, it doesn't provide proof that the allegations are true.

As CNN reported, "The FBI documents as an informant described a 2016 meeting where Mykola Zlochevsky, the CEO of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, claimed that he had made two $5 million payments to the Bidens, though he didn't specify who received the alleged bribes. It costs 5 million to pay one Biden and 5 million to pay another Biden, Zlochevsky told the FBI informant at the 2016 meeting in Vienna, according to the document. The informant whom the FBI described as highly credible has not been able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity of the claims."

And indeed, as Philip Bump has reported in "The Washington Post," Zlochevsky has in the past denied ever speaking with the Bidens. Again, I hear some of you saying that's all an unverified account. True, but that doesn't mean all inquiry should end just that it needs to be corroborated.

[09:05:16]

On Monday, the Oversight Committee will conduct a transcribed interview with Devon Archer, a former close business associate of Hunter Biden. Miranda Devine in the "New York Post" says she's previewed the testimony. And then he will apparently say he was witness to Hunter calling his father in the midst of business dealings.

And there's that what's app message that a whistleblower alleges Hunter sent to the CEO of a Chinese fund management company in 2017. According to this testimony, the message said, "I'm sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand. And now means tonight. The message goes on to say, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.

I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father."

President has denied that he was sitting with Hunter when the message was sent. Was Hunter really with his father? Who knows? Maybe Hunter was bluffing to impress his business associates, but it continues to beg the question of whether, contrary to a father never discussing his son's business, the picture is more complicated.

And it was in this context that Hunter went to federal court in Delaware on Wednesday for what was expected to be the routine acceptance by a judge of a plea agreement. Hunter came ready to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and avert prosecution on a gun charge by enrolling in a two-year diversion program for nonviolent offenders. But Judge Maryellen Noreika said no. Why? She said the arrangement related to Biden's gun possession offense was unusual, and that it contained nonstandard terms such as broad immunity from other potential charges.

Maybe she's not ignorant of these other developments I've referenced and doesn't want to be in a situation where something else materializes that warrants additional charges that Hunter would then be protected from by the plea agreement as it was presented. And that's why she told both sides she felt like they were using her as just a rubber stamp. Judge Noreika asked prosecutors whether the plea agreement would preclude prosecution of Hunter Biden for laws related to foreign lobbying, the prosecutor said no, which caused Hunter Biden to say he could not agree to any deal that didn't offer him broad immunity.

Reactions to all of this and the deal falling apart, there were Rorschach test. Democrats say this is the 2023 version of Republican's Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and that Hunter is being singled out for harsh treatment because of Republican vendettas and a desire to distract from Donald Trump's looming third indictment. But Eileen O'Connor, who headed the Justice Department's Tax Division from 2001 to 2007, wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" that Hunter was singled out for a different reason, for favorable treatment, and that anyone else in this situation would probably go to prison. Quote, "For many years it has been Justice Department policy to charge the most serious offense that can be proven. Mr. Garland change that policy in December of 2022. The Tax Division manual, however, still provides that prosecutors are specifically prohibited from permitting a defendant to plead to a misdemeanor where the elements of a felony can be proven.

And yet, according to the whistleblowers accounts, that's what's happening here."

I've said before that my gut tells me that any lapse of judgment on Joe's part was motivated more by a desire to save a son from addiction than an effort to line his own pocket. He was probably thrilled in having his son aboard Air Force Two and route to China regardless of the purpose and making the trip because he knew the alternative could be that lifestyle that was exposed when the laptop was made public. All I know for sure is that a terse reply of never no longer cuts it. The story is bigger now, it requires a full accounting by the President. And the longer that he waits the more it's going to fester.

And it turns out he is capable of change when it comes to acknowledging Hunter's controversies. Friday, the Biden's finally acknowledged grandchild number seven, Navy, for whom Hunter at first had denied paternity and is now paying child support. In a statement to People Magazine, the president said quote, "Jill and I only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including Navy." Perhaps a similar clarification regarding Hunter's business is in the offing.

Joining me now is Joseph Ziegler, one of the IRS agents who blew the whistle on the handling of this case. He just published this opinion piece in "The Wall Street Journal" titled "A Special Counsel for Hunter Biden."

[09:10:06]

Mr. Ziegler, thank you so much for being here. What is it that the tax manual required that was not done in this case?

