debunked claim".

At least they finally get to trying to dismiss the Ady Barkan interview:
“But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?” progressive activist Ady Barkan asked in a July 8 interview.
Biden is then heard saying, “Yes. Absolutely.”
So how does that "debunk" the claim again?

They even provide it in the Wallace interview, while still claiming it's "debunked":
"Biden has called for redirecting some police funding for related programs—like mental health counseling."
So he's on board with taking Fed funds away, and diverting them to other spending functions (for which the Police is not currently responsible - mental health counseling). So how is that different than what I said in my post again?

They even have the audacity to claim this as part of their evidence for their "fact checking":
"But the Trump ads suggest defunding the police means taking away significant amounts of money, crippling law enforcement." Last time I checked, taking $1B from the NYPD budget qualifies as "significant".

Now granted that's not Fed funds, but could you point us to where Biden said he was against that local defunding? And even the much smaller share of Fed funds is clearly on the table. "When asked about redirecting some funding, which Biden agrees to, he goes on to say: “And by the way, not just redirect, condition them. If they don’t eliminate chokeholds, they don’t get Byrne grants. If they don’t do the following, they don’t get any help......" Gee, it's almost as if Sleepy Joe is trying to have his cake and eat it too. I'll claim I'm not for defunding, but I'm for redirecting and conditioning the small amount of Fed funds used for policing, and I'm not opposing the much bigger defunding efforts of actual "significant" amounts.

Now I'll grant you that Sleepy Joe may not have the slightest clue what he's saying, let alone remember what he said before, so there is that defense.