-
Unknown A
Is it your position, greater than 51% chance, based on what you've just said, that a call actually did take place between Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Vadim about Burisma in that hotel? You think that that's been established beyond 50%?
-
Unknown B
I don't think. I don't think Vadim would have been on it. To answer your question.
-
Unknown A
No. No. Has the call been established beyond 50%?
-
Unknown B
Yes, I would vote to convict on that, but I, but I would not included Vadim in that.
-
Unknown A
I mean, that's, that's insane. You have no call log. You have no testimony from anyone saying that Joe Biden was on that call. No one has alleged that Joe Biden was on that call. No one makes that allegation, no call log at all. How can you possibly sit here with a straight face and tell the people that listen to you, hey, I can establish that call took place more than 50%, let alone I would convict on it. That's absurd. Hey, folks, please, like, comment and subscribe. And if you want to read what's going on from a pro republic, anti corruption and anti oligarch perspective, subscribe to the Weekly Patriot. The link is in the description.
-
Unknown C
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Badlands Media's Hunter Biden laptop debate. Excited to be with you guys all tonight. I'm going to be moderating this debate and I'm going to jump right into it. We're not going to, I'm not going to be debating anybody. I'm not going to be interfering in this. I'm strictly going to moderate this debate. I just want you all to know that I'm going to be trying to be as fair as possible. Pisco already knows and I'll introduce him in a second, but he obviously knows my political ideations and which way I lean. And so, you know, he's been a trooper and coming on this, this podcast, I think he's also co streaming to his platform as well. So welcome to all you guys out there. Hopefully you don't think we're all lunatics, but it's all fair. All right, so I want to go ahead and introduce the two people that are going to be debating tonight.
-
Unknown C
First up, I'll go ahead and introduce Pisco. Liddy is what he goes by on X. So, Pisco, how you doing?
-
Unknown A
And yeah, about yourself, doing great. Thank you so much for having me on. Yeah, I'm a lawyer. I sometimes tweet at people. Tweet about issues I think that MAGA is very interested in because oftentimes I do feel that a lot of left leaning people do not engage on some of these issues, specifically, for example, the burisma issue, some of the other pet kind of corruption, double standards or alleged double standards. And I do my best to try to be fact first, look at the facts and give a take that I think is reasonable. And so I think that how this started was I was speaking on Viva Frey about this issue specifically and why I prefer Kamala Harris for president and this came up and I think there was a invitation by, by Garrett to speak about this or any other related issue. And I, you know, excitedly took it up.
-
Unknown C
All right, and I agreed to host it. We agreed to host it here at Badlands. I asked if we could host it here and they said yes. So here we are. Garrett Ziegler, how are you doing? And tell everybody about yourself.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, thanks for doing this. I appreciate it. And I agree that we need to do more debates. I am fond of the proposition format. It's obviously not anything like the current presidential debate format. The Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't even require that format. And so I'm grateful to do it. I just responded to a tweet somebody had tagged our nonprofits account after Pisco went on the show with David Frey. And I think you said, do you want to debate? Or you mentioned the word debate. And I love that because I come out sharper each time. So I worked with a gentleman named Peter Navarro for two years and I got interested in the Biden laptop because of the voluminous nature of the data. It's unlike any leak that I've ever seen. More than even WikiLeaks in terms of the, the types of files. It's not just videos of, you know, for example, to use the WikiLeaks analogy, the US killing civilians.
-
Unknown B
It's not just photos like that. Katie Thomas, Katie Thompson, Congresswoman naked with her staffer, it's all the above. And so that got my interest piqued. And you know, we put together this dossier principally on the Biden laptop. And I must say that the, the title of the video, the live stream on Badlands, it's not incorrect, but it is a little bit incomplete because I'm not going to be talking that much about materials from the laptop because those materials in my view, are not as strong as what other people have gleaned. Although they do support it, they do support my position. I'm going to be talking about things beyond that. So I hope that all the viewers understand that, yes, I'll be talking about the Biden laptop, but I'll also be talking about a FOIA production, principally, and then a European Commission document. So I hope that that broadens the scope of people interested in this.
-
Unknown A
Awesome.
-
Unknown C
All right, so again, the. I'm only going to be moderating this. The only thing I'm going to do is when we have to change topics, I'll change topics if, you know, if it doesn't. And I assume this conversation is going to flow on its own, so, you know, hopefully I don't need to do that too often. And the only other thing is, again, I. I will ask that if, you know, somebody's speaking, you let them finish their thought before interrupting. You know, I'll. I'll kind of wave you off or something first. And if. If it gets really bad, I will mute whoever's interrupting the person speaking. And this will go for both sides. It's not just, you know, so I don't want to be biased in that regard. So before we had the debate, we were chatting back and forth, the three of us, and Pisco actually came up with kind of some parameters, so to speak.
-
Unknown C
And I actually said, you made my job so much easier because you gave me the two questions that will fuel both of you guys. They're questions that for. For both of you. So the first question is, I want. I'm going to ask this of Garrett and Garrett, the statement. It's a statement, and I. I will let you refute that statement. There is no evidence of misconduct by Joe Biden related to Burisma.
-
Unknown B
So this proposition, in my opinion, is a little bit to my advantage in that I would have. I think it would be more difficult if you said there is no direct evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which, as you know, is the criminal standard in the United States. And it's the. It's the standard that I like to debate in, because I don't like civil litigation, number one, and I don't like preponderance of the evidence because I am, by my nature, so against prosecution. And so for. I'm naturally sympathetic towards defendants. And so for. For you. For there to be a proposition that there's no evidence, I would point to three concrete things. Can you hear me clearly now? Okay. Number one, this does come from the laptop. There are multiple instances throughout 2015, which is the big year that we're going to be talking about with the.
-
Unknown B
With the meeting between Joe and Poroshenko in December of 2015, and the most famous reach out is from Vadam Pizarski. And I'm going to get to the stronger points but this is my weakest point. But I still think it, it sets the stage for the two for the two types of evidence and the one that I'm going to be relying on, which is circumstantial. On November 2nd, 2015 the advisor to the board of Burisma, Vadam Pizarski. And again I'm getting these from the House although we do have our email database online bidenlaptopemails.com but this is from the House and it's 11-02-2015 and he is emailing Devin and Hunter directly. Hunter's on the CC line, they're both board members and he said we need a quote. This is a quote concrete course of actions including meetings, communications, list of deliverables excuse me resulting in high ranking US officials in Ukraine US Ambassador at that time was Piet and in US publicly or in private communications and comments expressing their quote positive opinion in support of Nikolai Mycolas Luchevsky slash Prisma to the highest levels of decision makers here in Ukraine.
-
Unknown B
So let's take for a moment. If we didn't have the laptop we would not have that side of the equation and my argument would would be more difficult to make. Fast forward to a couple of weeks later. This is from a FOIA production from the State Department to John Solomon. The date that I am talking about here is 9:30. So it's 9-30-2015. And of course if you prefer I can send you both of these URLs.
-
Unknown A
While we I have these docs. I know what you're referencing.
-
Unknown B
Okay so this, so my, my thesis is there is evidence because there are multiple written statements about how U.S. policy and European Commission policy favors the third loan guarantee from the IMF. And the latest, this is the earlier one, September 30th there's an interagency meeting saying I'll quote it because and I know you know this but for the audience basically approves the following proposed conditions regarding the Prosecutor General's office. So the US position at this point this is after Victoria Newland sends a letter to Shokin saying that quote they've been impressed with the robust reform of the Prosecutor General's Office. The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement and judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption. That's the first, the ninth the September 30th interagency policy position what I think is much is just as strong, I'll put it that way is a December 18, 2018 or 2015 excuse me December 18, 2015 European Commission report to the European Parliament that the, the exact quote, and this is again their non concur or concur based on the Ukraine's request for loan guarantees.
-
Unknown B
And the reason why I go to these external documents, apart from the laptop in my, in my statement, is this, in my opinion and what I believe to be borne out by the paper goes at the heart of the opposition, which is that there was a consensus that Shokin needed to go, that he wasn't doing enough. And this European Commission document states that even after Joey made that trip on December 7, 2015, because this is 11 days later, that they still believe the European position was still that the, that Shokin did not need to go. Whereas what we saw in impeachment number one was that they, they tried to say that everybody was on board with this, the Europeans were Everybody in the U.S. when in fact the bureaucrats underneath Joe at multiple agencies concurred that Shokin had done a good enough job. And then last point on proposition number one.
-
Unknown B
So I made the, the connection with the ask in the laptop that the Burisma Representative Vadim is asking Hunter to intervene. We have at that exact same timeframe, lower level US Officials recommending the IMF loan guarantee. And then miraculously, the first week of December, Joe reversing that policy. And I would just refer everybody to, to the, to the January 2018 talk at the Council on Foreign Relations with Matt Carpenter, or excuse me, Michael Carpenter, who's currently in his administration, saying that it was a direct, it was direct contingency that the 1 billion was not going to go through unless they got rid of Shokin. And you and I both know, and as does the audience, it did not take until March of 2016 for Shokin to officially resign, for Poroshenko to resign. And Joe and Poroshenko had a phone conversation about that that was leaked.