JOSEPH ZIEGLER, IRS SPECIAL AGENT/TESTIFIED BEFORE HUNTER OVERSIGN COMMITTEE: I appreciate you so much, Michael, for having me. So, in the tax manual, and I've pointed this out that if you have a felony charge, if you have the evidence for the felony and you also have the evidence for the misdemeanor, it's departmental policy that you have to charge the felony. And I think it's -- the reason for that is an equitable treatment of taxpayers. And like we stated before, the assigned prosecutors, the four assigned prosecutors, which included DOJ tax attorneys all agreed to recommend the approval for the felony and misdemeanor charges, they actually call them slam dunk charges.

SMERCONISH: In your op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal," you characterize the DOJ behavior as obstruction. Here's my question, do you think that there was concerted action activity here by individuals in DOJ, maybe in the IRS, concerted activity not to pursue the case aggressively or more benignly, perhaps, they're just afraid of rattling the cage of a high-profile family and defendants?

ZIEGLER: So the reason for me coming forward is this is all about preferential treatment of one person. And we're not treating taxpayers the same. So I guess I would point to the facts. The facts are that we're not -- we did not follow the normal process to do things as a part of investigating this case.

The judge in that in her hearing stated that we can't go back, we can't reinvestigate this case. Yes, I agree with her. What I'm asking her is we finished the tax investigation, we proved the felony tax counts for 2017, 2018 and 2019. And I think that's so utterly important that those -- the statement of facts in the -- that was represented there in court, it actually stated that he miscategorized expenses.

I don't know how anyone could consider a miscategorization the Chateau Marmont. Chateau Marmont, you're claiming in your book that you were blacklisted from it, that you learned how to cook crack, yet you are deducting that as a business expense on your tax return. It just does not make any sense.

SMERCONISH: Why is David Weiss not saying that he was thwarted? I've read, you've read the letters that he has sent to the Congress. You know, he's not in sync with what you and Shapley have offered.

ZIEGLER: So, I have no idea what David Weiss' motivation is. But what I can tell you is that his account -- his letters is -- his account of what happened is changing. Gary's in our account is not. His letter stated that -- his most recent letter stated to the House committee, it stated that he has the ultimate authority in his venue, his jurisdiction of the district of Delaware. And if he needs to go outside of that, if he needs to go to the district or the Central District of California or the district of D.C., that he needs some special counsel authority or some special attorney authority.

That only came out after our whistleblower testimony came out. That recount of what happened only came out after that. So, it's -- what is it? And at the end of the day, I honestly thought that David was going to do the right thing for the right reason.

We met with him so many times and he said, yes, you've guys have proven this, absolutely, 2017, 2018, 2019, I agree with those charges. That's felony and misdemeanor charges. So I don't know how we came to where we've charged only the misdemeanor in this case.

SMERCONISH: Final question. I paid close attention to your testimony. You've detailed that you've come forward at the risk of great personal sacrifice. What was the tipping point? What was that which you saw and you said, I've got to speak up?

ZIEGLER: So, I guess at the end of the day, it's -- I was brought up in a family that you have to do the right thing. I was brought up in a Christian household that you have to, at the end of everything, after the end of all this turmoil, you have to do the right thing. And I literally thought to myself that if this is going to change people's opinions of me, me coming forward, that's shame on them. This isn't a Democrat or Republican problem.

This is, is justice blind? We are bringing evidence forward, that justice is not blind, that people are given preferential treatment and that we need to change from that. That we need to learn from that so that this doesn't happen again in the future.

SMERCONISH: Mr. Ziegler, thank you for your testimony and thank you for being here today.

ZIEGLER: Can I add one more thing? Do you care if I add one more?

[09:15:01]

SMERCONISH: Do it, please.

ZIEGLER: So, it's not too late. It's not too late for Department of Justice to look at this and realize, guys, we made a mistake. It's not too late to -- I think that that would restore the faith in our justice system, that it's working, that we actually care about charging the crimes, that we actually are holding everyone accountable the same across the board.

SMERCONISH: Well, I think that deserves a response. Thank you for offering it.

ZIEGLER: Thank you so much.

SMERCONISH: Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. Katherine (ph), what has come in?

Why are you so obsessed with Hunter Biden? Why not bring up the billions Jared got from the -- if Jared had been in federal court this past week and what was -- put that camera back on me because I want to speak directly to this person.

