Speaker 1: You're listening to Fox Sports for you, Welcome in Wins
Speaker 1: and Losses. I'm your host, Clay Travis. We are joined
Speaker 1: now by Miranda Divine of The New York Post. You
Speaker 1: may have heard her interviewed on Clay and Buck some
Speaker 1: over the past few years. You certainly have probably seen
Speaker 1: her on Fox News. I believe they should rescind all
Speaker 1: of the Russia Collusion Politzer Prizes and give them to her.
Speaker 1: Um And during the course of this conversation, I bet
Speaker 1: you're going to end up agreeing with me. So thank
Speaker 1: you to Miranda for joining us. And Miranda, before we
Speaker 1: dive into your book, Laptop from Hell, the whole New
Speaker 1: York Post story, all of that, what's your background? How
Speaker 1: did you come to be writing for the New York Post? Uh?
Speaker 1: Where did you grow up? What is your journalism background?
Speaker 1: Kind of let people know more about you. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: would like to know too. I'm not that expert on
Speaker 1: on your past history here. Well, Clay, thanks for having
Speaker 1: me and um I suppose it will be confusing to
Speaker 1: tell you that I was born in Jamaica, Queens, even
Speaker 1: though the accent is obviously not from there, and my
Speaker 1: parents were journalists here, and then we moved to Tokyo,
Speaker 1: where I spent six years at an American school and
Speaker 1: they had a very strong American accent. And then we
Speaker 1: moved to Australia, which is my parents or my mother's homeland,
Speaker 1: and I got an Australian accent overnight pretty much. And um,
Speaker 1: then I did a mass degree as a as a detour,
Speaker 1: and always wanted to be a journalist, and my parents
Speaker 1: had said no, no, don't do it, but I ended
Speaker 1: up they were back in America. My father was um
Speaker 1: working to the Reader's Digest, he was an editor there,
Speaker 1: and UM, I ended up coming back here to go
Speaker 1: to Northwestern University. I did a journalism degree or master's
Speaker 1: um to one year, and then I bounced around a
Speaker 1: bit and ended up at the Boston Herald and where
Speaker 1: I spent a very pleasant couple of years three years,
Speaker 1: and then I went back to Australia, got married, spent
Speaker 1: twenty years there, pretty much raised our sons um and
Speaker 1: then my editor at the time and the newspaper was
Speaker 1: at in Sydney, was transferred to New York to become
Speaker 1: editor of the New York Post, Carl Allen, and he
Speaker 1: was the legendary editor in Australia and then here um,
Speaker 1: and he at the end of his tenure, he said
Speaker 1: to me, why don't you come over and just come
Speaker 1: over for eighteen months covered the election and that was
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. So I came here in and
Speaker 1: basically the post minister. So we've been here ever since. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: first of all, Australia, and this is a stupid American question.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be married and unless my wife leaves me
Speaker 1: in the next year, which is always possible. Um, we're
Speaker 1: gonna hit twenty years. We've got three boys. Everything else.
Speaker 1: Before we even dive into the New York Post story,
Speaker 1: if I were going to Australia for two weeks and
Speaker 1: I was taking my family fourteen twelve, eight, three boys,
Speaker 1: where would you say you should fly into Where would
Speaker 1: you say you absolutely have to see? Like if I
Speaker 1: had two weeks to go to Australia because I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about taking my wife on our twentieth wedding anniversary and
Speaker 1: I've always wanted to go, I've never been, what would
Speaker 1: you say as an Australian to me an American who's
Speaker 1: never been before, you absolutely have to see this well,
Speaker 1: I'm biased because the city that I've spent the most
Speaker 1: time in his Sydney, and it's absolutely beautiful. Um. But
Speaker 1: with your kids, I would definitely take them up to Queensland,
Speaker 1: to the Gold Coast. There are a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: sort of Disney World Star style placed absolutely stunning beaches. Um.
Speaker 1: And then you can go further north and into some
Speaker 1: pretty wild sort of crocodile country and meet some aboriginals
Speaker 1: and um, and you know, go into sort of out
Speaker 1: back Australia, which is pretty cool. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: could get onto a station and out back station, um,
Speaker 1: you know, a huge like a huge cattle ranch sort
Speaker 1: of thing, but we're probably cheap, um, that would be
Speaker 1: an amazing experience. But I would also say, if you've
Speaker 1: got two weeks, you should, um explore the region. So
Speaker 1: go to New Zealand go to a place called Queenstown,
Speaker 1: which is just absolutely spectacularly beautiful. Um. So yeah's my advice.
Speaker 1: All right, that's on my that's on my list. I
Speaker 1: literally jotted all of that down as you were talking.
Speaker 1: I bet there's a lot of other Americans who similarly
Speaker 1: would love to take a trip to Australia and also
Speaker 1: maybe New Zealand, although it's been so crazy during COVID
Speaker 1: in both places that kind of turned me off a
Speaker 1: little bit. UM. But I want to now dive into
Speaker 1: So you come to the United States in UH to
Speaker 1: work at the New York Post. We know, and this
Speaker 1: is kind of putting the time frame out there, and
Speaker 1: it certainly jump in and correct me if at any
Speaker 1: point I'm wrong. In December of the Joe Biden son,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's laptop is turned over to the FBI. Right
Speaker 1: the John Paul, the laptop repairman, says that Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: he thinks he's not gonna have great vision, shows up
Speaker 1: with this laptop, turns it into him to get repaired. UH.
Speaker 1: And while it is there it is UH. He comes
Speaker 1: and becomes aware of what's on this laptop, contacts the
Speaker 1: FBI after Hunter Biden doesn't show up, doesn't pay for it,
Speaker 1: doesn't come back to reclaim it, and shares it with
Speaker 1: the FBI. In December, you become aware that this laptop exists,
Speaker 1: allegedly exists, let's say at the time. When when do
Speaker 1: you first become aware, Hey, this thing is out there.
Speaker 1: Not until the beginning of October when I got a
Speaker 1: series of text messages from Rudy Giuliani's lawyer Bob Costello,
Speaker 1: and uh Rudy Giuliani had been UM sent them the
Speaker 1: sort of hard drive, the copy of the laptop UM
Speaker 1: in August. So um this this is now nine months
Speaker 1: after John Paul mac Isaac has handed over the device
Speaker 1: the laptop to the FBI, but very cleverly kept a
Speaker 1: copy of it. UM and he only contacted the FBI
Speaker 1: eight months after U Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop at
Speaker 1: his store and it became his his legal property. And
Speaker 1: so I get this text message late at night. I've
Speaker 1: been talking to Rudy as soon as I came to
Speaker 1: New York. I cultivated Ruddy Juliani because well because I
Speaker 1: knew of his proximity to Donald Trump and that he
Speaker 1: knows everybody in New York. But also I had lived
Speaker 1: here back in the the you know, the bat old
Speaker 1: eighties with my parents, when New York was just a hellhole,
Speaker 1: and so I had a huge amount of respect for
Speaker 1: what he had done to clean up the city. So
Speaker 1: to me, he was an icon of New York. And
Speaker 1: I was going to work for the New York Post.
Speaker 1: I wanted to become his friends. So I was sort
Speaker 1: of doing that, and he now was trusting me and
Speaker 1: given the interviews and so on, and so, um, I
Speaker 1: think I was top of mind when they had had
Speaker 1: some difficulty. That's a long story, but you know, they
Speaker 1: had contacted a send of mine at the New York
Speaker 1: Post earlier and she'd um she didn't have a copy
Speaker 1: of the hard drive, but she had been working on it.
Speaker 1: But the whole project to hit a sort of legal
Speaker 1: stumbling point, and so I think Rudy Giuliani and Bob
Speaker 1: Costello wanted it to go to the Post, but um,
Speaker 1: they were just they come to the end of their
Speaker 1: tether because it was now so close to the election,
Speaker 1: was a month before the elections, so they were going
Speaker 1: to hand it over to the Daily Mail or some
Speaker 1: other organization. And at the last minute, Rudy Giuliani said
Speaker 1: to Bob just try him around it. So he tried
Speaker 1: me late one night, and I loved it, and and
Speaker 1: you know, spent some time the next day talking to
Speaker 1: both of them about it and resolved that this was
Speaker 1: kind of above my pay grade. So I uh sent
Speaker 1: some of the information and talked to my editor in
Speaker 1: chief Kyle Allen, the Australian editor that I had that
Speaker 1: I had this very good, long standing relationship with, so
Speaker 1: it was a mutual trust situation and he immediately saw
Speaker 1: what a you know what, what potential there was in
Speaker 1: this story. So he just put his all the best
Speaker 1: journalists in the newsroom onto um tracking it down. We
Speaker 1: sent someone down to Delaware to interview jump On mac
Speaker 1: Isaac and it was all systems go, and within five
Speaker 1: or six days, UM we had the first story up
Speaker 1: and running. Okay, so you have been doing journalism for
Speaker 1: a while. Every journalist has to have in some way
Speaker 1: a bullshit detector, right, for lack of a better way
Speaker 1: of describing it, because you've probably over the years been
Speaker 1: pitched all sorts of fantastical. This is the once in
Speaker 1: a lifetime story. This is incredibly compelling, and probably over
Speaker 1: time you do some research and you're like, okay, this
Speaker 1: isn't as it was initially conveyed to me. When did
Speaker 1: you start to look at the documents yourself and say,
Speaker 1: holy crap, this is a monster story. The data is
Speaker 1: just voluminous of Hunter Biden, this being officially his laptop,
Speaker 1: the videos, the pictures, everything else. Because in the back
Speaker 1: of your mind. You had to know that the Biden
Speaker 1: team was never going to be like, yeah, you know what,
Speaker 1: you caught us red handed? Kind of take me through
Speaker 1: that process in your mind of hey, this thing exists,
Speaker 1: but could it really be real? And working your way
Speaker 1: towards your own determination of the documents. Yeah, well, you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right, Clay that you know, after three decades or
Speaker 1: more in journalism, I've wasted so much time when I
Speaker 1: was younger in um you know, being a little too
Speaker 1: or not skeptical enough. You know, people come to you
Speaker 1: with their stories and voluminous documents, and I've wasted so
Speaker 1: much time until I find out at the end that
Speaker 1: you know, it's just not worth a story. Um So,
Speaker 1: I now, you know, the last ten years or so,
Speaker 1: I just on the side of, um, just ultra skepticism.
