In recent interviews, Joe Biden has distanced himself from
his son’s work at a Ukrainian gas company that was under investigation during the
Obama years, with the former
vice president suggesting he didn’t even
know Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings.
There is plenty of evidence that conflicts with the former vice
president’s account, including Hunter
Biden’s own story that he discussed the company once with his famous father.
There also was a December
2015 New York Times story that raised the question of whether Hunter Biden’s
role at Burisma posed a conflict of interest for the vice president, especially
when Joe Biden was leading the fight against Ukrainian corruption while Hunter
Biden’s firm was under investigation by Ukrainian prosecutors.
But whatever the Biden family recollections, the Obama State
Department clearly saw the Burisma Holdings investigation in the midst of the
2016 presidential election as a Joe Biden issue.
Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State
officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,
Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.”
In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer
memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s
Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.
“Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s
son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”
The Q&A is consistent with other information flowing out
of State. As I
reported yesterday, when a Burisma representative contacted State in February
2016 to ask for the department’s help in quashing the corruption allegations,
Hunter Biden’s role on the company’s board was prominently cited.
And a senior State Department official who testified
recently in the impeachment proceedings reportedly
told lawmakers he tried to warn the vice president’s office that Burisma
posed a conflict for Joe Biden but was turned aside.
There are no laws that would have prevented Hunter Biden
from joining Burisma, even as his father oversaw Ukraine policy for the President
And the corruption investigations launched in 2014 by British and Ukraine authorities involving Burisma and its owner Mykola Zlocvhevsky involved activities that pre-dated Hunter Biden’s arrival on the board. They were settled in late 2016 and early 2017.
Some of Biden’s media defenders have falsely suggested the investigations were dormant. They were not.
The real public interest question involves Joe Biden. Federal ethics rules require government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and ethics experts I talked with say the vice president should have recused himself from issues affecting Burisma.
That became poignantly public when Biden leveraged the threat of canceling $1 billion in U.S. aid in March 2016 to get Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who just happened to oversee the Burisma probe. A month before the firing, Shokin escalated the corruption probe against Burisma by seizing the company owner’s property and assets.
Shokin says he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden and insists he was fired because he refused to stand down on the Burisma probe. Joe Biden insists he prompted Shokin’s firing because he believed the prosecutor was ineffective.
There are more memos and documents to be released in the coming
months under the FOIA lawsuit I filed with the Southeastern Legal Foundation
that may shine light on what actually happened.
But one thing is already clear: long before President Trump or his attorney Rudy Giuliani began investigating Ukrainian issues, career State officials already saw Burisma as an issue for Joe Biden.
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple
contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle,
including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to
fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly
released memos show.
During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for
Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A.
Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm
where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under
a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the
help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.)
Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian
authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed
Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the
middle of the U.S. presidential election.
Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the
Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according
to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the
meeting. The subject line for the
email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”
“Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies
requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma
(Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a
Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high
profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden
as a board member).
“Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a
better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company
is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of
corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has
not been considered.”
At the time, Novelli was the most senior official overseeing
international energy issues for State. The undersecretary position, of which
there are several, is the third-highest-ranking job at State, behind the
secretary and deputy secretary. And Tramontano was a lawyer working for Blue
Star Strategies, a Washington firm that was hired by Burisma to help end a
long-running corruption investigation against the gas firm in Ukraine.
Tramontano and another Blue Star official, Sally Painter, both
alumni of Bill Clinton’s administration, worked with New York-based criminal
defense attorney John Buretta to settle the Ukraine cases in late 2016 and
2017. I wrote about their efforts previously here.
Burisma Holdings records obtained by Ukrainian prosecutors state
the gas firm made a $60,000 payment to Blue Star in November 2015.
show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that
State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the
U.S. embassy in Kiev.
The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place.
The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce
additional records in the months ahead.
But the records do indicate that Hunter Biden’s fellow American
board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, secured a
meeting on March 2, 2016 with Secretary of State John Kerry. In
addition to serving on the Burisma board, Archer and Hunter Biden were partners
at an American firm known as Rosemont Seneca.
“Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3pm –
need someone to meet/greet him at C Street,” an email
from Kerry’s office manager reads. “S” is a shorthand frequently used in
State emails to describe the Secretary of State. The memos don’t state the
reason for the meeting.
Tramontano, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, Archer and Joe Biden’s
campaign did not return messages seeking comment on Monday.
