The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Philip Bump Battles on Hunter Biden - Old Episode Glitched on Spotify

Episode Date: December 4, 2023

Noam Dworman sits down with Philip Bump and Dov Davidoff.  Philip Bump is a national columnist for The Washington Post; before that he led political coverage for The Atlantic Wire. One of the paper��s most read writers, he focuses on the data behind polls and political rhetoric. Dov Davidoff is a comic and an actor whose television appearances include The Tonight Show, Crashing and numerous others. He is regular at The Comedy Cellar.

So, this podcast that I just did kind of went terribly. It got a little ugly. So terrible that I'm going to cut in a little intro. My guest was Philip Bump, the Washington Post columnist most associated with pouring cold water on the Hunter Biden story. He's an expert on the current state of the Hunter Biden affair, and I thought we'd have a good conversation, but he left very angry, which surprised me. He's known for writing about this issue, but something about the way I approached this seemed to get quite under his skin. I had many points to make and few of them that I felt I was able to get out. We got particularly bogged down in Devin Archer's interview on Tucker Carlson.

Now, anybody who watches this show or listens to this podcast is aware that I'm no Tucker Carlson fan, but I happen to believe that no matter how unreliable and frankly misleading his reporting can often be, his interviews or any interview, his interviews are almost always valid. I've done many interviews and the politics of the questioner has never affected my answers. It's never left me wanting to please them. And as long as they didn't edit my interviews to leave stuff out, which has been done to me, any interview I've ever done is a perfectly fair indication of what my feelings are. about the Archer interview is that it's easy to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, and complexity is often a red flag and usually indicates that something less than the truth is being relayed. So for instance, when Archer was asked if the firing of Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor, was seen as a bad thing by the Burisma executives, he answers things like,

well, that's the narrative that was spun to me, or that's the story we were fed by DC, or this is complex. It's not like playing checkers. But he could just say, yes, the board saw it as a bad thing that Shulkin was fired, or worse to that effect. Yes, we felt that we were better off with Shulkin. But for some reason, this double talk that Archer engages in seems obvious to me and telling,

but not even worth commenting on to bump. And this goes to my general feeling that so much of the press has lost their nose for news. Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about this. You can be the judge. Send me an email to podcast at commieseller.com and let me know what you think. I'm going to watch the show now, and I think I'll try to cut in some of the testimony and evidence that Bump and I both alluded to, but we didn't have time to find and read at the time because it was getting pretty testy between us. So here it is.

My interview with Philip Bump about the Hunter Biden story. Okay, good evening, everybody. Welcome to Live from the Table. My name is Noam Dwarman. I'm the owner of The Comedy Cellar. We're here on Sirius XM Radio. I have with me Mr. Dov Davidoff. Yes.

And this is a show I'm looking very much forward to. We have with us Washington Post columnist Philip Bump. Who, is there any other, he has a book coming out? Came out in January, yeah. Put the mic closer to you if you don't mind. Book came out in January. What's the name of the book? It's called The Aftermath, The Last Days of the Baby Boom,

and the Future of Power in America. Wow. And this is about. Is it totally messed up? Yeah. Okay. So I asked somebody, I don't want to say his name, who is the smartest guy in America who thinks that the Hunter Biden story is a nothing burger.

Okay. And this guy told me, Philip Bump. And the guy who said it was an estimable guy. Wow. So I am of the opposite opinion. Okay. And I want to talk to the person, the smartest person I can find on planet Earth

who disagrees with me. That's great. Okay, well, I hate to disappoint you, but I would not say the Hunter Biden story is a nothing burger. I would say that the effort to extrapolate from Hunter Biden to his father is at this point a nothing burger.

There's a distinction that I... Yes, yes. So I accept the distinction and i am i'm of the i disagree with you on that i think i think it's terrible for the father for the layman out there should we do we provide a little synopsis of what's actually taking place because i don't think a lot of people are clear they're only clear on their emotions associated with the names and the parties sure yeah yeah i'm happy to do so but obviously i'm going to do it from my perspective so do it's so much to cover. Do it. But do it really. It's important to the audience.

I mean, the upshot is Hunter Biden was working as a businessman. He has a law degree and he was he was pretty obviously trading on his name during the time in which Joe Biden was both working in the Obama White House. Then after he had left the Obama White House and since the Republicans have taken control of the House in January in particular, there have been a number of investigations that have sort of dug into the business dealings of Hunter Biden and associated Biden family members, including Hunter's uncle, Joe's brother, Jim, James Biden, and some other people that are sort of in the Biden family who had received money. And it's not clear if the money was directly from business deals that Hunter Biden made. But but in essence, the question is and the and the idea that's being propagated by Republicans is that Joe Biden was involved in this to a significant extent and

and and they believe benefited financially from these business relationships, although they have as of yet been unable to prove any such allegation. Okay. Is that fair? Yeah, really fair. That was really articulate. That was great. Help me. He's a professional, Bob. He's the brightest guy in the country that disagrees with you. There you go.

Okay, so where should I start? So let me ask you a few questions to see what kind of factual basis we have in common. I want to start maybe, so this is my basic feeling is that what we're seeing is akin to an ocean full of sharks who have simultaneously lost their ability to smell blood in the water. The press seems to have lost its ability to alert itself to obvious facts that need to be followed up on. And I believe they do that intentionally or subconsciously because they just don't want to pursue it. But as Harry Enten's father, the judge, said, he'd rather have 10 examples of circumstantial evidence

than one example of direct evidence. Because he didn't say this second part, because each example of circumstantial evidence represents a probability. And you start multiplying probabilities, it becomes almost impossible for all these to see a check winding up in Joe Biden's account is absurd. Okay. I guess I'm going to go this way. So, you know, I grew up in a very, very close family with me, my father, and my grandmother. And when my father did well, that benefited my grandmother. And when my father did well, that benefited my grandmother. There was never any, you know, no money that came to my father ended up deposited in my grandmother. But when she

needed it years later, she had it. Anybody who did anything for me, financial or otherwise, this was the most important thing in my father's life. He didn't need the check written out to him. Anybody who would do anything to help me was like doing something for my father. And this is how families work. So let's leave that aside. Do you agree? Let's start with the latest revelations, the Devin Arch. Okay, but I don't want to leave that aside. So I hope we can come back to that. Okay, we'll's leave that aside. Do you agree? Let's start with the latest revelations, the Devin Archibald. Okay, but I don't want to leave that aside.

And so I hope we can come back to that. Okay, we'll come back to it. But this is the first key question, the threshold question. Do you believe that Joe Biden knew that he was helping his son when he did things like make these calls, receive these calls in front of them, take a meeting with these people? So this is a question that is presented in a particular frame that I think is worth challenging by itself. So here's what we know. We know from testimony from Devin Archer in particular, Devin Archer having been a business partner of Hunter Biden's, that there would be times 20 occasions, he said, over the course of something like a decade of the two of them working together, during which, in particular, Joe Biden would be calling his son Hunter. Hunter would pick up the phone as he was in a meeting with other people, put it on speakerphone and say, here's my dad, dad, say hi. Do I think that Joe Biden, when he was cognizant of the fact that Hunter Biden was in those meetings, was aware that Hunter Biden was probably using that as a way to bolster himself? Yes, I think he probably was aware of that. Does that mean that probably or for sure?

I don't know. I can't read his mind, but I think, yeah, he's probably aware of it. Well, who how many times? Look, I work for The Washington Post probably means for sure. And how many times have you ever called up and had conversations about the weather with strangers? Never. I don't understand. I'm saying that. He wasn't calling Hunter Biden's business associates. He was calling his son.

Right. And this was particularly in the time after Beau Biden had died and he was building a stronger relationship with his son. Normally when you get a call when you're in a meeting, you say, Dad, I'll call you back in a meeting. Yeah, but that was Hunter Biden's decision, not Joe Biden's decision. Was Hunter Biden trying to leverage those calls? Archer also said that Hunter called Joe. He said there were occasions in which that had occurred. Yes. So but but if you do you have children? Yes. If your son

calls you, do you know what it is or do you just take the call? No, I well, no, I don't. If I'm in a business meeting, I'll usually. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying Hunter Biden called Joe. If Joe Biden picks up Hunter Biden's call and Hunter Biden's in a meeting with people, it's not Joe's fault for answering, nor is it Joe's fault if Hunter Biden answers the phone when Hunter Biden's in a business meeting. No, no. I'm saying, listen. Okay, so let's move back.

