We're back with another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dacianski,
Culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on Twitter at fdr LST.
Make sure to subscribe where ever you've download your podcasts, and of course
to the premium version of our website as well, where we comment back and
forth with our wonderful readers and so appreciate all the subscriptions to the site.
Keep them coming. Now, today was something we've been trying to do for
a really long time. A great conversation between Christopher Bedford, his lovely wife,
Sarah Bedford, and myself on some of Sarah's reporting, but more generally
the Hunter Biden legal saga, the Hunter Biden influence peddling saga. Sarah's a
really talented investigative reporter. She looked a lot into the Clinton Foundation, covered
Wiki leaks really closely for The Washington Examiner back in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen,
went on to CNN and is back at the Washington Examiner now. But
as we had this conversation, the sort of particulars of the Hunter Biden drama
are both incredible and overwhelming. Of those things often go hand in hand,
of course, but it's actually really really hard to keep track of even if
you cover it really closely. There are so many different people and there are
so many different, I think shocking details. And now, of course there's
a special counsel involved. That would be David Weiss. We've covered this extensively
over at The Federalist, but for the purposes of a podcast, having a
conversation about it, I really think is one of the best ways to sort
of make it come alive, make it less overwhelming, and Sarah was certainly
really really helpful at doing that. Again. Last Friday, Merrick Garland appointed
David Weiss a special counsel investigating the Hunter Biden influence. Peddling saga and saga
is really the best word. That's why I keep using it in the context
because it's just an incredible epic tale and we're learning more about it every day,
and maybe we'll learn more about it through this special counsel. But you
probably know the name David Weiss, and you probably are confused about why,
like I was, he would be appointed special counsel somebody who is supposed to
come from outside the government. It's very strange. Accusations from whistleblowers have already
suggested that David Weiss slow walked the investigation. Sarah gets into the previous iteration
of investigations in Hunter Biden. Sarah gets into the question of the question of
statute of limitations, which is one of those details that I think gets as
I was saying earlier, sort of put on the back burner in this broader
conversation, but is in and of itself huge. I was thinking the other
day, I was actually looking at charmp from Axios that put together Donald Trump's
impending court dates on one side of the line, and on the other side
it was the twenty twenty four election dates, key dates in the election debates,
caucuses, etc. And when I saw that, you know, obviously
I have the misfortune of being a journalist. Although of course it's an incredible
privilege in the United States that we have the freedoms that we do, at
the same time, it means you have the misfortune of being sort of glued
to every awful news cycle and can be you know, very very tragic to
have to literally learn all of these different details and think about all of these
different details of American decline day in and day out, and this is certainly
one of those news cycles. And so when you look at exactly how many
different layers to this story there are to the twenty twenty four election, there
are we're talking four different indictments. So journalists who are covering the twenty twenty
four election essentially have to be experts on four different indictments. And I'm talking
about legacy journalists, but also that that's from the perspective of me as somebody
who's in the media. More importantly, voters essentially have to be experts on
four different indictments, and understandably, a lot of people won't be that that's
impossible if you want to do diligence as a voter and like really thoroughly understand
as you should, all of the allegations against anybody, be they Donald Trump,
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, you would have to read,
you know, hundreds of pages, and nobody has time for that,
and nobody can trust the media to be the intermediary there anymore either. And
so on top of having to follow all of the the regular issues in a
presidential election cycle, and as the presidential election cycle actually affects races around the
country, as different candidates, lawmakers weigh in on what's right, what's wrong,
where to go from here, et cetera, et cetera. There's just
an incredible volume of information. And I know this is like a little bit
of a tangent, but it's been on my mind lately, so I wanted
to put it out there that this is one of the most overwhelming. This
is probably the most overwhelming American news cycle that certainly in my memory. You
know, each one of these the Mueller probe started to feel like Whitewater.
We started to feel a lot of or see a lot of similarities or parallels
being drawn intentionally to Whitewater. But oh my gosh, now we have four
different indictments, and the Fannie willis one includes how many different people, nineteen
different people, the former president himself included. And then when you add into
that the fact that there is now a special council into the president's son and
actually really into the president himself. Not to say that that's not to say
that we trust the special council will follow the evidence where it leads, because
we've seen that actually not happening. That's part of the controversy here is what
the FBI didn't investigate despite where the evidence was leading from the IRS and other
places when it comes to Joe Biden himself. But we now on top of
all the indictments against the former president, on top of the fact that there's
a land war in Europe, on top of the fact that inflation is completely
real way just have been down over the course of the Biden administration. Gas
prices are really high, inflation is uneven. I mean, there's there's an
argument that it's down overall, but certainly you won't feel like it's down.