In an interview with
ABC News last month, Hunter Biden said he believed he had done “nothing wrong at
all” while working with Burisma but “was it poor judgment to be in the middle of
something that is…a swamp in — in — in many ways? Yeah.”
Whatever the subject of the Archer-Kerry meeting, its existence
is certain to spark interest. That’s because Secretary Kerry’s stepson,
Christopher Heinz, had been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter
Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm in the United States.
Heinz’s spokesman recently
The Washington Post that Heinz ended his relationship with Archer and Hunter
Biden partly over the Burisma matter. “The lack of judgment in this matter was a
major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer
and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper
A person who assisted Blue Star and Buretta in settling the
Burisma matters in Ukraine told me in an interview that the late February 2016
overture to State was prompted by a dramatic series of events in Ukraine that included
when that country’s top prosecutor escalated a two-year probe into Burisma and
its founder, the oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky’s gas firm hired Hunter Biden and Archer as board
members for Burisma Holdings in spring 2014, around the time that British officials
opened corruption investigations into Zlochevsky’s gas firm for actions dating
to 2010 before Hunter Biden and Archer joined the firm. Ukraine officials
opened their own corruption probe in August 2014.
A firm called Rosemont Seneca Bohai began receiving monthly
payments totaling more than $166,000 from Burisma Holdings in May 2014, bank
records show. The records show Devon Archer was listed as a custodian for the
Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm and that Hunter Biden received payments from it. You
can read those bank records here.
By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough
that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure
of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred
on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in
The same day that the Zlochevsky seizure was announced in
Ukraine, Hunter Biden used
his Twitter account to start following Deputy Secretary of State Tony
Blinken, a longtime national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who
was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under Secretary John Kerry.
Within a few weeks of Tramontano’s overture to Novelli and of
Archer’s overture to Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden took a stunning action,
one that has enveloped his 2020 campaign for president in controversy.
By his own
admission in a 2018 speech, Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1
billion in U.S. aid to strong-arm Ukraine into firing Shokin, a prosecutor that
he and his office knew was investigating Burisma.
Biden has said he forced Shokin’s firing because he and Western
allies believed the prosecutor wasn’t aggressive enough in fighting corruption.
Shokin disputes that account, telling both me and ABC
News that he was fired specifically because he would not stand down from investigating
Burisma. In fact, Shokin alleges, he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden
about his Burisma work and payments when he got the axe.
Ukraine prosecutors have said they do not believe the Bidens did
anything wrong under Ukraine law. But some of the country’s prosecutors made an
effort in 2018 to get information about Burisma to the U.S. Justice Department
because they believed American prosecutors might be interested in some activities
under U.S. law. You can read about that effort here.
Some experts and officials have been quoted
in reports saying Joe Biden’s actions created the appearance of a conflict
of interest, something all U.S. government officials are supposed to avoid. The
questions about conflicts were previously raised in a 2015 article by the New
York Times and the 2018
book Secret Empires by author Peter Schweizer.
The new evidence of contacts between Burisma, Hunter Biden and
Archer at State are certain to add a new layer of intrigue to the debate. Those
contacts span back to at least spring 2015, the new memos show.
On May 22, 2015, Hunter Biden emailed
his father’s longtime trusted aide, Blinken, with the following message: “Have
a few minutes next week to grab a cup of coffee? I know you are impossibly
busy, but would like to get your advice on a couple of things, Best, Hunter.”
the same day with an “absolutely” and added, “Look forward to seeing you.”
The records indicate the two men were scheduled to meet the
afternoon of May 27, 2015.
The State Department records also indicate Hunter Biden met
Blinken in person for lunch on July 22, 2015, when State officials gave the
name of a person to meet to help him enter the building. “He has the VIP pin
and can escort you upstairs for your lunch with Tony,” the
The emails don’t indicate whether the meeting had to do with
Burisma or one of Hunter Biden’s other interests.
But they clearly show that Hunter Biden, his business partner
and Burisma’s legal team were able to secure contacts inside the State
Department, including to one of his father’s most trusted aides, to Secretary
Kerry and to the agency’s top energy official.
The question now is: Did any of those contacts prompt further
action or have anything to do with Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in March 2016
when he forced Shokin’s firing?
There is a long way to go in the impeachment process, and there
are some very important issues still to be resolved. But as the process marches
on, a growing number of myths and falsehoods are being spread by partisans and
their allies in the news media.