If Jared had been in court this past week in Wilmington, Delaware with what was anticipated to be a routine acceptance of a plea agreement that had fallen apart in the context of all of these other events then today, I would be sitting here and talking about Jared. I'm not obsessed with Hunter. I feel sorry for Hunter. I really do. I think I get the whole dynamic here as I've just laid it out, but I'm not going to ignore it.

Still to come, at this week's house oversight hearing on UFOs, military pilots testified about their own firsthand encounters and an intelligence official accused the government of cover ups. Will we ever get the full story? Check out this week's poll question@smerconish.com and go answer. Do you believe the U.S. government is in possession of alien spacecraft?

And last night's 13 GOP candidates converged in Iowa for a fundraising dinner including front runner Donald Trump fresh off new charges in the Mar-a-Lago indictment, Trump said Friday he would not end his White House run even if he were convicted and sentenced on any of the cases that he's facing. I'll discuss with Elie Honig in just a sec.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL HURD, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump is running to stay out of prison. And if we elect --

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: Boo.

HURD: I know, I know, I know, I know, I know. Listen, I know the truth, the truth is hard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:21:12]

SMERCONISH: After much anticipation, former President Trump was subjected to more federal criminal charges this week just not in the way we anticipated. While everybody was waiting for a January 6 fresh indictment, instead, the charges from the first criminal indictment were expanded. Here's what Trump said last night at the Iowa Republican Party's annual spring fundraiser.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They want to weaponize the IRS just like they've weaponized the Justice Department and the FBI. And by the way, if I weren't running, I would have nobody coming after me. Or if I was losing by a lot, I would have nobody coming after me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Trump said earlier on Friday that he would not end his run for the White House even if he were convicted and sentenced in any of the criminal investigations against him.

Joining me now to discuss is CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor.

Elie, great to see you again. Other than trying to get the new defendant to flip, was there any need for Jack Smith to file a superseding indictment or was he seeking to send a message?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there was a substantive difference in the second indictment, the superseding indictment. In addition to adding the third defendant there actually are three new charges now against Donald Trump. The most important one in my view is there is now one additional classified document, the 32nd document, there are 31 before and this is crucial, because this is the document that allegedly Donald Trump held up at Bedminster when he was no longer president relating to an Iranian war plan that he showed to others. There's the audio tape of him discussing it. Donald Trump had since said there was no document, turns out there was, DOJ has now charged that. There also were two new obstruction of justice counts that relate to this effort not just to move the boxes around, that was already charged, but now it's sort of charging obstruction on top of obstruction because the allegation is they tried to delete the internal Mar-a-Lago surveillance video footage. And so there is some new problems for Donald Trump beyond the addition of a new codefendant.

SMERCONISH: I guess where I'm coming from is that I think that material would not -- that evidence would nonetheless have come into trial against Donald Trump. It strikes me that Jack Smith, he wants the public to know the whole story. And he therefore reveals more than he needs to reveal.

And something else, Elie, the dates, the times, the locations, the speech, what is left for there to be a factual dispute about? I mean, it seems like here's the case, and Trump better hope that he has a legal defense, meaning Presidential Records Act or the piercing of the attorney client privilege, otherwise, he's got a real problem.

HONIG: I agree with you. Every time I get a new indictment like this, I read it twice first. I read it with my sort of traditional accustom prosecutors, I, and this one struck me is very strong. But then I read it again and say, what's the defense going to be? Not only do I think the defense here will be sort of one of these constitutional defenses, the best defense is really non legal.

The best defense is for Donald Trump to get this thing pushed all the way out past the election and hope he wins, in which case he will certainly dispose of this case. The other defense and maybe it's not a defense, but the other hope for Donald Trump given the strength of the evidence here is the jury pool. Remember this case will be tried in Florida, estate that Donald Trump won, even in the southern portion of Florida, he got 40 percent, 45 percent of the vote. And the reality is your jury in this case is going to have minimum mathematically four, five, six people on it who voted for Donald Trump. Jurors are supposed to put aside their political leanings, but take my word for it, they're human beings, they will bring their beliefs into the courtroom.

SMERCONISH: Is there a practical concern that these prosecutors, and I'm including Alvin Bragg, I'm including Jack Smith, I'm including Merrick Garland, I'm including Fani Willis, I mean barricades are being erected in Fulton County as we are speaking. Is there a practical consideration that they need to have that there could be a perception of piling on, that the members of the public who don't pay close attention to all of this are saying, wait, they charge him again and again and again and again? Why is this all happening now when the new election is underway?