Sure, that's fine. Burisma was identified by the State Department as a corrupt company. Sure. Biden made speeches. Where did I have it? Where did I have it here Where do I had it here? This is from Reuters. Boy, Biden said the United States was ready to help Ukraine stabilize and strengthen the economy. It wanted. But it warned Lee. He warned leaders they needed to crack down on abuses within the political system.

The only thing worse than having no hope at all is having hopes rise and see them dashed repeatedly on the shoals of corruption. He referred to the cancer of corruption now you're in charge of corruption in ukraine you're making these speeches about corruption in ukraine and your son is going to work for the criminals the criminals and you're having 20 casual conversations and meeting with them you know listen the only the alternative is that we need to get this guy, this guy's a fucking idiot. Look, you're conflating a lot of different things here. No, I'm not conflating anything.

You are, unfairly, you are, absolutely. What am I conflating? Look, you asked me, I'm the expert here, right? That's why I'm saying this here. What am I conflating? Here's what you're conflating. These 20 calls were not all with people from Burisma at present, right? That's not the case.

We don't know how many of these calls involve potential Burisma executives, if any. Let's say it's three calls. Let's say it's zero. Why do you get to pick a number? We don't know what they are. But this is important because Burisma is the only thing that the Republicans would be able to hang their hat on. Burisma and these tenuous ties,

which your presentation of even the Burisma relationship from Biden's with that wasn't fair. No, Archer was talking about Burisma. No, he was talking about all the relationships Archer was talking about Burisma. No, he was talking about all the relationships. He's talking about Burisma. And we know that Biden had dinner with this guy, Przorski, whatever his name is. We know that.

Yeah, that's a bad look. Let's just take that one thing. You're in charge of corruption for the United States of America. This company has been identified as corrupt. He was not in charge of corruption. He was part of an administration, one of whose values was to target corruption in Ukraine.

But that's important because Biden was not the first actor in the administration to raise questions about corruption. He's the vice president. No, he doesn't. He's the vice president. He's in charge of American policy in Ukraine. American policy in Ukraine is to root out corruption. Burisma is identified as criminal.

They're throwing bribes all over the country. Right. There are some significant questions both about Burisma and the owner, Mikolas Lucheski. Absolutely. Yes, that's true. He decides it's okay to meet,

have dinner with these people. Now, how is that perceived? Now, that's the only reason he would do that, obviously, to help to hook his son up in some way. How is that perceived by Ukrainians? So I don't remember the timeline of when this dinner occurred. So I can't I can't speak to that. I can say a few things. The first thing is that Joe Biden was part of an administration effort and an international effort to remove Victor Shokin, the sitting prosecutor general in Ukraine, who is seen as being...

I'm sorry. I don't want to cut you off, but I do want to stick to just answer my question and then say anything else you want. But my question is this. I'm answering your question. If he's sitting down with the criminal, the vice president, from the Ukrainian point of view in that corrupt country, don't they say the fix is in, the vice president's sitting down with that, it's hands off Burisma? So you don't think it's important what the timeframe is and which

that occurred? Archer had said that this was the signal till everybody knows that Burisma was protected. Well, the entire reason that Hunter Biden was on Burisma's board absolutely was to present the image of the Bidens being involved in Burisma's activity and being a protector of Burisma. Devin Archer absolutely said that. It seems very clear that that is the case. That's Hunter Biden. And there's no question. Look, I am not disputing with you at all. And I stipulated at the outset that what Hunter Biden was engaged in was definitely trading on his name. It was, you know, I don't know. I'm talking about Hunter. I'm talking about Joe. But I don't understand. How am I supposed to if OK, if this't know. I'm talking about Hunter. I'm talking about Joe. I just, but I don't understand.

How am I supposed to, if, okay, if this is, this is, I'm treating this as a good faith debate. We're having a good faith, a good faith conversation, but you can't then set the terms of that debate so that they're only favorable to you. Of course, it's important to talk about Hunter Biden and the timeframe of Hunter Biden's relationship with Burisma and the other outside pressures that exist on Burisma. If we're going to assess, if we're going to assess Joe Biden as having acted in a negative way. What time frame do you need to know? Well, just tell me, like, for example, it was in early 2015 when the Obama administration first started putting pressure on the Alistair Shokin,

when there were questions about Shokin protecting Burisma by not turning over information to British investigators. And it was later in that year when Joe Biden specifically did it. So when was this dinner? I don't remember when this dinner was. March 20th, 2015. Right, fine. So this was before, this was right at the outset. Or I don't remember when the first conversation was.

Biden made his anti-corruption speeches in 2014, at the end of 2014. Sure, fine, great. Well, I mean, the primary pressure campaign on Shokin began in 2015. And this was after Burisma had— So who else was at the dinner? This was after Burisma had been identified as a corrupt enterprise. Sure, but I don't remember how many other people were at the dinner. My recollection is that there were no other people at the dinner.

Do you recall? My question is— Sure. If you're in charge— The answer is the Ukrainians were not aware of the dinner. That's the answer. The broader answer— You don't think the guy went back and told people he had dinner with the vice president? Oh, okay, fine. Then some Ukrainians were not aware of the dinner. That's the answer. The broader answer. You don't think the guy went back and told people he had dinner with the vice president? Oh, okay, fine.

Then some Ukrainians were. Well, what are you asking? You asked what the Ukrainians thought, which I assume you meant the Ukrainian people. What I'm getting at is that if you're in charge of American policy in Ukraine, and you've identified corruption as your number one, as the number one problem. And you are, and your son, first of all, you should have stopped him,

but your son takes a job. Yeah, he should have, and he was warned by the State Department. Your son takes a job with those people. Right. You do everything you can to make it clear to those people listen stay the fuck away from me you're criminals i don't know what's going on with my son but do not expect me to be chummy with you do not do not i'm not having dinner with you i'm not taking calls with you and

you're putting me on speakerphone whatever it is and i'm saying that because he did that, well, okay, so when this happened, it was a big thing. You are putting a lot of weight on this dinner because this dinner exists. That's why we're having this conversation about this dinner. This dinner is important because the dinner is one of the few times in which one can point to a direct connection between Joe Biden and Burisma that appears to be intentional. We don't know that it's intentional. It appears to be intentional. What this conversation, though, elides is the other things Devin Archer said. Devin Archer saying, for example, under oath, under penalty of perjury, that there was no relationship, that Joe Biden was not involved in the business that they undertook. And so we have all this focus from Republicans and from Biden critics on the fact that these calls were answered. And yes, after a

while, Joe Biden should have been like, hey, look, am I on speaker? Don't put me on speakerphone. Absolutely. I think that's I think that's a fair thing to say, given what we now know. But Devin Archer, who is the one who reported this, also said Joe Biden wasn't involved. We tried to give the impression that Joe Biden was involved, but he wasn't. But that's what we're doing. We're trading on it, which everyone understands and knows. And so the reason we're talking about this dinner is not because this dinner was necessarily important or revelatory. We're talking about this dinner because it's one of the few points when you talk about, you know, having multiple circumstantial pieces of evidence to tie together. This is one of

the very few circumstantial pieces of evidence that exists. And that's why this conversation. In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Kaleniuk, head of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, this one again, this is how the Ukraine Center says, if an investigator sees the son of the vice president of the United States is part of the management of a company,

the investigator will be uncomfortable pushing the case forward. Sure. A hundred percent. Yes. And that's why he was on Brisbane Court. Is that above Biden's ability to understand? Wouldn't Biden understand that? pushing the case forward sure 100 yes so that's why he was on brisbane now is that is that is that above biden's ability to understand wouldn't biden understand that i mean first of all that

quote i assume is a more recent quote i'm not i don't know the extent to which this is this is from what this i mean it was post 2016 no that's from when that that quote came out when hunter took the job okay fine totally fair yeah i don't know the extent to which Joe Biden is aware of what he was doing. He certainly should have been. It was a controversy when a lot of people were complaining about it when Hunter took the job. Sure. And there were warnings, as I mentioned. George Kent from the State Department came to Joe Biden and said, this is a bad look.