The early pattern of misinformation about Ukraine, Joe Biden
and election interference mirrors closely the tactics used in late 2016 and
early 2017 to build the false and now-debunked narrative that Donald Trump and
Vladimir Putin colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
Facts do matter. And they prove to be stubborn evidence, even in the midst of a political firestorm. So here are the facts (complete with links to the original materials) debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.
Myth: There is no evidence the Democratic
National Committee sought Ukraine’s assistance during the 2016 election.
The Facts: The Ukrainian embassy in Washington
confirmed to me this past April that a Democratic National Committee contractor
named Alexandra Chalupa did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul
Manafort during the spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional
hearing into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The embassy also stated Chalupa
tried to get Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to do an
interview on Manafort with an American investigative reporter working on the
issue. The embassy said it turned down both requests.
Chalupa’s activities involving Ukraine were further detailed
in a May 2016 email published by WikiLeaks in which she reported to DNC officials
on her efforts to dig up dirt on Manafort and Trump. You can read that email here. Myth: There is no evidence that Ukrainian
government officials tried to influence the American presidential election in 2016.
The Facts: There are two documented episodes involving
Ukrainian government officials’ efforts to influence the 2016 American
presidential election. The first occurred in Ukraine, where a court last
December ruled that a Parliamentary member and a senior Ukrainian law enforcement
official improperly tried to influence the U.S. election by releasing financial
records in spring and summer 2016 from an investigation into Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities. The publicity from the release of
the so-called Black Ledger documents forced Manafort to resign. You can read
that ruling here.
While that court ruling since has been
set aside on a jurisdiction technicality, the facts of the released information
are not in dispute.
The second episode occurred on U.S. soil back in August 2016
when Ukraine’s then-ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, took the
extraordinary step of writing an OpEd in The Hill criticizing GOP nominee
Donald Trump and his views on Russia just three months before Election Day. You
can read that OpEd here.
Chaly later told me through his spokeswoman that he wasn’t
writing the OpEd for political purposes but rather to address his country’s geopolitical
interests. But his article, nonetheless, was viewed by many in career
diplomatic circles as running contrary to the Geneva Convention’s rules barring
diplomats from becoming embroiled in the host country’s political affairs. And
it clearly adds to the public perception that Ukraine’s government at the time preferred
Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election.
Myth: The allegation that Joe Biden tried to
fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian
gas firm employer has been debunked, and there is no evidence the ex-vice
president did anything improper.
The Facts: Joe Biden is captured on videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm
Ukraine’s president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Biden told a
foreign policy group in early 2018 that he used the threat of withholding $1
billion in U.S. aid to Kiev to successfully force Shokin’s firing. You can
watch Biden’s statement here.
It also is not in dispute that at the time he forced the
firing, the vice president’s office knew Shokin was investigating Burisma
Holdings, the company where Hunter Biden worked as a board member and consultant.
Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times
article. You can read that article here.
The unresolved question is what motivated Joe Biden to seek
Shokin’s ouster. Biden says he took the action solely because the U.S. and Western
allies believed Shokin was ineffective in fighting corruption. Shokin told me, ABC
News and others that he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy that the
Burisma investigation was not shut down. He made similar statements in an
affidavit prepared to be filed in an European court. You can read that
In the end, though, whether Joe Biden had good or bad
intentions in getting Shokin fired is somewhat irrelevant to the question of
the vice president’s ethical obligation.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid
even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. Ethics
experts I talked with say Biden should have recused himself from the Shokin
matter once he learned about the Burisma investigation to avoid the appearance
And a senior U.S. diplomat was quoted in testimony reported
by The Washington Post earlier this month that he tried to raise warnings
with Biden’s VP office in 2015 that Hunter Biden’s role at the Ukrainian firm
raised the potential issue of conflicts of interest.
Myth: Ukraine’s investigation into Burisma
Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing in March
The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously
false statements spread by the media. Ukraine’s official case file for Burisma
Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active
investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016,
one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.
In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans
to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was
fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before
Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevsky’s homes
and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe.
You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizure here.
Burisma’s own legal activities also clearly show the
investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I
obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29,
2016 – the very day Shokin was fired – Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking
a meeting with Shokin’s temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open
In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed,
Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the
investigations of Burisma and
Zlochevsky. You can read that letter here.
Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev
Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016
and the tax case by early January 2017. You
can read Buretta’s interview here.
In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at
the time Vice President Biden forced Shokin’s firing, and any suggestion to the
contrary is pure misinformation.
