In the weeks leading up to Joe Biden’s inauguration, there was an orchestrated effort by FBI sources and New York Times journalist Adam Goldman to downplay the investigation into Hunter Biden, son of the soon-to-be president. Goldman’s article, published in December 2020, aimed to create the false impression that the investigation was politically motivated and lacked merit. However, recent whistleblower revelations and statements from former Attorney General William Barr have exposed the reality behind these deceptive narratives.
The New York Times piece, co-authored by Goldman, Katie Benner, and Ben Protess, relied on interviews with law enforcement officials and others claiming knowledge of FBI interactions with the Justice Department. The article was filled with falsehoods and misleading information, conveniently timed to coincide with Hunter Biden’s announcement that he was being investigated for tax crimes. Rather than focusing on the tax evasion investigation, the article targeted Scott Brady, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, who was responsible for screening new material related to Ukraine.
It has since been revealed that the material Brady screened included an FD-1023 form from 2017, which documented a confidential human source’s claims that the Ukrainian owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, had admitted to paying bribes to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. The public was unaware of this information at the time the Times article was published, allowing FBI sources and Goldman to push a narrative that Brady was improperly pushing the FBI to take aggressive steps. This narrative conveniently ignored the fact that it was the FBI’s re-interview of the confidential human source that revealed the damning allegations against the Bidens.
Furthermore, the Times misrepresented Barr’s screening process, presenting Brady as conducting a separate investigation into Hunter Biden rather than serving as a clearinghouse for material related to Ukraine. Barr had established the intake process in Pittsburgh to prevent misinformation from tainting ongoing investigations across different U.S. attorneys’ offices. Brady’s role was to assess whether the material was misinformation, not to open a new investigation. The FD-1023, which implicated the Bidens, was sent to Delaware for further investigation based on Brady’s recommendation.
Despite the evidence, the sources cited by the Times maintained that Joe Biden was not under investigation. They also claimed that a previous investigation into Hunter Biden’s potential money laundering had turned up nothing. However, it is suspicious that the FD-1023 report, which should have reignited the money laundering angle, was seemingly ignored. It appears that the FBI sources knew in advance that the FD-1023 would not be thoroughly investigated.
The revelations surrounding the New York Times article and the FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation highlight a coordinated effort to downplay the potential wrongdoing by the Biden family. The timing of the article, the selective focus on Brady, and the misrepresentation of Barr’s screening process all serve to create a false narrative and protect the Bidens from scrutiny. These revelations raise serious questions about the integrity of the FBI’s actions and the media’s role in shaping public perception.