Paul Sperry: Inside the Hunter Biden investigation

In retrospect, was anything about those relationships inappropriate or unethical? Nothing was unethical.

Here's what the deal. My son has not made money in terms of this thing about what are you talking about? China. I have not had, the only guy who made money from China is this guy.

He's the only one. Nobody else has made money from China. So that is Joe Biden lying, lying on the debate stage against Donald Trump, who was flabbergasted. He could not believe it.

Not that Joe Biden wouldn't lie, but that he would just say, we know you made money from China. We got the laptop. That's where your initial investment was. That's where your meeting was.

That's how you flew over an Air Force too. These are the people you met with. You were talking about how one disappeared.

The energy company that you were linked to goes rightly directly to the Chinese Communist Party that got you into their Belt and Road program, which is the most anti-American program out there today. And guess what? Everybody covered for him. Nobody questioned him. And the ones that did get questioned quickly got what we now know is responses back that were not based on fact. And that really incensed it seems or spurred Paul Sperry to act, senior reporter for Real Clear Investigations, New York Post columnist. I read your column today, Paul, fortunate to have you on the show.

Glenn Kessler came out and made some news. And he fact checked and said, the laptop is real. And he fact checked and said the president did know about the president's, his son's overseas business dealings.

Is that significant to you? You know, the Washington Post was part of the cover up in that 2020, one of the most consequential stories of the 2020 election, which was the Hunter Biden laptop. So we combed through after Devin Archer's testimony, this is Hunter Biden's business partner, old business partner. We combed through Archer's transcript and compared it to fact checker Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, his stories back in 2020. And then he had a revised one in 2021. And he was trying to debunk the laptop and the meetings with the Burisma benefactor for Hunter in a Georgetown restaurant. And we found he was dead wrong on the facts.

He was supposedly checking. I mean, Vice President Joe Biden did in fact attend the Cafe Milano dinner with his son in 2015. And Hunter's Burisma benefactor, this guy, Vadim Poscharski, was in fact there at the table with Joe Biden. So we sent the relevant passages from Archer's testimony to the Post. And we asked its communications chief if the paper still stands behind Kessler's story.

This was last week. And later that day, late after deadline, of course, we hear back from her and she says that we are updating the story, which is to say they were correcting it without actually having to say they were correcting it, admitting they were wrong. Again, one of the most consequential stories of the 2020 election.

But the damage is done now, Brian. I mean, all this revision to their stories, it's all too little, too late, because they misinformed voters ahead of the November 2020 presidential election and continued to mislead the public deep into the Biden presidency. As did the Biden spokespeople. So they come back, no, there was not a meeting.

There was a drop, first there was no meeting, then there was a drop by. Nothing to do with that. And you just heard what Joe Biden said. My son never made any money from China. He knew damn well they made money from China. At that time, he knew. And to think that 51 intel experts would sign off on this is still unfathomable. And believe it or not, Leon Panetta last week said he has no regrets about signing on to that, which means his integrity means nothing to him. So when the Washington Post signs on on it and their fact checker checks his facts, it turns out, Paul, you know what he does to check his facts? He just calls Democrats, he just calls Democrats and says, is it true or not?

That's right. That's where the fact checking ends. Yeah, that's who he trusts.

And that's who he goes with. Despite having contradictory, in this case, documentary evidence contemporaneously, he had emails and text messages, everything the New York Post had, and he went with the spin from the Biden camp. And by the way, the Washington Post has essentially been helping the FBI and the intelligence community, you mentioned the 51 former intelligence officials, helping them interfere in these elections. So we found out they wrote this false story about a 2016 Trump campaign aid that we found out the FBI used to help justify continuing to spy on that Trump aid as a Russian collaborator. Carter Page.

Carter Page. I mean, they actually underneath these redactions, they still have it partially classified the application. So the FBI has to apply for these so-called FISA warrants to wiretap people and they wiretap the Trump campaign. And in order to continue to, you know, to renew these wiretaps that expire every 90 days, they have to come up with some fresh corroboration or new information. And so in the second renewal, they actually cited a false Washington Post story. We found out that this is all covered up by Christopher Wray and these redactions to that application. And they convinced, basically defrauded the FISA court. You know, they all knew that this was a phony story that the Washington Post had done, but it helped them because they were desperate to get some new facts out.

The Reader's Digest version of this is so there's this Trump supporter by the name of Sergei Millian. Now, the Washington Post accused this guy of being a source for the dossier, but he wasn't actually a source. Special Counsel John Durham proved that. Now, that's embarrassing enough for the Post, but it's even more embarrassing for the FBI because the FBI actually used that post story, which they later had to retract, to help confirm the dossier. Which we know is a piece of fiction.

Yes. So here you have, in the case of the dossier, the Washington Post turning fiction, pure fiction into fact. And in the case of the laptop, the Washington Post is turning fact into fiction.

See, I don't think it's too late, Paul. This is why your story's important and what you did with the Washington Post is essential, is because he's still running. And he's not been called out on this.

He got away with this. And you know the stats at Read, and I don't know how it's a poll, but they say 14% of the American public might have changed their vote if they thought that the information on that laptop was real. And that Joe Biden was, family was involved with these overseas business operations. So that, and when you see thousands of votes really flip, Georgia and Arizona and Wisconsin, you realize it really would have mattered. Had people known that Joe Biden was perfectly comfortable staring in the camera and lying to you and saying, meanwhile, he knew damn well it was his son's laptop and all the information was real. He had no problem telling you it wasn't.