-
Unknown B
And Poroshenko reiterated to Joe that he could find no fault in Shokin. And in fact it was sort of like a pilot situation where the Caiaphas and the other high priests were saying that he was no friend to Caesar if he did not crucify Jesus. And he said, I can find no fault with him, but nevertheless I am going to crucify him. So I think that the timeline is very important. And then the last point with regard to no evidence of Joe. And again, this is a circumstantial evidentiary argument that Joe reversed U.S. policy for the benefit of. And we lost you.
-
Unknown C
We lost you.
-
Unknown B
Retort. I want to respond.
-
Unknown C
Garrett. We Lost you at the benefit part. Am I. Am I right, Pisco? You got him?
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I think I got everything you got.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, we. We lost you right where you were talking about.
-
Unknown B
Sorry.
-
Unknown C
At the benefit.
-
Unknown B
The last thing that I want to. Yeah, the last thing that I want to draw attention to is the February 2016 seizure of Mikola's house and his cars in Ukraine. And how that was still. That action was taken while shocking, was still the Prosecutor General. He did not get out until March. And so the. The. The point that I want to refute or the argument that I wish to refute from Dan Goldman and others, and I'm not going to put words in my debater's mouth, so I don't know if he'll even bring this up, but they say that he did not investigate Berezema, that there's no evidence that he was investigating Burisma, when, in fact, that's the exact time frame that Nicola got raided, and he was in Monaco at this time in February of 2016. So that's what I have to say about proposition number one.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I'm happy to get right into it. I kind of want to start where you started, and then I want to go down every piece of evidence that you've cited there, Garrett, but just to make sure I understand your position. Is it your position that as you sit here today, you do not have the sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to assert that Joe Biden committed a crime related to Brisma? Is that your position?
-
Unknown B
No, that's not my position.
-
Unknown A
So is it that you do have enough evidence to convict him of a crime?
-
Unknown B
Yes, because the rules of evidence allow circumstantial evidence. And it. You know, as you know, happens in criminal courts all the time, that if you. You know, we. We convict people on murder, even though juries convict people on murder, and it gets upheld even though they don't have the murder weapon, for example, maybe somebody threw in the bottom of a leg. So my position I should have articulated this is that there is circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Biden violated the FARA with regard to Berezema. That. And I know that's not Joe Biden. Joe Biden. Yes. And I know that's not our proposition, but I am getting. But I want to cite the actual felony that I believe he. He committed.
-
Unknown A
Oh, sorry. Yeah. So it is your position that beyond a reasonable doubt, there's evidence that Joe Biden violated FARA by failing to register as a foreign agent?
-
Unknown B
Yes. We're not disclosing that. And it would, it would technically be what Bob Menendez. It's a 2. It was, it would be a 219 violation, not the 612. Whereas Hunter, in my opinion, violated 22 USC 612. There's a whole other statute, as you know, for public officials who are unregistered agents.
-
Unknown A
Got it.
-
Unknown B
And yeah.
-
Unknown A
And okay, so that's worth knowing. Is it your position that there's enough evidence to convict Joe Biden beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery related to Burisma?
-
Unknown B
No, we did not put that in our report. Our report is on 219 violations.
-
Unknown A
Your allegation is. Is only with respect to FARA and only with respect to acting as a foreign agent. Sorry. As a. As an agent of a foreign principle. And what is the foreign principle?
-
Unknown B
The foreign principle would be burisma and specific. 2. Two foreign principles. The entity Burisma, Cypriot domiciled, Ukrainian based gas company and. And Mikola's Lichevsky.
-
Unknown C
Okay, can I, can I just interrupt just for one second here? Pisco, your, your stipulation was, you can. That there was no evidence of.
-
Unknown A
That's correct.
-
Unknown C
That he could prove beyond a reasonable.
-
Unknown A
But yeah, I just want to make sure I understand the opinion. I think that helps me calibrate how I'm going to respond to it. So when I say that there is no evidence, what I mean to say is there's. And what I, My statement, the words of those mean, I think to normal people is not that there is not like any piece of tangible thing that you could point to that you could call evidence. It's that nothing that exists in the public record after a diligent search would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is any evidence that there's. That there is evidence. And what I mean to say about that is that there is reason to believe that he actually did do misconduct. So what I'm. When what I think people are concerned about is the likelihood percent chance that Joe Biden had misconduct.
-
Unknown A
All right. And so I think that there is a standard that you need to prove and that is that a reasonable person would think that he did some misconduct. Now you go further than that. You think that it's beyond reasonable doubt and so it's over determined. But I'm going to work in the standard of like what would a reasonable person say based on the evidence? I think that that's fair given my statement. And I don't. And even if that, like you were going to impose some higher threshold in terms of My statement be like, there's no evidence, which means that there's no email implicating Joe Biden. I think that I could meet it. But I'm just saying that what I meant to. What I mean by that statement is that a reasonable person based on the evidence would not come to the conclusion that Joe Biden did any misconduct. I hope that's clear.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, I just want to make sure. I just want to make sure that the people understood that the deal wasn't. That he has to prove it beyond a reason.
-
Unknown A
Correct. I'm just. I'm just trying to understand his position. So I think that it's. If we go back through each piece of the evidence that you cited, there is absolutely no link to Joe Biden. So let's start first with the letter from Victoria Nuland. I think chronologically that's the first one in 2015 to Victor Shokin. Do you believe this letter at all is an indication of happiness with Victor Shokin?
-
Unknown B
Do I believe that? Absolutely. And the quote that I would turn you to is, quote, we have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti corruption agenda of your government.
-
Unknown A
Okay. So first, before we even start anything to believe that they were happy with Victor Shokin in that time frame, you have to believe that Victoria Nulian is lying when she says that they did never saw any progress on any investigation. That's right. Right. When she talking about her, she's interviewed her testimony in the Senate investigation, for example. You have to believe that she is lying later in time. And her actual opinion is this 2015 letter which you're purporting to be that she's very happy with the progress of Shogun. Specifically, she's lying in 2020 there.
-
Unknown B
I don't know her heart. I can say that what she said in 2020 is inconsistent with what the letter says in 2015.
-
Unknown A
I don't think it's inconsistent with what the letter says in 2015. Because what the letter says in 2015 is that your ambitious efforts of your government, that is a reference to the rada. This letter is not a letter that you would send to someone who's happy with the work that the Prosecutor General's office is doing. It's admonishing them, it's telling them that more work is needed. They wanted at this point they have liaisons with the FBI and with the State Department to get an independent prosecutor's office put in. This letter is, hey, wake up. Let's go. It's not citing any specific action taken by the Prosecutor General's Office. It's saying, we are pleased that you're. That the RADA had just passed some anti corruption efforts that your government, that is to say the Poroshenko administration and the Ukrainian parliament are taking some efforts to stop corruption.
-
Unknown A
But a long standing problem of Ukraine that's been acknowledged in this timeframe is corruption in the justice system. And that had not been addressed by Shokin in any respect. And if you check the testimony of Nuland, of others in the State Department, they will say that there was no movement on the Diamond Prosecutor scandal. There was no movement on the Maidan shooters, there was no movement on the Burisma matter. And you're sitting here and telling us that this letter, which is specifically telling them, hey, more needs to be done. We like what your government is doing, but you need to do more, more investigations, you need to do more prosecutions at a time when corruption is at the forefront of people's minds. There's active protests going on against Shokin for his failure to go after some of these people. You're here to tell us that that letter is evidence that Shokin's doing a good job.
-
Unknown A
It's insane.
-
Unknown B
No, I'm saying that their position changed. And, and the proof of that is in the second paragraph. It says the ongoing reform of your office. So. And again, number one, the first point I want to make is I, I think that it's a false distinction to state that Shokin wasn't a part of their government because by his own admission, Poroshenko was his boss. Poroshenko had the ability to fire or hire him. So he is a part of the government. There's no bifurcation really between. They're, they're all the executive. I know the rod is the legislative, but he's in the executive branch, as is Poroshenko. And I think that this is definitely not the, not the tone of somebody who wants to see Shokin gone, because they don't.
-
Unknown A
They don't want to see Shokin. They don't want to see Shokin gone. Yet. This letter is dated June 9, 2015. They want to see more progress. And what they're citing, by the way, we have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti corruption agenda of your government. The challenges you face are difficult, but not insurmounted. Insurmountable. Sorry, Insurmountable. That is an acknowledgment that you have challenges, you have not surmounted them yet. You have an historic opportunity to address. Not that you've done it, not that you've made any work. You have an historic opportunity to address the injustices of the past by vigorously investigating. That means you haven't vigorously investigated yet. All right? And prosecuting corruption cases and recovering assets stolen, which means you haven't done that yet. From the Ukrainian people. The ongoing reform of your office, by the way, not pushed for by you, Shokin, pushed for by the rada to get the NABU and to get an independent prosecutor's office installed.
