Former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Scott Brady, testified that his 2020 probe into the Biden family’s business activities in Ukraine was notably “limited” by the Justice Department. [Source]
This revelation emerges amidst claims from a prosecutor that allegations of bribery related to Biden had enough credibility to justify a deeper investigation. However, these claims met resistance from the FBI.
Brady, appointed in 2020 by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, was tasked with examining information related to Ukraine. Some of this information was given to the DOJ by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s former attorney, focusing on Hunter Biden’s business engagements in the country.
According to the testimony, Brady’s investigation was restricted to “merely receiving and vetting information from the public against open-source databases, readily available resources, and existing FBI records.” He said, “It was limited by both the scope of what we were to look at and the tools that were available to us.” He emphasized that his role did not encompass making decisions on whether the evidence was substantial enough to initiate criminal investigations.
This constrained investigative approach aligns with a report by Fox News Digital, pointing out that Brady’s team did not have subpoena power due to an absence of authorization for a grand jury. Brady emphasized his lack of tools that “could compel testimony or the production of documents,” meaning critical elements like witnesses, bank records, and emails remained inaccessible.
Despite these limitations, Brady’s primary function was to determine the credibility of the received information and then pass it on to U.S. Attorney offices conducting relevant investigations.
During his investigation, Brady came across a 2017 FD-1023 form suggesting Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma. This document hinted at a possible bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Mykola Zlochevsky, CEO of Burisma Holdings. [Source]
Brady was keen to emphasize the credibility of the source mentioned in this FD-1023, recalling previous trustworthy interactions dating back to the Obama administration. It was also clarified that Giuliani was not the origin of the FD-1023’s details.
However, bureaucratic challenges seemed to plague the investigation. Simple requests, such as assessment extensions, necessitated a renewal every 30 days, involving an exhaustive “17-person signoff,” a procedure Brady described as unprecedented in his career.
Brady did not mince words expressing his frustration over the FBI’s hesitancy concerning the Hunter Biden probe, especially the layers of approval required from FBI headquarters for even basic tasks. He believed the looming 2020 elections, where Joe Biden was the Democratic nominee, influenced the FBI’s actions. “Certainly anything related to Ukraine and Ukrainian nationals that intersected with Hunter Biden and his role serving on the Burisma board was sensitive,” he remarked.
In response to a House investigator’s question about whether this sensitivity was due to Joe Biden’s candidacy, Brady replied, “Yes.”
Brady also refuted claims by Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who suggested that Brady’s office deemed the FD-1023 informant report unreliable. Brady firmly stated, “That’s not true.”
This testimony is a crucial part of the ongoing inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee. The broader objective of this inquiry is to discern potential political biases in the operations of the Justice Department and the FBI and to determine if political affiliations influenced federal investigations.
As this narrative progresses, it prompts a more profound examination of our justice system’s procedures and decision-making.