The FBI refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and turn over the document that the committee is “100 percent sure” they have, detailing a witness’s account of President Biden’s financial benefit from his family’s pay-to-play scheme with foreign countries such as China and Ukraine. This is called “bribery.”
Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky had given the FBI until noon Wednesday to turn it over. They’d hoped to have it for their press conference Wednesday morning, but instead of the “1023” form they’d demanded, they received a six-page letter from the FBI’s acting Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs, Christopher Dunham, voicing various objections. Here it is…
The first paragraph of the letter sounds accommodating enough, expressing the desire to work together. But that desire proves insincere. Though the document is not classified, they use the fact that this information came from a confidential human source (CHS) as a reason for their non-compliance. “We...hope this helps you understand that keeping this kind of source information free from the perception or reality of improper influence --- and preventing the redirection of this information for non-law enforcement or non-intelligence uses --- is necessary for the FBI’s effective execution of our law enforcement and national security responsibilities,” they say.
From this response, Comer concludes with certainty that the document does indeed exist. They just don’t want to hand it over. As reported by the NEW YORK POST, Comer didn’t immediately announce the specific steps he’ll take to acquire it.
“We’ve asked the FBI to not only provide this record, but to also inform us what it did to investigate these allegations,” Comer said. “The FBI has failed to do both. The FBI’s position is ‘trust, but you aren’t allowed to verify.’ That is unacceptable. We plan to follow up with the FBI and expect compliance with the subpoena.”
We do know this “1023” (CHS report) was “created or modified” in June 2020, during Biden’s run for the presidency. But there’s no indication the FBI did anything to investigate. One would think that if they’d acted on it as they should have, they’d want to clear that up with congressional investigators instead of stonewalling.
Remember, there’s also an IRS whistleblower, a supervisory agent who was handling the Hunter Biden investigation, who has told Congress he wants to share information about a cover-up in the case. He’s already spoken with inspectors general for the Treasury and Justice Departments. We still don’t know this whistleblower’s name, but his attorney Mark Lytle said he can contradict Attorney General Merrick Garland’s testimony before Congress about the independence of the investigation and reveal “examples of preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions.”
When the Oversight Committee gave their press conference Wednesday, their presentation was based on financial records, as the banks have reportedly been very cooperative with subpoenas. They also had over 150 Suspicious Activity Reports from these banks that flagged possibly criminal activity by what is now the First Family and their associates, to the tune of over $10 million.
The committee made it clear that their concern was JOE Biden, not Hunter Biden. As we’ve all seen, the President has repeatedly lied about knowing nothing of his son’s foreign business dealings. Evidence abounds about his interactions with Hunter’s international business associates from China, Ukraine, Russia and Mexico. And many of the infusions of cash to members of the Biden family took place while Joe was Vice President. The committee staff released a 36-page interim report, which makes great reading if you have the time…
“After (Joe Biden) assuming the vice presidency in 2009,” the report says, “records reveal Hunter Biden and his business associates formed at least 15 companies.” These are various LLCs, laid out on a chart. The committee is focusing on certain ones that received money from foreign companies, noting that any services provided for funds paid out of them would have “corresponding invoices...contracts, agreements and other communications setting forth the terms of the engagement and expectations of the parties.” As part of the oversight investigation, “the Committee intends to obtain those materials---to the extent they exist.”
They’re focusing on transactions from China and Romania “that raise serious questions about financial disclosures and risks to national security.” For China, they’re looking especially at payments made by Ye Jianming of the corrupt energy company CEFC, to examine “what was from 2015 to 2018 a growing interest by people closely tied to the CCP in cultivating a relationship with the Biden family.”
The Romanian connection is one we hadn’t known much about until now. Bank records indicate “the Biden family’s receipt of money from a foreign company reportedly controlled by Gabriel Popoviciu, the subject of a criminal probe and prosecution for corruption in Romania.” Popoviciu has already been convicted of “a bribery-related offense” and has faced litigation in the U.K. Page 12 of the report mentions an eyebrow-raising transaction from Bladon Enterprises, Popviciu’s company. The chart at the bottom of page 16 through page 17 shows more involving Romania.
There’s detail on payments from China as well, with some handy charts to show how these were cleverly disguised.
As the Oversight Committee says in their conclusion, they will seek out more bank records, continue to follow the money trail, send more letters to those with knowledge of financial transactions, and “continue to engage in the accommodations process with those who have not cooperated with our investigation.” They know they must be over the target.
AMERICAN GREATNESS has an excellent summary, with a link to the entire presser.
NATIONAL REVIEW details the flow of money to specific family members, including an account for an “unknown Biden.”
White House spokesman Ian Sams unleashed a typically hyperbolic statement --- before Comer’s presentation had even started. Sams called the claims “absurd” and “baseless,” adding that Comer “has been promising --- then failing to deliver --- this press conference for weeks, raising questions about his shoot-first, figure-it-out-later approach to what is clearly an evidence-free, politically motivated ‘investigation.’”
Au contraire. Comer delivered. The information contained in the report is compelling and documented, and this is just the “interim” version. If these same findings had been reported about President Trump and HIS family, Samms and all the other White House shills would no doubt be saying that Trump should be in jail for bribery and treason. And if that were the case, they’d be right.
Keep in mind, too, that the very media people who say there’s “no evidence” linking Joe to this are the ones who connected nonexistent dots to link Trump to Vladimir Putin and screamed about that fake “Russia Russia Russia!” story for years. They’re a joke.
And if a piece of conclusive evidence is still lacking, such as notes from devastating CHS testimony (or perhaps hidden-camera video of President Xi in a parking garage handing Joe a bag with dollar signs on it, ha), it’s because the FBI is withholding it.
Sean Hannity had some good coverage on his show last night. He contrasted the treatment in the media of GOP freshman Rep. George Santos’ alleged corruption with that of the Bidens. Santos is a convenient diversion.
The DOJ even “coincidentally” arrested Santos at the same time the Oversight Committee was giving its press conference on the Bidens. (Ironic that one of the crimes Santos has been charged with is money laundering.) Which story do you think the media reported?
Also, does anyone else find it remarkable that the DOJ sped from allegations to investigations to indictments for Santos in just a few months, but their years-long hokey-pokey “investigation” of Hunter Biden is still dragging on past the Statute of Limitations finish line?
Finally, Nick Arama at Redstate.com has an excellent analysis of the FBI’s refusal to comply with the subpoena for the “1023.”
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.