-
Unknown A
That is not Shokin's work. That is the work of other Ukrainian reformers. The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair and transparent manner. Anyone who reads bureaucracy bureaucracy speak knows you got to do some work now. This is not a. You've done it. Hey, we're so happy. This is. You have an opportunity. Put up or shut up. Anyone who's reading this letter to be some kind of. Oh, my God, you've done great work. It doesn't cite anything that was done. It doesn't cite any prosecution whatsoever. It states the United States fully supports your government's effort to fight corruption. We have dedicated personnel and resources from the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement affairs and Department of justice to work with your office on its organizational changes and to build its capacity through training and modernization.
-
Unknown A
Why do all these insiders tell us that he wasn't doing that? Why does the FBI tell us that they stopped working with Shokin because of this. Why do the insiders and Shokin's own office. Prosecutor David Sara Zavares. And there's another reform minded prosecutor. Why are they telling us that Shokin didn't actually go after these people? It's totally bizarre to cite this letter at all supporting the notion that he actually did something. What is the thing he did?
-
Unknown B
Again, you are creating a straw man of what I'm saying. I'm saying this letter proves that the attitude of the US Government was that Shokin did not have to go at this point in time. That is my statement. It's. It's not.
-
Unknown A
I don't disagree with that statement. This statement does not state or imply that the position of the United states government in May 2015 was that Shokin needed to go. That is correct. But it does not.
-
Unknown B
No. This letter was written June 9th. So the letter June 9th to carry was made my apologies in June.
-
Unknown A
In June 2015. That's correct.
-
Unknown B
In June 2015. And so I'm trying to make a point that something changed in the re. The paper trail shows that everyone wanted Shokin to continue there. So the words that I would draw people's attention to is ongoing. And then the very last line, it said, I encourage you to continue to work closely with the US Embassy in Kiev. So if this guy were, you know, derelict and if they thought he needed to go, then, you know, they would have said, you have not worked with the US Embassy or you have not done any reform. It's a tone of, of, yes, keep performing, but you're also a good partner at this stage. So that's my thesis, that they wanted Shokin. They did not want Shokin to leave. As of June, by December, the Europeans still, still approve of his job enough to guarantee the loan. But Joe changed the position.
-
Unknown A
This is not true. I'll explain why. So, so this letter, if anyone who speaks bureaucratic is. You need to do some shit. That's what this letter translates to. Anyone who reads it differently and says, hey, we're happy you're. Can you do this? Is not that the fact that they're sending this in a letter in June after some reform has been done and acknowledging that the RADA has made some anti corruption efforts, you wouldn't do this, you wouldn't send it in this way if great reforms had been done. And the truth is, as he sits there, Garrett Ziegler cannot point to a single prominent public prosecution or reform taken by Shokin. Can you point to any substantive thing that Shokin did in this time period that was at all anti corruption? Can you point to one thing?
-
Unknown B
Yes. The freezing of assets in February at this point? No, no, no, but I'm getting to the whole Slevsky case. He argued in court in the UK. Now they let ZL23 million get unfrozen, but he, his office did argue and the FBI was actually mad at him because they weren't able to win the, the UK's ear on this. But he had 23 million frozen. And then in February of 2016, like I mentioned before, they seized his house and his cars.
-
Unknown A
That was before June 2015. Can you point to a single action taken by Victor Shokin that was anti corruption? A single prominent prosecution. Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
Yes, I just said.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so. So you agree we're discounting February 2016 because this letter happens before then there.
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
So can you point to anything before June 2015, anti corruption in nature by Shokin? Yes.
-
Unknown B
Yes. The seizure of 20 or the, the freeze of US$23 million in a UK bank account belonging to McCall's. The chess.
-
Unknown A
You're aware. Okay. Why Are you citing that, if you're aware that in September of 2015, that is the prime example cited by Ambassador Piet of corruption is how the Ukrainians blew that investigation, let the UK investigators totally be on the hook for the judge in the Serious Crimes Office in the uk didn't give them the evidence they need. It was so bad that the State Department had to send a liaison into the Prosecutor General's Office to say what the is going on? How on earth could you cite that complete failure, that complete corruption of the office? How could you cite that? By the way, Shokin wasn't even in office at that time. How could you cite that as an example of Shokin's good work on corruption? It's totally bizarre.
-
Unknown B
No, no. You asked me if he had done anything on corruption. What you're doing is conflating the winning of a court battle with trying without trying. And that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he did attempt that. They. The assets were unfrozen, but that does not mean he didn't do anything.
-
Unknown A
Wait, wait. So do you deny? Are they lying? In other words, is the UK lying when they said the Prosecutor's General's Office did not work with us to take this money permanently? Do you say the uk, The State. The State Department, Nuland, George Kent, those people who say that, you're saying that they are lying, is that correct?
-
Unknown B
I don't have. I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to say what is in their mind.
-
Unknown A
Do you deny or do you have knowledge of the fact that they say that the Prosecutor General's Office completely up in that situation and didn't help the uk? Are you denying they said that? That is uk. George Kent, Amanda Nuland, everyone else at the State Department.
-
Unknown B
They could have but the word up. Necessarily. It doesn't necessarily mean corrupt. It could be incompetent. I'm not saying that every one of Shokin's deputies, or even Shokin himself was competent in all prosecutions, but to. To. To ascribe malice to a situation that could be explained by incompetence is not something I want to do. And if they were driven by corruption, why even bring the ca. Why even continue the case against Lachesky at all if they didn't predecessor was the one who froze the assets. And if Shokin were corrupt, they didn't freeze the assets.
-
Unknown A
The UK prosecutors froze the assets. I don't know where you're getting this. At the Ukrainians. Yes, so. So how is this action if you're acknowledging that Shokin isn't even in office at this time. How is it evidence of what I asked of Shokin's reform minded approach?
-
Unknown B
They argued the case with the help of the UK at that time. I, I'm not arguing that they lost it. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that, that you have evidence that they were corrupt in that they could, it could have been incompetence. We just don't know. So and so I'm trying to be an electrionis instead State that there are things that we don't have paper for yet, but the things we do have paper for State Herb show that that choking wasn't going easy on, on Slutchevsky.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So like I don't know what to say. So in, in September 2015, this is a speech at Odessa given by, by Payette. This is what he says, quote. We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption but but rather undermine prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases. For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mikolov Sojeski, the UK authorities had seized. The UK authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO's office were asked by the UK to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead, they sent letters to Zlocheski's attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the UK court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus. This misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote these letters should be investigated.
-
Unknown A
And those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should at a minimum be summer summarily terminated. So not only is your example not an example of Shokin doing something any way reform minded, it is the prime example cited by Piet of corruption of the Prosecutor General's office that needs to be looked into that Shokin wasn't investigating. The example that you're providing is, is an example of Shokin's corruption. I'm referring to it to show you that the people in our government, they were the ones who were making the determination, hey, this is the corruption. The corruption is your office is failing to investigate these other prosecutors who totally failed to help this investigation. Your proposition that they were helping the investigation is totally. They were sending letters to his own attorneys, being like, you're free to go, everything's fine, you have no problem with us.
-
Unknown A
How can you possibly cite that as something beneficial to Shokin? To show how much of a good guy he is.
-
Unknown B
Well, again, I would, I would state there's, there's dueling interpretations of Shokin's job. Like I said before, I cited the, the September 30, 2015 interagency email and you're citing the September something, 2015. So right at the same time, my position is that the interagency wanted Shokan there. And you're pointing out how Pyatt disagreed. I don't dispute that there's a disagreement. I just believe there's no disagreement. There is. There is a disagreement.
-
Unknown A
I'll talk about the interagency memo that, that interagency memo that you're citing. They're wanting to give the loan guarantee sub. Subject to conditions, subject to precedent conditions. It's not we'll give the money no matter what. It's we'll give. We want to give a loan guarantee subject to conditions. And you read out what those conditions were. Those conditions were reforms in the PGO's office. And so in the very interagency memo that you're citing from September, the view is unanimous, as was testified by all these State Department officials later on, that the condition that they wanted to have before they were going to give any loan guarantee was reform in the Prosecutor General's office. Your own interagency memo recognizes those conflicting interest on the one hand, wanting to give this loan guarantee but noting that a condition to receiving it would be reform in the PGO's office.
-
Unknown A
That's all consistent. Nothing is of that is contradiction with anything Piat's saying or with the position of the State Department and related actors.
-
Unknown C
Okay, so hang on just, just one second here. I'm going to let Garrett respond to that. And then we're still talking about. We got, we need to move on from this because we're going round and round about whether or not.
