Newly released FBI documents suggest the bureau sat on explosive allegations of Biden family corruption in Ukraine while seemingly doing little to dig deeper, as Just the News reports. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson have dropped a bombshell with two fresh FBI FD-1023 forms, detailing claims of shady dealings tied to Burisma Holdings.
For those just tuning in, the core issue is that the FBI had three separate confidential sources alleging corruption involving Joe and Hunter Biden with Ukrainian energy giant Burisma, yet there’s scant evidence of a serious investigation into these claims ever taking place.
Let’s rewind to 2015, when federal agencies first got wind of suspicious financial activity linked to Hunter Biden. Two whistleblowers from Morgan Stanley flagged odd transactions involving Hunter’s business partner, Devon Archer, and their firm, Rosemont Seneca. You’d think that would trigger some alarms, but apparently, the FBI hit the snooze button.
Fast forward to June 2017, when a confidential informant told the FBI that Joe Biden allegedly met with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to shield Hunter’s interests with Burisma. “Joseph Biden would ‘take care’ of Burisma Holding issues around the world,” the source claimed.
Then, in February 2019, another informant dropped a bombshell in an FD-1023 report, alleging Burisma funneled money through 13 shell companies via fake consulting deals, with funds routed through Latvia to U.S. investors -- including Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s a labyrinth of financial wizardry that screams for scrutiny, yet the FBI’s response seems to have been a collective shrug.
A third informant, Alexander Smirnov, echoed similar claims in a 2023 FD-1023 release by Grassley, alleging Burisma’s founder paid the Bidens $10 million for political protection. But here’s the twist: the Justice Department later found Smirnov’s story was largely fabricated, and he pleaded guilty to felony charges for lying. Still, the FBI’s Pittsburgh Field Office initially corroborated some details—raising questions about their vetting process.
Grassley, never one to let sleeping dogs lie, revealed in October 2023 that over 40 informants had tipped off the FBI about potential misconduct by the Biden family over the years, yet most probes had been stalled. It’s almost as if the bureau was playing whack-a-mole with allegations, only without the whacking. Where’s the accountability?
At a September hearing, Grassley pressed FBI Director Kash Patel on whether the bureau chased down leads from these reports. Patel’s response? “Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.” That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of investigative zeal.
Grassley didn’t mince words, stating, “To date, the FBI has never answered Congress whether they investigated the text messages, audio files, and financial records referenced in that 1023.” If the FBI isn’t even checking the evidence, what are they doing -- playing bureaucratic hide-and-seek? This isn’t just oversight; it’s a glaring blind spot.
Adding fuel to the fire, IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have claimed that the Justice Department and FBI stonewalled their efforts to probe Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes. They were even barred from asking about Joe Biden’s rumored nickname, “the big guy,” in emails from Hunter’s laptop. Sounds like someone didn’t want certain dots connected.
Joe Biden, for his part, has dismissed the allegations outright, telling the New York Post, “It’s a bunch of lies.” Fair enough, but when multiple sources -- however flawed -- point to smoke, shouldn’t someone at least check for fire? Denials don’t equal due diligence.
Grassley’s stance is clear: “We aren’t saying the allegations are true. We want to know what the FBI did to fully investigate their veracity or lack thereof.” That’s not a witch hunt; it’s a call for transparency in a system that seems allergic to it.
Even former FBI Director Christopher Wray once called Smirnov a “trusted and credible” source before his lies were exposed. If the FBI can’t spot a fabulist in their own ranks, how can taxpayers trust them to handle raw intelligence from FD-1023s, which are unverified by design? This isn’t just sloppy; it’s a credibility crisis.
Grassley also unveiled two new FD-1023s in 2025, from separate sources in different years, reinforcing earlier claims about Burisma’s murky dealings. “These documents memorialize statements from FBI sources,” he noted. Yet, the question remains -- why does the FBI seem content to file these away rather than follow the trail?
At the end of the day, this story isn’t about guilt or innocence; it’s about whether our premier law enforcement agency is doing its job or playing political patty-cake. With progressive agendas often dominating the narrative, conservatives are right to demand answers without the woke spin. If the FBI won’t investigate credible leads -- or even explain why not -- then public trust is just another casualty in this mess.