[09:25:20] HONIG: I do think that absolutely is a public perception and something that will persist. And I think a couple of things. First of all, if we see as I think is widely expected, as I certainly expect, if we see an indictment coming very soon from DOJ from Jack Smith relating to January 6, or the effort to steal the election, if Fani Willis then charges the effort to steal the Georgia election, which I think is likely, that will really contribute to public perceptions of piling on. If Jack Smith has Georgia covered, why does Fani Willis, an elected Democratic DA, then need to pile on?

The other thing is, the timing really matters here. And there's a legitimate question about I think these charges that we've seen from Jack Smith so far are well justified. I think if he charges January 6, it will be well justified. But why did it take two and a half plus now years? Why did it take until after Donald Trump had announced his candidacy until after he was leading the pack? I believe DOJ could have charged these cases a long time ago.

And the fact that these are coming now as the election really heats up is going to only feel that problematic public perception.

SMERCONISH: And I feel the same way about Fani Willis' case in Georgia. That people are going to say, wait a minute, this pertains to the so called perfect phone call that Trump made in the aftermath of the last cycle. We're within three weeks now with the first debate in this cycle.

Elie, thank you for being here. Always appreciate your expertise.

HONIG: Thanks, Michael. All right.

SMERCONISH: Up ahead, words I've never spoken on CNN, non-human biologics. Yes, believers in UFOs are seizing on some details revealed at this week's House hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena. But is there a there there? I'll talk to the expert, the Harvard astronomer who recently dug up an extraterrestrial object from deep in the ocean to analyze its origins.

And I want to remind you to go to smerconish.com and answer this week's poll question, do you believe the U.S. government is in possession of alien spacecraft?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:26]

SMERCONISH: Has the government been covering up signs of extraterrestrial life? This week, three retired military veterans testified at a House hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena, what are commonly known as UFOs, now UFAs. Two of them, a former Navy pilot and former Navy commander, had seen such object themselves.

They warned these sightings present a national security problem and that the government has been two secretive about them. The third to testify, former Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch had this exchange with Representative Nancy Mace. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Do you believe that officials at the highest levels of our national security apparatus have unlawfully withheld information from Congress and subverted our oversight authority?

DAVID GRUSCH, FORMER AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: There are certain elected leaders that had more information that -- I'm not sure what they have shared with certain Gang of Eight members or et cetera, but certainly I would not be surprised.

MACE: OK. You say that the government is in possession of potentially non-human spacecraft. Based on your experience and extensive conversations with experts do you believe our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials?

GRUSCH: It's something I can't discuss in public setting.

MACE: If you believe we have crashed craft, as stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?

GRUSCH: Biologics came with some of these recoveries. Yes.

MACE: Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?

GRUSCH: Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Non-human, he said. The hearing received sharp criticism in a LinkedIn posting by Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick who runs the Pentagon's recently formed All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office or AARO. Kirkpatrick wrote this, "I cannot let yesterday's hearing pass without sharing how insulting it was to the officers of the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community who chose to join AARO, many with not unreasonable anxieties about the career risks this would entail."

My next guest has unique credentials in this field. As reported in "The New York Times," "On January 8th, 2014, a fireball from space blazed through Earth's atmosphere and crashed into the sea north of Manus Island off the northeastern coast of Papua New Guinea. It's location, velocity and brightness were recorded by U.S. government sensors and quietly tucked away in a database of similar events."

Well, last month, Harvard theoretical astrophysicist Dr. Avi Loeb led an expedition that retrieved metallic fragments of the fireball off the western Pacific Sea floor. Avi Loeb joins me now. He's the head of the Galileo Project and founding director of Harvard University's Black Hole Initiative. He's the bestselling author of "Extraterrestrial, the First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth." His new book "Interstellar" will be out next month. Dr. Loeb, do you believe the government is in possession of alien spacecraft?

AVI LOEB, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thanks for having me. Well, it's not a matter of belief. Either they have it or not. And if they do, I think it's inappropriate because it's just like stepping out to your backyard and finding a tennis ball that was thrown by a neighbor and coming back home and telling your family members nothing about it.

Basically, they don't know that we have neighbors. That is inappropriate because this has nothing to do with national security.