Myth: There is no evidence Vice President Joe
Biden did anything to encourage Burisma’s hiring of his son Hunter.
The Facts: This is another area where the
public facts cry out for more investigation and raise a question in some minds
about another appearance of a conflict of interest.
Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, was appointed
to Burisma’s board in mid-April 2014 and the firm Rosemont Seneca Bohai — jointly
owned by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer — received its first payments from the
Ukrainian gas company on April 15, 2014, according to the company’s ledgers. That
very same day as the first Burisma payment, Devon Archer met with Joe Biden at
the White House, according to White House visitor logs. It is not known what
the two discussed.
A week later, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and met with then-Ukrainian
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. During that meeting, the American vice
president urged Ukraine to ramp up energy production to free itself from its
Russian natural gas dependence. Biden even boasted that “an American team is currently in the region working with Ukraine
and its neighbors to increase Ukraine’s short-term energy supply.” Yatsenyuk
welcomed the help from American “investors” in modernizing natural gas supply
lines in Ukraine. You can read the Biden-Yatsenyuk transcript here.
Less than three weeks later, Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board to join Archer. To some, the sequence of events creates the appearance that Joe Biden’s pressure to increase Ukrainian gas supply and to urge Kiev to rely on Americans might have led Burisma to hire his son. More investigation needs to be done to determine exactly what happened. And until that occurs, the appearance issue will likely linger over this episode.
Hunter Biden’s firm only received $50,000 a month for his work as a board
member and consultant for Burisma Holdings.
The Facts: This figure frequently cited by Biden defenders and the media significantly understates what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm for his and Devon Archer’s services. Bank records obtained by the FBI in an unrelated case show that between May 2014 and the end of 2015, Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s firm received monthly consulting payments totaling $166,666, or three times the amount cited by the media. In some months, there was even more money than that paid. You can review those bank records here.
The monthly payments figures are confirmed by the accounting ledger that Burisma turned over to Ukrainian prosecutors. That ledger, which you can read here, also shows that in spring and summer of 2014 Burisma paid more than $283,000 to the American law firm of Boies Schiller, where Hunter Biden also worked as an attorney.
Trump was trying to force Ukraine to reopen a probe into Burisma Holdings and
its founder Mykola Zlochevsky when he talked to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, in July of this year.
The Facts: Trump could not have forced the Ukrainians into opening
a new Burisma investigation in July because the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office
had already done so on March 28, 2019, or three months before the call.
The prosecutors filed this
notice of suspicion in Ukraine announcing the re-opening of the investigation.
The revival of the case was even widely reported in the Ukrainian press,
something U.S. intelligence and diplomats who are now testifying to Congress
behind closed doors should have known. Here’s an example of one such Ukrainian
media report at the time.
Myth: Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko retracted or recanted his claim that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in 2016 identified people and entities she did not what to see prosecuted in Ukraine.
The Facts: In a March interview with me at Hill.TV captured on
videotape, Lutsenko stated that during his first meeting with Yovanovitch in
summer 2016, the American diplomat rattled off a list of names of Ukrainian
individuals and entities she did not want to see investigated or prosecuted.
Lutsenko called it a “do not prosecute” list. You can watch that video here.
The State Department disputed his characterization as a fabrication, which
Hill.TV reported in its original report.
A few weeks later, a Ukrainian news outlet claimed it interviewed Lutsenko and he backed off his assertion about the list. Several American outlets have since picked up that same language.
There is just one problem. I re-interviewed
Lutsenko after the Ukrainian report suggesting he recanted. He adamantly denied
recanting, retracting or changing his story, and said the Ukrainian newspaper
simply misunderstood that the list of names were conveyed orally during the
meeting and not in writing, just like he said in the original Hill.TV interview.
Lutsenko’s full explanation to me back last spring: “At no time since our interview have I ever
retracted the statement I made about the U.S. ambassador providing me a list of
names of people and organizations she did not want my office to prosecute. Shortly
after my televised interview with your news organization I was asked by a
Ukraine reporter if I had a copy of the letter that Ambassador Yovanovitch
provided me with the names of those she did not want prosecuted. The reporter
misunderstood how the names were transmitted to me. I explained to the reporter
that the Ambassador did not hand me a written list but rather provided the list
of names orally over the course of a meeting.” Lutsenko reaffirmed he stood by
his statements again in September.
