Speaker 1: Let me state as clearly as I can my father
Speaker 1: was not financially involved in my business, not as a
Speaker 1: practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Barisma, not
Speaker 1: in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in
Speaker 1: my investments at home nor abroad, and certainly not as
Speaker 1: an artist.
Speaker 2: And not as an artist.
Speaker 3: WHOA wow, look out the moving gold posts almost crushed me.
Speaker 3: Funny how that's evolved. We'll discuss that and more with
Speaker 3: the fabulous Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute,
Speaker 3: National Review contributing editor. And I've often claimed that there
Speaker 3: are no other podcasts. Ours is the only one, but
Speaker 3: I'm forced to admit The McCarthy Report is an excellent
Speaker 3: podcast if you're interested, particularly in legal issues. In the headlines,
Speaker 3: Andy McCarthy, Andrew, how are you, sir.
Speaker 2: I'm doing great, Jens. Great to be with you.
Speaker 4: We just recorded the podcast, so I appreciate the plug. Well,
Speaker 4: then I'll be listening later today because I hear everyone.
Speaker 4: Here's my number one question, because this is what the
Speaker 4: hunter Biden crowd keeps saying, and everybody on the left.
Speaker 4: If his last name weren't Biden, none of this would
Speaker 4: be happening. Is that true or false? Well, it's true
Speaker 4: in the sense that if his last name weren't Biden,
Speaker 4: he would have been prosecuted in twenty nineteen on multiple felonies.
Speaker 4: So I suppose that at this point, is that his
Speaker 4: name warn't Biden. You know, all the stuff wouldn't be happening,
Speaker 4: which includes a sweetheart deal that no one else would
Speaker 4: have had a chance of getting. And that imploded when
Speaker 4: a district judge asked a few rudimentary questions about what
Speaker 4: the basic understandings of it were, including its scope.
Speaker 5: And is there any truth to it at all? Since
Speaker 5: it is like the number one talking point, Is there
Speaker 5: any truth to it at all that he's getting any
Speaker 5: harsher treatment as opposed to you're saying he's getting a
Speaker 5: better case that he's getting any harsher treatment because his
Speaker 5: last name is Biden.
Speaker 2: No, there's no truth at all.
Speaker 4: In fact, when they finally indicted him on tax charges,
Speaker 4: which have been out there for like a million years,
Speaker 4: some of the most egregious conduct could no longer be
Speaker 4: charged because the statute of limitations had run on it.
Speaker 4: Because the Biden Justice Department wouldn't prosecute.
Speaker 3: Him so on the topic of the sweetheart deal, I
Speaker 3: have the outrage, certainly, but not the expertise to adequately
Speaker 3: describe how incredible it is that that deal a existed
Speaker 3: b was dismantled in a moment by a competent judge.
Speaker 3: And see the fact that the guy who crafted it
Speaker 3: remains in charge of the investigation. Help people understand how
Speaker 3: tawdry that is.
Speaker 4: Well, it's really corrupt. I mean, Biden has been known
Speaker 4: to have tax problems going back to probably twenty sixteen,
Speaker 4: twenty seventeen, when I think that was when they started
Speaker 4: to put leans.
Speaker 2: On his property.
Speaker 4: The Biden laptop, which the public became aware of in
Speaker 4: the waning weeks before the twenty twenty election, is actually
Speaker 4: in the FBI's possession for about a year before that.
Speaker 4: So there's been monumental evidence of dodgy income and his
Speaker 4: failure to pay taxes for years and years. But if
Speaker 4: the prosecutors had gone after the most egregious misconduct, which
Speaker 4: appears to have occurred between twenty fourteen and twenty sixteen,
Speaker 4: I might take it back to twenty thirteen twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: You couldn't prove that case.
Speaker 4: Without showing that the way he was raking in the money,
Speaker 4: was selling access to his father, and precisely because.
Speaker 2: His name was Biden.
Speaker 4: And that he was making the biggest killing when Biden
Speaker 4: was vice president of the United States. So the prosecutor
Speaker 4: let that lapse. The statute of limitations on most crimes
Speaker 4: in the Federal Code is five years. Tax crimes, the
Speaker 4: relevant ones here it's six years. So he simply waited
Speaker 4: it out so that the evidence of what was going
Speaker 4: on when Joe Biden was vice president was no longer prosecutable.
Speaker 4: And then to try to make the case go away.
Speaker 4: First his plan was to just completely make the case
Speaker 4: go away, just like dismiss it entirely. He had to
Speaker 4: back off from that.