Speaker 1: I just anyone comes to me with the story. I
Speaker 1: just admitted it was young. Yeah, sure, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: waste my time on this. I'll have a quick glance
Speaker 1: at it. Um So, you know, of the stuff that
Speaker 1: comes to me, I will just dismiss this was different because,
Speaker 1: um first of all, Rudy Giuliani in the sort of
Speaker 1: a year and a half a couple of years I've
Speaker 1: come to know him. He'd never steered me wrong. Bob
Speaker 1: Costello is an incredibly legitimate person, you know, former assistant
Speaker 1: head of UM Criminal Investigations at the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York, very eminent lawyer, brain like a steel trap. UM.
Speaker 1: So the two of them were very legitimate. The material
Speaker 1: they were showing me, even before I had the laptop,
Speaker 1: UM just checked out, you know, just quick Google sort
Speaker 1: searches of dates and times and photographs and so on,
Speaker 1: just on a very cursory level checked out. UM. And
Speaker 1: then you know, John Paul mac Isaac was a legitimate guy.
Speaker 1: He he um, you know, and as I've come to
Speaker 1: know him, I mean, he's a very genuine person, a
Speaker 1: real patriot. He's a Trump supporter, but that doesn't outlaw
Speaker 1: someone from having an opinion, UM, and and having legitimate material.
Speaker 1: And he was very concerned. The reason he contacted Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani in the end, and after originally contacting the FBI,
Speaker 1: was because he saw the president, President Trump, who he
Speaker 1: voted for, getting raked over the coals over the Ukraine impeachment.
Speaker 1: And he knew that in the laptop there was exculpatory
Speaker 1: evidence about Ukraine, about the rhythma UM, you know, chapter
Speaker 1: and birth. He he did a really good forensic deep
Speaker 1: dive on that, and that was very impressive. I mean
Speaker 1: I had his material, his email that he turned to
Speaker 1: Bob Costello initially in August, which really, I mean even
Speaker 1: today stands the test of time. He pulled out of
Speaker 1: that laptop three of the most crucial documents UM and
Speaker 1: narratives to do with Ukraine that are as danning today
Speaker 1: or you've probably more than they were then. So all
Speaker 1: of this again, you know, we then UM uh you know,
Speaker 1: other reporters UM, Emma Joe Morris, a terrific journalist fan
Speaker 1: of mine. UM, she did some some excellent kind of
Speaker 1: a due diligence UM, and other journalists that we had
Speaker 1: did as well. UM. And so we were very confident
Speaker 1: with those first UM, that first week of stories that
Speaker 1: the emails UM that we were referring to were legitimate. UM.
Speaker 1: And then you know, I get a chance to actually
Speaker 1: do it, a longer, deeper dive in it, and I
Speaker 1: end up talking to Oh, sorry, from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: I also had UM. I forgot to other UM tiny
Speaker 1: Bob Lynsky's UM material, all his that he had handed
Speaker 1: over to the FBI. I came into UM possession of
Speaker 1: that early on, so I was able to cross match
Speaker 1: the emails that came from UH. You know that really
Speaker 1: that Tony bob Lynsky and Hunter Biden had in common.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, Tony bob Lynsky had WhatsApp messages,
Speaker 1: UM and other documents that sort of butterst and augmented
Speaker 1: what was on the laptop. And then you know, obviously
Speaker 1: talking to Tony bob Lynsky and other people who were
Speaker 1: recipients of those emails, it just was just incontrovertible. This
Speaker 1: was a legitimate UM laptop. This was Hunter Biden's laptop.
Speaker 1: On top of that, you know, the night before we
Speaker 1: published Octo, the night before we had contacted that earlier
Speaker 1: that day UM Hunter Biden by his lawyer George Musir,
Speaker 1: and UM that evening, UM John Paul maciaac gets the
Speaker 1: phone call from George Musir. We know it was George
Speaker 1: Musir because John Paul mc guys like in his computer shop,
Speaker 1: had the presence of mind to say, look, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you are who you say you are. Can
Speaker 1: you please send me an email and your work email,
Speaker 1: so then I know you're actually had to bind lawyer
Speaker 1: to just verify who you are. George Musir did that.
Speaker 1: And what George Muz asked jump On mac Isaac for
Speaker 1: was he said, I understand that you have a computer
Speaker 1: belonging to my client, UM, and we like to have
Speaker 1: it back. So you know, they were just it wasn't
Speaker 1: like one bombshell. It was just a thousand points of light.
Speaker 1: With any of these UM, it's material. We have vast
Speaker 1: trobes of documents. UM. There's always, you know, countless ways
Speaker 1: that you verify it, and I've just told you a
Speaker 1: few of them. And now you know, I wrote a
Speaker 1: book on it, and I've spent now over two years
Speaker 1: um in depth looking at it. And there's not one
Speaker 1: l element of this, this this laptop that I have
Speaker 1: published or investigated that has not come out to be
Speaker 1: completely legitimate. And of course the fact that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden never never denied that this was Hunter's laptop,
Speaker 1: and Hunter said, I could be in my laptop. You know,
Speaker 1: I might have lost it, so I might have stolen it.
Speaker 1: They've never denied it. They've never denied outrite any of
Speaker 1: the information on it. And in fact, Joe Biden halfway
Speaker 1: through I had the first story that we wrote from
Speaker 1: the laptop was on that October fourteen story was an
Speaker 1: email that was Hunter Biden's Ukrainian paymaster who was paying
Speaker 1: him a million dollars a year, thanked him and his
Speaker 1: email for introducing him to his father in Washington did
Speaker 1: and that was when Joe Biden was Vice president. And
Speaker 1: I managed to find that sorry game, and so I
Speaker 1: managed to find later on as I went further and
Speaker 1: further into the laptop. But this wasn't just any old meeting.
Speaker 1: This was a dinner that Hunter Biden had organized in
Speaker 1: April for his father, then the Vice president, to meet
Speaker 1: his clients, prospective benefactors from the Ukraine but also from
Speaker 1: Russia and Kazakhstan. And he organized this dinner at a
Speaker 1: Georgetown restaurant called Cafe Milano. And you know, so many
Speaker 1: emails and he says, I'll ostensibly this is supposed to
Speaker 1: be about, you know what, the World Food program that
Speaker 1: he's involved with. That don't you know my dad's coming.
Speaker 1: Don't show anyone um And you know they denied that
Speaker 1: this meeting ever happened. And then halfway through I published
Speaker 1: the story about the Cafe Milano, and the Washington Post
Speaker 1: decides that they're going to prospect check me Glenn Kistler,
Speaker 1: and lo and behold, Glenn Kissler finds out that actually
Speaker 1: the White House admits that Joe did go to the dinner,
Speaker 1: but that he you know, didn't go for any nesarious
Speaker 1: purpose and only stayed a short time, which is not true.
Speaker 1: He stayed with the entire you know, I'm told by
Speaker 1: people who were there, stayed for the entire you know,
Speaker 1: just didn't drink. Fox Sports Radio has the best sports
Speaker 1: talk lineup in the nation. Catch all of our shows
Speaker 1: at Fox Sports Radio dot com and within the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app search f s R to listen live. Okay,
Speaker 1: I love all of this. I want to dive into
Speaker 1: the timeline. If we couldn't, We're talking to Miranda Divine.
Speaker 1: I'm Clay Travis. This is Wins and Losses, a deep
Speaker 1: dive into the New York Post story on Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and how it came to pass and the
Speaker 1: reaction to it. And my idea, by the way, for
Speaker 1: everybody out there listening, is so many of these details
Speaker 1: You may have come on to this story a year in,
Speaker 1: you might have come in two years. A lot of
Speaker 1: people out there are still trying to catch up. And
Speaker 1: I told you before we started recording, Miranda, it's like
Speaker 1: a television series that you might suddenly have watched an
Speaker 1: episode of in year three and you're like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is interesting, but you don't really know the background upon
Speaker 1: which it's based. So my idea is to kind of
Speaker 1: ground this inner reality, to get the timeline everybody understand it.
Speaker 1: So you published the first story is in October four, Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: all hell breaks loose. I want to go into all
Speaker 1: hell breaking loose as you published, but I also want
Speaker 1: to contextualize a couple of things that we now know
Speaker 1: that are very important. The FBI was at the time,
Speaker 1: uh surveiling Rudy Giuliani. So not only did the FBI
Speaker 1: have the Hunter Biden laptop since December of when it
Speaker 1: was handed over to them by John Paul Maciaac, but
Speaker 1: also they were surveilling Rudy Giuliani, so in theory, they
Speaker 1: were aware of everyone in the media that he was
Speaker 1: talking to. And as point of fact, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: you've seen this as the Twitter documents have come out.