-
Unknown A
No, no, we're going into details. We're going into details. And this is, this is really hurtful for people because, like, think about this. You start to paint this picture with this letter in, in June, which is in my opinion, you can disagree. You can read the letter, you can disagree and say my interpretation is bizarre in my letter says the opposite of what he's saying. It's not citing a specific action. It's saying do something. And then we get into this case where I'm trying to see like, what did he do? And he points to an incident that is like the most standout corrupt action that the State Department's talking about. Then he points this interagency memo. Like, I haven't read it. And, and noting that it does condition and everything starts falling apart. And if we keep going down this line, we'll get to the email from Vadim and all this other evidence.
-
Unknown A
Everything is like that in this narrative. It was baked by John Solomon and it's being read to you verbatim by Garrett Ziegler.
-
Unknown B
Well, first of all, I never made a comment that you hadn't known about this interagency memo. So I'm not. I'm not sure where you're getting that. I never assumed anything. I know nothing about you. And, and so therefore, I wasn't being disrespectful by bringing it up. I thought you did know it. And my reason for bringing it up was to show that there is circumstantial evidence that Joe changed U.S. policy. That is so us. So the proposition is there's no evidence of misconduct on behalf of Joe Biden with. Related to Burisma.
-
Unknown A
Yep.
-
Unknown B
I am, I am saying that Joe's. Just based on your example. The interagency memo on September 30 said yes to the loan contingent upon ongoing reforms is the exact language. Okay? Now, by December 7, 2015, five weeks later, they don't even get to have those loans, or they don't even get to reform first or reform as they receive the money. The pg, the Prosecutor General himself, has to go before they receive the loans, according to Joe's later speech at this, at the cfr. So I'm saying that that is a change. That is not what was articulated in the email that they had to get rid of him first. There was no requirement of Shokin being fired or resigning in that interagency memo where there was. Based on Joe's retelling, that is my position.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I will point you to a November 2222, 2015 talking points memorandum. This is prior to Joe Biden's speech in December. That memorandum states, from the State Department given to Joe Biden. These are talking points. Because, remember, Joe Biden isn't changing policy. What you just heard is a lie. Joe Biden is receiving policy from the State Department and implementing it. That's 100% what's going on. That's what everyone says. That's why Devin Archer says that there's no connection from. From Burisma to Joe Biden. He has zero evidence of that. So. So again, the reason why Joe Biden is receiving talking point memos from the State Department that are being produced for him is he is a recipient. He is about to enact state to department policy. So this memo that I'm about to read off from again prior to Joe Biden taking off the tarmac and going to Ukraine in December of 2015 states quote now that the local elections are over, you and Prime Minister yet need to continue to show unity and re energize reforms.
-
Unknown A
You should do so in a major state of the nation plan to the rada. Anti corruption efforts have to be at the top of your agenda. That will mean standing up standing up the National Investigation Bureau. It will also require changing the Prosecutor General who is damaging your credibility and obstructing the fight against corruption. Why is the State Department writing this memorandum in November of 2015 if it's your to Joe Biden. If it's your position that Joe Biden changed U.S. policy.
-
Unknown B
My position is again that that memo you just read out did not require the firing of Shokin before the billion. That's. That's my position. It does not state that I. So the. Even if by that time other people within the State Department wanted to see more reform. Joe is the only one beyond John Kerry because John Kerry's call with with Poroshenko is linked was leaked as well as you know Joe is the only person calling for the removal of the prosecutor.
-
Unknown A
But that was a removal. That was a call for removal. What you're talking about is a quid pro quo, right? That Joe Biden is the only one. The quid pro quo.
-
Unknown B
I'm the. I'm saying beyond Kerry and Joe, I have no evidence that the billion dollar loan guarantee or the US support thereof was tied to the removal of the Prosecutor General himself. I'm not disputing that other people wanted reform of the broader office. But I know of no other people.
-
Unknown A
Beyond this says they want him gone. This is. It's going to require for your anti corruption efforts are going to require getting rid of Shokin. If you say that they're not tying it in this moment in this memo as I read this to the loan guarantee. Will you at least say that this shows that the position of the State Department at the bare minimum at this period of time in November of 2015 at. At a bare minimum the position was that Shokin was corrupt and needed to go. You have to agree with that. Fair.
-
Unknown B
No, because. Because saying somebody needs to work on something and saying they're corrupt is a. Are two different things.
-
Unknown A
I'm reading. I'm quoting this directly quote. It will also require changing the prosecutor Capital P capital G Prosecutor General who is damaging your credibility and obstructing the fight against corruption. It is saying he needs to go. And there's another part right of this exact same document. There is wide agreement that anti corruption must be at the top of the reform priority list and that reform must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General's office, including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin. How can it be your position that at this point in time the State Department's official policy was Shokin needs to be fired. How can it be your vision that it's not their policy?
-
Unknown B
Because there was no tying of the loan guarantee to Shoken?
-
Unknown A
I didn't say that yet. I'm asking is it still your position right after saying that, sorry, put aside the loan guarantee for a moment. Will you at least agree that it's the position of the State Department that Prosecutor General Shokin needs to be fired in November of 2015? At the very bare minimum, when this was sent in middle to late 2015, November.
-
Unknown B
I can see that the person writing that wanted him to. Wanted reform or that he. That he. But. But again the people that were in the interagency committee is a broader scope as you know. Whereas this is just the State Department. That is the difference. I'm trying to bring up that. That this was a broader coalition of agencies and the call that Joe recounted at the CFR was the first time I heard of him getting rid of the PGN in response. And again the reason why I keep going back to this is not to annoy you, but to stay on the proposition.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Because my. I'm. All I care about is trying to prove that there is evidence of misconduct on the part part of Joe Biden with respect to Barisma.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And I believe the strongest evidence is Joe's own words that if he is not gone the billion. The US will not support the IMF's billion dollar loan guarantee.
-
Unknown A
That's what I care about the US is loan guarantee. IMF had something different. There were additional components of. Of aid from the imf. Actually more. I think something on the order of magnitude more. But. Okay, so I'll grant it.
-
Unknown B
Withhold their support for that imf.
-
Unknown A
I'll. I'll grant it. So let's say that the us I would actually probably agree that the US has a lot of influence the imf. And so to the extent that the US is withholding aid, I think that there is a. They're indicating the IMF is probably going to follow the US's lead. I don't disagree that there's a lot of sort of internal patterns, that actors who are aligned will follow each other's lead. Okay, that's totally fair. I think that's fine to say the US was also exerting its influence to limit other people's aid as well. Why is that inconsistent? Even if Joe Biden came up with the idea to specifically condition it. Right. Even if he was the progenitor, that is to say, Joe Biden came up with the idea, hey, this guy needs to go. We have this loan guarantee. Why don't we just say we're not going to give it to you unless you let him go?
-
Unknown A
What about that is inconsistent at all with any of what we're talking about before we have the September speech in Odessa, Piet saying, hey guys, you need to change up your prosecutor's General's office. That is not a we can work with Shokin speech. All right? He's specifically calling out Shokin by name and talking shit about him in front of the world. All right? That's not any. If you were the prosecutor generals, you'd be pissed at that speech if that was given and you weren't actually corrupt. If we have this November memo that states that Shoka needs to go. We have the testimony, the contemporaneous testimony, which you're discounting from 20 or apparently they're lying, that says the whole inner agency said he needs to go. What evidence are you going to show that says that anything that what Joe Biden did, even if he were the one who came up with the idea to condition aid, was inconsistent with the laid out policies of the.
-
Unknown A
Of the U.S. state Department and other actors at this time, none of it's inconsistent. It's all furthering along the American interest in stopping corruption.
-
Unknown B
What makes it inconsistent is, number one, that email I cited in November to Hunter, number one. But more importantly, number two, the call that Hunter had from Dubai with his. To his father with Zulchevsky in. I think it was December 5th of 2015.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And that came out in the Archer testimony, which Archer admitted was specifically about showing.
-
Unknown A
Do you have evidence that Joe Biden was on that call?
-
Unknown B
What?
-
Unknown A
Do you have evidence that Joe Biden was on that call or knew about it?
-
Unknown B
Yes, according to Archer.
-
Unknown A
Devin Archer specifically says he does not have evidence of that. Are you going to refute that?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, go. I mean, we can pull up this.
-
Unknown A
Absolutely can. I know. I know the page numbers. So he specifically is asked by congressional people, do you mean call D.C. by the way, he did not hear the call. So Devon Archer again.
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
I'm not he was not present for the call.
-
Unknown B
But, but, but you don't. But I'm. My contention is that Hunter effectuated. Zlachevsky's asked to call Joe. Just because Devin wasn't in the hotel room doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's a, There's a space that you and I can argue whether it did happen, but I can't.