Speaker 2: We're talking about David.
Speaker 4: Wiss, now the US attorney in Delaware. He had to
Speaker 4: back off of that because these irs whistleblowers came forward
Speaker 4: and explain that Hunter Biden had gotten ridiculously favorable treatment
Speaker 4: that no other American would get. So then the Justice
Speaker 4: Department and wife had to try to figure out a
Speaker 4: way to have a plausible that they could sell the public,
Speaker 4: but at the same time make sure that the president's
Speaker 4: son didn't go to jail. So what they came up with,
Speaker 4: was let him plead guilty to two puny misdemeanors despite
Speaker 4: the mountainous evidence of tax evasion, which is a felony,
Speaker 4: Has it be a no jail plea? And then, probably
Speaker 4: most absurd at all of all, have this gun case
Speaker 4: that he has where he obtained a gun by misrepresenting
Speaker 4: his drug abuse and then lost it in I think
Speaker 4: it was twenty seventeen if I'm remembering right, maybe twenty eighteen.
Speaker 4: But have that, which is a ten year felony instead
Speaker 4: of prosecuting that, arrive at a diversion agreement where he
Speaker 4: would not be subjected to prosecution if he kept his
Speaker 4: nose clean, which I guess you have to literally say
Speaker 4: with Hunter for a year or two, and under the
Speaker 4: Justice Department guideline, gun offenses are not available for you know,
Speaker 4: divergent is not available for gun offenses. So they basically
Speaker 4: had to blow up every norm of how you prosecute
Speaker 4: cases in order to try to do this. And when
Speaker 4: the judge asked a couple of basic questions about what
Speaker 4: is Hunter being immunized for if he pleads guilty, what
Speaker 4: Hunter's lawyers said, and I believe they were actually accurate
Speaker 4: about this, because this is what.
Speaker 2: The Biden Justice Department wanted.
Speaker 4: What they were saying is if he pleads guilty to this, then.
Speaker 2: All conduct over this five.
Speaker 4: Year period going back to actually going back to twenty fourteen,
Speaker 4: so it's more than five years all conduct arising out
Speaker 4: of that he could no longer be prosecuted for. And
Speaker 4: when the judge looked at the US Attorney and said
Speaker 4: is that true? I think it actually was true in
Speaker 4: the sense that that's what the Justice Department wanted to do.
Speaker 4: But they knew how politically embarrassing this would be, so
Speaker 4: they said, no, no, no, you know, if we find
Speaker 4: other crimes, we can still prosecute them. So I think
Speaker 4: incompetently the Biden lawyers who do by the way, they
Speaker 4: do not include the lawyer he has now, Abbey Loll,
Speaker 4: But they allowed this agreement to be blown up because
Speaker 4: they were so angry at the US attorney misrepresenting what
Speaker 4: the understanding was about the scope of the non prosecution agreement.
Speaker 4: But I think it was foolish on their court because
Speaker 4: it's very clear that wife had absolutely no intention of
Speaker 4: prosecuting Hunter Biden on anything serious. So if they had
Speaker 4: just nodded their heads and sort of said yeah, yeah, whatever.
Speaker 4: He would have pled guilty to these two misdemeanors. They
Speaker 4: would have tried to make the gun thing disappear, and
Speaker 4: there's no way he would have been prosecuted were anything
Speaker 4: more serious, particularly because the Statute of Limitations is run
Speaker 4: on all this stuff.
Speaker 5: So if you could give me a yes or no
Speaker 5: on this, because I got a follow up question to it,
Speaker 5: do you think he'll spend time in jail? No, you
Speaker 5: don't think he'll spend time in jail. Interesting and well, much.
Speaker 4: As if it was your if it was your son
Speaker 4: and you were the only guy in America who could
Speaker 4: pardon him and spare them from a penitentiary, what would
Speaker 4: you do?
Speaker 2: Oh you think he okay?
Speaker 4: You them?
Speaker 5: You think he won't spend time in jail because his
Speaker 5: dad will pardon him. Okay, I get it. Much as
Speaker 5: being made of the change in language, was this on
Speaker 5: purpose from Hunter yesterday? As we know between the President
Speaker 5: and Hunter over the years, it's gone from my dad
Speaker 5: had no knowledge of my business dealings to my dad
Speaker 5: wasn't involved in my business dealings too. Whatever it was
Speaker 5: he said yesterday, specifically that my dad wasn't financially involved.