Speaker 1: The FBI actually conducted a briefing basically the night before
Speaker 1: this story was coming out, while saying there may be
Speaker 1: some Russian disinformation coming out to seed in the Twitter
Speaker 1: in the Facebook sphere. We've seen Mark Zuckerberg come out
Speaker 1: and talk about these briefings. We've seen the actual documents
Speaker 1: from inside Twitter. Did you have any clue that the
Speaker 1: FBI had at the time Rudy Giuliani under surveillance and
Speaker 1: was in theory aware of the communication that you were
Speaker 1: engaging with Rudy Giuliani. Presumably they would have heard you
Speaker 1: and or seen your interaction with him in some way
Speaker 1: with him under surveillance. Did you know about any of
Speaker 1: that at the time. I had no idea, And now
Speaker 1: that did Rudy. Rudy Giuliani. This was a COVID surveillance
Speaker 1: warrant um and the FBI was basically spying on his cloud,
Speaker 1: so they had access to all his emails and messages
Speaker 1: at that time for about two years. I mean they
Speaker 1: started when he became President Trump's um private lawyer. Whether
Speaker 1: or not they were really using Rudy Giuliani and now
Speaker 1: and sorry, sorry to cut you off, Miranda would they
Speaker 1: have been phone tapping him as well to hear conversations
Speaker 1: or to your knowledge? Was this just like, hey, they're
Speaker 1: getting every text message for in theory and email that
Speaker 1: he would have been sending. Do you know I believe
Speaker 1: it was just a cloud. Um. I think it's quite
Speaker 1: easy for the FBI now to just send messages to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the Apple or whoever to get access to
Speaker 1: people's because yeah, okay, that's interesting. Does that make you
Speaker 1: feel as a journalist, as someone who was reporting on
Speaker 1: a presidential election? I just want to focus on that
Speaker 1: for a moment, like that feels insanely dirty to me,
Speaker 1: because they have sense we should mention this too. Found
Speaker 1: out that Rudy Giuliani violated no law, and they have said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're not bringing any charges. So they got a wire
Speaker 1: tap potentially. I think it's fair to say under unsavory
Speaker 1: UH conditions, investigated him, determined that he was doing nothing wrong,
Speaker 1: and in theory, I'm presuming you would have been texting
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giuliani and emailing, right, so they were able
Speaker 1: to then keep trapped tabs on you and any other
Speaker 1: journalists that he was talking to. Does that make you
Speaker 1: feel dirty that the United States government was able to
Speaker 1: be basically snooping into all of your communications, especially when
Speaker 1: you're a journalist trying to get a truthful story out.
Speaker 1: Oh for sure. But I mean, I guess you know,
Speaker 1: most of the sources that I speak to, um, you know,
Speaker 1: for a long time now we just assume that someone's
Speaker 1: listening in its unparanoid, but we use encrypto app um
Speaker 1: and talking so um. You know, I think Brilly Juniorani
Speaker 1: was always very careful about what he said. He's just
Speaker 1: not someone who really um writes a lot on text
Speaker 1: and neither way. I guess it makes you want to
Speaker 1: just meet face to face almost right, so that in
Speaker 1: theory you can you can talk open. How crazy is
Speaker 1: that that you have to be concerned about the FBI
Speaker 1: as a journalist, that you have to be concerned about
Speaker 1: the FBI snooping on you such that you want to
Speaker 1: meet in person as opposed to even engaging in a
Speaker 1: phone conversation. Well, it's crazy, but we've seen that the
Speaker 1: FBI have been raiding journalists rating lawyers um that you know,
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege means nothing, um, journalistic sources meant nothing.
Speaker 1: They rated Project veritas and took all their their phones
Speaker 1: with all their confidential sources. Uh, there's just doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be any restrictions there are, there are no tabooze anymore. Um.
Speaker 1: So look, what we know is that Rudy Giuliani was
Speaker 1: under I call it false pretenses. He was under surveillance.
Speaker 1: He his house was raided, his home and his office
Speaker 1: were raided. I think it was all his devices were seized.
Speaker 1: And then quietly two years later, more than two years later,
Speaker 1: two and a half years later, they returned all his
Speaker 1: devices and they just, um, you know, said that there
Speaker 1: were no no charges. This he was being looked at
Speaker 1: by the FBI over Foreign Agent Registration Act violations or
Speaker 1: alleged violations, which they found there weren't any violations. But
Speaker 1: ironically that's the exact same violations that Hunter bidens being
Speaker 1: looked at by their Delaware U. S. Attorney. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so Rudy Giuliani, we know he's under surveillance during the
Speaker 1: time that I was speaking to him, but more importantly,
Speaker 1: in August of he was under surveillanced by the FBI.
Speaker 1: When John Paul maciasac sent that initial very voluminous and
Speaker 1: detailed email to him with screenshots from the laptop talking
Speaker 1: about Ukraine and his concerns about national security. So the
Speaker 1: FBI had that say, well, I don't know if they
Speaker 1: had it. I mean, maybe they're lazy and they had
Speaker 1: the surveillance warrant and didn't see it. So I can't
Speaker 1: I can't definitively say that the FBI saw that email,
Speaker 1: but they certainly had access to it because they were
Speaker 1: spying on Rudy. They would have also had access to
Speaker 1: my messages with Rudy. One in particular. Most of them
Speaker 1: were pretty anodyne, but one of them in particular would
Speaker 1: have tipped them off that The New York Post was
Speaker 1: going to publish. So um and and you know, the
Speaker 1: FBI had had the laptop since December. They had interviewed
Speaker 1: John Pool mac Isaac twice. They knew he was a
Speaker 1: legitimate guy. Um. They they pretty only had done some
Speaker 1: research on him. They knew that what was on the
Speaker 1: laptop was genuine, and they had buried it. We now
Speaker 1: know from FBI whistleblowers who came forward to Chuck Grasley
Speaker 1: and Ron Johnson that they that there were there were
Speaker 1: people within the FBI, within the Washington Field office, who
Speaker 1: buried anything to do with the Hunter Biden laptop or
Speaker 1: anything to do any any information that was deroctory about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden for Inston's including Hunter Biden's former business partner
Speaker 1: Tony Bobolynsky, who I mentioned before, who who I had
Speaker 1: all his material. He had come forward to the FBI
Speaker 1: a week or so before the election voluntarily handed over
Speaker 1: the contents of his phone which I had, and also
Speaker 1: um he had a five and a half hour interview
Speaker 1: with them and told them about his concerns about the
Speaker 1: influenced peddling um operation that Joe Biden and his son
Speaker 1: and his brother Jim Biden had been carrying on to
Speaker 1: do with China, because Tony bob Lynsky was involved in
Speaker 1: the China deals. And so the FBI, also we know
Speaker 1: from whistleblowers, buried that, Okay, and and they start to
Speaker 1: cut you off. I'm gonna get into that in a second,
Speaker 1: but just to me, the essence of the question here, Miranda,
Speaker 1: and you've laid it out, but I just kind of
Speaker 1: want to sum it up is the FBI had had
Speaker 1: this laptop since December. They knew that it was real
Speaker 1: based on talking to John Paul mciaac just based on
Speaker 1: the voluminous degree of incriminating behavior and just also specific behavior.
Speaker 1: This couldn't have the pictures, the video like it couldn't
Speaker 1: have been made up, all right? I mean and and again, Uh,
Speaker 1: they knew that it was real from December. They are
Speaker 1: they then have trumped up charges basically to be able
Speaker 1: to surveill Rudy Giuliani. As a result, they know that
Speaker 1: your New York Post story is coming out. They are
Speaker 1: telling all of the big tech companies, Hey, Russian disinformation
Speaker 1: is coming out. So I'm curious how you would analyze
Speaker 1: this someone at the FBI. It's possible, right that these
Speaker 1: lower level FBI people who are giving these uh sermons
Speaker 1: to the big tech companies about Russian disinformation, they may
Speaker 1: not have known there there there's a possibility there's different
Speaker 1: investigations going on and they didn't know about the laptop
Speaker 1: or the specifics of it. Let's give them a little
Speaker 1: bit of benefit of the doubt here. But someone at
Speaker 1: the FBI, maybe it's Christopher Ray, someone certainly at the
Speaker 1: very apex of the FBI knew this laptop was real
Speaker 1: and allowed a false information campaign to be waged against
Speaker 1: your New York Post story. To me, that's the essence
Speaker 1: of this question. Who ordered that code read? Who knew
Speaker 1: the laptop was real and then used every asset they could,
Speaker 1: including the FBI itself, to protect Joe Biden Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: from this truth to coming out. Is that kind of
Speaker 1: to me? That's the essence of this story right now,
Speaker 1: as all of this information has come out, somebody at
Speaker 1: the FBI knew this was real and prevented the truth
Speaker 1: from coming out. Who was that? That's the crux of
Speaker 1: this story to me, that's the sixty four dollar question.
Speaker 1: And like Watergate, the cover up by the FBI inclusion
Speaker 1: with the social media companies and probably the CIA or
Speaker 1: former CIA operatives, uh they they were involved in bearing
Speaker 1: this story. The cover up is worse than even the
Speaker 1: corruption that we've uncovered from the Biden family and the FBI.
Speaker 1: UM basically had warned Twitter and Facebook during the weekly
Speaker 1: meetings before the election to expect hack and leak operations
Speaker 1: by Russia, and Twitter was warned that they would probably
Speaker 1: involve Hunter Biden and probably happen will likely happened in October.
Speaker 1: Facebook was told UM warned, we know from Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: talking to Joe rogan Um was warned also to be
Speaker 1: on high Lerk for a dump pro Russian propaganda in
Speaker 1: October before. And that's why I think this is so important, Miranda,
Speaker 1: because I understand why people are angry at Twitter and Facebook.