That to me is scary. And I think the American people want to know the truth this time. Yeah, and you know, the Washington Post, it all starts with the media. If you have a corrupt media, you can't get the bottom of corrupt public corruption, which is their job. And you know, this was a material benefit to the Biden campaign. But what the Post did is pretty much par for the course, because the entire Washington press of course is ignoring evidence of Biden, family, influence peddling and corruption, excuse me, which has really had a chilling effect on the criminal investigations. I mean, media coverage inside the beltway is what drives investigations into public corruption, you know, in Washington, as well as the appointment of independent prosecutors when there is a political conflict, as is the case right now with the Biden-controlled Justice Department looking into the Biden family. Or not looking into the Biden family.

Yeah. And by the way, this is the other thing, Paul, just because you're the investigator, but I read this and I see 2.7 million, 1.2 million, 3 million here. And I'm wondering, where is this money?

Like, where is it? After a five-year investigation, Hunter needs to pay $100,000. Really, $100,000? What about the other millions in these shell companies? Where did the money go? The guy's evidently broke, has to have benefactors house him and give him his cigarettes.

He has to live at the White House as a ward of the country. Where is the money? Are you talking about the 100,000? Yeah, so Hunter Biden made some money and never declared it. The Brisbane, so they found out after a five-year investigation, he owns 100,000. He owns much more than that because he never declared the other stuff. You're absolutely right. The 100,000 is a threshold in the statute.

You have to get past that threshold for it to be an enforceable violation. But he actually owed the IRS something like 2.2 million. And then he still has not paid that off. His buddy in Hollywood, this lawyer friend of his, the guy who was smoking the bong on the balcony when he visited there, this Hollywood lawyer, he paid that off for Biden.

And the judge at his arraignment or his pleading asked him about it. And he said, and he says, oh, that's a loan. That's a conventional loan.

I have to pay him back. Well, she didn't dive down deeper into that. He doesn't have to pay that back until I think the terms on the agreement were until late in 2025. So that's the equivalent of, because this guy was a big backer of Joe Biden's presidency, the lawyer, that's equivalent of a FEC gift that needs to be, that's a whole nother investigation. It needs to be investigated. It's not being investigated. And right now we're going to see what this, so the plea deal is, whether it's his gun lying in his gun application or his foreign business dealings, does that matter? He was out doing stuff that they put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for doing. And that is- For not being a registered agent with the, registering with the Department of Justice is representing foreign governments and foreign entities. Yeah, so we're looking at something here.

And I just go back to the fact that your articles are important, number one, to get to the truth, period. But he's not term limited out. He's going for four more. And whether you think Trump is an angel or evil, they're going after him with a ferocity I have not seen. And now we find out they're going to his Twitter account, which I thought was public, by the way. They're going into Mar-a-Lago, what they've done with the raid, what they've done now about to be a fourth indictment.

This is gonna probably be January 6th related in Georgia. One is the contrasts are impossible to ignore. And I wonder if you think that's applicable here. Well, I agree with you that it's important to stay on these stories, including the Spygate story that John Durham never got to the bottom of it because he missed, so did Horowitz, that the FBI was citing, referring to a false Washington Post story to corroborate their dossier in order to continue spying on the presidential campaign and presidency of Donald Trump. I mean, they both missed that. They didn't reveal that in either of their reports. And so it's important to get to the bottom of what the FBI did and... And you wonder if they're... And it looks like nothing's really changed. Yeah. I mean, if they could railroad and frame Trump, which is what they did with the Russiagate hoax, I mean, bottom line, then they could be railroading and framing him now with some of these vexatious indictments and prosecutions. So it just speaks to just what they're capable of.

And I would say this, and I think I can go one step further. In some cases, they would plant the story, leak the story to Mother Jones or to the Washington Post, and then use those press reports to help get a Pfizer application renewed. Yeah. It's circular evidence. They did that with the Yahoo News story by Michael Issachoff. The source turned out to be, for that story, was Christopher Steele. And the FBI said, well, we're going to cite this as corroborative evidence that what Steele said in this dossier we're using is verified. Well, no, it's just circular evidence. So that's what they did.

It's a trick that they used. And in the media, the real collusion was the media's collusion with the FBI law enforcement establishment and the intelligence community. So if you wonder why Kessler fact-checked himself and changed it and said, Joe Biden did know about his son's overseas business dealings and played a role. It's because you made the Washington Post comment.

And number two, I'm very curious. Now they're looking after Hunter and saying, Hunter might have breached the ethics. But they say nothing really links back to the father who's the president. Sooner or later, they're gonna have to say, wait a second, I can't continue to go out here with a straight face, read the prompter that said the president did not play a role. When we know the only thing that was of value in Hunter's business with Devin Archer and Eric Sherwin was his dad's influence in access.

That is the product they were selling. Final thought, Paul Sperry? Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, the evidence already is overwhelming and we're still getting more documentation, bank records and everything. So yeah, I mean, it's already overwhelming that he knew he was discussing business with his son and his business partners. I mean, in the case of this Chinese guy, he actually, the media originally said, oh, no, he just had a handshake with him in Beijing.

Well, now it turns out that according to Archer's testimony, he actually sat down with the guy for coffee. This is Joe Biden when he was vice president and then turned around and wrote a letter of recommendation for the guys. This is a guy, Lee, a Chinese partner, investor with Biden, with Hunter, turned around and wrote a letter of recommendation for his daughter to Georgetown. That's Joe Biden. Right, that's Joe Biden. Thank you. How was he not involved with Hunter's business partners?

That's pretty involved. Maybe Jake Tapper's listening right now, Paul, and he's going to give you full credit tonight. Paul Sperry, thanks so much. You can always catch him on Real Clear Investigations. I appreciate it, Paul. Thanks for having me anytime.