-
Unknown A
I'm asking something more specific, Gary. I'm asking, does Devin Archer allege that it was said call by Joe Biden? That's a question about what was said in a testimony. It's not a question about your interpretation of it. Does Devin Archer allege that it was Joe Biden? And the answer is no. He said what he heard was call DC and that he has no evidence that it was Joe Biden. And after being asked, he said, yeah, it probably meant Blue Star Strategies or the consulting groups that we had hired. It probably didn't mean Joe Biden. That's what he said under, you know, under oath in a congressional hearing. And so where's the allegation that Joe Biden was on that call or ever called? And also even put aside that this call in December, as you stated, that's what I'm going. Okay, but this, but this, but that email could have also been a reference to, hey, this, the white, this white shoe consultancy group that we have just hired.
-
Unknown A
Maybe that's who we're referring to, the people that we actually did have meetings because Blue Star Strategies, guess what, they actually did have meetings with State Department officials. Maybe the Vadim email is a reference to Blue Star Strategies. This, this group that we hired and who later did register for Fara, they had to backfire it and were actually there were inquiries into Blue Star Strategies. Maybe that's what the reference is as opposed to Joe Biden. And also there's no evidence that Joe Biden saw that email. It was contacted by Hunter about any of this stuff. You don't have it. And just put it to the side. The call that you're alleging that happened the start of December, that call happened after this memo, this November memo, when the position of the State Department is clear. You're saying it's just one staffer who wrote, I guess might have wrote, written a rogue memo.
-
Unknown A
Well, I don't know. Okay, so what are you, what are you saying? It's after the position has been that Shoka needs to go. So what difference does it make whether it's, you know, even if it's true that they called Joe Biden after that time, it sounds like it's totally. What he did was consistent with the policy, at least before that call, which is in November. And of course, there's no evidence that that call ever happened to Joe Biden.
-
Unknown B
My evidence is that the email from Vadim was to Hunter and Eric Schwerin and Devin, of course, not to Blue Star. And he had communicated a lot with Karen and Sally, but they're board members.
-
Unknown A
The board.
-
Unknown B
And I understand all that and I'm saying that the reach out over email is my circumstantial evidence. I will admit that we don't have the call transcripts, if they exist. I'm, I'm. My standard has. Has not been in this debate direct evidence with regard to Joe. It's circumstantial based on the emails. You can reject that circumstantial evidence, but no one can say that it's not accepted in a criminal.
-
Unknown A
Is it your. Okay, is it your position, greater than 51% chance that the evidence that's been, that's shown, based on what you've just said, shows that a call actually did take place between Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Vadim about Burisma in December, second or third, or whenever it was in that hotel. You think that that's been established beyond.
-
Unknown B
I don't think. I don't think Vadim would have been on it. To answer your question.
-
Unknown A
No. No. Has the call been established beyond 50%?
-
Unknown B
Yes, I would vote to convict on that, but I, but I would not included Vadim in that.
-
Unknown A
I mean, that's, that's insane. That's insane, Garrett, that that call has even been established beyond 50%. You have no call log, you have no testimony from anyone saying that Joe Biden was on that call. No one has alleged that Joe Biden was on that call, not a single person. It is your assumption, your bare assertion that that call took place and that Joe Biden was on that call, even though no one makes that allegation, no call log at all. How can you possibly sit here with a straight face and, and tell the people that listen to you, hey, I can establish that call took place more than 50%, let alone I would convict on it. That's absurd.
-
Unknown B
I don't think it's absurd. And it's not a bear assumption. It is an assumption. Every circ, every vote of guilty on circumstantial evidence is an assumption. But you're incorrect to state that it's a bare assumption because of the prior emails and prior reaching out from Vadim to Hunter. Again, that is what I'm basing it off of, of the, the paper trail over the emails of saying, hey, this guy is a problem. And specifically I don't think Vadim hates Shokin. It's that he wants to protect and he's been hired and paid handsomely to protect Nicolay. Right. And they see, they see Shokin as a roadblock for Nikolai being able to go back to Ukraine and to live a normal life in their eyes. So that, so it is an assumption, but I would argue strenuously that it's not a bear assumption. Okay, then why there is paper underlying my assumptions.
-
Unknown A
So why does the Biden, sorry, Obama, Biden Department of Justice in December of 2016 or sorry, in January of 2016, why did they open an FCPA investigation into Solchaski?
-
Unknown B
Do you have paper on that?
-
Unknown A
I sure do. Chuck Grassley. I'll give it to you. So this is from Chuck Grassley's. Yeah, I'll provide it for you. It's dated October 24, 2023. Here's the link. I'll share it with you guys in the chat. How do I put it in? Let me exit full screen.
-
Unknown B
It would not surprise me at all because of the visa blocking. Right. It was necessary that he hired Blue Star in his mind and Hunter because he couldn't get that visa.
-
Unknown A
So this is, this is on page. I just put it in our chat. And if you want to. It's. It's a letter from. Yeah. So go to page three. This is paragraph two. It states that an FCPA investigation, a Foreign Corrupt Practice Act. So I'm going to read the full sentence. For example, in December 2019, that's under Trump, the FBI Washington field office closed a 25B kleptocracy case into Mikola Zolcheski, owner of Burisma, which was opened in January 2016 by a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FBI FBI squad based out of the FBI Washington Fields office. That is an allegation and assertion that is true that during the Obama administration at the exact time period we're talking about before the firing of Shokin and before was accepted by the rada, the Obama administration DOJ opens an FCPS a bribery investigation into Zlip Chesky. Why would they do that if they're trying to help them?
-
Unknown B
Well, they is pretty broad. I don't know where it went.
-
Unknown A
Why would, why would DOJ do that if. If Biden and Obama are trying to help him? Levesky.
-
Unknown B
Again, this is not about Obama. I never brought Obama. In my proposition, it was all about Joe. And there's no evidence that Joe was aware of this at that time or author.
-
Unknown A
Is there evidence that he was aware of the Vadim email?
-
Unknown B
All I know is that Vadim.
-
Unknown A
No. Right. Is the answer no? Yes or no, is there evidence that he was aware of this communication from Vadim to Hunter Biden? No. Right. Why can't you just be honest? I am honest.
-
Unknown B
And I'm trying to think. I'm trying to think back. This is. I'm going between phone calls and emails. I think that Hunter did make his dad aware of these requests.
-
Unknown A
What's the evidence of that?
-
Unknown B
And Archer testified to that?
-
Unknown A
No, he didn't.
-
Unknown B
But with regard to that specific Dubai phone call, there is not evidence.
-
Unknown A
No, no, no, no. He's very clear, actually. Archer's very clear. He's asked directly by. By Representative Goldman. He's asked, do you have any allegations. And I can pull this up. Do you have any allegations of that Joe Biden was aware of any of this? He says, no. If you doubt it, I'll bring it up. If you'd like me to, I will, actually. Why not? Let's see. Devin Archer. Here we go. So based on everything, this is the question. This is at page 104 of his transcript. This is questions by Representative Schwartz or Goldman. I'm not sure at the moment. I think it's actually, it's Goldman. Question. Based on everything you've heard, saw, heard and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burism? Answer, no. Not direct. No question. No involvement of Joe. Answer, no question. Biden with Burisma? Answer, no.
-
Unknown A
My only thought is that I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the brand attached to it. That's my, like, only honest opinion, but I have no basis for any. Never heard any conversations, Mr. Goldman. But that's different than Joe Biden's action, Mr. Archer. Right. Mr. Goldman, you're just talking about that Hunter was on the board, Mr. Archer. Right. Does that sound like Devin Archer has any evidence that Joe Biden was aware of anything related to Burisma? Why would Devin Archer say that? Why would Devin Archer say, yeah, I don't have any. I don't know anything about Joe Biden. I just assumed that Burisma would go out of business if Hunter Biden's last name wasn't attached to it. How is that evidence that Joe Biden was aware of any of these comms, let alone that he was aware of anything with Burisma.
-
Unknown A
It's not evidence. Come on. If this were presented about Donald Trump, you'd be like, yeah, this is weak shit. It's weak shit, isn't it, Garrett?
-
Unknown B
No, it's not. And I don't appreciate you bringing up Trump in this scenario because it's not involved in the proposition. It's not named in the proposition. I again state that the close communications between Hunter and Joe and the fact that Joe required the removal of a prosecutor that nobody else called for at that time is circumstantial evidence of his misconduct in a violence.
-
Unknown A
Having calls. It's. It's circumstantial evidence. Of him having these calls?
-
Unknown B
No, of his circle. His circumstantial evidence of being an agent of Hunter's wishes. And those wishes came from Vadim. And I'm going back to that email.
-
Unknown A
Is it plausible that Joe Biden acted as an agent of Burisma or of Mikola Zecheski? Is it. Is it plausible, that is to say, not beyond reasonable doubt. Is it even plausible that for you to have enough evidence to show that it's even plausible that Joe Biden is an agent of the foreign principles that we've just talked about, if you cannot point to a single established communication that Joe Biden ever had in this time period related to Breeches Burisma.