He should not be involved with this. And Joe Biden defended him. I'm not defending any of that. Right? I'm not defending any of that. He should not have been that. But here's the issue the issue is do we then extrapolate outward from there to joe biden doing favors on hunter biden's behalf that's the question and that's that is the scandal if it exists and that's the

thing for which their lives okay so so okay so what you're not going to concede and i guess maybe you you understand why i'm pushing it no lay on me let's see what i don't concede, and I guess maybe you understand why I'm pushing it. No, lay it on me. Let's see what I don't concede. Is that the Vice President of the United States, in charge of corruption, knew that when he was helping his son look good to the criminals, he was communicating to Ukraine hands-off Burisma. Okay. You don't know that. Yes. You don't know that.

Yes. I don't know that. Well, he knew or he's an idiot. That's not fair. It's just, it's simply not fair. Who could not? It was, I mean, people were saying it. People within the administration were warning him.

People within the administration were warning him. He should have been aware that having Hunter Biden there was problematic, of course. Any person sophisticated enough to be president of the United States who's fighting corruption, if he's up to that job, understands that, you know what you said? If I had Eric Adams' son working here and he introduced himself to the health inspectors, yes, I'm the mayor's son. Sure. Oh, we don't know that.

Of course we know. I mean, of course I know. I'm conceding that point. So Biden, so this is that on steroids. He's the vice president of the United States. He's shaking hands with the criminals. He's, he's, he's taking calls. He's making small talk with the criminals.

He knows he's communicating to the criminals. Okay, let's let's. Listen, I think you said he's telling the illusion of influence. So am I wrong or am I right? Let's parse who the bad actors are. Let's parse who the bad actors are. Am I wrong or am I right? No, I'm not.

I'm not. You present this extended soliloquy about this, this theoretical Eric Adams hiring, and I'm expected to just say yes or no to it. No, let's let's take your example. You hire Eric Adams' son. Yeah. Okay. Eric Adams comes to work here. expect to just say yes or no to it no let's let's just take your example you hire eric adams son yeah okay eric adams comes to work here you do so understanding that perhaps eric adams son talking to the health inspector will make it easier for you and your business right eric adams son is complicit complicit with that he says yes fine i'm happy to help play that role right who

are the bad actors there it's you and eric adams's son does eric adams know that that's why he's been hired the analogy is not perfect. I was not making the analogy for that point. You're correct about what you just said. Logically correct. That was not my point. Okay.

My point is that everybody would read the fact that the mayor's son is working somewhere is that this place is not one you fuck with. Sure, that's fine. Which is why you hired Eric Adams' son.

Which is why Bruce Mann hired Joe Biden's son. Yes, okay, fine. Now, if Eric Adams makes it clear, it tries to hook his son up with me, and Eric Adams believes I'm a criminal. Sure. Listen, let's get back to it. Then what's Eric Adams do? Okay, let's get off the Eric Adams. To his son as an adult. It's confusing because it's not a perfect analogy. My point is this. There's two options here, really.

One option, which I don't think is possible, is that Biden had no idea. Son of a bitch. I didn't know by taking these calls and having dinner with these guys, I was going to communicate that I was in on this. I thought they would still think that I was after them and that everybody in Ukraine would say it's meaningless. But then he went after them. It just doesn't make any sense. Everything you're presenting is within the frame that you're trying to reinforce. Can we just take it step by step? It's a big question.

Please. So if he did that, he's working against American policy. Except for the fact, and this is what you keep skipping, and this is what the Republicans are skipping. I'm not trying to skip anything. Go ahead. Except for the fact that what he did then is conjoin an international coalition

putting pressure on the guy who was seen as a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. And then they got rid of him. Like, I just don't understand. Okay, fair enough. What else do you want him to do? And that was, according to Devin Archer, contrary to Bruce Misengeris.

Okay, we're going to- What else do you want him to do? We're going to take that. You're wrong about that. We're going to take that you're wrong about that we're going to take that up i'm not wrong about it but if i can prove that you're wrong about that then will you have to go back and concede my point is serious look if the reason my point is not serious what do you want joe biden to do when he's sitting there in 2016 hunter biden's on the board of brisma what's he going to do like legitimately like what should he do he do? He should tell his son, listen, these guys are corrupt. Okay, do you know he didn't do that?

You asked me what he should do. He should say, these guys are corrupt. Under no circumstances put me on the phone with them. I'm the vice president of the fucking United States of America in charge of these people. And under no circumstances will I sit down to dinner with them. Because that will give them the impression that I'm OK with them. Sure. OK, so fine. And that will give the that will give other people in Ukraine, as I just read this quote,

the people in charge of fighting corruption in Ukraine were upset about this because that was the message it communicated. Now, that quote doesn't actually speak to what you were just saying. The quote doesn't speak to Joe Biden's direct involvement. It speaks to the fact that his son was involved in it. I think that's worth pointing out. Second of all, even seeding the point that you think, well, no, it's not actually better. The seeding the point that you think Joe Biden should have done all these things, which assumes that Joe Biden had the same assumptions you did, knowing what he knew about the situation in Ukraine and Burisma.

Seeding even that, you also don't know that Joe Biden didn't do any of those things. And if Joe Biden did say those things. No. And Hunter Biden, let me finish. And Hunter Biden picks up the phone when he's in a meeting. Joe Biden says, hey, how's it going? And he's like, oh, I'm sitting here with these people. And Joe Biden, maybe Joe Biden's irritated. You just don't know about these things.

But what we do know is we have a business partner. He wasn't involved in business. We know that he cracked down on Shokin. No, no, no. We know they sat down to dinner. And we know. Yeah, one time. One time. One time is a lot. I sat down with Al Capone. It just. We know they sat down to dinner. And we know. Yeah, one time. One time. One time is a lot.

I sat down with Al Capone. It was just once. But do you know that Joe Biden was aware of who was at the dinner? Absolutely. Of course he was. Of course he was. Okay. All right.

You think Joe Biden is. Every dinner Joe Biden's ever gone to that involves multiple people. He knows all the people who are sitting in that room. I think that for. If a father and son are talking every day, multiple times a day, they run out of stuff to talk about if it's just the weather. At some point, they're talking about. I'm not saying they just talk about the weather. I'm not saying they talk about.

We all have relationships with our parents and people close to us. That's fine. But again, you are centered on this dinner because it's all you've got. That's no, I have a lot more than lay it on me. Let's go. So move on from the dinner. I didn't mean to get bogged down in it. What are what do the following words mean to you?

Okay. What if I say a narrative was spun to me? What does spun mean? All right. I just, this is, what do you, you know exactly what spun means. So I'm not going to like. I want to make sure you know it. You agree with me.

No, I work for the Washington Post. I've never heard this term before. Lay it on me. Well, chat GPT says when someone spun to me is a kind of casual, basically means the information story was given to them in a way that might be buyers are slanted kind of someone uh expires or slanted and the word that's fed i'm sorry the word fed okay and the word just cut to the chase what what do you what what's the point you're trying to make so let's just go over all the devon because if it involves devon archer not having said that barisma staffers and associates told him that it

was bad if shulkin was out then you're incorrect. Here was a Biden quote. In 2014, to be very blunt about it, you have to fight the cancer of corruption, he said in the icy streets of Kiev. That's right. And then a year and a half later, he called for the ouster of Victor Shokin, the corrupt prosecutor general. Now let's go through the Shokin stuff. Sure, please.

My experience in business, and Dov, you tell me if this is correct or not, my experience in business is, now I have to often parse fights between employees, fights between customers and employees, fights between all kinds. And I have to try to figure out who's telling the truth. And one of the things I've learned is that when people start giving very complex answers. Now, do you have these fights? Are these fights under oath when you do them or no? No.

