Prosecutor faced ‘unusual’ obstacles in Hunter Biden case.
Former U.S. Attorney Scott Brady Criticizes DOJ’s Investigation Process into Hunter Biden
In a closed-door testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, former U.S. Attorney Scott Brady expressed his concerns about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation process regarding Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukraine. Brady, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, described the process as “very unusual” and heavily bureaucratic. He faced lengthy delays and complex approval processes during his work.
Impeachment Inquiry and Special Treatment Allegations
Brady’s testimony comes at a time when House Republicans are leading an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, accusing him of abusing his power as vice president to benefit his son’s business dealings. As part of the inquiry, they are investigating whether Hunter Biden received special treatment from the DOJ during its investigation into him.
Brady was assigned by the DOJ in January 2020 to assess the credibility of public information related to corruption in Ukraine and Hunter Biden’s work there. He was required to share his findings with U.S. attorneys’ offices in Delaware, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of New York, as well as corresponding FBI field offices.
Excessive Bureaucracy and Communication Challenges
Brady faced numerous challenges in communicating with the Delaware office and FBI headquarters. While he acknowledged the sensitivity of the material involving Joe Biden and his son, he found the issues he encountered to be unprecedented, even compared to other high-profile cases. The Delaware office, led by special counsel David Weiss, appeared skeptical of the information Brady was developing.
At one point, communication between the Pittsburgh and Delaware offices became so restricted that written questions had to be exchanged. Brady had to involve the deputy attorney general’s office and the FBI regularly to address the challenges. Coordinating with FBI headquarters was particularly difficult, with Brady facing reluctance from the FBI to assist in the investigation.
Unusual Approval Processes and Lack of Information Sharing
Brady described the excessive steps and multiple levels of approval required by the FBI, which he had not encountered in his career before. He even needed approval from 17 different people for an extension of his work. The FBI’s possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop, obtained through a subpoena, was not shared with Brady, which surprised him.
Despite the narrow scope of his assignment, Brady expected better communication and engagement from Weiss’s office and others involved in the investigation. He emphasized the importance of avoiding duplication of efforts and complications in their respective investigations.
Scrutiny and Allegations Regarding FD-1023 Form
Brady also addressed allegations made by Rep. Jamie Raskin that he and former Attorney General Bill Barr closed an investigation into an FD-1023 form without finding corroborating evidence. The form contained explosive allegations about the Bidens, including claims of bribery. Brady clarified that the form was not closed and was sent to Delaware for further investigation, as Barr publicly stated.
Brady confirmed the credibility of the source mentioned in the form, who had been used in previous investigations. However, due to the limitations of his assignment, he could not confirm the substance of the allegations beyond verifying the source’s travel and meeting schedule. Brady’s team believed the form had enough credibility to warrant further investigation by the Delaware office.
Response from the FBI and DOJ
The FBI defended its work, stating that it follows a thorough and rigorous process, unaffected by politics. The bureau emphasized its commitment to following the facts and conducting investigations by the book. The DOJ and the House Judiciary Committee did not provide any comments on Brady’s testimony.
How did excessive bureaucracy hinder the progress of the overall investigation in His investigation case?
His investigation. This resulted in delays and hindered the progress of the overall investigation.
Furthermore, Brady expressed his frustration with the approval process within the DOJ. He highlighted that certain requests and actions required multiple levels of approval, which significantly slowed down the investigation. Brady argued that such excessive bureaucracy is not conducive to a thorough and efficient investigation, especially in a case as high-profile as this.
Concerns of Political Interference
Another issue raised by Brady is the potential for political interference in the investigation process. He stated that there were instances where political considerations seemed to influence decision-making. Brady emphasized the importance of conducting investigations impartially and without any partisan motivations.
Brady’s testimony raises questions about the integrity of the DOJ’s investigation process, particularly when it comes to cases involving influential individuals. It highlights the need for transparency and fairness to ensure that investigations are conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and the rule of law.
The Implications of Brady’s Testimony
Brady’s testimony has significant implications for the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. It adds weight to the allegations made by House Republicans regarding potential abuse of power and special treatment given to Hunter Biden during the DOJ’s investigation.
Moreover, Brady’s concerns about the excessive bureaucracy and potential political interference shed light on broader issues within the DOJ. It raises questions about the department’s ability to conduct independent and unbiased investigations, particularly in cases involving powerful individuals.
Ultimately, Brady’s testimony serves as a call for reform within the DOJ. It highlights the need to streamline the investigation process, minimize bureaucratic obstacles, and ensure that investigations are conducted without any political influence. The integrity of the DOJ’s investigation process is crucial in maintaining public trust and upholding the principles of justice.
In conclusion, former U.S. Attorney Scott Brady’s criticism of the DOJ’s investigation process into Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukraine raises significant concerns about excessive bureaucracy, communication challenges, and potential political interference. His testimony adds weight to the allegations of special treatment and abuse of power within the DOJ. It calls for a reevaluation of the investigation process to ensure transparency, fairness, and independence. The implications of Brady’s testimony extend beyond the specific case, highlighting broader issues within the DOJ that require attention and reform.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...