If you pump a lot of gas, you won't feel like it's down.
If you're trying to buy a used car, you won't feel like it's down.
If you're you know, participating in any number of any number of sectors
in the economy. So we have all of this going on, all of
these indictments and now a special investigation, another special and council investigation. It's
easy to get Special Council fatigue. But one of the things I really liked
talking to Sarah talking to Chris on this edition of the show is just how
much a conversation can kind of help the facts interact with each other, come
alive and congeal into a narrative, which, at least for me, is
really helpful. So if you have questions about the show, for the show,
for Chris and me, we're going to be taking questions before the summer
ends. It's always a fun thing that we like to do, so you
can email those too. Radio at the Federalist dot com feedback. We love
it, We read all of it. We appreciate you so much, and
I hope that you enjoy and find this conversation with Sarah and Chris as valuable
as I did. I'm started willing today because I'm joined by the Bedford family,
Christopher Bedford and Sarah Bedford. Sarah is an investigative reporter with the Washington
Examiner. Chris, as everyone knows by this point, is the executive editor
over the Common sense to say, this has been a long promised podcast because
Chris has been saying, we got to get Sarah, and we've got to
get Sarah about it about an hour beforehand. He's he really has been saying,
he's been for years, all right, but actually, whether you some
people might be surprised to learn that Chris landed a pretty impressive woman, and
that is very true when it comes to especially baking, but reporting as well.
Sarah is one of I think the best reporters in all of Washington,
DC, and she's been covering the Hunter Biden legal saga very closely and has
a new story out. So, Sarah, can you tell us just a
little bit about what you've been following, what you've been looking at particularly sure,
I mean a big part. So I'm relatively new to the story.
Right I covered more politics and staff leading up to the mid terms such,
so I've really been really did you where were you? Sara story at CNN,
which is always fun to use. We don't have to talk about that.
And you hear over here he's using her NPR voice. You know,
you're all lives. We're actually sitting here in a circle. You can't see.
I feel like we need some drums and a joint. Yeah, he
suggested the Hunter. Okay, Sarah, so you said you're relatively new to
the story. I'm cutting Chris off. It's okay. I've learned to tune
about I think a big part of what is valuable right now is sort of
recontextualizing some of the pieces of evidence that have been out there for a while,
because we have so much new material just in the past few months.
Right, So, some of the emails that were discovered on Hunter Biden's laptop
years ago that I think a lot of Democrats and the corporate media want to
dismiss as being old news, have a lot more significance in light of what
we've learned from the I R. S whistleblowers and the Devin Archer testimony and
even from the plea deal that fell apart. So a lot of the reporting
that we've been doing the Examiner has been focused on, you know, recasting
the significance of those pieces of evidence given everything we know now. So that's
what I love about the reporting I'm doing. That's what I love. I
know, like everyone's gonna say always complementing his wife, but but really truly
like this story you have out today on James Biden and the Biden family.
It ties together a lot of the evidence that's come out over the last couple
of years in like a drip drip fashion from the committee and also from different
legal proceedings and from documents. You've gotten your whole hands on, and sometimes
you see these neck beards on the internet who are like, all right,
saw that in an email page three hundred and ninety two sixto months ago.
But the reality is, like, if you look at this story, it
does it's a narrative that really ties together a lot of disparate things. The
Biden family keeps on trying and Democrats can their allies and the media keep on
trying to say, this is all this unrelated stuff here, and you're like,
all right, so your defense here of Hunter Biden's millions and millions and
millions of dollars in foreign corruption on registered is that he was high on crack.
Strange defense. I would have gone with he had skills every my first
line of defense, like he earned that money legitimately, he didn't even try
that. They're like, yeah, he was high, Okay, well your
story points out, well, what about James Biden? Was James Biden high
on crack cocaine? Was Jill high on crack cocaine? Or Joe Biden's daughter's
high on crack? Doctor Jill, doctor Jill? Excuse me? The teacher.