[09:35:02]

It has a lot to do with science. We would like to know if we have neighbors in our cosmic environment.

SMERCONISH: What would be the motivation of the government trying to keep this under wrap? Is it fear of panic? Fear in the country that would be unharnessed? What?

LOEB: Well, my guess has to do with the fact that they can't make sense of it. And perhaps they consulted some corporations that have the benefits of being paid by the Department of Defense. Otherwise, I cannot make any sense of it.

So, they might not have it. We just don't know. We have to see the evidence.

David Grusch was a secondhand witness. He heard other people talk about it, 40 of them, and they told him about the programs. But we would like to see the actual evidence before we believe it. And, of course, you know, I realized that going to the Pacific Ocean might be easier in terms of learning about the interstellar space than listening to politicians in Washington, D.C.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to ask you about your trip in just a moment. One follow-up. Yes, you're right. He's a degree -- Grusch. He's a degree of separation, it seems to me from those we would most want to speak to. But nothing stays secret these days. Everybody writes a book.

Is it really practical to think that we could have alien spacecraft in our possession and someone who touched it, feel it, seen it wouldn't reveal that evidence?

LOEB: Yes, it's unlikely unless the government is so incompetent that it can't make any sense of it. So, it was stuck deep under secrecy with only a small number of people aware of it. Yes, I simply don't know until the evidence will be presented.

But the good news is as a result of the hearing on Wednesday, David Grusch promised to provide the details of the people who had firsthand experience with the program. So, presumably, the representatives will get in touch with them and we will get to the bottom of it in the coming months. So, we just have to wait and see.

SMERCONISH: Take my final -- take my final 60 seconds and tell me what do you think you retrieved from the Pacific Ocean floor a mile down?

LOEB: Well, we used magnets to get some molten droplets from the surface of the object that crashed there, and they were roughly a millimeter in size, a milligram each. And now we are studying them at Harvard University using the best instruments that the world has to offer.

We're collaborating with U.C. Berkeley, the Bruker Corporation and the University of Technology Papua New Guinea and hopefully within a month we'll know the composition. And we could tell if this material is different than the one we have in the solar system and whether it's technological in origin. We can in principle infer molten droplets from semi-conductors, from computer screens, from stainless steel. Just think of it as Voyager colliding with another planet and burning up as a meteor.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Loeb, a social media reaction. I'm going to put it on the screen, and I'll read it aloud in case I need your expertise to weigh in on this. Let's see.

If they did have alien craft, why would they hide it? Go ahead. Take a second crack at that. I have already raised the issue.

LOEB: Well, only for commercial reasons or for having some advantage over adversaries that could be imagined. But as we all know even the nuclear program was not very secretive. I mean, the Russians knew about it. So, I'm still agnostic about whether it's real or not until I see the evidence. And we better see the evidence because scientists are best equipped to make sense of it.

SMERCONISH: Right. We want it in your hands at Harvard so that you can tell us what it really means. Thank you, Dr. Loeb. Look forward to your book next month.

LOEB: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: Please go and vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. By the way, while you're there, register for the daily newsletter. People love it. It's free. Do you believe the U.S. government is in possession of alien spacecraft?

Still to come, are Americans losing confidence in the military? We'll explore this alarming trend that's hurting U.S. institutions and get the reasons behind it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:33]

SMERCONISH: Should culture wars be left off the battlefield? A recent data from Gallup shows that confidence in American institutions on the whole is in decline. Small business is the U.S. institution in which we have the most faith followed by the American military but even faith in the military is on the wane.

Today, 60 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That's down four percent in the last year. A new book argues that even that level of support is actually hollow. Peter Feaver is a political science professor at Duke University. He's the author of "Thanks for Your Service, the Causes and Consequences of Public Confidence in the U.S. Military." Peter, welcome back. If public confidence in the military is high but it's hollow, does that suggest that some don't mean it when they say, thank you for your service?

PETER FEAVER, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, DUKE UNIVERSITY: I think that's the case. It's what political psychologists call social desirability bias where you give the answer you think is the politically correct answer but it's not the one that you might truly hold. And if you use techniques to uncover what respondents actually think public confidence is probably seven to 25 points lower than is captured in the polls.

It's also important to note that some of the drivers of public confidence maybe eroding. One of the big ones is connections.

[09:45:00]

You know, veterans have higher confidence. People have family and friends serving. But those numbers are dwindling as the World War II generation has passed and now the draft generation is passing.