-
Unknown B
Well, that's. He. He admits that he talked to Hunter about Burisma and. And where his staffer, Amos Hochstein, talked to Hunter about Burisma. That was basically Joe's agent speaking with Hunter about Burisma and how Amos told Hunter that him being on the board is allowing, you know, Russians to. To. To say things about Joe. So again, I think we are arguing about direct versus versus circumstantial evidence, and I think the bar is pretty low for Proposition 1. That there. That there is evidence. It may be evidence that you don't think is strong enough, which is fair.
-
Unknown A
But you think it is. You would convict him on these facts. That's disturbing. I mean, like, you would convict him on these facts. You can't establish a single call about Burisma with Joe Biden. How the hell would you convict someone on this weak shit?
-
Unknown B
Well, first of all, we're disagreeing on what we weak is in. In what? I mean, I believe that if you have. If you have a admission on video that you would not support the $1 billion loan guarantee if this guy is.
-
Unknown A
Not in line with policy. That's what I've been explaining. Why do you Keep going back to that conversation. You would agree, if that were part of the policy, there would be nothing wrong with that statement. Fair. Correct?
-
Unknown B
I don't agree that it was part of the policy.
-
Unknown A
If it was, it would be fine. Right? Agreed. How can you not agree to that?
-
Unknown B
We don't know his ultimate mode.
-
Unknown A
No, no, but if, if, okay, if the motive wasn't to help his son or to help himself, but it actually was in line with. For the purpose of helping the State Department policy, you would agree there would be nothing wrong with the statement he gave in 2018. Fair.
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
Okay. So the evidence. Yeah. Okay. So.
-
Unknown B
And I'm saying that that is irrelevant though, because of his. What his son was doing in the emails the son received and the. The other. So, so I get this State Department memo that you cited for November. I'm not disputing the authenticity of that. I'm saying though, that the broader US Government, the interagency, did not recommend the firing of Shokin. And something changed in my allegation, which I don't think is insane at all, is that Vadim and other people, probably Sally and Karen Tramatano, reached out to Hunter and asked him to talk to his dad about this. That's my allegation. It's not crazy at all. What would be crazy is if I got up here and said that there is evidence that Joe talked on the phone with Hunter about this and I don't have the call logs. That would be crazy. But what I'm saying is not crazy at all. And I think you're.
-
Unknown A
You don't have evidence of the call log between the intermediaries here. The. I think you're referencing the blue stock strategy principles. Right. There's no evidence.
-
Unknown B
You're ascribing to me positions that I have not articulated.
-
Unknown A
Okay, but, but those I hang on those I want to focus in on the evidence. Those particular. There are. Every single conversation is logged between Blue Star strategies, individuals and officials of the government. There's log conversation between them and. And at. Just. Sorry, I can't pronounce the name. Hutchinson. Yeah, there's log between him, them and Payette. There's none between them and Joe Biden. Unless you think that their whole government's in on it to hide it. But then it kind of obviates the notion that the government has a position that deviates from. If Joe Biden is able to control everyone, to hide everything, then what's the distinction between the State Department policy and Joe Biden? They're just sound like agents and they're trying to help Hunter Biden themselves as well. Again, for what? For the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's making a bereavement. That's it.
-
Unknown A
In the context of US Foreign policy, that's small potatoes. To save Hunter Biden from prosecution in Ukraine, a country he's never been to, a country he would never be sent to by, you know, the Obama administration, by the Trump administration, by Lutsenko, the future Prosecutor General, who says. Who's a corrupt prosecutor, just so you know. But even he who's been approached by Rudy Giuliani and others, like, who says that there's no evidence of corruption of the Bidens or Joe Biden, like, what is the ask for? Is the whole. Is this whole thing is your entire theory premised on. It's all for his board salary, Hunter Biden's board salary. Why the would they do that? Why the would they totally warp policy around that salary? That's stupid. Well, your theory is not plausible.
-
Unknown C
Hey, peace. Go, Pisco. You gotta. You gotta let him.
-
Unknown A
My bad, my bad. I'm sorry. I get a little excited. I appreciate it though.
-
Unknown C
I've been letting you go.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I know. I appreciate.
-
Unknown C
You gotta throw one thing thing at him. You can't throw like.
-
Unknown A
Sorry, just went on like a five.
-
Unknown C
Minute rant and name 20 different things.
-
Unknown A
You're right, Brian. You're right.
-
Unknown C
All right.
-
Unknown A
All right.
-
Unknown C
Go ahead, Garrett.
-
Unknown B
So, no, my. My statement is I can't get inside of his mind. And I don't think you can either. All I am going off of is Joe's own statement. The. The multiple asks from the Ukrainian side to Hunter and the. The switching of the interagency position five weeks later to the. To Joe's position. I want to, as a bookend, because we need to get on to proposition number two, go to the European Commission report. And I think this has been overlooked because it's even two weeks after Joe goes to Ukraine, December 18, 2015. And the only reason why I'm including this is because Joe in 2019, when asked by an Axios writer, I think Mike Allen, his name is escaping me right now about this scenario with Shokin. He said that, quote, all the Europeans wanted this guy out. That was the quote. And I am.
-
Unknown B
And I am saying that this document from the European Commission refutes that. That at that time that he's making the call to Poroshenko that he needs to fire Shokin. The Europeans did not call it. Number one, did not call for his ouster. Number two, said that there was Quote, sufficient progress being made.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Happy to read it.
-
Unknown A
No, I'm happy to refer. If you'd like to read it. You can, but I know you're talking about if you want me to just address it. But happy to defer to you.
-
Unknown B
Well, I, I can't say it better than the reports.
-
Unknown A
Yes.
-
Unknown B
I think this is evidence of, of Job trying to change, change the popular perception of history that this was. There was consensus across the board when there wasn't. And of course you and I both know that it took him 90 days to leave. He wasn't out until March of 16.
-
Unknown A
But that's evidence in my favor. So you know. But you can read that.
-
Unknown B
Well, that's your opinion. I think it's evidence in my favor that Joe was clearly within 12 days the Europeans released this and Joe 12 days earlier said he has to go in. The Europeans said he doesn't have to go based in their. This is their recommendation of to renew the loan guarantee or not. So we have a conflict here.
-
Unknown A
There's no conflict. And I'll explain it. So the, the European Commission.
-
Unknown B
There is a conflict.
-
Unknown A
Okay, go for it.
-
Unknown B
But I, but, but I want to hear obviously your, your take, but I believe there is a conflict.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So what you're citing is a statement made by the Europeans with respect to the conditions for visa free travel. And in that report they state that sufficient progress has been made such that they will extend visa free travel to Ukraine. That is not, I repeat, number one, not a statement that the Prosecutor General is A, doing a good job, B, isn't corrupt or C doesn't have to go. So number one, it's not affirmative evidence that the Prosecutor General's office is doing a good job. That's number one. Number two, in the specific report they cite progresses of specific prosecutorial kinds and the ones they cite are the nabu, which is an investigatory agency, pro, that is very pro Western, and who Shokin hates and who Shokin is fighting with all the time. And the independent prosecutor's office, who Shokin is also fighting the whole time.
-
Unknown A
The only two instances of prosecution related progress that are cited for this visa free travel, which were, you know, conditions that were previously set forth that didn't include the firing of Shokin. The only two things that are cited are institutions that Shokin is actively fighting against. The NABU and the independent Prosecutor's Office. Right. He's not processing, prosecuting the other prosecutors that were corrupt. He's not prosecuting the diamond prosecutors. So this entire statement. Yes, it's extending Visa free travel. But it's noting two agencies that Shokin's not working with. And again, it's after Biden makes the call. So even on a timeline thing, it doesn't make sense.
-
Unknown B
I would argue that it's the exact opposite of what you laid out because they, they cite specific units that he set up within his office, namely September 2, 2015, specialized unit to coordinate investigations into money laundering. He went after the national bank of Ukraine, nbu, obviously different than naboo. Different, different entirely. And made sure that he investigated him because they weren't requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership. Obviously, you know, there's a ton of shell companies that are domiciled there or in Cyprus. And I think that nothing in this paper, and I would be willing to swear on it, ever calls for the removal of Shokin. And nothing says that he has to go to for us to renew the visa free travel. That's my position. That in my opinion and I think the, the paper lays this out.
-
Unknown A
He was, he was fighting all this stuff, Gary, at all, Garrett, he was fighting. So this is, this is from the Kiev post in 2015, October 2015. So this month before this happened, this is the title. Shokin resists change, Jeopardizes visa free travel to EU and $1.2 billion of aid. In addition. This is from the Keef Post. In addition to not solving high profile criminal and corruption cases, Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin appears willing to sacrifice visa free travel to the European Union for millions of Ukrainians by not carrying out grass fighting commitments the government has made. Again, distinguishing between the government and Shokin. President Petro Poroshenko's choice for top prosecutor has been reluctant to do his part in establishing an independent grass fighting agency by appointing four questionable members to the selection board that will appoint an anti corruption prosecutor to the newly created bureau.