Okay. When people start giving very complex answers to simple questions, that's usually where i smell a rat got it so let's just read a little read a little bit of the testimony about shokin then we'll listen to it and you tell me why he said this stuff uh question are you aware that vadim had told blue star that one of his issue pressures one of issues pressure he was facing was related to Shulkin and the investigation into Burisma. So yes, I was, the narrative that was spun to me, spun, quite frankly, just to be,

and I remember this because obviously it's a narrative that was spun to me, was that Shulkin was under control and whatever, and whoever the next person that was brought in was, you know, the fact that he was, this is the total, this is the narrative that was spun to me three times. The Shulkin being fired was not good because he was like under control as to Mikola. Zlodziewski, the founder of Burisma.

So that's not Devin Archer saying that he was told that Shulkin's ouster was bad for Burisma. Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. Yeah, I know. That's what I said he said, and you said he didn't. Right. Because he doesn't say. He says that was a narrative that was spun to him. When somebody says

the story was spun to them, what they're saying is, well, this is the obvious thing to determine. Yeah, but your entire argument depends on the vocabulary lesson that's involved. You're going to exclude all the other evidence like the fact that Shokin was facing... I have a lot of evidence here. Was stymieing the British who were trying to best to... I have a lot of evidence here. —was stymieing the British who were trying to invest in Zelensky? I have a lot of evidence here.

Okay, lean on me. This is what I'm saying. Give me the evidence. You keep not giving me evidence. Give me it. And then he says— Do you think you have evidence I haven't seen? No.

You think I don't like— And so based on that, is it your testimony here that Victor Shulkin— excuse me, Hunter Biden and Vadim never discussed the investigation by Shulkin into Burisma. Schwartz, that's the lawyer intervenes now. You're asking Archer. I can't. Schwartz, what conversation he was personally proven to? Mandolfo, yes.

He says again, yeah, I was, and I answered before, I was spun a narrative that Shulkin was good for Burisma. Now, leave that aside. Now, that's the questioning from whom? Comer and the Republicans. Now let's go to the video of him answering the same question on Tell me Tucker Carlson. On Tucker Carlson. You're laughing like

the crazy professor. It's an interview. It's not what Tucker said. That's fine. Okay. I mean, Biden bragged at Council on Foreign Relations, you know, they had a billion dollars coming from IMF. And I said, if you don't fire this man, you're not getting a billion dollars. Right, right.

But it's, you know, on this one, it certainly wasn't made clear to us at the board level, you know, that that was a favor to be done. The narrative, I don't know the narrative, and I don't want to lead anyone down that kind of path, but that's what happened, because I don't know the narrative. But Joe Biden knew that his son was on the board of this company that was being hassled by the prosecutor who's firing he was calling for. Right. Yeah. And this took place three years after he sent you a letter saying thanks for all the work you're doing with Hunter.

Wait, wait. I've seen this. This would benefit the family. This is the key now. Right. I don't want to get into it, but the narrative was that Shoken was already taken care of. That was the popular narrative. That's the only thing that I.

That he was already on his way out. Yeah, exactly. That was the narrative that. That's the only thing that I... That he was already on his way out. Yeah, exactly. That was the narrative that was fed to the board. Okay, so you were told when Shoken got fired that, like, it had nothing to do with... No, we were told that that was bad and we don't want a new prosecutor if Shoken was taken care of.

So it's very... I mean, this is not like, you know, checkers. This is multiple dimensions here. You know, so possibly... This is like Connect Four. No, exactly. Okay, you know, checkers. This is multiple dimensions here. You know, so possibly... This is like Connect Four. No, exactly. Okay, stop there, Nicole. This is not like checkers.

This is a narrative that was fed to us. There are multiple dimensions here. On what planet is that man obviously not indicating that things are not as they appear? Who speaks that way? A lot of smoke. Who speaks that way about a narrative of smoke. Who speaks that way? About a narrative?

Who? Were you cheating on me? This is so bizarre. This is so bizarre. Were you fucking his wife? Well, that was a narrative that was spun, but you know, this is not checkers. I get the gag here, but like,

he said in that clip. Are you telling me that's the way an honest person, you don't, you don't. Here's what I know. Let me finish. Here's what I know. I know that under oath, he said that he was told by people from Burisma that it was bad to have Shoken Alistair.

I know there's lots of evidence. So this, I'm going to cut this in here. This is a section of the testimony that he refers to a few times. So I looked it up just now. Goldman, who is the Democratic questioner, says, so was it Shokin was ultimately removed from office? Archer, right. Goldman again. Was that a bad thing for,

and the Burisma leaders felt like that would be bad for them? Mr. Archer, that's what I was told. Mr. Goldman, okay. Then Mr. Schwartz comes in, who is Archer's lawyer. Not by the Burisma leaders. Archer, exactly, not by the Burisma leaders. I was told by the DC team. Goldman says, got it.

And here is a second exchange also with Goldman. Mr. Goldman, let's talk about legally. I think just pivot to that because you had said earlier that I believe the direct quote is that Burisma felt like they had Shoken under control. Mr. Archer, correct. Mr. Goldman, what did you mean by that? Mr. Archer, that was like, that was a narrative that was told to me by various of the D.C. team that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was under control. Mr. Goldman, what did you understand under control to mean? Mr. Archer, meaning that they were going to maybe give a slap on the wrist as opposed to Mr. Goldman, okay. Mr. Archer, you know, seize all his assets. Mr. Goldman, because there was a lot of

characterizations by the Republicans in the first part about a Ukrainian investigation. Mr. Archer, uh-huh. But Mr. Goldman, but you're not actually aware of any investigation by the prosecutor general in Ukraine into Burisma, which is different from the British investigation. Mr. Archer, right. So in good faith, I've looked up the two examples I could find, and both of them have Archer saying that it was the Washington, D.C. team that told him that narrative. I cannot find anywhere where he says that he heard it from anybody on the board of Burisma. I know there's lots of evidence that Shokin was protecting Burisma.

There's evidence in that the British were investigating Mikhail Zelensky and he stymied them. He didn't give them the information. They had to drop their investigation. I want to know all this, but we're talking about Archer. No, but it was important, but it's not responsive to this. Because this isn't important. This is not under oath. This is him saying what you say he's saying and you're saying that, oh, he must

mean something else. Even though he's saying explicitly I was told that Shokin was under control and we went it was bad for him to leave i'm supposed to impute from that because of the way he said it he was lying but it's the way he said that but that runs contrary to all the evidence i'm trying to present you but you don't want to hear the evidence because you want to go with your assumption about it i'm the my i don't have any assumption you do of course you do you this whole conversation i'm watching him okay i'm gonna cut one more thing in here. And this is a little risky because it's nothing I've ever done before,

which is to impeach something that a guest had said when they're not there to defend themselves. I'm going to try to do it very, very carefully. But should Mr. Bump object to this, I'll make sure either to undo it or to give him a chance to comment on it. So he wrote an article in the Washington Post about this very matter. The headlines is, Devin Archer said the opposite of what Republicans claimed. And he addresses this issue. I'll read. It's a little bit long.

In fact, as Republican Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York, pointed out in questioning Archer, Shokin had himself helped relieve some of that pressure on Burisma. Those assets in London, they were unfrozen in part because Shokin refused to assist a British investigation into Zlochevsky, Goldman noted. Quote, this goes to the idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 2015, was good for Burisma, Goldman said. Uh-huh, Archer replied. So this leaves the impression that Archer was assenting to the idea that Shokin was good for Burisma. So I went back to the original transcript, and I'll pick it up from that same point. Question. And so this goes to the idea that Shulkin, who was prosecutor general in 2015 was good for Burisma. Answer. Uh-huh. Question. Is that fair? Now vice president Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period. Answer. Correct. Question. And called for the removal of Shogun from office. Is that correct? Answer. Yes. That was veryruption policy of the U.S. government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund.

Do you agree with that conclusion? Answer. Sorry, can you repeat that question? Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shulkin was part of this broad bipartisan international anti-corruption effort in Ukraine? Answer. Yes, I believe that was part of the conversation. Question. And here's the key part. Question. But it was bad for Burisma. That was the perception of Burisma because they had Shulkin under their control. Answer. This is the part that he left out. Answer. No. Burisma never informed me of that.