Speaker 1: But if you were a mid level employee at Twitter
Speaker 1: and Facebook and your FBI came to you and said, hey,
Speaker 1: we know based on our investigation that Russian dis info
Speaker 1: is coming based on allegations surrounding Hunter Biden and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden in their relationship, there's going to be doctor documents
Speaker 1: and everything else. When your story dropped, they would have
Speaker 1: seen this and said, oh my goodness, this is exactly
Speaker 1: what we've been warned about, which is why the nefarious
Speaker 1: actions of the f e I are so galling, because
Speaker 1: they took advantage of I really think they played Facebook
Speaker 1: and Twitter for fools. But also, if I'm putting myself
Speaker 1: in this position, Miranda, if I had been twenty eight
Speaker 1: or thirty two and I'm a mid level employee at
Speaker 1: Twitter and the FBI is sharing this information with me,
Speaker 1: and they've already seeded this idea of your democracies in
Speaker 1: peril because of Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani and everybody else. Like,
Speaker 1: you can see why they reacted the way that they
Speaker 1: did right now. I mean, it's easy to make them villains,
Speaker 1: but I think the FBI is a supreme arch villain here,
Speaker 1: and really Twitter and Facebook were just stooges getting played. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you can say that, particularly when Twitter had
Speaker 1: as its deputy general counsel a guy called James Baker,
Speaker 1: who had seen the General counsel, which is top lawyer
Speaker 1: at the FBI during all the Russia collusion hoax stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, he was front and sent. He he was
Speaker 1: the guy who drafted the memo for James Comey about
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. He was the one who brought in the
Speaker 1: Alpha Bank nonsense and all the other sort of nonsense
Speaker 1: stuff that turned out to be false, the Steel glossier,
Speaker 1: and someone about about Donald Trump being a Russian asset. Um.
Speaker 1: That was James Baker. He's a you know, a dirty player,
Speaker 1: and he somehow he gets basically has to resign from
Speaker 1: the FBI and low and behold about a year before
Speaker 1: the election or lest he shows up at Twitter as
Speaker 1: their number two lawyer. And he was, we know now
Speaker 1: from the Twitter files, instrumental in getting Twitter to censor
Speaker 1: The New York Post after we published our first story
Speaker 1: on the Hunter Biden laptop and lock the New York Post.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I want to go to next So October
Speaker 1: the story breaks. I'm sure you were expecting it to
Speaker 1: be a bombshell, but all hell broke loose, even in
Speaker 1: a way that I don't think you would have anticipated.
Speaker 1: What was that experience like to have that story happened,
Speaker 1: and then the results and maybe tell people who weren't
Speaker 1: necessarily following this minute by minute what happened to The
Speaker 1: New York Post when the story comes out to you?
Speaker 1: To everyone involved in this story, well, we knew it
Speaker 1: was a huge story. We knew that it was incredibly
Speaker 1: damaging to one of the two candidates for president. It
Speaker 1: was three weeks before the election um and so you know,
Speaker 1: it took a lot of dusts for I have to say,
Speaker 1: my top editor to decide to go with it, and
Speaker 1: so we were bracing. We had decided rather than or
Speaker 1: the editors have decided, rather than publishing the night before
Speaker 1: as we normally do, like ten o'clock at night, we
Speaker 1: would hold back and publish in the paper but online
Speaker 1: only at five o'clock in the morning, and immediately journalists
Speaker 1: on Twitter, um, you know, people like Maggie Happerman from
Speaker 1: the New York Times and people from NBC and so on,
Speaker 1: started talking about it and sharing the story because it
Speaker 1: was huge on anyone's standards. This journalistically, this was a
Speaker 1: massive scoop. Suddenly you had um, uh, the actually a
Speaker 1: guy from Facebook who was a former Democratic operative. He
Speaker 1: pops up and he says on Twitter and he says,
Speaker 1: we are um, I can't remember his exact words, but
Speaker 1: throttling or stopping the spread of this story, pending fact checks,
Speaker 1: not going to make any comment, not going to link
Speaker 1: on this story. And then shortly after that, Twitter did
Speaker 1: the same thing, and effectively, I mean they've got all
Speaker 1: sorts of words they used, like producing the the spread
Speaker 1: or something. I don't know what their jargon is, but
Speaker 1: effectively they just censored. They just killed the story. Um
Speaker 1: there and then and you know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: people understand, but with new papers now, so much of
Speaker 1: um what we do is online and it cost us
Speaker 1: a lot of money. The fact that our our you know,
Speaker 1: our story was locked down. Our account was locked for
Speaker 1: over two weeks until a couple of days before the
Speaker 1: election Um, it really for the New York Post, which
Speaker 1: is the country's oldest newspaper, the third largest bicirculation. It
Speaker 1: was just an incredible audacity by these social media giants
Speaker 1: to do this. And we now see from the Twitter
Speaker 1: files the internal communications inside Twitter and some of what
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg told us went on in Facebook. They didn't
Speaker 1: take this lightly. They knew that this was huge, but
Speaker 1: they were massaged into it. The story had already been
Speaker 1: prebunked by the FBI. If that grooming of Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook hadn't been happening in the weeks before our story
Speaker 1: was published, they probably wouldn't have been bold enough to
Speaker 1: censor The New York Post. But because they felt that
Speaker 1: they were operating on FBI instructions, basically to save national
Speaker 1: security against Russian interference with the election. Um, they were
Speaker 1: willing servants of the intelligence community. And there is something
Speaker 1: really dirty about the fact that here was the FBI
Speaker 1: intervening for the second election in a row. Uh and
Speaker 1: and with just completely dishonestly, they knew that our story
Speaker 1: was real. Um, you can't tell me that the people
Speaker 1: who ordered the censorship of The New York Post from
Speaker 1: the FBI did not also know that what we were
Speaker 1: going to write was real, no doubt, And I think
Speaker 1: that's what's so important. A lot of people focus on
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook. Someone at the FBI, maybe a group
Speaker 1: of people at the FBI at the top, again, just
Speaker 1: to reiterate, they knew that your story was coming. They
Speaker 1: had known that your story was coming for some time
Speaker 1: because they had Rudy Giuliani under surveillance and they were
Speaker 1: aware of much of his communications and the fact that
Speaker 1: he was trying to shop this evidence from the laptop,
Speaker 1: which they had been in possession of the FBI themselves
Speaker 1: since December of So all Rudy Giuliani was shopping was
Speaker 1: another version of the information that they already had, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, if John Paul Mike Isaac hadn't made
Speaker 1: a copy of what was on the Hunter Biden laptop,
Speaker 1: no one would have ever believed him about this, right,
Speaker 1: And the FBI would have probably destroyed the laptop and
Speaker 1: never admit that there was anything on there that was
Speaker 1: in any way incriminating. Right. So someone ordered a fix
Speaker 1: in a big way. I think this makes and I'm
Speaker 1: curious what you think, Miranda, And obviously you're involved in
Speaker 1: writing this story. And you've done an incredible job. But
Speaker 1: I've been saying this makes Watergate seemed like jaywalking, right,
Speaker 1: like when you actually consider the complicity involved from the
Speaker 1: f b I and where exactly and how many different
Speaker 1: people were involved in this conspiracy of silence to protect
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and potentially rigged election. I mean it is.
Speaker 1: It is a story the likes of which most of
Speaker 1: the people listening to us right now have never experienced
Speaker 1: in our lifetimes. Yes, and it has the added element
Speaker 1: of the threat national security that Joe Biden's and his
Speaker 1: family's influenced peddling operation had during the eight years that
Speaker 1: he was Vice president and his son and brother were
Speaker 1: running around the world partnering with Chinese Belton road Front
Speaker 1: organizations allied with the Chinese military and military intelligence. And
Speaker 1: also were you know, a hunter was getting paid, as
Speaker 1: I said, three thousand dollars a month from this corrupt
Speaker 1: energy company in Ukraine, UM sitting on their board. And
Speaker 1: you know the only reason that he was getting money
Speaker 1: from any of these people was it was a bribe
Speaker 1: paid to the family of the second most powerful man
Speaker 1: in the world, Joe Biden. And Joe Biden had been
Speaker 1: appointed by Barack Obama to be his point man in
Speaker 1: China and his point man in Ukraine, and both of
Speaker 1: those countries were extremely lucrative to the tune of tens
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars to his family. And you know,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was involved in that. And that's what the
Speaker 1: value of the laptop is, that it shows you how
Speaker 1: much Joe Biden was involved. He met with Hunter Biden's
Speaker 1: overseas business partners. He met them in Beijing, he met
Speaker 1: them in Washington, d C. He invited them to his
Speaker 1: home at the Vice Presidential Residents at the Naval Observatory. Um.
Speaker 1: He met them, as I said, Cafe Milano. He met
Speaker 1: them in his White House office. UM. So he was
Speaker 1: intimately involved. He was described as the big guy and
Speaker 1: one of their emails, who was going to get a
Speaker 1: cut a ten percent cut of one of these Chinese deals? Um.
Speaker 1: Tony Bob o Lynsky, hunter Biden's former business partner, swears
Speaker 1: blind that the big guy is Joe Biden. And that's
Speaker 1: backed up by other material on the laptop. There's so much, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, invoices and bank statements that show you the
Speaker 1: money flow, where it's coming from. The meetings, Joe Biden's involvement. UM.