I love teachers. It seems to pull apart all of their defenses just
by saying, hey, this is this is not just a Hunter Biden,
you know, going off on a bender and making millions in China. My
god, I wish I had penders like that. But it's a whole family
operation. Can you kind of flush that out a little bit? Yeah,
I mean, so James Biden was really deeply involved in some of these foreign
deals that Hunter Biden was was striking while his father as vice president, including
you know, one of the most lucrative deals, which was in China with
a company called CEFC. And that's really relevant because I think inadvertently prosecutors laid
out a roadmap to where Hunter is most legally vulnerable, interesting by putting,
you know, some of the most serious alleged offenses into the plea agreement and
then attempting to give him immunity for everything that they'd spelled out in that plea
agreement. This China deal with CEFC was one of the only deals, along
with Beizma, that was really deeply delved into in that plea agreement. And
so one wonders if that's because the Justice Department, you know, his allies
and the Justice Department sort of knew that that's where he had the most legal
exposure because the attempted immunity was there for the China deal and for the Beisma
deal, which is now time barred. Statute of limitations is run out at
least from the tax component of the work for Beizma. And is that really
recent that the statute of limitations right now, like within the last couple of
years. It is, it's long after the beginning of I mean keep in
mind that this IRS investigation began in twenty eighteen and at that point they were,
you know, less than five years removed from four years removed excuse me
from some of the financial crimes committed with regards to Barisma, but they all
financially a legendary crimes. But that they let that statute run. And the
concern I think that you don't hear often enough from Republicans is that they're the
statutes are about to run on some of the other things that occurred while Biden
was vice president, and if weis drags his feet much longer, and we're
talking about months, not years, he could be shielded from consequences for all
of that stuff. And they're not just dragging their feet, I guess from
reporting and they're like actually blocking it. So when they get to the parts
in the FBI interviews where he start, they still talk about James. There's
no follow up questions because that's the brother of the president. It seems to
be the DOJ. Blue seems to me the DUJ has a blocked on.
We're only allowed to talk about the crackhead, but we're actually not allowed to
talk about the crackhead because he's an addict. I always thought the addiction argument
actually strengthens the influence pedaling narrative, because if he was just an addict,
then there could be no other reason for him receiving that money other than to
purchase influence. If you argue that he was sort of uniquely qualified as a
lobbyist or Yale trained lawyer, maybe a charitable reading, you could argue that
he was earning that money independently. But the addiction undermines that argument, and
so does the involvement of his uncle and his aunt right and ultimately his brother's
widow. And according to James Comer, he hasn't produced evidence to support all
of this, but as many as potentially nine Biden family members collecting money in
some form or fashion from these associated networks of shell companies. You know,
the Hunter Biden argument doesn't bear out when you look at how many other bidens
were earning money. They all have different pfessional and educational backgrounds. The only
thing connecting them is their ability to peddle access. Right. And there's also
this idea, there's notion that you have Hunter Biden stoned out of his mind
in conversations with CEFC, which is a fairly it's an energy conglomerate and trying
to it's not like some small little you know what, it's not some small
little uh stas pointing and gesturing at Christy's about to pour himself rum is a
whisky room. It spourbon. I won't reveal what time of day it is,
but oh, he just passed as his wife. Guys like you don't
take a taste and makes guys like but he's stoned out of his mind in
conversations with with Patrick Hoe, with CFC right like people who are like enormously
prominent foreign nationals, with all the national security information that could have been passing
forth, like the mind reels with the right. Well. And I think
it's interesting because in two different prosecutions, one of them. Patrick Coe's criminal
case got a lot of media attention in twenty eighteen, and also just last
month and the indictment of Gal Luft, the US government acknowledged that, for
the purposes of FARRE the Foreign Agents Registration Act, they considered CEFC an agent
of China, which says a lot about how the US intelligence community believed that
CEFC was an adversarial organization. People involved with them in America have been implicated
in now two big criminal cases because of the malicious work that CEFC was doing.
And yet this is a company that was paying at least two three bidens
on the payroll. And you know, we're talking about recontextualizing emails that have
been around for years. You know, one of them that I wrote about
today show that Joe Biden and Joe Biden were office mates with some of the
CEFC officials with from a They were office mates. Is this the Georgetown office,
Yeah, it's it's here House of Sweden, It's Tarante. Yeah.