I just was, that's what I was told, that it was bad for Burisma. But I don't know. I don't know if it was good or bad. Mr. Schwartz, told by the D.C. team? Mr. Archer, yeah, by the D.C. team. So I can't really explain what Bump is claiming there. It seems to me very clear that every time the issue came up, So I can't really explain what Bump is claiming there. It seems to me very clear that every time the issue came up, Archer backed off in his under oath testimony and said he didn't know.

He never heard it from Burisma. And the narrative that he did hear always came from the D.C. team. So I'll leave it to Mr. Bump to respond to that if he gets wind of this. I know the plain meaning of the word spun and fed. That's fine. And I know the plain meaning. And he's talking to Tucker Carlson and he's enjoying and smiling. And I know the plain meaning of the word. I know the plain meaning of the of the of the analogy saying this is checkers.

Not this is so silly. So then find me evidence that Joe Biden acted on behalf of Breesman when he called for the firing of Shokin. Find me evidence of that. There is none. I'm getting to that. Like, yes. OK, if you want to nitpick and pick out specific isolated snippets of conversation between Devin Archer and Tucker Carlson, who's the least good faith actor in the history of human journalism. Fine. Great. We can have this conversation, but it's not getting to the point. And the point I thought was to evaluate this charge that joe biden had acted corruptly in regard to shokin and burisma and there's no evidence of that and devin archery's

own sworn testimony undercuts your argument regardless of his using the word spun or fed okay but just just just for my own edification do you accept that when he's saying that he's trying to indicate that that wasn't the truth no i the way i view that is that he understands he's on tucker carlson's show he understands that he's become useful and he is finding attention yes i understand that but he was but did you did you actually see is that this portion of his testimony when he's speaking to the republican investigators or when he's speaking to republican you do understand that did you read the dan goldman yes i read which dan goldman actually evaluated it he didn't use weasel words like that, if I remember correctly.

But you do understand that his lawyer can't allow him to incriminate himself in any kind of conspiracy to undermine U.S. policy. So he has to be very, very careful what he says here if he was involved in trying to get Shoken fired. And you'll see here his lawyer comes in and stops him. He stopped him because he didn't want him conveying hearsay, evidently. It seems painfully obvious to me that when somebody speaks that way. Just finish the rest of the video, Nicole, so you hear where it ends up. No, I think in this particular case, it's pretty high stakes and pretty sophisticated. So the narrative that I was told was that. That's just, you know, I've said it under oath and I'll say it again.

It's obvious to any reasonable person that he's, now he may be lying, but it's obviously he's communicating that the narrative is more than meets the eye. Okay, so. When you say chestnut checkers, this is more sophisticated. Let's just do this. Do you agree with me? Let's just do this. Let's, just as I don't agree with you.

You think that's a straightforward answer. No, I think he is intentionally being weaselly because he understands what Tucker Carlson wants to say. But he said the same thing to the committee. We just went over that, and it depends on who is asking the question. But he said the same thing to the committee. I understand that. But here's what I'm saying.

I am willing to say to you, I don't agree with you, and I think it's very straightforward. And that, you know, he is actually saying that Burisma executives viewed Shokin as an ally. I think that it's pretty clear. And he said that under oath. But let's just say, let's just say, let's just let's see your point. Yeah, you're right. He was weaseling it.

That's the contrary. That's the opposite of what he's trying to say. And he's winking the whole time saying it. Now, what do you do with it? Now's your evidence now what else do you have and the answer is nothing hold on play the one that says shulkin was a threat this is great i'm literally ceding this point even though i disagree i want the listeners to hear so shulkin was the that he and i'm gonna get the dates wrong but shulkin was was the prosecutor, the head prosecutor in Ukraine. And he was taking a close look at Burisma.

But within Burisma, Shokin was considered a threat to your business. Shokin was considered a threat to the business. I think anyone, again, you got to get the signals to the government. I think anyone in government is always a threat and always trying to shake down these businesses that were highly successful and enriching the owners and the staff and the board and whatever. And so at the end of the day, Shogun was taking a look. And again, if I wasn't involved in Shogun or any of this, but he was a threat. He ended up- Makes clear. I'm not part of that. Go ahead. Seizing assets- No, makes clear. He doesn't, but he was a threat. He ended up... Makes clear. I'm not part of that. Go ahead. Seizing assets of Nikolai,

a house, some cars, a couple properties, and Nikolai actually went back to Ukraine after Shokin seized all of that. What's he saying right there? Tell me what he's saying. He's saying that Shokin was considered a threat. He seized a lot of... Why was Shokin considered a threat? Because he seized all the properties. Yes. Not because he's investigating them,

because he's corrupt, because he's stealing from them. That's what he's telling you. For whatever reason, that's fine. But there's no investigation. This is the whole point. I don't know. You think they're trying to get rid of Shogun? You think they want to get rid of Shogun?

See, what you're doing is you're flipping the entire narrative. You think they're trying to get rid of Shogun because they were sick of Shogun breathing down their leg and dipping in their pockets? I don't know why they're trying to get rid of Shogun. The only question is,

were they trying to get rid of Shogun? The idea of signals and influence, the prize is enough in speaking or hearing or knowing that you have that proximity to power. No one is so unsophisticated that's been in politics for 50 years that Hunter is going to talk about- Okay, you can stop there. No one is so unsophisticated who's been in politics for 50 years. What is he saying there? Did you read the transcript of Devin Archer's testimony? I read every word of it. Did you see when he was questioned about the email he'd received from Hunter Biden,

in which Hunter Biden said in the email, look, I know we can't actually influence my father on this, but we need to give the perception that we can influence my father on this. Did you see that email? Is your point to me that I'm reading Archer right, but I just shouldn't trust what he's trying to communicate here? No, he's saying exactly that. He's saying that, yes, people used us because they thought we were a conduit to Joe Biden.

Yes, and that's... He said no one is so unsophisticated that's been in politics for 50 years. He's saying that Biden... Well, we didn't see what the predicate for that no one is sophisticated. What he just said in that clip you just played was, he said that, yes, they saw us as being a conflict. No, the predicate was they didn't talk about anything specific.

Well, you showed the predicate for that actual comment. Play the beginning again? Oh, geez. Well, I mean, you didn't, but play it just right. Do you know that Hunter spoke to his dad about Burisma? Did you ever see them talk about it, hear them talk about it? No, I don't have that. That's the predicate.

He says no one he says he says no one is in policy at 50 or be so unsophisticated okay to to do that okay but but but time out time out time out what did he just say there what did he just say about biden charisma he said he never saw joe biden have any conversation about charisma in his testimony i'm talking about circumstantial evidence sworn testimony okay but your circumstantial land is contrived paul he's saying there was no involvement. But you're saying, but circumcision is relevant. He says under oath there's no involvement.

He's asked directly, was Joe Biden at all involved in the business? He says no. Okay, hopefully this is the last cut in of a transcript. This refers to the under oath testimony of where Archer is asked about Biden's conversations and involvement in the business. I'm picking up in the middle. No business deal specifics discussed ever at any of these things, but it was a nice, you know, conversation. Question. And is that also the case at the first Cafe Milano dinner that the conversation was not about Hunter Biden's businesses with his various business associates?

Right. It was dinner conversation. Mr. Goldman interjects. And just to be clear, Joe Biden had nothing to do with any of your business ventures with Hunter Biden, right? He was Mr. Archer. As far as ownership, Mr. Goldman, yeah. Or Mr. Archer? No. Mr. Goldman, investing or anything to your knowledge? Mr. Archer, not to my knowledge. Mr. Goldman, and in all this exhibit, 1,260 pages, you didn't see a single wire transfer to Joe Biden, did you? Mr. Archer, no, I have not seen a wire transfer to Joe Biden. Like that's direct evidence. He was not involved in the business. I'm not seen a wire transfer to Joe Biden. Like, that's direct evidence. He was not involved in the business. I'm not saying he was involved in the business.