Speaker 1: And then you have to add to that the Treasury
Speaker 1: Department documents, these so called suspicious activity reports that banks
Speaker 1: are required to file when money that comes through into
Speaker 1: their bank accounts of American citizens comes from a dodgy sources, suspects,
Speaker 1: sources overseas um. And there were you know, dozens of
Speaker 1: those suspicious activity reports filed about the Bidens. And that
Speaker 1: was unveiled by Chuck Chuck Grasley and Ron Johnson when
Speaker 1: they did their incredibly good investigation, which came out in September.
Speaker 1: Before I even knew about the laptop. I read their report,
Speaker 1: their first report, and it was chapter and verse. It
Speaker 1: was like the prelude to the laptop. If you read that,
Speaker 1: then when you saw the laptop, it became clear. This
Speaker 1: was the flesh on the bones that Chuck Grasley and
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson had already put together about the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: corruption and Ukraine and UM. Just as a little side note,
Speaker 1: the FBI also intervened to try and derail and discredit
Speaker 1: um that that Chuck Grasley and Ron Johnson's investigation. In fact,
Speaker 1: when I started writing about it, I was warned off
Speaker 1: and said oh, no, that's Russian disinformation. I was like,
Speaker 1: why it wasn't what didn't seem to me to be so?
Speaker 1: And um, And what Ron Johnson told me was that
Speaker 1: he was amble by the FBI with a bogus defensive briefing,
Speaker 1: um being nothing with August or late August, early September,
Speaker 1: because Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Adam Schiff had complained
Speaker 1: to the FBI that there was some sort of Russian
Speaker 1: disinformation going on that was going to be derogatory about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden in the Johnson Grasley investigation. And if you
Speaker 1: think of the timing, August is when h John Paul
Speaker 1: Maciaac sent that voluminous email to Rudy Giuliani that could
Speaker 1: have seen I believe was intercepted by the FBI. So
Speaker 1: somehow the Democrats panicked around that time and they went
Speaker 1: to the FBI and they said, we need you to
Speaker 1: do something about the Johnson Grasley investigation because it's Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: Johnson gets ambushed by by the FBI walking down the corridor.
Speaker 1: His say, hey, there's a couple of SBI people in
Speaker 1: your office. He goes back, say start talking to him
Speaker 1: about his investigation and people involved in it saying warning
Speaker 1: him that Russia is trying to spread disinformation. He smelled
Speaker 1: a rat immediately, he said, that's not true, and if
Speaker 1: I see this in the media, I'll know that you
Speaker 1: are just setting me up. Sure enough, a day or
Speaker 1: two later, what happened. Story gets leaked to the media
Speaker 1: that the Johnson Gradually investigation has been polluted by Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: We're talking to Miranda Vine New York Post. I mean,
Speaker 1: this to me is just incredibly compelling. And again I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna keep saying. If they actually gave politzeers based
Speaker 1: on real news, then Miranda and her crew at the
Speaker 1: New York Post should get all of them that were
Speaker 1: given out for Russia collusion. They should be rescinded. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you a couple of questions here. Everything
Speaker 1: in these details is the exact same except instead of
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, Donald Trump Jr. Is the one with the laptop.
Speaker 1: How does the media cover it If Donald Trump Junior
Speaker 1: had been accused on a laptop of everything that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden and Joe Biden, it's Donald Trump Junior and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump exact same details. Otherwise, this story has covered how
Speaker 1: in the United States media. It would have been wall
Speaker 1: to wall, just like the Steel dossier, the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: anything um that it would have been true. Unlike those Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: So that's the irony is that they blew up and
Speaker 1: one pullets as the Washington Post and the New York
Speaker 1: Times one pullet surprises for their coverage of the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion hoax, which was proven after a two year investigation
Speaker 1: by Robert Mueller to be completely baseless and seeded by
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's campaign to start with. So it was a
Speaker 1: Democrat dirty tricks campaign that was aided in the by
Speaker 1: you know, shadowy forces within the intelligence agencies. Probably the
Speaker 1: same people covered up our story and covered up the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden laptop, and it would have been everywhere. But
Speaker 1: what we got instead was the opposite. This time, we
Speaker 1: had four days, five days after our their story was published,
Speaker 1: there was this letter up one intelligence officials right who
Speaker 1: say that this is all all Russian disinformation. Yet mostly
Speaker 1: they were former CIA and of course led by John Brennan,
Speaker 1: James Clapper, the usual truspect to perjured themselves in front
Speaker 1: of Congress. Um. And these people, fifty one of them,
Speaker 1: put the weight of their very high. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think there were four or five former CIA directors or
Speaker 1: acting CIA directors, and a whole lot of other very
Speaker 1: high ranking former intelligence officials who should hang their heads
Speaker 1: in shame for putting their name to a scoreless letter
Speaker 1: that dishonestly said that the story that Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: had all the earmarks of a Russian information operation in effect,
Speaker 1: and the way that Politico, which was first leaked that
Speaker 1: letter reported it was that this was a Russian disinformation operation.
Speaker 1: But of course they used weazel words since pretending that
Speaker 1: they weren't trying to convey that impression. Of course they were,
Speaker 1: and it killed the story, um Stone dead in terms
Speaker 1: of the rest of the media following it up. It
Speaker 1: was a very convenient, figly for the media to say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to cover this, it's Russian propaganda and uh.
Speaker 1: And then, of course, a couple of days later you
Speaker 1: had Joe Biden had to appear at that last debate
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump. Bad timing for him, because of course
Speaker 1: Donald Trump bought up the Hunter Biden laptop store in
Speaker 1: his meeting with the Ukrainian paymaster, and Joe Biden um
Speaker 1: just used that letter from the one dirty intelligence operatives
Speaker 1: and said, you know, the intelligence community says that this
Speaker 1: is just a Russian plant, and turned the books back
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump, and he got away with it. It
Speaker 1: got him off the hook. He had gone to ground
Speaker 1: after our story, refused to answer questions hidden the basement, um,
Speaker 1: you know, ran away from any any questions. And after
Speaker 1: that debate, he really was home free. So, Miranda, and
Speaker 1: by the way, the Russian disinformation why, I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: seen some of these reports, and I hope some of
Speaker 1: the people that are listening to us right now are
Speaker 1: finally seeing the light of day. But around fifty pc
Speaker 1: of people up to six I think I saw on
Speaker 1: a recent survey, actually still believe that this hoax, that
Speaker 1: this was a Russian disinformation hoax, and the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: laptop is all made up. How frustrating is it to you,
Speaker 1: not only that that argument was made, but that substantial
Speaker 1: portions of the American population believe that this is all
Speaker 1: a farce, that this entire story is not true. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's incredibly frustrating. I mean, it's very depressing
Speaker 1: for America that that's happening. And it's not just on
Speaker 1: the story it's on COVID, it's on Ukraine, it's on
Speaker 1: all sorts of things. And the reason is because they've
Speaker 1: been propagandized by a completely corrupt establishment media. And I
Speaker 1: count the New York Times, in the Washington Post there,
Speaker 1: but you know also ABC, CBS, VIACOM, UM, CNN and
Speaker 1: the SNBC, etcetera. UM, they have a narrative. They have
Speaker 1: hired as experts, as consultants. UM. These these totally discredited
Speaker 1: deep state people, whether it be Brennan or Clapper or um,
Speaker 1: you know, Peter Strock, Lisa Page. These people are treated
Speaker 1: as heroes on CNN and MSNBC and as experts whose
Speaker 1: whose word is impeccable. In fact, they lied and uh
Speaker 1: and ran a complete propaganda mission. And on top of that,
Speaker 1: you have social media has just clamped down on the
Speaker 1: truth about these stories. So you know, you you have
Speaker 1: at least half the country is ignorant. Um. They only believe,
Speaker 1: they believe everything that they read in the New York
Speaker 1: Times of the Washington Post. Um. And it's not just
Speaker 1: in America. I know, you know from Australia that the
Speaker 1: leading news organizations in Australia, UM, they they rely on
Speaker 1: the reporting from the New York Times. They regard that
Speaker 1: has been gold standard, and so they are completely ignorant
Speaker 1: about what's been going on in America when it comes
Speaker 1: to Russia's collusion, Donald Trump, the Hunter Biden laptop, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's corruption. Uh, they don't really know any of that.
Speaker 1: And that's the same across Europe and the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. I would say, because you're not getting your
Speaker 1: information from social media, and you're not getting it from
Speaker 1: what it regarded internationally as the most credible news sources,
Speaker 1: because the New York Times and so on, resting on
Speaker 1: the laurels of their former reputations. What Miranda, when you
Speaker 1: now they're all suddenly coming out right, CBS, I think
Speaker 1: that a story. I'm sure you kind of just arch
Speaker 1: your eyebrows up and they're like, oh, we did a
Speaker 1: research project and we determined that the Hunter Biden laptop
Speaker 1: is authentic. And then the New York Times they cover it,
Speaker 1: and then Washington Post they all cover it years later.
Speaker 1: Is that validation for you or is it more frustration
Speaker 1: for you when you see these stories being written years
Speaker 1: after you had shared the truth? It's not not really
Speaker 1: I it um, but uh, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: we know it's true. It doesn't matter whether they say
Speaker 1: it is or it isn't. UM. I rolled my eyes
Speaker 1: a bit, but I'm glad that they've come on board.
Speaker 1: But I note always that um, that they're doing it.
Speaker 1: It's it's like a limited hangout. UM. They just put
Speaker 1: out enough information because they know it's coming out anyway.
Speaker 1: They know their readers are starting to ask why don't
Speaker 1: we know about this? It's leaking across the sort of
Speaker 1: iron wall that they've built up between themselves and the truth. UM.