SMERCONISH: Correct me if I'm wrong, but support by Republicans is more in decline than support by Democrats of the military. Do you attribute that to polarization and the way that now the military and claims of wokeness have become part of our political debate?

FEAVER: Yes, it's still the case that Republicans on average have higher confidence than Democrats but the decline that we have seen in the last several years is mostly a decline among Republicans. And I think you can trace it really to September 2020 at the height of the campaign when then President Trump started to attack the military, attack his own generals and criticize them and -- that created sort of a permission space for Republicans to look at the military in a different way that's been echoed by other media personalities and other political leaders.

And now we have got this crazy phenomenon where the uniformed military is being treated like it's a combatant in the culture war. This politicizes the military and over time can cause a decline in confidence.

SMERCONISH: And so, is that what you're describing at the root of the recruitment problems that are being felt by all branches of the service?

FEAVER: No, the recruitment problems are first and foremost a function of labor economics. There's great jobs available in the civilian sector. All institutions are having trouble filling their hiring needs. And when that happens, it's a tough environment for recruiting.

But on the margins, this can matter for recruitment. High confidence is associated with recommending to others that they serve. So, when confidence in the military goes down, there's going to be fewer people saying, hey, yes, go into the military. That's a good idea.

And some of the polarized partisan critiques of the military that you're hearing particularly sort of on the fringes of the Republican Party, those can have a really negative effect on people's willingness to serve. It's not the driver, but it's kind of an unnecessary self- inflicted wound that makes it harder to recruit.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to read aloud social media that came in so that you know what it is and we'll respond together. Catherine, what do we have on this subject?

Wokeism destroys everything in its path, including the military, says Matthew. You would say what to him, Peter?

FEAVER: Well, I would say we need to reconsider how we're treating the military in the culture wars. I think Republicans need to stop targeting the military, stop accusing the military by name and military leaders by name on the one hand.

On the second hand, Democrats need to stop hiding behind the military to defend controversial policies. If it's a policy set by the Biden administration have civilian leaders in the Department of Defense take responsibility for advocating for it.

And then thirdly, the military needs to talk about its values but in way that does not trigger the culture war. So, the military needs to recruit from all walks of life, but that doesn't mean they need to talk about DEI or others you said have no longer mean to many members of Americans what they once meant. Those terms have become politicized, and the military should talk about their values in a different way.

I don't think the military is woke. There's just not a lot of evidence that members of the military operate the way, say, truly woke institutions, university campuses for instance operate. But the military does have to recruit from all walks of life and does have to forge those folks together and that requires being sensitive to differences. And so, I think it's a mistake to call that woke.

SMERCONISH: Peter Feaver, good luck with the new book. Thanks for being here.

FEAVER: Thank you for having me.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments and the final result, cannot wait to see this, of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Do you believe the U.S. government is in possession of alien spacecraft?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:10]

SMERCONISH: All right. There's the result of this week's poll -- whoa. Pretty close. Do you believe the U.S. government is in possession of alien spacecraft? Twenty-seven thousand plus have voted, 55 percent say no, but 45 percent believe it.

I thought that Grusch's testimony was credible, but I'm like watching it on television saying, take me to your leader. Give me one of the 40 who had hands on. You know, give me Bob Lazar instead of Grusch and then maybe those numbers will be flipped.

Reaction to this week's program. What else do we have, Catherine? From the world of social media. Bullchit. You will only read Republican talking points because you're a right wing fascist low life.

I guess that sums it up. Yes, Tom, you got me. What else?

[09:55:00]

Give me something I can really respond to. Unbelievable.

Jeff. Smerconish should rename his show "The Hunter Biden Hour." He can protest all he wants, but he has devoted an inordinate amount of time to something with little substance. Hearsay is not evidence.

Jeff, I walked through the public record as best I could in the span of like five or 10 minutes at the outset of the program. The issue warrants our attention. Those two IRS whistleblowers, one of whom was on the program Mr. Ziegler earlier in the hour, I found to be very credible. And the president's one-word answer of never, it never passed the smell test.

What parent among us has never had conversation with their children about their children's career? And that's what the president is asking us to accept. And maybe for a while that answer we were just going to put up with it, but no.

We need more now. And he's got to answer for it. The reports of my firing are premature.

I will be on vacation next week. See you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)