Well, then what are you saying? Well, then what's your question about Joe Biden? I thought you were arguing that Joe Biden was trying to get rid of Shokin on Burisma's behalf. That's not involved in the business. That's to help hook up his son. Play call-ins were impactful stuff. He's not involved in the business. He's not working for Burisma. It's been reported, and you have said that there were occasions when biden would call in with clients present on a speakerphone right i can't

believe we're sitting here like people need to listen at home they don't know your partnership but this is all setups by tucker carlson to which he's responding of course he's he's doing the same thing you're doing which is leading questions that's called an interview oh it's not tucker carlson you gotta be oh let's hear it let's hear it anyway. Okay. You know, the number I'm going with is 20. That's probably the amount that I kind of record. Yeah, a lot. So Joe Biden, who is very much a product of Washington, of course must have known that he was calling in

to effectively a business meeting that his son was having. I mean, he must have understood that that was kind of what his son was selling. Well, that's, I mean, that's hard for me to speculate. Hold on, stop the call. Now, you see, he laughs when he says, he's obviously committing to the fact, it's hard for me to speculate, but he's joking. Right, did you also see him look up when Tucker first said, and he's like thinking about like, eh, is that a fair thing to say?

I mean, look, yes, we can sit here and parse this. Continue the clip, continue the clip, we're almost finished. But like, I guess my question, just to keep it to the facts, Joe Biden, then the sitting vice president, knew that there were Hunter's business associates in the room. Yeah, I think I can definitively say at particular dinners or meetings, he knew there were business associates. And he, you know, we, or if I was there, I was a business associate too. So I think, or if, you know, any of the other colleagues from the D.C. office or the New York office were there.

So, yeah, at times there were. From the, you know, to be, you know, completely clear on the calls, I don't know if it was an orchestrated call in or not. It certainly was powerful, though, because, you know, if you're sitting with a foreign business person and you hear the vice president's voice,

that's prize enough. I mean, that's pretty impactful stuff. right? All right. So this was important stuff. Archie says, yeah, it was a high pressure environment and there were constant requests for help. What did Hunter do after he was given that request? Listen, I did not hear his phone call, but he called his dad. How do you know that? Because he, because I think Vadim told me, but again, it's unclear. I just know that there was a call that happened there and I was not privy to it. What did Vadim told me, but again, it's unclear. I just know that there was a call that happened there and I was not privy to it. What did Vadim tell you the call was about? Just that, just that they, we called DC, but he didn't know again. It's not like the, there was not a, oh, we've all got our problems solved kind of, you know, revelation. I was, I was not on that side of the equation.

Question. Was it during the time, was it during the drive back that Vadim told you that Hunter Biden had called Vice President Biden at that time? Archer answers, it would have been some point after there or after, you know, maybe the next day. So the exact time, I can't say. We spent three days together, but that was, that was the, and then his lawyer interjects. He told you expressly that he called his father or he called D.C. And Archer says, D.C. And Archer says D.C. That's right. And then he said that later under different testimony.

And then there are other parts of the testimony in which they make clear. When your lawyer interjects to correct that. Just because they don't want you to lie under oath. Yes, go ahead. No. Listen, it's because. Later in the testimony, which I gather you didn't actually read. I read it all.

Later in the testimony. I read it all. I'm going to be because you're presenting facts that are later disproven. Later, he is questioned on that exact same thing and clarifies, I can only attest to it being D.C. In D.C., they had a group of people who had been arranged in part by Devin Archer and Hunter Biden who were working on behalf of Boris Obama. Okay, fair enough.

So this is what I think. You can't just say fair enough. I'm going to respond to you. I understand your point. It's a fair point in in a in a laboratory environment. But in the real world, when in the same paragraph, he says he called his dad. Now, he's remembering a call to the guy's dad. And he keeps and he keeps repeating that dad, the vice president and his lawyer keeps correcting him.

You mean, D.C., which to me is his lawyer is trying to keep him out of trouble. But obviously he's had two years for a very this has been in news for two years already. When he says he called his dad, if one of the Trump kids make that same slip, we would all assume he had meant to say he called his dad. We would we would understand that the blurting out repeatedly of something of a detail so volatile as he called his dad. We would understand that the blurting out repeatedly of something of a detail so volatile as he called his dad, he called the vice president. This is likely the truth. And repeating what his lawyer tells him to say is liable, is most likely the legally careful thing to say. So let's let's let's pause, because I thought we just agreed prior to this this conversation, this this aspect of the conversation that that he later did actually clarify that he only could attest to having there been a call to D.C.

The lawyer's job is to make sure he's not lying under oath. He's under penalty of perjury when he's making a testimony. So why do you think he said he called his dad? Let me finish this. I don't know why he said he called his dad. You're a grown man. Who says something like that? But you can't say. You can't do this. You can't say, he said he's this. You're a grown man. Who says something like that? But you can't say you can't do this.

You can't say he said he's calling his dad. Therefore, he called his dad. You can't do that. And at the same time, ignore the fact that he later said, well, actually, I only know he called D.C. And you can't do that and ignore the fact that he also later said Joe Biden was at no point involved in the business. You try to split a hair earlier about the firing of Shokin. Let me let me finish. You earlier try to split a hair about, oh, well, the firing of Shokin, that wasn't involved in the business.

If Hunter Biden were calling Joe Biden with Burisma next to him to effect change on behalf of Burisma, that's unquestionably about affecting the business if that had occurred. Devin Archer says he knows no instance in which that occurred. Ergo, there's no reason to assume that he is actually trying to say he

called his dad and then his lawyers like calling him off of it for some reason. And even so, none of that deals with the broader evidence. In a normal finding of fact. Which you refuse to engage with. It's perfectly normal for the opposing counsel to come up and try to rehabilitate or...

Obviously... This is silly. This conversation's silly. I don't understand why I'm having this conversation. You refuse to actually engage in this in good faith. You really do. No. You are, you're very set.

Look, you have me on here because I am the putative, according to this expert, guy who knows this stuff, but then you refuse to acknowledge what I'm saying. I'm not, I'm not. It's really unfair.

I'm disagreeing with what you're saying because as a, as a, this is, as a human, all these kind of things. But you, but you refuse to engage with the evidence I've presented.

There's no evidence. If I was a juror, if I was a juror and I heard him say twice, he called his dad. And I heard him say twice he called his dad. And I heard him say spun and fed. And this is chess, not checkers. The totality of all that, I would say that that was a pretty powerful picture of a man who was who was.

This is my point. Because you refuse to acknowledge any of the other evidence that runs contrary to that. What's the other evidence? The fact that he later walked that back. The fact that he said Joe Biden was not involved in any conversation

in the business with Devin Archer and Hunter Biden. The fact that Hunter Biden said we need to make it look like... Being involved in the business is a different matter. Of course it is. Of course you change your verbiage

in order to suit your argument. Look, this is silly. This is silly. Just point of course you change your verbiage in order to suit your argument look well define this is silly this is this is a pointless conversation define being involved in business and i can tell you that's what we're talking what do you mean by define how would it not be the case that if devin archer actually thought that hunter biden had stood with a burisma executive and called joe biden that that wouldn't count as him getting joe biden involved in the business how would that not meet any standard any reasonable standard because it would because of course of course you have a because look look you asked me i'm gonna answer involved in the business. How would that not meet any standard, any reasonable standard? It would. Of course, of course you have a because.

Look, look, I think I'm about done. I think I'm about done. This is silly. It's a silly conversation because you refuse to acknowledge any of the contrary evidence. You had me here to present to you the opposing argument. I'm happy to do that,

but you refuse to acknowledge it. All you want to do is break me. What can I search for here to find the Goldman testimony? It's at the end of Devon Arthurs. What words should I search for? I don't know. I don't.

Involved in business? I mean, I'm not going to sit here all night while you search stuff on your computer. This is silly. Look, I don't mean to be disrespectful. I was trying to do it to give the best airing of the point you're trying to make. Don't you trust that I'm presenting it accurately? I do trust that you're presenting it accurately, but I would like to get the exact quote so we can parse it.