They the soon to be president was sharing an office with Chinese executives from a
company that the government considered to be a foreign agent. And I just feel
that that is potentially one of the one of the deals that could put the
Bidens in the most peril. And I don't wonder if that's why it was
included in the police bargain, because there was an attempt to provide immunity for
that. So I have a question about that because we've been looking at this
and I've talked about this in the podcast how my Kitchen table has been like
ground zero for a lot of investigative work, like I'm cooking dinners and Sarah's
investigating Hunter Biden weeks. We talked about a lot. But the kind of
feeling is like, well, why would the vice president have done this in
the first place when this level of corruption? And I thought Jeff Ingersoll from
the an Energy for the Daily Caller had a great point and he said,
well, when this all started, he was leaving office. His boss had
passed over him for the nomination to Hillary Clinton. Right, Donald Trump was
going to lose the twenty sixteen election. Hillary Clinton was going to be president
for eight years. He would have been untouchable. He was getting older.
No Democrats are going to go after him. Now it's time to make some
money. But what struck me in this piece and that makes sense, like
because why would someone who intends to be president be dealing deals with Chinese nationals.
We struck me about this piece as it opens up with this great line
from Jim Biden, James Biden saying, this is going to be a light
quote life changing event for the Biden family. He described this deal with China,
millions of dollars could have been made, they were made. Millions more
could have been made. But and this was in twenty seventeen, so Donald
Trump was president. There was a potential path forward for Joe Biden, and
I wonder, why do you think they were moving forward with this? It's
just because there was so much money to be made. Maybe he wouldn't be
president if more millions had come in. Oh was that a question to me?
Yeah, I actually do think that this woman needs some bourbon take a
day. Wow. I didn't think I'd be beer pressured on him. Morning
podcast. The viewers don't know what's morning. Sometimes I wonder if you know
what you married, And I asked myself that all the time. I do
think that that's an astute point because if you if you do go back and
look at the context of when Joe Biden was making what could reasonably be construed
as reckless decisions at best about exposing himself to these business deals. It was
not at all clear that he wasn't going to run for president, and a
lot of ex politicians cash out doing legally dubious Clintford, at least ethically do
exactly which you covered back in twenty fifty. I'm having like a renaissance to
think that two big stories involving uh, you know, alleged corruption from Democrats
would have searchable databases of emails that you could just spend days reading through.
I feel like I'm a member of the Biden family, like I know all
about everything, the soccer games, the broken arms, we get some of
the money that we're to my corrupt are so in the story you reported out
today, I'm curious about the office sharing arrangement. Is there any evidence that
there was there was a business relationship, or even tangentially that there may have
been a business relations What are we talking about recontextualizing old emails. There's a
very infamous email that's gotten a lot of airtime on Fox News and such where
there was a discussion of the way the structure of the fund dealing with Cfcskabolensky,
James Gillar, James Biden, Hunter Biden a ten held by age for
the Big Guy email that was in the context of this deal around this time.
What could the structure of this deal look like if it goes through?
Would Joe Biden want a piece of that? And there's a lot of speculation,
reasonably so, that the big guy was Joe Biden. But Rob Walker
is the only business partner that the FBI managed to interview on December eighth,
twenty twenty, so called Day of Action, when the Hunter Biden investigation was
finally supposed to go overt, as they say, after months of being slow
walked in the name of the upcoming twenty twenty election. But as we now
know, because of the irs whistleblowers, Hunter Biden's legal team, the Biden
transition team, and the Secret Service headquarters all were tipped off the night before,
which gave all of the witnesses the opportunity to hide from investigators. So
there was they out of twelve planned interviews on that day, December eight,
twenty twenty, the FBI managed to get one because everyone else knew they were
coming. During this interview, Rob Walker did confirm that the big guy was
Joe Biden and that there were hypothetical discussions about cutting Joe Biden into that deal
if he were to not run for president. That's a huge piece of information
that they were able to get. Imagine what they could have learned if they'd
been able to interview all of the witnesses that they wanted to interview that day.
And what else do we know? Actually? On that note about Hunter
Biden, we have that text from Hunter to Naomi Biden. I think it
was to Naomi Biden basically saying, you know, you won't have to give
away hopefully you won't have to give away an X amount of your money to
Pops or something like that. So we had a half year wages to Pops
like I did. Okay, So yea refresh me on what else we know
about evidence that Joe Biden actually may have been profiting from these deals himself.
Well, very little right now, right, and that is that, you
know, lack of evidence is what Democrats keep pointing to, and I think
correctly at this point, to say there's not enough to move forward with an
impeachment inquiry. There's not enough that ties Joe Biden to the business enterprise.