-
Unknown A
So what you're citing are conditions for visa free travel that all in the course of 2015, again prior to the big standoff with Joe Biden and Poroshenko that Shokin is actively fighting against. He's refusing to fill some of these roles or he's filling them in with cronies. And this is widespreadly known in Ukraine. In Ukraine there are his approval ratings like at 20%. They're holding up humongous protests because this guy's not going after corruption. And, and yes, at a certain point the NABU is established and I believe that there even is an independent prosecutor that's eventually appointed. But it's after months and months of pushing and pushing and pushing this Guy was considered corrupt by the West. And you are the only one apparently saying, I guess you. And also Shokin himself and, and like Dirtex or whatever the Russian cronies are. You guys are saying that he's on the level, right?
-
Unknown A
That your position is actually that Shokin is a good guy. Right. And he's. He's actually prosecuting crime.
-
Unknown B
You're putting words. I don't know.
-
Unknown A
Do you. Do you believe that Shokin was a good prosecutor?
-
Unknown B
I don't know. I don't know enough. To my position is that that statement, that question does not relate to the proposition, which is my only focus tonight.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
My only focus is on Joe requiring Shogun's removal for the loan guarantee, which I believe was corrupt. Now, first of all, I don't know Andre Durcock never met him, and so I don't know what he believes. All I know is that he. That Joe was the only one calling for his removal as contingent on the loan guarantee. And we should probably move on to proposition number two. I'm at 13% battery on my phone, and I have 5G on my phone, but I don't have it on my computer.
-
Unknown A
No, I appreciate that. Let's move on to topic two. I appreciate that.
-
Unknown C
So let's go ahead with the second topic. Pisco, you'll start with this one.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown C
You propose that you would defend the Burisma narrative, that it demonstrates the lies and abuse of power of Donald Trump and his supporters.
-
Unknown A
Yes, and I'm happy to do that. So as we've just sort of walked through there, really, in my opinion, and you might disagree with this is. And maybe this will all ground down to that, to this, there is no strong evidence that Joe Biden did anything corrupt by withholding the loan guarantees in 2015 when he did. Notwithstanding that fact, Joe, Donald Trump, while he's in office, is pushing for the Ukrainian prosecutor general by name of Lutsenko. That's after the. Shokin is fired. Lutsenko to announce either charges or a criminal investigation into Joe Biden. So the very same country that all these Trump supporters say. I'm not going to describe that to Garrett, but a lot of Trump supporters say he's so corrupt and they corruptly got rid of Shokin to install, you know, a corrupt prosecutor. So you have to. You have to really think about this, Right.
-
Unknown A
If your whole proposition is that Shokin was the. Was a good prosecutor going after Burisma and Lutsenko is the one who's corrupt, he's going after Lutsenko and Saying, hey, charge the Bidens. Someone who a lot of these Trump supporters say is a corrupt prosecutor in Lato. I, by the way, I do believe that Letenko is corrupt, but at least he wasn't willing to go along with the plan. That is an abuse of power because it was done for political purposes. It also is an abuse of power to push President Poroshenko to do the same thing. It's also an abuse of power to push, to push President Zelensky to do the same thing. It was also an abuse of power to push the Department of Justice to do the same thing. Can you imagine how hysterical MAGA would be if we found out that Joe Biden was actually having conversations with Merrick Garland and saying, hey, Merrick Gollin, you need to prosecute.
-
Unknown A
You need to prosecute Donald Trump or you need to charge him with this or that? Donald Trump publicly, number one, is calling for the prosecution in October 2020 of his political rivals, something that would never be accepted by anyone in MAGA if, if it were done on the other side. He's pushing for a private channel, Rudy Giuliani constructed channel in the Department of Justice to vet claims, to vet claims that eventually turn out to be made by Russian agents. That is in the Smirnoff accusations. Donald Trump is doing this not because he gives a rat's ass about corruption. He's egging on the corruption in Ukraine. He wants to bring it about because he is pushing them for these corrupt announcements of investigations. That absolutely is abuse of power. It demonstrates that he's using the burisma narrative, the debunked burisma narrative for political favor and using his power, that is his control over the prosecution to do so, and also their lies.
-
Unknown A
And now that we know, by the way, now that we know that some of these are Russian crafted narratives, we know that because the Trump administration itself, right, has labeled the people who are promoting this as Russian propagandists, Russian agents. We know because we have an indictment of Alexander Smirnov who sent the FT 1023 to the FBI, which you know, to be filled with Russian lies, and he met with Russian foreign agencies, as is alleged in that indictment. And so all of this shows, and the fact that Garrett Ziegler is still willing to buy onto this narrative hook, line and sinker, that the MAGA movement and Donald Trump specifically are using known lies and their powers and promising to do so in the future to go after the political rivals. It's, it's so corrupt and it's unacceptable and by itself is impeachable he should have been removed.
-
Unknown A
And, and yeah, and he's obviously, he's not fit for office because of even just that he like put aside everything else that by itself he's not fit for office.
-
Unknown B
So the first, first off, you said that I know what Smirnoff did was a lie. We don't know that because he hasn't been tried and I've not seen any of the underlying communications. One thing I am interested in that case is his handler out of Seattle. I still don't know who that is. I'm very eagerly waiting. They just moved for a continuance though from December to May. So that trial may not even be till May of 25. So that's all I can say on, on Smirnoff Durkock being labeled a Russian agent by Mnuchin SECRETARY to We talk about that in our dossier and I obviously disagree with that, but I obviously can't dispute that it happened. Right. So if, if your position is that Trump's own people took a position different from him, I totally agree with you. And that's part of my thesis on the first Trump term is the lack of agreement on such fundamental things and having such disparate people leading different agencies like Bill Barr.
-
Unknown B
Well, I was going to go to Steven Mnuchin, but the, the main point I have about point number two is that when the call between Zelensky and President Trump took place on July 25, 2019, the investigation into Hunter's Barisma Income had already started in November of 2018. I have no evidence that President Trump was aware of that investigation. He might have been. He might not have been. But because that invest that investigation had already started, it is incorrect to say that there was no reason to look into it because other people way down in the Justice Department and the IRS who had nothing to do with Donald Trump and probably hated him, maybe. I know, okay, I'll be more precise. I know one person that started the investigation, Joe Ziggler. No relation to me, obviously. Obviously.
-
Unknown A
Wait, there's no relation, Right. Because it's such a coincidence.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I know it is weird, but I know that he did not care for Donald Trump because he, he said that. And so for Trump to ask and it for their as the chief executive. And that's why you'll find no disagreement if you brought up, for example, if, you know, would it be improper for Joe Biden to ask that investigation take place? I'm a unitary executive guy, so I don't believe, you know, I believe that he's the chief executive. And he, he can tell his Attorney General what to investigate. And weirdly, as a unitary executive guy, I believe that the President could, you know, authorize specific prosecutions. Whether or not he'd be up there, you know, he couldn't be. He wouldn't be barred, so he couldn't argue the case himself. But, but I believe that it wouldn't be improper for Joe Biden to ask that if he thought there was legal, you know, because he has, he has the Take Care clause.
-
Unknown B
And I think it was perfectly, and this goes to proposition number two. I think it was perfectly constitutional under the Take Care clause that the laws be faithfully executed, that the, that the Ukrainians and the IRS on the state side look into that income which Hunter Biden derived from foreign principles. That's my, that's my position.
-
Unknown A
So I mean that I respect that you're a unitary executive theory. And it seems like the Supreme Court has more or less started to shift to that position. And certainly when it comes to criminal immunity, it doesn't seem like anything that I'm suggesting with respect to the Ukrainian call or even just sending doj. I think those would be exercises of core executive authority that would be immunized for criminal. So I'm not alleging that any of these actions, though. I'm not, I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm not saying that they are criminal violations. Just to be clear and, and to acknowledge that the Supreme Court seems to be accepting some version of the unitary executive theory. But, but really, like if, if Joe Biden had said to Merrick Garland, and we have this on tape, and it says, hey, Jack, Merrick Garland, find something to charge Trump with anything.
-
Unknown A
I don't make it about Jan.6. I don't know. You don't think that'll be impeachable?
-
Unknown B
It would depend on what the, what the conduct is about. Right, right.
-
Unknown A
Please, I don't care. Just go after him because he's my right. He even says, I don't like he's running for me.