Okay, but this is my point. We don't need to because you had a circumstantial piece of evidence. I rebutted that and actually presented an additional reason the circumstantial evidence is invalid. You, meanwhile, have not dealt with any of the direct evidence because you refused to do so. Okay, you know what? I'm just saying that I think when somebody two times says

yeah, Vadim told me... I know what you're saying. I get it. Vadim told me he called his dad. I get it. Smart, sophisticated people are not capable of... Well, I'm dim-witted, and so I assume that the other things that he said are valid. Especially someone who's been... who's about to go to jail

has been... this issue's at the front of his mind for a long time, is not capable of misspeaking twice. Oh, I didn't mean he called his dad. Oh, I didn't mean he called the vice president. I meant he called some bureaucrat. It's a tremendous mistake to make. It's a tremendous, it's akin to the guy accused of murder saying,

yeah, and then I stabbed her. And they're like, you didn't mean you stabbed her. No, I didn't mean I stabbed her. But how did he say it? No, didn't you hear the evidence? He said he didn't stab her. Yeah, but I also heard him say he did stab her. You should not have. That means nothing. How could you how could you even think the fact that he would slip and say something like he

stabbed her is something you should take seriously? Didn't I prove to you when he the other lawyer said he said I didn't stab her? He said he called his dad. He said it twice. I'm of the mind to say that's much more likely to be the true story than the one his lawyer egged him to say. Fine. That's – and I would say that objectively in any criminal – Got it. So now there's other stuff that came out in my research here. So first of all, Matt Taib – so –

Okay. I'm not going to – I appreciate this. This has been very entertaining. You know what? Let's conclude. Let's, let's, let's, let's, let's get, because we're not getting anywhere. Cause you're, you guys, you're, you guys, you're, you were just, you, you, you refuse to move from, okay. This is, this, this was not engaged.

Let's go. What was not going to, I'm not going to do that. I mean, I'm just not going to, there's no point. There's no point. I appreciate you're having me on. I was, there's just no point because you're you, all you want to do is you want to have me here as the putative expert so that you can present me with things that have been debunked multiple times that i've written about what's been debunked these claims i've written about this about this this argument about his dad calling him i've

written about this did you read what i wrote it's not debunked neither of us were there well i i debunked it in the standpoint that i've already addressed this and presented the counter arguments to it okay like so so this is what i feel about this. This is what I'm saying to blood in the water. To me, all these words like spun, fed. Again, this is silly. Why are we going over this again? Let's get off this then. And also, I don't know

what your take is on this alias email, but that's nothing. When the laptop came out, they said it was not verified. And initially, it's... I'm going to lose my mind. I'm going to lose my mind. I'm going to lose my mind.

Ask your question. It's not something we can talk about? No, of course we can talk about it. Half the country believes this stuff. I know, because half the country doesn't actually dig into the issues and they instead take it to the surface. Well, here's your chance to disabuse people. Okay, well, then go ahead. They don't read the Washington Post.

Go ahead. I, at first, said, well, this is really fishy. This guy doesn't remember, blah, blah, blah, you know. But a week later, Fox News presented, and the New York Times uncovered it, that the FBI had been seized, had seized the laptop in 2019. There was an evidence number and all that stuff, right? And that was before the first debate. And the laptop, we knew then, had been dropped off before Biden had even declared his candidacy. So at that point, I thought to myself, well, obviously this laptop is real.

And yet Biden got on TV and said, this is a hoax. They asked him, are you saying, no, he said, it's a plant. And they asked him, are you saying this is a hoax? And he said, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I'm, you remember that? I don't remember exactly what he said, but yes, he was not embracing of the idea. So actually, just really quick, play the. Just can you just where are you going with this?

Like literally. The first one, Nicole, Biden labels a hundred. Well, the question is, do you think he was telling the truth then? What different? Literally, what difference does it make? He's running for president. What difference does it make beyond politically? Which, of course, I don't think he should lie. But beyond politically, what difference does it make? I'll tell you president. What difference does it make beyond politically? Which, of course, I don't think he should lie.

But beyond politically, what difference does it make? I'll tell you why in a second. I have a good answer to that. Oh, I look forward to hearing it. I want to talk about... Then he's a corrupt politician. All right. So don't give me the stuff about how you're this innocent baby.

Joe, they're calling you a corrupt politician. Nobody... President Trump, I want to stay on the issue of race. We're talking about the issue... Take the laptop from hell. President Trump... Nobody... We're talking about race right now, and I do want to stay on the issue of race. We're talking about the issue. Take a look at the laptop from hell. President Trump, we're talking about race right now, and I do want to stay on the issue of race. President Trump, you've just— I have to respond to that.

Please. Because, look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this has all the—four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except his and his good friend Rudy Giuliani. You mean the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? That's exactly what... So he says it's a plant and he basically says it was a hoax.

He said that's exactly and didn't get the last word out, but what other word could it be? If everything was forged, he had to know. So the question is, why did he lie? Did you literally, and I'm trying very hard to be respectful. I really am. This is easily addressed if you'd read two articles that are not written by matt tabby

tucker carlson or or the new i read a lot more than that it is and i don't read tucker carlson but i mean so why do why do you like because he's running for president you acknowledge that he lied there did he know that the fbi had this in 2018 well could he possibly have known that yes because hunter would have known that how would hunter know that the laptop was not in hunter's possession 2018 he got it from the he got it from the store all right he has this no no no you're right you're because Hunter would have known that. How would Hunter know that? The laptop was not in Hunter's possession in 2018. He got it from the store. All right. He has this...

No, no, no. You're right about that. Excuse me. He has this letter, which was signed by 50 people. He misrepresented it for saying that they said it was Russia. They didn't. They said it had the hallmark of being a Russia disinformation idea. Did you know that there was a report from Time magazine

that said a lot of this material from Hunter Biden that ended up on a laptop was actually floating around Ukraine in in early 2020 that there was actually available people were trying to sell it to folks did you know that a report now now now from time magazine yeah time magazine is verified is the report verified well i mean it's a report yeah well there's reports yeah there's reports of everything okay so okay fine fine okay fine i mean yeah i'm not saying it's right i'm not saying it's necessarily valid i'm just saying it's necessarily valid. I'm just saying that... You think it's valid? I think that it certainly seems credible. Yeah, absolutely.

There are indications that Hunter Biden's iCloud account had been hacked. There's strong... I'm going to concede to you that it's possible. Fine. So why does he say this? In part, probably because he doesn't know the laptop was taken by the FBI. And he says it in part because he's seen this letter. But he had to know the emails were legit. How could he have known that?

He didn't know what the emails were. They were in the post. There was one thing in the New York Post that was addressed to Hunter Biden. Right. So maybe he asked Hunter Biden to go back through emails. No, the thing in the New York Post regarded his meeting with Vadim. Right, but that's not what we're talking about. And he knew he met with Vadim, so he knew this was true.

Well, he doesn't necessarily know that this email was accurate. Are we talking about the laptop? Are we talking about this meeting? If my wife... I just don't understand. What are we talking about? If somebody sends my wife an email, she somehow comes across the email and says, I'm fucking her sister, and she says to me,

is this true? I'm saying, well, it's not verified. What happened in 2016? What happened in October 2016? What happened in 2016? He asked in October 2016. What happened? What I'm saying? What happened in October 2016? WikiLeaks starts producing all this material that had been stolen by the Russian government from Hillary Clinton's campaign and from the DNC.

Right. That was material that was a Russian disinformation campaign to extent, but also an interference. Here's my point. After we knew the FBI took it from the guy in 2019, before he was running for president. We already knew. No, we didn't know that the FBI took it from the guy in 2019, before he was running for president. What do you mean? No, we didn't know that the FBI had that point during this debate. The Fox News story that showed the FBI evidence number, you don't know this, came out before the debate.

Okay, fine. I mean, honestly, it doesn't matter. Oh, it matters hugely because the entire basis of that letter of 51, the entire basis of that letter of the 51 intelligence officers was gutted. Okay, here's the last one. So my point was that once we found out that the FBI had taken possession of the laptop in December of 2019, the rationale of the letter from the 51 intelligence officers was gutted, and this was known and should have been realized before that debate where Biden called it disinformation. Sorry, I'm getting a little tired. So here is from the letter. This was a stated rationale.