There's lots of circumstantial evidence, right, There's these conversations that Joe Biden clearly
had with business partners about more than just the weather, right, and a
lot of the emails suggest that Hunter Biden, you know, and we know
that from witnesses as well, frequently invoked his father's name either to threaten people,
and you know, towards the end of it, right here, like
that is right next to me, I've found another one's in this story where
he's threatening CEFC towards the end of their business relationship to reimburse him for all
his travel and they had a crazy amount of first class travel and he says,
you know, if you don't pay me, I'm gonna take you to
court in Delaware. And I know every judge in Delaware, so be afraid.
Well, it wasn't true when it came time for his flea deal.
As a federal judge, that's a different But the point is, you know,
there isn't a paper trail at this moment connecting Joe Biden to the business.
The House Oversight Committee, which has been doing some really interesting work with
bank records and the suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department has not yet pursued
any of the Biden families records yet, and that could mark. I think
it's something of a turning point when they finally get around to that. If
you're a curious cop and you're looking at a guy who left the Senate is
one of the poorest senators that there were, and then you're looking at all
these deals were made, all this money that's made, all these text message
is saying that money's going to the big guy, that half my wagers are
going to Pops, And you see him buying this beautiful Delaware beach house and
all those different things, you start to wonder. I mean, if you're
just like a slightly curious cop. If a cop was looking at me and
we're thinking that I had some kind of coruption. He saw me making massive
purposes that seemed completely outside of my realm, and I just said, that's
due to a confidential book deal. I don't think they buy it. I
think they did it. And it's often also attributed to speaking fees. So
well, okay, so I was gonna ask you about this. I was
gonna ask you about this in reference to what we were talking about when it
came to your Clinton Foundation reporting when you looked at I know it was a
while ago, but when you were looking at how the Clintons, specifically Hillary
Clinton, benefited from speaking and foreign relationships after Hillary Clinton left the State Department,
are there similarities in what we see from the Biden's trying to enrich themselves
after Joe Biden leaves presidency. There's yeah, there's definitely. I mean I
used to have a routine with the Hillary Clinton staff where I would just have
like three tabs open, and you would go look through the list of because
she eventually listed a list as the people who paid her for speaking gigs in
between your secretary of State, and you would find a name there, and
then you would go through the Clinton Foundation donor list and see if they appeared
there, and then you'd run it through the emails and then see what,
you know, discussions involved that person, and oftentimes they would show up in
all three tabs, right, They'd show up in all three realms, which
puts the lie to this idea that we also heard from Hillary Clinton that the
philanthropic work was completely separate from her political life and from her corporate speaking fees,
that these were three separate spheres and that no work in any one area
could have affected the other, and that made it ethical. But often you
saw the same people showing up in every sphere of her life. And that's
very similar to the way the Biden sort of operated, right, And it's
sort of a kinder the egg thing. Right. Was Joe Biden involved in
Ukraine because his son was involved in business there, or more likely was his
son involved in business there because Ukraine was in his father's business portfolio. But
you do see a lot of overlap between I mean his father's foreign policy portfolio,
you know, So I think you did see a lot of overlap there,
the same sort of cast of characters. And again, at the end
of the day, especially with regards to Ukraine, Joe Biden took actions that
ultimately benefited his son's company. Right right at day. This has been debonds
at the very very best. It was an incredible lapse of judgment and completely
unethical behavior, even if it wasn't, as Republicans suspect, a lot more
nefarious than that. So I got a question for it because I think we've
been here, you've got a different take on this reminderstanding than a lot of
the people have been talking about on Fox News, for example, the Special
Council. What my general work feeling on special councils is appointing one is like
usually the kind of bone headed thing the Republicans do, because special councils so
quickly get out of control and you can't really contain them, and it's become
difficult. But a lot of folks you hear on right wing media are saying
the Special Council is a cover up. This is a person who has already
shown an unwillingness to go after the Bidens, has already stone walled us and
a couple of different things, has already come up with a plea deal which
ended up being rejected when it was when it came under scrutiny. This guy
is corrupt. But why do you think a special counsel was appointed finally?