Speaker 1: And they know that Hunter Biden has been under investigation
Speaker 1: since eighteen by the U S Attorney in Delaware. They
Speaker 1: know the Grand Juries Um, you know, has has interviewed
Speaker 1: or had testified various important witnesses, former business partners of
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden and so on. So they know that there's
Speaker 1: going to be a story and a possible indictment out
Speaker 1: of that, and they need to get ahead of the story.
Speaker 1: That's why they've been, um, you know, saying that certain
Speaker 1: limited parts of the laptop are authentic. But they always
Speaker 1: put a boiler plate paragraph down eight or ten pars
Speaker 1: which paragraphs which says, um, you know there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden was involved. Well, that's just not true.
Speaker 1: They now have the laptop. We've published voluminous information and
Speaker 1: it's come from elsewhere of Joe Biden's involvement. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: told the American people during the campaign that he knew
Speaker 1: nothing about his son Hunter's overseas business dealings. Um, that's
Speaker 1: just palpably false. There's evidence that is now on the
Speaker 1: public record of his meeting with you. At least a
Speaker 1: dozen of Hunter Biden's formed the business partners. There's also
Speaker 1: some evidence that I've published that Joe Biden financially benefited
Speaker 1: from Hunter Biden, that they were um, you know, shared
Speaker 1: debit cards, mingled finances, um. And that Hunter was paying
Speaker 1: to some of the bills in Joe's at Joe's mansion,
Speaker 1: you know, the maintenance of a painting, new shutters, new
Speaker 1: air conditioning, and so on, because it's a very expensive
Speaker 1: um estate to maintain. Um. And it was also paying
Speaker 1: for a cell phone for Joe Biden. I only have
Speaker 1: the tip of the iceberg. There's just a little bit
Speaker 1: of information of that in the laptop. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: that the Republican investigators who have access to bank accounts
Speaker 1: and so on. And that's important all that you're sharing there,
Speaker 1: because you actually and the New York Post did not
Speaker 1: cover as much of the sensational uh and ridiculous private
Speaker 1: life of Hunter Biden, right. I mean there's scatters of
Speaker 1: information on that laptop, nude videos, prostitution, the drug use.
Speaker 1: I mean, all of that is very so acious. But
Speaker 1: you guys, by your nature, said, Okay, he's not the
Speaker 1: candidate who's running. What we're really focusing on is Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden and Joe Biden's improper involvement in larger international affairs,
Speaker 1: not on the personal peccadillos of a drug addict son.
Speaker 1: And I think that's important because there is an attack
Speaker 1: sometimes where they say, well, Hunter Biden doesn't have an
Speaker 1: elected office, why should we care about anything with him? Uh,
Speaker 1: And they try to focus on the personal failings. You
Speaker 1: guys specifically avoided trying to sensationalize those. Yeah, we did,
Speaker 1: and deliberately so because I mean a because the evidence
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden was compromised by China, Russia, you know, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: these other countries was so bombshell that the fact that
Speaker 1: his son was a crack addict and you know, spent
Speaker 1: millions of dollars on hookers and uh and drugs was
Speaker 1: kind of irrelevant. I mean, that's a you know, that's
Speaker 1: a salacious story, um, and ordinarily you'd run it. But
Speaker 1: because the corruption angle and the national security angle just
Speaker 1: vastly overwhelmed that, we didn't want to have the two
Speaker 1: stories mixed up. We didn't want people to get distracted
Speaker 1: by the pawn and the hookers and the crack um
Speaker 1: and not see the real story. We ran, um, some
Speaker 1: pictures we ran, you know, obviously a photo a Hunter
Speaker 1: Um with the crack pipe in his mouth asleep, and
Speaker 1: a couple of other things like that, because um, that
Speaker 1: was just showing visually what we had that we had,
Speaker 1: that this was really it's significant in the evidence to
Speaker 1: your point, yes, that it is real, right that these
Speaker 1: are Hunter Biden videos, and that it would be hard
Speaker 1: to fake. And that's why that's important. But you're reporting
Speaker 1: is on the significant nature of Joe Biden's involvement. And
Speaker 1: I think that's so important because you'll get attacked now
Speaker 1: as there is an anowledgement at the laptop is real,
Speaker 1: some people will come out and say, well, why should
Speaker 1: we care about Hunter Biden. He's admitted he was a
Speaker 1: drug addict because of his relationships with foreign countries and
Speaker 1: the way that has implicated his father, the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. Yes, and also the fact that he
Speaker 1: was a crack addict made it even more implausible that
Speaker 1: these foreign countries and these oligarchs would give him tens
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars. He was his life was a
Speaker 1: complete mess during this period. He was incapable of even
Speaker 1: answering emails. For a lot of this. He'd go up
Speaker 1: on vendors, he'd be in rehab, he'd come back and
Speaker 1: be compassed for a little while, and then he'd full
Speaker 1: off the wagon again. So, um, you know his personal life,
Speaker 1: you know his divorce, his affairs, his his his problems
Speaker 1: were immense and so there was no way that he
Speaker 1: was a proper businessman. And uh, you know that was
Speaker 1: important to to make the point as well. But again,
Speaker 1: this is not a story. We never made it a
Speaker 1: story about Hunter Biden. It was always a story about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. And that's something that James Comer, who's the
Speaker 1: chairman of the Oversight Committee now Republican, is always making
Speaker 1: that point that this is about Joe Biden. But it
Speaker 1: is a quite a a successful tactic by I guess
Speaker 1: the Biden apologists to continually push that point that you know,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden isn't running for office under Biden isn't the president.
Speaker 1: You know, why don't you leave him alone? You know,
Speaker 1: he's had a terrible problem with addiction, and he's recovered,
Speaker 1: and you're just tormenting him, and he's a human being
Speaker 1: and so on. No, I mean, I feel sorry for
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, but the fact is his laptop is a
Speaker 1: peep hole into a longstanding corruption problem that the man
Speaker 1: who is now the president has had for over four decades.
Speaker 1: As a very influential center stuff from Delaware, head of
Speaker 1: the Foreign Relations Committee duchess by China in his very
Speaker 1: earliest days back in the seventies, he was um, you know,
Speaker 1: pinpointed by the Chinese Communist Party as a as a
Speaker 1: likely ally. They invited him to China. Was one of
Speaker 1: the first delegations to go over there. He went to
Speaker 1: the equivalent of Martha's vineyards. He came back. He was
Speaker 1: so embarrassing in his effusive praise of China that the
Speaker 1: Weekly Standard at the time just made a mockery of him.
Speaker 1: Uh and and as a Senator Um. He was instrumental
Speaker 1: during the Clinton years in getting his reluctant Democrat colleagues
Speaker 1: to agree to China joining the World Trade Organization. I
Speaker 1: think it was in near two thousand one, and that
Speaker 1: had a really terrible effect on the American working class,
Speaker 1: from American manufacturing on on the American center at which
Speaker 1: lasts obviously to this day. So that was Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And he's always carried water for China, boasted always about
Speaker 1: his hours of face to face time with President Jujuing
Speaker 1: ping Um. And so I just I just think that
Speaker 1: that story is terrifying for America. And we know now
Speaker 1: right to this present day, the classified documents scandal revolving
Speaker 1: around Joe Biden now links uh and I think this
Speaker 1: is why he's been so panicky. It links him to
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden investigation that's been going on in Delaware, because, um,
Speaker 1: there there are there are items in that laptop that
Speaker 1: could well appear to be only could have come from
Speaker 1: classified information. And I'm not going to go too far
Speaker 1: with that because I don't know for sure, but I've
Speaker 1: published this week an email from the laptop that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden had written to his business partner Devon Archer UM,
Speaker 1: and it was an uncharacteristic email. It was very long,
Speaker 1: it was very detail, very informed. UM. It listed twenty
Speaker 1: two points about Ukraine's political situation and had detailed information
Speaker 1: geo political strategic information predicting an escalation of Rush's destabilation.
Speaker 1: Destabilization came bang talking about you know, natural gas, what
Speaker 1: will happen with energy prices in the UK, etcetera. And
Speaker 1: that all comes to the fore when you know, UM
Speaker 1: that in that first tranche of classified documents discovered at
Speaker 1: the University of Pennsylvania in Joe Biden's office. UM, we're
Speaker 1: told by sources who told CNN that those related to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: to the United Kingdom and to Iran. And so two
Speaker 1: of those trees are mentioned in this uh. You know
Speaker 1: this this email that stands out because it's unlike anything
Speaker 1: that Hunter Biden has written in the nine years of
Speaker 1: this UM this laptop. It coincides with he's just about
Speaker 1: to join the Barisma board, as Devon Archer is, and
Speaker 1: his father is just about days away from going on
Speaker 1: his first trip to or an early trip to the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and presumably Joe Biden got a classified briefing on the
Speaker 1: situation in Ukraine before he went and Hunters email to
Speaker 1: Devon Archer has a distinct flavor on an official briefing
Speaker 1: and maybe even a classified briefing. Fox Sports Radio has
Speaker 1: the best sports talk lineup in the nation. Catch all
Speaker 1: of our shows at Fox Sports Radio dot com and
Speaker 1: within the I Heart Radio app. Search f s are
Speaker 1: to listen live. Miranda Divine is with us. I'm Clay Travis.
Speaker 1: This is wins and Losses. You have a master of journalism.
Speaker 1: You've been in journalism for decades. What does it say
Speaker 1: about the state of United States journalism that the New
Speaker 1: York Times and the Washington Post. Let's use those two
Speaker 1: for example, because they consider themselves to be the paragon
Speaker 1: of the journalistic establishment. You've referred to both here. They
Speaker 1: put democracy dyes in darkness at the top of the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. For God's sakes. When Donald Trump was elected,
Speaker 1: the New York Times all the news that's fit to print.