It is important to note Lutsenko’s story was also backed up by State Department officials and contemporaneous memos before his interview was ever aired. For instance, a senior U.S. official I interviewed for the Lutsenko story reviewed the list of names that Lutsenko recalled being on the so-called do-not-prosecute list.
That official stated during the interview: ““I can confirm to you that at least some of those names are names that U.S. embassy Kiev raised with the Prosecutor General’s office because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”
Separately, both U.S. and Ukrainian
official confirmed to me a letter written by then-U.S. embassy official George Kent
in April 2016 in which U.S. officials pointedly (and in writing) demanded that
Ukrainian prosecutors stand down an investigation into several Ukrainian nonprofit
groups suspected of misspending U.S. foreign aid. The letter even named one of
the groups, the AntiCorruption Action Centre, a nonprofit funded jointly by the
State Department and liberal megadonor George Soros.
“We are gravely concerned about this
investigation, for which we see no basis,” Kent wrote the Ukrainian prosecutor’s
office in April 2016. You can read the letter here.
So even without Lutsenko’s claim,
there is substantial evidence that the U.S. embassy in Kiev applied pressure on
Ukrainian prosecutors not to pursue certain investigations in 2016.
Myth: The narratives
about Biden, the U.S. embassy and Ukrainian election interference are
conspiracy theories invented by Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, former Mayor
Rudy Giuliani, to impact the 2020 election.
The Facts: Giuliani began investigating matters in Ukraine in late
fall 2018 as a personal lawyer to the president. But months before his quest
began, Ukrainian prosecutors believed they possessed evidence about Burisma, the
Bidens and 2016 election interference that might interest the U.S. Justice
Department. It is the same evidence that came to light this spring and summer
and that is now a focus of the impeachment proceedings.
Originally, one of Ukraine’s senior prosecutors tried to secure a visa to come to the United States to deliver that evidence. But when the U.S. embassy in Kiev did not fulfill his travel request, the group of Ukrainian prosecutors used an intermediary to hire a former U.S. attorney in America to reach out to the U.S. attorney office in New York and try to arrange a transfer of the evidence. The Ukrainian prosecutors’ story about making the overture to the DOJ was independently verified by the American lawyer they hired.
So the activities and allegation now at the
heart of impeachment actually pre-date Giuliani starting work on Ukraine. You
can read the prosecutors’ account of their 2018 effort to get this information
to Americans here.
As the Justice Department’s review into the now-debunked Russia collusion probe becomes more public, one issue likely to dominate debate is whether the FBI treated Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump differently during the 2015-16 presidential election.
One in that debate may involve a December 2015 event that has been kept from
public view for most of the last three years.
A half dozen sources with direct knowledge tell me that Clinton’s presidential campaign was given a defensive briefing from U.S. intelligence that month about a possible foreign threat.
officials have known for months about the briefing but were forbidden from talking
about it because it was classified.
in recent weeks congressional investigators and others were allowed to see a
document where a reference to the briefing was left in an unclassified section
of the memo.
My sources say the FBI was a participant in the briefing but they cannot tell me which foreign power was raised with Clinton’s team because it remains classified. Several said the threat did not involve Russia, Ukraine or China though.
FBI and Justice Department officials declined comment, and former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta did not respond to phone and email requests for comment.
Whatever country was raised with Clinton’s campaign, the existence of the briefing itself is likely to revive concerns, at least among Republicans, that political bias caused the FBI to treat Trump and Clinton differently during the last presidential election.
While the FBI provided a generic briefing to candidate Trump about foreign threats, the bureau never gave Trump a defensive briefing during the election about its concerns that Russia was trying to compromise some of his campaign aides. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and secured a secret FISA warrant to spy on some of the campaign’s activities, including former adviser Carter Page.
fact that the Clinton campaign was given the sort of defensive briefing Trump
never received is certain to set off new alarm bells.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have
been pressing recently to force more transparency into the question of
defensive briefings for public officials being targeted by foreign powers.
“The Department of Homeland Security has made clear that ‘[a] secure and resilient electoral process is a vital national interest.’ An essential part of that process is ensuring that all candidates for office are treated fairly and are fully and equally prepared to address any potential security and counterintelligence concerns,” the senators wrote in a letter to the FBI. “The apparent absence of any policy, procedure, or practice for conducting defensive briefings undermines that process by risking the appearance of bias or, at worst, causing actual prejudice to a candidate for office.”
defensive briefings to remain an issue well into the 2020 election.