And what and where do you think that might be going? My opinion,
and this has changed this past week. I have a new working theory if
you look at the timeline of events between the collapse of the Plea deal,
which was July twenty six and the announcement of David Weiss as a special counsel,
which was last Friday, six days ago. Wow, I know these
weeks summer weeks subscribed by was like a month ago. What happened behind closed
doors? According to court filings that we have this week appears to be that
the Hunter Biden legal team started threatening to expose what happened during negotiations of that
plea deal. Oh boy. Chris Clark is Hunter Biden's lead defense attorney and
this week filed a petition to withdraw as his lead defense attorney in order to
serve as a witness in what they said was expected litigation or over the formation
of the plea deal. Then in the filing that David Weiss put forward,
I believe yesterday or on Tuesday, David Weiss mentioned that, you know,
the Hunter Biden legal team says they're going to bring forward notes and testimony about
the formation of the plea deal. And we're not saying that we did promise
broad immunity. But even if we did, it's not binding in court because
it wasn't what we said when we were in front of the judge. And
now we're saying something now we're taking the deal away. So I wonder,
But I didn't say and I didn't mean it but I said it, but
I didn't. Even if I said it, I didn't mean it is essentially
what wife said in this court failing. So I wonder if there is going
to be some sort of fight where Hunter Biden's legal team is going to lean
into yes, we got preferential treatment, but because that happened, this should
be binding and it's not our fault. And so I wonder if the formation
of that plea deal is going to get dug up. And maybe potentially David
Weiss was maybe going to shield himself from a little bit of that. He's
kind of covered his butt at this point. It seems that either way.
I don't know if that's the reason why he became a special counsel, but
that seems to be where the Biden legal team is heading. And if you
look at the timeline, on a Monday, the Hunter Biden legal team rejects
the new offer from David Weiss. On a Tuesday, according to Merrick Garland,
David Weisse goes to the Attorney General and says I need to be a
special counsel, and on a Friday, that decision is announced and contemporaneously simultaneously,
the Justice Apartment formally withdraws the plea deal. So all of those things
happened along the same timeline. It's hard not to see them as related because
nothing really changed about the investigation except the Hunter Biden defense team's position from friendly
to adversarial. Doesn't that seem to bode poorly for Hunter where their plan was
to basically burn the now special Council wise and maybe wise to say no,
I'm going to burn you. Well, I think that's interesting, right,
because one of the things that the IRS whistleblower said was that it was very
unusual the number of meetings that Hunter Biden's defense was afforded through the course of
this investigation. Right that maybe a defense attorney, a defense team might be
granted one or two meetings with prosecutors as they sort of they get a chance
to come before the US Attorney's office once or twice and make the argument why
they're their client should be innocent before the chargers are formerly filed. That's typically
what happens, according to these iOS whistle blowers, But the number of meetings
that the Hunter Biden legal team got was unprecedented in these investigators views, and
so up until that July twenty sixth hearing. Maybe it was the case at
Hunter Biden and the U. S Attorney's Office were sort of working in concert,
and then a few things changed. The whistleblowers came forward, right,
and the judge sort of exposed the sleight of hand that the Justice Department was
trying to pull off by sticking inn immunity agreement in a diversion deal, which
typically doesn't require a judge's sign off. Maybe they were just hoping she wouldn't
look too hard. And so now that that's changed, right for the Biden
fan, that's a small straight everyone knows each other. She's a federal judge,
though, that's different. And yeah, Chris, think it's still hurt.
She had Delawares, an unpopular person at the local water in The point
is it seems like, for the first time in years, Hunter Biden's defense
attorneys are on hostile terms with the US Attorney's Office now the Special Council's office,
and that could change the dynamic moving forward. Chris, can you bring
Sarah every Thursday? Yeah? So I was just we have wrapped this up
way earlier than I want to because of time constraints and Sarah, some of
us have to work for a living so that we can lead some of us
just get to talk other ones about the investigative work that people expend. So
can you please come back on this podcast because we haven't even gotten to my
favorite part of this investigation, which is said Whitey Bulger's nephew hasn't involved in
all these Biden business dealings. One of my favorite parts. Know what's above
board? Yeah, Wulgier is our respectable family farmer, Speaker of the House,
the King of Massachusetts. All right, we need to have please bring
Sarah every Thursday. Oh my gosh, thanks guys. I'll consider it.
This is so much better than usual. All right, Well, you've been
listening to another edition of The Federalist or Radio Hours today by Christopher Bedford,
who was executive editor over at the Common Sense Society and the Lovely Sarah Bedford
is an investigative reporter at The Washington Examiner. I'm Emiliashinski depends on the day.
We'll be back soon with more. Until then, belovers of freedom and
anxious for the fray. I heard the fame for the reason, and then
it faded away.