Speaker 1: What does it say about those two lions of the
Speaker 1: liberal establishment that they wouldn't cover this story, that they
Speaker 1: would consider this to be unworthy of contemplation by their
Speaker 1: audience in the lead up to a election. Well, I
Speaker 1: think it tells you that they have been thoroughly corrupted. UM.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean people will say, well, of
Speaker 1: course she's going to say that because their arrivals. But
Speaker 1: I think any fair assessment of the way that they
Speaker 1: have handled themselves since at least since Donald Trump came
Speaker 1: on the scene, UM publishing false stories, publishing anonymous anonymously
Speaker 1: sourced from obviously intelligence sources that were planting misinformation, disinformation. UM.
Speaker 1: They have they have swallowed hook line and sinker that
Speaker 1: the whole far left cultural ideology. But they've also obviously
Speaker 1: there's been a decision made to UM to just fall
Speaker 1: in and lose their skepticism when it comes to any
Speaker 1: dirt that they were provided when it came to Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and then become pure as the driven snow, and very
Speaker 1: skeptical when it comes to any information that's derogatory about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, even if that information is backed up a
Speaker 1: thousand different ways. They have never done a proper investigation
Speaker 1: of the laptop. Never. The Washington Post talks about having
Speaker 1: authenticated some of it, but even then, the copy of
Speaker 1: the hard drive that they have came through a very
Speaker 1: suspect avenue. It cannot suspect, but it came from. It
Speaker 1: didn't come direct They didn't get one directly from John
Speaker 1: Paul Maciaac. They got a copy of the hard drive
Speaker 1: that had gone through several hands to do with a
Speaker 1: guy called Jack Maxie and who you know, and people
Speaker 1: who people who had copied it and added things to it,
Speaker 1: and you know, and that gives the Washington Post um
Speaker 1: a sort of get out of jail free card because
Speaker 1: they can say, well, you know, the chain of custody
Speaker 1: on and this isn't very good because the hard drive
Speaker 1: that they've chosen to base their reporting on is not
Speaker 1: the snow white, crystal clear original hard drive that John
Speaker 1: Paul mac Isaac gave us. And so it's almost like
Speaker 1: they're setting themselves up with a sort of a back
Speaker 1: door to get away with it. It just seems otherwise
Speaker 1: it's just incredibly sloppy reporting, because John Paul Maciaac would
Speaker 1: have given them a copy. Um and jomp On mac
Speaker 1: Isaac's now written a book. He's put in there a
Speaker 1: lot of detail about um, you know, his interactions with
Speaker 1: the FBI, and some of that's quite sinister. Now. When
Speaker 1: he told me about how he felt that the FBI
Speaker 1: agents who came and took the laptop and a copy
Speaker 1: of the hard drive from him back in December twenty nine.
Speaker 1: He felt that they were threatening him or warning him
Speaker 1: to keep his mouth shut. And I thought, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: he's he's just a bit paranoid, as a lot of
Speaker 1: whistleblowers are, because they get scared and they haven't been
Speaker 1: haven't dealt with law enforcement before, and and they get
Speaker 1: frightened and um, and they've seen too many movies. So
Speaker 1: that's what I thought, So I dismissed. I didn't him
Speaker 1: write what he said. UM, But with the benefit of
Speaker 1: hindsight now and now seeing from the whistleblowers from the
Speaker 1: would have filed um just how dirty the elements of
Speaker 1: the FBI were, certainly the Washington Field office. I now
Speaker 1: really believe that he his his instincts were right, because
Speaker 1: when those FBI agents were leaving him with the laptop,
Speaker 1: one of them turned and said to him, in our experience,
Speaker 1: nothing bad happens to people who don't talk, and he
Speaker 1: just that just disquieted him, And as he thought about it,
Speaker 1: he thought, well, that was a warning for me not
Speaker 1: to talk. And I think they thought that he wouldn't talk.
Speaker 1: And because they took the laptop, but plus the hard
Speaker 1: drive that he'd made a copy of. They must have
Speaker 1: thought that that was it, that they had everything. They
Speaker 1: didn't realize he'd made another copy. Because he made a copy, Miranda,
Speaker 1: they would have buried the story and claimed that this
Speaker 1: laptop basically never existed exactly, because that's what they've done.
Speaker 1: We haven't heard from the laptop. When I think it
Speaker 1: was Senator Grassley or another senator asked, um, someone at
Speaker 1: the FBI in a hearing under oath, where is the laptop?
Speaker 1: They couldn't answer. Um. They they have. They have effectively
Speaker 1: canceled the laptop. They've canceled Tony Bobolynski. Tony Bobolynsky, you
Speaker 1: would think would be a prime witness for the grand
Speaker 1: jury that's going on in Delaware looking at Hunter Biden's services,
Speaker 1: business dealings, and Um, he knew all about the China,
Speaker 1: one of these China deals, and that he's never been subpoena,
Speaker 1: he's never been called as a witch. It's crazy, Uh, Miranda.
Speaker 1: You mentioned John Paul Maciaac being feared for his safety.
Speaker 1: Have you feared for your safety at all during the
Speaker 1: reporting on this laptop? Um, Look, it's it's run through
Speaker 1: my mind, but you know, I don't. I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not too worried. No, but who knows. You're not suicidal.
Speaker 1: You're not contemplating death, by the way, for everybody out
Speaker 1: there listening right now. Correct, No, exactly exactly. You're not
Speaker 1: planning on jumping off a bridge. You're not planning on
Speaker 1: on vanishing for everybody out there. You're you're of sound mind, exactly.
Speaker 1: And I think there's so much of the story out
Speaker 1: now that it's impossible to put the genie back in
Speaker 1: the bottle. So it wouldn't really serve anyone. Uh any
Speaker 1: any use to to boss me? Now? You mentioned Carl Allen,
Speaker 1: and I just want to circle back around again to
Speaker 1: what I would consider to be the bravery of the
Speaker 1: New York Post to cover this, because I mentioned I
Speaker 1: don't think the Times would write it. I don't think
Speaker 1: the Post would write it. Um I I obviously people
Speaker 1: can say, oh were you? Look out Kicks sold last
Speaker 1: year to Fox. I do a lot of Fox News.
Speaker 1: I'm not a Fox News employee. For radio. This is
Speaker 1: an I Heeart production, this is not Fox. But in
Speaker 1: my experience with Fox, no one and I've met Rupert
Speaker 1: and Lochlan and everybody else. No one at Fox has
Speaker 1: ever told me, hey, don't talk about this, don't share
Speaker 1: your opinion on X or Y. That just doesn't have
Speaker 1: upen in my experience. I bet it is similar for
Speaker 1: you as well. What was it like working for Carl Allen?
Speaker 1: How important is it that the New York Post exists?
Speaker 1: Because who else is willing to even have the resources
Speaker 1: and frankly, the testicular fortitude to actually write a story
Speaker 1: like this that could create the massive uh you know,
Speaker 1: blowback like it did. Yeah, you put your finger right
Speaker 1: on really the most important part of this, which is
Speaker 1: that you know, as a journalist, it's very easy. You know,
Speaker 1: you you're health leather excited about a story. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: you think it's real, You've done your work on it.
Speaker 1: But it's going to be a huge bombshell and potentially
Speaker 1: blow up the election. Uh and you know what if
Speaker 1: it's wrong and it blows up in your face, that
Speaker 1: you have huge ramisfications for the newspaper and the company.
Speaker 1: So that decision um to be made by you know,
Speaker 1: the top editors, and Carl Allen was at the top
Speaker 1: um of the New York Post was incredibly courageous and uh,
Speaker 1: but you know I've known him and worked for him
Speaker 1: off and on, um for gosh, almost thirty years. I
Speaker 1: had my first child when I was a baby editor
Speaker 1: under him, and um, he's always been like the walls
Speaker 1: of steel. Um. He's one of the real old school
Speaker 1: newspaper editors. Uh and just you know, hasn't has a
Speaker 1: nose for a story. He's as canny as they come,
Speaker 1: street wise, can smell bullshit a million yards off. He's
Speaker 1: incredible and he's the best editor I've ever worked for.
Speaker 1: Lauren he Um, he just you know, he just he's willing.
Speaker 1: He knows that all he cares about is the story.
Speaker 1: You know, if the story is a great story, without
Speaker 1: fear of favorite, doesn't matter whether it's helpful to to
Speaker 1: the Republicans or the Democrats. He's just going to go
Speaker 1: for He loves it. And that's what anyone who's a
Speaker 1: real newspaper person, Um, that's what that's what they're about.
Speaker 1: It's not really being a media person's being a journalist,
Speaker 1: particularly old school newspaper reporter. And um, you know, I
Speaker 1: I grew up my father was one of them. Um.
Speaker 1: Cole Allen was one of them. I just grew up
Speaker 1: admiring and respecting those old school newspaper men, and most
Speaker 1: of them were men, and uh, and you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's a long gone era. And I think Cole's sort
Speaker 1: of the last of those, um, those people, because obviously
Speaker 1: the Internet has changed everything. But anyway, Cole's just amazing
Speaker 1: and it never would have happened without him. And he
Speaker 1: trusted me, and I trusted him, and that is because
Speaker 1: we had many years of working together. Miranda. I come
Speaker 1: back to this big question. Why was the FBI so
Speaker 1: afraid of Donald Trump? Why was the New York Times
Speaker 1: so afraid of Donald Trump? Why was the Washington was
Speaker 1: so afraid of Donald Trump that they were willing to
Speaker 1: rig elections against him? I'm sure in the back of
Speaker 1: your mind you have thought a lot about this too,
Speaker 1: because ultimately someone at the FBI had to make the
Speaker 1: choice to engage in this rig job, right, And maybe
Speaker 1: it's a group of people. What I can never quite
Speaker 1: put my finger on is what did they find so
Speaker 1: terrifying about this guy? Well, it was that they couldn't
Speaker 1: control him. Um. If you remember, Um, there was a
Speaker 1: Chinese professor after the election, a video that he had
Speaker 1: made leaked out and was soon quickly wiped off YouTube.