Speaker 5: Is that on purpose? Does that mean something?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean, remember he's got good legal representation. Now, all
Speaker 4: these statements that he makes are lawyered up, you know.
Speaker 4: So they know that Joe Biden has tons of involvement.
Speaker 2: But what they.
Speaker 4: Republicans haven't been able to prove yet is that a
Speaker 4: whole lot of money went from Hunter to Joe.
Speaker 2: So they're leaning on that now.
Speaker 4: But you're right, the goalpost, as you said before, have
Speaker 4: shifted dramatically from the beginning where you know, you would
Speaker 4: have believed there was a complete wall of separation between
Speaker 4: Joe and Hunter, and now there's so much evidence of
Speaker 4: Joe abetting the scheme that they have to now try
Speaker 4: to narrow their denial. I personally, I think the whole
Speaker 4: thing is the wrong way of looking at it. I think,
Speaker 4: you know, this business is Joe Biden. To think of
Speaker 4: it as like it's Hunter's business and we have to
Speaker 4: see what threads we can show to connect Joe and
Speaker 4: Hunter is the wrong way to look at it. The
Speaker 4: only way this business worked is that Joe Biden allowed
Speaker 4: it to work.
Speaker 2: It allowed it to go on to the years.
Speaker 4: If if he hadn't done that, it would have been
Speaker 4: shut down in five minutes.
Speaker 2: So he's the main actor here.
Speaker 3: Well, this is ground so well plowed, there's probably no
Speaker 3: not any reason to go back to it. But I
Speaker 3: just find it astounding that the alphabet media, the so
Speaker 3: called legacy media, don't get that if my son, for instance,
Speaker 3: was trading on my name, which would be useless, uh,
Speaker 3: and he became so wealthy he bought a Rolls Royce
Speaker 3: that I drive all the time, that that that they
Speaker 3: don't understand how that benefits me. I mean I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't even know to where to start with you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the I R S, the I R S would
Speaker 4: know because they would charge the income to you. That's
Speaker 4: the thing I find amazing. You know that all this,
Speaker 4: you know, all these legalisms that you hear in the commentary.
Speaker 2: The factor of the matter.
Speaker 4: Is if I'm if somebody wants to pay me for
Speaker 4: something I've done for them, and I say, you know,
Speaker 4: don't pay me, give it to my son. The I
Speaker 4: R S considers that to be an income event as
Speaker 4: to me, not to not to my son, and they
Speaker 4: don't let me defeat the tax by having somebody.
Speaker 2: Else be paid.
Speaker 4: That's the that's the way the government itself looks at it.
Speaker 3: And tell me this, mister McCarthy, to what extent is
Speaker 3: this true? A tax investigation always looks into where the
Speaker 3: money came from and where it went.
Speaker 4: Correct, It's the only way to do it. And you know,
Speaker 4: one of the more and you know, one of the
Speaker 4: I think more unfortunate things about the attention that was
Speaker 4: given to Hunter's tax is long belated overdue tax indictment
Speaker 4: was all the salacious detail about how he spent the
Speaker 4: money kind of takes the spotlight away from the only
Speaker 4: thing that's important, which was how the money was generated
Speaker 4: in the first place. Right, twenty four million dollars from
Speaker 4: corrupt and anti American regimes or their agents going into
Speaker 4: the Biden family coffers.
Speaker 2: Over just a five year period.
Speaker 4: What matters to the country is what did the Chinese
Speaker 4: and the rest of them think they were buying, not
Speaker 4: how Hunter or you know, not whether he spent it
Speaker 4: on prostitutes or crack or whatever he was buying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's just that good a lawyer. I'm hearing a
Speaker 3: little jealousy out of Andy McCarthy. Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 5: If he had used all that money to repave orphanages.
Speaker 5: It doesn't mean it's okay his paving orphanages.
Speaker 2: The thing.
Speaker 3: That sounds bad they're parking lots.
Speaker 4: Eect that I've paid orphanages.
Speaker 2: Is that what?
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, well that's that is interesting. Yeah, that's an
Speaker 3: excellent point. Andy McCarthy of the National Review. His excellent
Speaker 3: podcast is The McCarthy Report. And I neglected to mention
Speaker 3: the book Faull of Collusion, the plot to rig an
Speaker 3: election and destroy a presidency, which is thorough and terrific
Speaker 3: as well. Andy, It's a great pleasure. I hope we
Speaker 3: can do it again sometime.
Speaker 4: I'd love to you guys have have a merry Christmas
Speaker 4: and enjoy