For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and or to weaken Biden should he win. A laptop op fits the bill as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden. But again, the laptop was with the guy in April of 2019 before Biden had declared for the presidency. So it couldn't be because Trump was down in the polls. It couldn't be something to be done because Trump's loss seemed imminent. The rest of the letter also focuses on Giuliani, for instance. Our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue is consistent with two other significant data points as well. According to the Washington Post,

citing four sources, quote, U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence. Yes, but again, since the laptop was dropped off in April of 2019, it wouldn't have been the issue with Giuliani. And one has to imagine that if the intelligence officials had known that the FBI had the laptop, maybe they would have never written that letter. But this is my point. My point is that the Russian disinformation campaign

slash interference campaign in 2016 was predicated on the release of real information. And what that letter said is this looks like the same thing. His response there is this looks like the same thing based on this letter from these experts. A hoax? A hoax doesn't sound like real information. First of all, you just admitted he didn't say it was a hoax, but yeah. Yeah, he did.

Well, you just said he didn't say it. You mean it's a hoax? He said, yeah, that's exactly what. Right, right, right. No, he said, is it like the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? And he says, yes. So what does Trump say is the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? He says anything related to Russian interference is part of the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.

So we don't know that Joe Biden's... I mean, look, yes, we can sit here and parse this, but none of this gets to the point, which is you have no evidence that Joe Biden acted on Hunter Biden's behalf or that Joe Biden took money. And now let's go back. Let's go back. There's never going to be evidence. Of course there's not, because if there were, then you'd actually have your point proven. There's no evidence that your point is accurate. Let's go back to your point about family and how family works together and so on and so forth.

That's all very well and good, right? That's all very well and good that you and your dad made money. He gave money to your mother. That's fine. well and good, right? That's all very well and good that you and your dad made money. He gave money to your mother. That's fine. That's great. But there is evidence. This is the question is, did Joe Biden have Hunter Biden act on his behalf in order to enrich himself and to look the other way on behalf of that? That's the fundamental question.

Not to me. I didn't make that. I'm not trying. I can't prove that. And what's your question? What's your question about Joe Biden's behavior? I have two issues here. One is Joe Biden's behavior and one is the issue of the press.

The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden. Because you don't listen to the press. I'm sitting here and I'm telling you you're wrong about these things and you don't listen and you continue to insist upon things that are parsing of language. This is why I keep that it's obvious that he was aware that he was being helpful to his son in his son's relationship with these criminals. And that is a scandal because he was working against American policy. It doesn't have to be criminal. Very few serious scandals are criminal. Trump was famously impeached, not for doing anything criminal. As a matter of fact, Dershowitz was mocked because Dershowitz's argument was, unless it's criminal, you can't impeach him.

Remember that? Actually, Dershowitz was mocked because his argument was, because the president did it and he was doing it in service of his campaign, that is a political act and therefore he can't be impeached for it. And that's what got him mocked. No, that's not correct. He was mocked for saying that things had to be, you can check it out,

things had to be criminal to be impeachable. And it doesn't have to be criminal. What Trump was impeached for was putting his personal issues in front of American policy. If Biden helped his son by obstructing american policy in some way in even if it's minorly in terms of everybody think his hands off charisma or more seriously in terms of pulling the trigger on shokin it's just then that's that's very very serious it doesn't need

to be criminal but again can i read from the you can't, because here's the thing. You just suggested that if, you know, if it was him trying to pull the trigger on Shoken, but again, you've offered no evidence beyond your parsing of what Devin Archer said under oath, and you're insisting that because of how he said it, he meant the opposite under oath, that therefore Shoken

was actually someone you want to get rid of. I mean, I... No, I just, I gotta go. Evidence, evidence. Literally, I was told this was going to be 45 minutes and we've been going for? I mean, I... No, I just, I gotta go. This has been great. Evidence. Literally, I was told this was going to be 45 minutes, and we've been going for well over an hour. It's a shame because this is a good conversation. It's not a good conversation because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying to you.

You asked me on to present evidence. I keep telling you... I think you think I have to agree with you to be listening. I'm listening very carefully to what you're saying. No, what I think is that you are very... I even conceded some points that you made. Well, that's because you... Because I, that's because I made valid points. Look, I'm not saying that—I do think this was a bit of a setup.

I'll say that. Is Taibbi unreliable? I do think this was a setup. Okay. Taibbi absolutely has an agenda. Of course he has an agenda. There's no question about it. You have no agenda?

I do have an agenda. My agenda is to do my best to try and present accurate information to the public, and I have an institution behind me that holds me to account when i don't do that which i think is an important consideration but look here's the thing you came into this with a preset understanding and you know you spent so much time not letting me think we could we could have we could have covered a lot more ground i just want to say i'll say before we go that the the what would astound me about the press i'll just if you answer two questions it'd be nice i mean again you're attacking the press because you refuse to listen to what we're saying okay is there

something in particular you want to say that i haven't listened to and then let me ask my question yeah yeah i mean the fact that we had to go over these things over and over and over again is evidence that you're not actually listening to what i'm saying or you're not exceeding the point that obviously if someone is saying under oath x you can't then just say well i assume he means not x despite a all the external evidence which you have refused consistently to address. The fact that there's no evidence for, and in fact, evidence to the contrary of your central point about Shoken and Burisma. You haven't addressed that at all. Well, yeah, I would expect.

Every time I try to get it out, you stop me. That's not true. Every time there's evidence, both Shoken said there's a leaked phone call and there was evidence just in the papers yesterday that the State Department said. Do you think Shoken's a reliable interlocutor and there was evidence in the papers yesterday that the State Department said that Shokin— Do you think Shokin's a reliable interlocutor? It's evidence. Okay. Well— I mean, he's just—the entire point was that he was a corrupt government official who got fired.

I have—well, what's interesting—I never got to get it out, but what is interesting is that Shokin made something in an interview two years ago, and then Taibbi had some released transcript of a call between Biden and Poroshenko. And it's interesting how they line up. I was surprised by that. And then yesterday, something came out in the papers that said that the State Department had said that Shulkin was doing a good job. So this is all. Yeah, I saw that in the New York Post, right? There was this one memo that came out in 2015 after there had already been this pressure on Shulkin.

So one memo, but that's called cherry picking. But I would say the, I say the, the, the weakest thing you've said to me is to just dismiss the obvious telegraphing of what Devin Archer is saying in terms of fed and spun and chess, not checkers. I mean, checkers, not chess, whatever he said to say, well, he's trying to please Tucker Carlson. I mean, that's, that's a leap of faith. Maybe you're right.

So so let's say this. I agree. I agree with you that Hunter Biden's activity when Joe Biden was both serving as vice president afterward. I agree that it was sketchy. I agree that it was a bad look. I agree that dwells particularly while he was serving as president. You ought not to be doing that if it emerges in the future, which it may. I absolutely can see the point that there may be direct evidence that Joe Biden took bribing. That may come up. What do you take from the text message to his adult daughter?

I have to get 50% of my income to pop. I have no idea what that means. I don't. I have no idea what that means. I know. It's circumstantial evidence, and you prefer that. What could it be? I have no idea.

I don't know. I appreciate your answer. Has anybody asked her? I have no idea. I don't know. I appreciate your. Has anybody asked her? I don't know. I don't know. Don't you think somebody should ask her? Okay. Like I'm not, I just said, I don't know.

And I don't know what to make of it. So I have nothing to say about it. What do you want me to say? Yeah. But you say there's no evidence, no evidence. But then there's a text message where he says, I give pop 50% of my money. That's, that's evidence. Okay.

Well, what do you, okay, fine, fine. So evidence. I appreciate you having me on. Okay, well, okay, fine, fine. It's evidence. I appreciate you having me on. It doesn't, something like that. Who do you think is being more, I listen to that and I'm saying, you can free to go. I feel you want me to leave,

like just walk out in the middle of this because that way you can like say. You can go. Is this a standard really? This is the way the Washington Post handles people who disagree with them? Yeah, when I agree to be on for 45 minutes. Go, go, go.

And then I get on for an hour and 15? Yeah, then after on for 45 minutes. Go, go, go. And then I get on for an hour and 15. Yeah, then after a while I go. Go, go, go. Thanks for having me.