Speaker 1: But he in that said he was very close to
Speaker 1: in the hierarchy. And in that video he said, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, we've always in China had our friends in
Speaker 1: Wall Street, but not but Wall Street could not control Trump.
Speaker 1: And that's the essence of it, Wall Street meaning really
Speaker 1: the establishment politicians because that's where the money comes from.
Speaker 1: And um, the you know, Donald Trump was completely just.
Speaker 1: He was just America first. He didn't want to go
Speaker 1: into wars. He wanted to end the war in Afghanistan. UM.
Speaker 1: He was a threat to the what Eisenhow called the
Speaker 1: military industrial complex. UM, really an existential threat. And so
Speaker 1: you know there's a lot of gravy trains in Washington
Speaker 1: are hitched to to that wagon to having endless wars.
Speaker 1: And that was one part of it. Also his belligerence
Speaker 1: towards China, which you know a lot of the elites
Speaker 1: they make their money from China, and he made it
Speaker 1: crystal clear that he was going to screw them over
Speaker 1: or make things fear screw them over when it came
Speaker 1: to trade deals. All of that got derailed with COVID,
Speaker 1: which came from China. UM and then in their cultural project,
Speaker 1: you know, the woke ideology again, Um he was. He
Speaker 1: was blowing that up. And so in every aspect of
Speaker 1: Washington bureaucracy, the administrative state, he was starting to dismantle it.
Speaker 1: Even even with the economy, you know, his tax cuts
Speaker 1: and sign which proved to be successful and fuelled the economy. Um,
Speaker 1: nearly part of his until covid Um. That also was
Speaker 1: a rebuke to the kind of norms of you know,
Speaker 1: economic sort of norms in Washington where um he was.
Speaker 1: He was just challenging all those norms. And he was
Speaker 1: also an embarrassment to them. I guests just with his
Speaker 1: domeanor but they you know, they talked that up. Um.
Speaker 1: And also, I mean the fact is Donald Trump's no saint,
Speaker 1: He's no angel. He Um. He has a sort of
Speaker 1: shambolic appearance. People were embarrassed by him. Um. He was
Speaker 1: a little bit to queens for the stuck up people
Speaker 1: in the state department and in in Washington. Um. And
Speaker 1: so I think in every way he offended their sensibilities,
Speaker 1: He challenged their um financial under pinnings and and really
Speaker 1: their power base. He challenged their power and so he
Speaker 1: became an existential threat to the people who really run
Speaker 1: this country. UM, we're talking to Miranda Divine, and I
Speaker 1: hope you will share this conversation because I think it's
Speaker 1: super important, especially if the people you may be friends
Speaker 1: or family with are in thet of population out there
Speaker 1: that just doesn't understand the Hunter Biden story, the laptop
Speaker 1: and has bought into this Russian disinformation argument put out
Speaker 1: by so many people in positions of power. Um, a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are listening to us right now
Speaker 1: are red pilled. And I think that metaphor works so
Speaker 1: well because it is true, Miranda, and I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: experienced this now too, that once you start to pull
Speaker 1: the thread here, you recognize how deep some of these
Speaker 1: conspiracies go. And if we're really going to be a
Speaker 1: functioning democracy, it's not things like January six. That's a
Speaker 1: symptom of the dishonesty that I think many people in
Speaker 1: this country innately feel from their leadership. Right And and
Speaker 1: I give you tremendous credit because, without worrying about who
Speaker 1: you were going to antagonize, you simply pursued the truth.
Speaker 1: And I think you have told the I think it's
Speaker 1: a more important story. I really do than Watergate, And
Speaker 1: it's symptomatic of where our country has gone that the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, which published the Pentagon Papers and was willing
Speaker 1: to pursue Watergate, just pretends that this story basically doesn't
Speaker 1: exist because it directly attacks their base. Which again, this
Speaker 1: is a bigger picture story. But I think this has
Speaker 1: a lot to do with the subscription model and the
Speaker 1: fact that the New York Times and the Washington Post
Speaker 1: basically make their money off far left wing people now
Speaker 1: and they can't antagonize that base without threatening to destroy
Speaker 1: the essence of their business. And even more than that,
Speaker 1: I think there may be something sinister about the subscription
Speaker 1: model that they have. UM. You know, you look at,
Speaker 1: for instance, the New York Times, I think the numbers
Speaker 1: of things like nine million subscribers they have, uh. And
Speaker 1: you know, when the Internet Internet came into being, um
Speaker 1: and basically stole the revenue base of these incredibly lucrative newspapers, UM,
Speaker 1: they had to find another source of income or collapse.
Speaker 1: And many newspapers, as you know, across the country collapsed.
Speaker 1: And so for those papers, subscription models became everything for them,
Speaker 1: and for the New York Times, incredibly successful and you know,
Speaker 1: when you think about it. I spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time reading the comments on columns and stories on the
Speaker 1: Washington Post in the New York Times, and they have
Speaker 1: a certain sameness to them which is reminiscent of the
Speaker 1: sort of botch activity that you get in on Twitter. Um.
Speaker 1: And so I started suspecting that, um, that a lot
Speaker 1: of these subscriptions because you know, you can get a
Speaker 1: subscription to the New York Times when they do their
Speaker 1: deals for a dollar, So it would not cost very
Speaker 1: much for the same people who are buying bots on
Speaker 1: Twitter to buy, you know, thousands of subscriptions and then
Speaker 1: set their people onto writing the narrative in the comments.
Speaker 1: And then when you take that one step further. And
Speaker 1: we don't know this because the New York Times the
Speaker 1: Washington Post don't tell us who their subscribers are, but
Speaker 1: there are bulk subscriptions, and um, some of these bolk subscriptions.
Speaker 1: There is suggestion brought up by China and other of
Speaker 1: our adversaries overseas, and I believe that the Republicans will
Speaker 1: be looking into that. Oh, that's fascinating as well. Uh. I.
Speaker 1: When I was practicing attorney Miranda and I appreciate all
Speaker 1: your time. I know how busy you are. I think
Speaker 1: that's gonna be compelling listening for so many people out there.
Speaker 1: I used to always end my my depositions UM by saying,
Speaker 1: what do you wish that I had asked you that
Speaker 1: I didn't? Is there something else you'd like to say
Speaker 1: to this audience that I didn't give you the opportunity
Speaker 1: to close with that you think is important that they
Speaker 1: might need to know. Not Really, you've been incredibly uh
Speaker 1: forensic and your questioning. UM. The only thing I guess
Speaker 1: I just leave with is that for four decades, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has sort of traded on this mythology that he's
Speaker 1: honest Joe, that he's a family man, he's a devout Catholic,
Speaker 1: um that you know, his entire career was wounded on
Speaker 1: a terrible tragedy where his wife and his baby daughter
Speaker 1: were killed in a car accident that injured his two sons,
Speaker 1: Hunter and Bo Biden, and he used the photograph of
Speaker 1: himself being sworn in at their hospital bed, these two
Speaker 1: bandaged injured boys in the foreground um as the basis
Speaker 1: of his campaigns ever since, and that elicited a lot
Speaker 1: of sympathy across the country. But then when I started
Speaker 1: doing the book, I thought, what kind of a man,
Speaker 1: you know, why did he have to get sworn in
Speaker 1: inside the hospital room? Such a great question. Even at
Speaker 1: that time of great tragedy and grief, he had his
Speaker 1: eye on the political payoff. And and then later on,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm thinking he knew that his son Hunter
Speaker 1: had an alcohol and drug abuse problem. I mean, Hunter
Speaker 1: was arrested when he was eighteen. He he was a
Speaker 1: troubled song and uh, and what kind of a father,
Speaker 1: knowing his son is a terrible addict, puts him, makes
Speaker 1: him the bag man, and puts him in front of
Speaker 1: this unaccountable tient of cash from Barisma as well as
Speaker 1: everything else. Um. You know, I just my entire I
Speaker 1: used too many years ago. I think I'm Catholic. I
Speaker 1: thought Joe Biden was an Irish Catholic, sort of tribally
Speaker 1: like my people. Um. But but over time I've come
Speaker 1: to see him as a very sinister figure. And I
Speaker 1: think that his legacy, if nothing else comes out of
Speaker 1: all of this, I think that at least his legacy
Speaker 1: will be seen honestly, and that he will be seen
Speaker 1: as one of the most malign people to become president.
Speaker 1: Miranda Divine, you deserve all the Politzers. I appreciate all
Speaker 1: the work that you have done. I appreciate the time today.
Speaker 1: I would encourage people to go all of you at
Speaker 1: Miranda Divine. If they want more details, I would tell
Speaker 1: them to go buy your book Laptop from Hell. And
Speaker 1: we appreciate your time. Keep up your good work and
Speaker 1: given what the FBI is up to, stay healthy. Thanks
Speaker 1: so look, Clay, I'm Clay Travis. This has been Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm Clay Travis. This has been wins and losses. She
Speaker 1: was Miranda Divine. This was a lot of fun. I
Speaker 1: hope you guys will share and listen to more episodes.