Thanks to the commenters--see below--who took the time to correct me on a faulty timeline. I confused Giuliani's "detailed outline" of Biden Crime Family dealings in Ukraine--which Giuliani provided to DoJ in January, 2020, nine months ago--with the date that the FBI obtained the Hunter Biden hard drive. As the commenters have pointed out, it appears that the FBI obtained that original hard drive--not a copy--in about December, 2019. It was Giuliani who only obtained the material recently. I've revised this post and used the red font to indicate where the changes were made.
This correction doesn't actually change the legal ramifications of anything I say below.
I've been listening to Mark Levin's interview of Rudy Giuliani from last night, here. As I've made clear, I've been loath to get into the reports of disturbing sexual material on the Hunter Biden hard drive, for a number of reasons. However, during the Levin - Giuliani interview, there is a brief segment in which Rudy dances around the issue a bit. Nevertheless, while he hedges his statements with legal provisos, he leaves no doubt that the material on the hard drive involves clear criminal conduct. That doesn't leave too much to the imagination, in the total context. Thomas Lifson, in a blog at American Thinker--Hold on to your hat: Hunter's hard drive roll-out this week is going to unleash a whirlwind--quotes some Wayne Allen Root tweets that leave even less to the imagination. These are public figures making public statements that are clearly actionable if untrue. Further, Giuliani is credible--I presume that he would never make statements as explicit as those I'll describe without having his behind totally covered.
Now, before I get to my transcript of the Levin - Giuliani interview, let me go over some ground that we've already covered. You need to be clear that Giuliani talks about two separate issues in his response to Levin. Those two issues are quite separate from an investigative standpoint. They are also separated by nine months in time and may involve different evidence--evidence that may differ in probative value.
First, Giuliani makes the statement that, back in January, he informed AG Bill Barr of a "very detailed outline" of all the Ukraine related material he (Giuliani) had gathered. Barr, in Giuliani's account (which I accept), advised Giuliani to provide the "very detailed outline" to "a particular US Attorney" to investigate. Giuliani then concludes by stating that that US Attorney "hasn't done a darn thing."
So, that "detailed outline" was drawn up nine months before the hard drive was obtained, and was not constructed using the hard drive. Whether the hard drive contains copies of documents that Giuliani may have now seen from the hard drive is another issue.
Obviously, while Giuliani is super experienced as a prosecutor and a high DoJ official, it's entirely possible that DoJ and the FBI are, in fact, investigating those Ukraine matters--but in ways that are not apparent to Giuliani. We don't know. That's the bottom line.
On the other hand, the statement that Giuliani makes about the Hunter Biden hard drive material--a totally separate issue involving evidence that was made available to the FBI back in about December 2019--has a specific catch to it. That catch is that the evidence on the Hunter Biden hard drive involves acts recorded on video/photos that would have required the FBI to take action "to protect people"--if possible. That's a very different matter than the "very detailed outline." What Giuliani describes is a case where the FBI would not--if they were in a position to act, which is not certain--have the luxury of conducting an extended investigation. They would need to act ASAP, if it comes to protecting people from harm. Again, the FBI has had that evidence for the better part of 10 months. We don't know what they have done or not done, nor what they would have been able to do. We will presumably receive more details soon regarding the nature of the evidence and the nature of the criminal conduct recorded on the hard drive, and will be able to draw further conclusions regarding the FBI's action or inaction in that regard.
It's important to remember that in all this Giuliani is acting as a political operative, and is represented by his own attorney who advises him. He's a former prosecutor, which means he's not acting as a prosecutor at this point in time. That also means that he's not privy to what the current prosecutors are doing.
With that, my transcript, with a brief intro:
First Giuliani describes some of the Biden Crime Family's "business" related dealings with foreign countries, and states that there is so much China related material that his team hasn't totally gotten a handle on it all--"it's probably overwhelmed with Chinese business dealings". Giuliani then runs down a list of "a lot of" countries with which the Biden Crime Family was involved, but adds that 30-40 per cent involves China and that they're discovering new "situations" everyday as they continue their analysis of the hard drive material. Then there is this exchange:
LEVIN: Why do you think Christopher Wray and the FBI hasn't gotten on top of this?
GIULIANI: I don't understand that at all, Mark. I'll tell you why, being a prosecutor and [in] the Justice Department, you'll understand this. If you look at the photographs--and I can't explain this explicitly, maybe I'm not sure I'm allowed to say it on television--there are a couple of things on there that the FBI agents would have to follow up on. They would have to follow up on it--to protect people. And I don't understand it. And you have a hard drive that is clearly his, and there is no evidence the FBI did any investigation of it.
Nor is there any evidence that the FBI did any investigation of a very detailed outline I gave them of all the evidence in Ukraine back in January. I gave that at the direction of the Attorney General to a particular US Attorney to investigate and he hasn't done a darn thing.
ADDENDUM: I need to be totally clear here. In order for the FBI to take action to "protect people" from harm, the FBI needs to identify the people who are at risk. Moreover, in order to take action, they need to have jurisdiction. If the people at risk can't be identified, or are located--for example--in China, the FBI will not be in a position to act. These are factual matters concerning which we lack the details that would be necessary to make a judgment at this time.