-
Unknown B
That would be improper. But if you go back to the transcript of the call, I think what the President was talking about was specifically the CrowdStrike server or the server that CrowdStrike took control of, which we've all been obsessed with, and then this Burisma matter, and I can't say exactly what was in Joe Ziggler's heart, but I do know that he testified that one of the key things he was investigating was the, was the, was, were the taxes paid At a, on the federal level, on the Berishma income, you think.
-
Unknown A
That he was doing. You think that Joe Biden was doing. Oh, sorry. Or was that Ziegler, you think. Sorry. You think that Trump was, was saying that or. That's right.
-
Unknown B
Okay. No, I, I don't think Trump knew what Joe Ziggler was doing. But I, but I do think serendipitously that the starting of the investigation into bereavement income of Hunter Biden In November of 2018, in the call with Zelinsky in July 2019, it's serendipitous for people who support the argument that Trump didn't do anything wrong because other people who weren't Trump already believed that this was worthy of investigation. That's my, that's my position.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, yeah. The, the payment of taxes. But, but, but you, you agree that Trump couldn't have been referencing. By your own logic, he could not have been referencing the tax matters if he wasn't aware of them. And so that couldn't have been what was motivating him. That's number one. Wait, first of all, I don't admit he could have been.
-
Unknown B
All I'm admitting. Yeah, no, all I'm admitting is that he wasn't aware that Joe Ziggler had already started that investigation. That's.
-
Unknown A
You're saying that it's plausible, based on the evidence like this today, that when Trump was doing that call with Zelinsky, he was perhaps referencing the, that Hunter Biden didn't pay his taxes on brazen related income?
-
Unknown B
He could. It's plausible. But, but it's also possible he could have been talking about choking. I just don't know. I was a junior staffer. Peter talked with the President every day. I did not.
-
Unknown A
How is Peter doing now? He's out, right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, he's, he's doing fine. You know, he's old. He's like, he, he's a, he's the. I don't talk to him much, but I don't have much to do with electoral politics. I'm not involved in any campaigns. But.
-
Unknown A
Sorry, sorry to interrupt you. I just want to, if you don't mind, go back to the hypothetical. I asked whether or not it was impeached. It would be impeachable if Joe Biden did that thing with Merrick Garland. Do you agree it would be, like, impeachable if Joe Biden is literally on the horn. I know it's not exactly what the call is. I'm just trying to give a hypothetical distress test. This Principle. Right. It has to be the case that there are some abuses of the Justice Department that are so severe, so arbitrary. Right. Investigate my political rivals just because they're my rivals. And I'm saying, to do it politically. Imagine he said something so ridiculous as that. That must be impeachable if anything's impeachable. Isn't that. Isn't that what you're. Not you specifically. Isn't that what maga's constantly accusing me?
-
Unknown B
If it's plausible that he could be impeached for that. Of course.
-
Unknown A
Like he should be.
-
Unknown B
Right. Well, that's a different question.
-
Unknown A
Should he be. Is what I'm asking, for your perspective, hypothetically, Joe Biden.
-
Unknown B
No, I know what your question is, and I'm. I'm. I'm thinking about it deeply because it's ultimately a political question. You know, even the trial, even the Senate trials, they're political trials. And so impeachment's always tricky. I can't.
-
Unknown A
You don't tell me how you would vote. How would you vote if that. Those facts represented to, you know, Senator Ziegler. Those facts are presented on your desk. Abuse of power, Article 1. Are you convicting on that? Of course you are. Come on.
-
Unknown B
I don't know.
-
Unknown A
You don't know?
-
Unknown B
I don't know. No, no. Because I don't presume to have all the facts. It's just a. It's a hypothetical that is very nascent and I don't have everything involved. If. If.
-
Unknown A
Then nothing will change your mind, then I can't change your mind on this? No, no, no. I mean, I don't know what more what you're saying is. Even if I had a call with Donald Trump talking his link and saying, hey, I really hate Joe Biden, I don't really think there's anything to this, but I want you to announce it anyway because I am corrupt and this is political. Even if I had that transcript, you would say it doesn't show any wrong. Like you. Or you wouldn't vote to convict on the impeachment. Like, that's how absurd. So I can't convince you on this because my whole theory is one that you reject. Like even the concept of if I can't prove to you, even if he says I am corrupt, this is political. You will announce things or I will give back the money. If that is not enough to show corruption in your mind, somehow the Joe Biden thing is corrupt, though.
-
Unknown A
Make that work. I can never convince you of Donald Trump, then it's over. Right? The conversation Over.
-
Unknown B
I'm. No, the conversation is not over. All I'm saying is let's get back to the propositions because I don't think how I would vote in a hypothetical impeachment trial as a hypothetical senator relates. Okay, that's proposition number.
-
Unknown A
Okay, that's fair. Because you could say that I might not impeach him, but I would still think it's misconduct and I still think it's bad. Okay, that is a fair thing you could say. So I guess I would say if Joe Biden did that, would it be. And let me quote the proposition, because that is fair. Okay, would it be. Here we go. Would it demonstrate abuse of power of Joe Biden?
-
Unknown B
Yes. Yes, I think so.
-
Unknown A
So that, that, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Where we, we have to go. We have to get into his head, into what Donald Trump was thinking about, what was his purpose. That's the same way, by the way, you can say Joe Biden abused his power with burisma. If it was an improper purpose that was motivating him into burisma. If he actually was withholding the guarantee, by the way, I would even say, even if it was State Department policy. Right. Even if it was consistent with policy, if it was actually motivating Joe Biden was to benefit his son, I would impeach and remove him on that because that's an improper purpose. Even if it's consistent.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, it gets into mens rea.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And we can go on and on about that.
-
Unknown A
But, but, but that's why this is important. Yes.
-
Unknown B
Criminal trial perspective.
-
Unknown A
And I think it's important for us too, like if Joe Biden makes a mistake or if Donald Trump makes a mistake, but he has a good intention, that's different. It's very different than someone who has a bad or improper purpose. And so I think that this matters. And so we have to do a little mind reading. But you said it at the start, how we do the mind reading in our system of just human interaction is circumstantial evidence. And my circumstantial evidence that he didn't really give a, about what was going on in, with respect to Hunter Biden and, and the quote, unquote, actual corruption is, is the channels that he took. The fact that he's taking these kind of off ramp shadow Secretary of State channels. The fact that he has been, you know, he's been asking about this evidence of corruption and is not receiving it from, from Giuliani.
-
Unknown A
Right. As is attested to by Lev Parnas and others that should be some indication that, hey, maybe this, there is no there there. And maybe this call where we're just trying to go after or announce investigations into the Bidens. Maybe you shouldn't be involving yourself in this. Maybe this is something to leave to the State Department to do. Why should Donald Trump, the President, United States, be involved in, like, these individual prosecutions? Why should he get involved that way? Why is it a matter of national security such that you're, like, compromising this? I'm sorry, I'm asking a lot of questions, but you can take any of them or none of them.
-
Unknown B
Well, I would say again that the president has a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And he believed, which we can argue about, that the former vice president required a foreign country to get rid of a prosecutor in order for US Support of a certain loan. And that is, in my opinion, based on his statements, just like I'm taking Joe at his word at the CFR meeting. That's all I can surmise that his, his stated intent was to get to the bottom of that, of that corruption. And I think that's what he said is he wanted him to look into it. I think that was the exact statement. Would you look into this? He started out with the CrowdStrike server, and then the bottom pair at the bottom of that page, he went into the sun, which is meaning, Hunter, why.
-
Unknown A
The different standards for Joe Biden then? I mean, it feels like Joe Biden, you're willing to make a lot of assumptions about what his state of mind was, but in Donald Trump, you're like, hang on, you can't assume, just. And okay, I don't buy that. But, like, let's suppose you buy that. Why make so many assumptions about what Joe Biden. Like, couldn't Joe Biden, by that same logic, be thinking in the interest of the United States and its interest, as opposed to what's Hunter Biden? But it seems like we're willing to jump through so many hoops to exonerate Trump. But the slightest thing like an email that references nondescript meetings that is used to excoriate Joe Biden.
-
Unknown B
Well, again, I think that the laptop is instructive here, that we are dealing with two different volumes of data with the laptop. There is an irrefutable amount of emails that are real and that do detail the lobbying campaign that Vadim put on Hunter and Blue Star strategies. And so that is why I believe that. But I, I've got to go.
-
Unknown A
I've.
-
Unknown B
I'm going to be. That's at 1%, even though I got it on the damn charger.
-
Unknown A
Well, thank you for doing this.
-
Unknown B
I appreciate it. Yeah, I appreciate you doing this. We should do it on a different topic.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And maybe at these at Brian could put on the screen the propositions so that we can stay on the propositions more.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. And sorry if you felt that I was deviating. My intent was always to go back to those. But I appreciate the conversation. And listen, I'm glad that you are steeped in these issues. And I really like getting to the nitty gritty. And so if we can schedule something in the future at some point, if it comes up, I'm happy to do that. And Brian, so much, you know, thank you for hosting.