16<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

The\u200b Pittsburgh-based\u200d U.S. attorney charged\u2064 with screening evidence of Ukrainian corruption before the 2020 election testified before the House Judiciary \u2064Committee on Monday about the bureaucratic \u2063obstruction his\u200c team faced.\u200c The roadblocks detailed by former\u200d U.S. Attorney Scott Brady over \u200dthe course \u2063of the\u200d six-hour hearing \u200bwere so outrageous that at one point a lawyer \u2062for the minority party asked whether\u200d he was speaking\u2064 in hyperbole. He wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The situation Brady faced\u200d was also \u2062much worse than the media\u200b have\u200d reported to date, as the\u200c full\u200b transcript of the interview, \u200breviewed by The Federalist, \u200cestablishes. Here \u200care the \u200bseven most shocking details \u200drevealed during \u200dMonday\u2019s\u200d hearing.<\/p>\n

1. FBI Drags Its\u2064 Feet While Tying Brady\u2019s \u200bHands<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/ol>\n
Monday\u2019s closed-door hearing of the House\u2063 Judiciary \u2063Committee, \u200cwhich is investigating the \u2064DOJ and FBI\u2019s handling of \u200dthe probe into \u2064Biden\u200d family corruption, opened with Brady explaining that \u2063in early January 2020, then-Attorney General \u2063William Barr tapped him to\u2063 vet evidence related to Ukrainian\u200d corruption.<\/p>\n
While he\u2064 immediately \u2064moved to open\u200b a matter in the U.S.\u2063 attorney\u2019s office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Brady testified that\u200b he didn\u2019t believe the FBI opened its assessment until late March. Part\u2062 of the \u200bproblem, Brady explained, was that the\u200c FBI maintained it had \u2064to \u200coperate under the framework of \u200dthe Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide \u200b(DIOG)\u200b and that there was \u2063no procedure\u200d for handling a vetting assignment such\u200b as Barr assigned to the Pittsburgh office.<\/p>\n
So, as Brady explained, he had a discussion with the Pittsburgh\u2063 FBI agents about \u201chow, in\u200d their administrative\u200c process, it should be characterized.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cI said, \u2018Well \u200clet\u2019s all sit together around a table\u2064 and talk this \u200cout;\u200c could you please share with me your DIOG,\u2019\u201d Brady testified,\u200d explaining the DIOG \u201cis the FBI\u2019s\u200c bible for their processes and procedures.\u201d <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
The local\u2063 FBI agents told Brady that someone from\u200b FBI headquarters directed the local agents\u2064 not to share the DIOG with \u200dthe U.S. attorney\u2019s \u200doffice. \u200bBrady\u2019s response, as he relayed \u200dto \u2062the committee, perfectly crystalized the madness: \u201cI\u2019m a\u2063 presidentially appointed United \u200cStates attorney. We\u2019re \u200con the same team, part \u200dof the Department \u200bof Justice. What do\u200c you mean\u200b you can\u2019t\u200c share your \u200dDIOG with me?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s \u2062what we were told, so\u2062 we can\u2019t,\u2062 sir,\u201d the local Pittsburgh FBI team replied, in\u200d his telling.<\/p>\n
And they never did share the DIOG \u200cwith \u2062him,\u200b the former federal prosecutor testified, explaining he instead\u200b resorted to\u2064 finding an older \u200dredacted version online,\u200c and then \u200dreferenced those standards \u200bwhen\u2062 discussing with the FBI team how to open the investigation. <\/p>\n
2. 17 Approvals Needed \u2014 and That\u2019s Not Hyperbole<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/ol>\n
The\u2064 FBI eventually opted \u200dto\u2062 open an \u201cassessment\u201d for the material on Ukraine provided \u200cby the Pittsburgh-based U.S. attorney\u2019s office. Under\u2062 the \u200dDIOG, an \u201cassessment\u201d could only last for 30 days, after \u2063which it would need to be\u2063 reauthorized.\u200d That meant every\u2064 30 days, the Pittsburgh FBI office needed to re-up the assessment,\u2063 which normally\u200b wouldn\u2019t be an issue, Brady testified, because a special agent\u2019s immediate supervisor, a supervisory special agent<\/a> (SSA) at the\u2063 local\u2062 field office could reauthorize an assessment.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
But not in the case of the Ukrainian corruption vetting. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case,\u201d Brady \u200btestified, \u201cit required 17 different\u2064 people, including mostly at\u200c the headquarters level\u2062 to \u200bsign off on it before \u200bthe assessment could \u200bbe extended.\u201d Consequently, Brady\u200c explained, at times the FBI\u200b agents \u2062\u201chad to go pens\u200c down sometimes for 2 or 3 weeks at a time\u200d \u2026 because they were still waiting on, again, on someone within the 17-chain signoff to\u2062 approve.\u201d <\/p>\n
The ridiculousness of\u200c a 17-person approval was clear to even the Democrat attorney questioning\u200d Brady. \u200dAfter noting he \u200dhad\u2063 made reference to \u200c\u201c17 layers of approval,\u201d she asked: \u201cWas that an actual \u2063number, or was \u200dthat just hyperbole? Were\u200c there 17 boxes to check?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo it was \u2062our \u2064understanding, related by someone \u2063on \u200cthe FBI team \u200cin Pittsburgh,\u200c that that was an actual number, that there were 17 approvals \u200dthat were \u2064required to extend\u2064 the assessment an additional 30 days.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. FBI Headquarters Had To Sign-Off on Everything.<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/ol>\n
Not only did more \u200dthan \u200ca\u2062 dozen individuals need to approve \u2064the renewal of the assessment, \u200cincluding\u2064 many\u2062 out of \u200bFBI headquarters,\u200d but Brady\u2063 testified that FBI headquarters\u2064 was required to \u201csignoff \u200cfor any\u2063 investigative\u2064 steps that FBI Pittsburgh was asked \u200dto take by\u201d the Pittsburgh \u200bU.S. attorney\u2019s office. <\/p>\n
Brady reiterated this point, testifying:\u200c \u201cIt was my understanding that they could not take any steps absent the approval,\u2062 the\u2063 review and \u2064approval of FBI headquarters, not\u200d just \u2063the leadership \u200dof FBI Pittsburgh.\u201d And later, when asked to elaborate \u2062on challenges with the FBI, Brady noted:\u2064 \u201cIt was\u200c my\u2063 understanding\u200b that FBI headquarters had to sign off on\u200d every assignment, no matter how small or \u200croutine, before they could take action.\u201d<\/p>\n
This level \u200dof signoff by headquarters was not\u200d normal, Brady confirmed, noting\u200d that in his experience, even in a \u200bsensitive investigation, the investigation is\u200c usually \u2063contained within\u200b the field office, with an SSA \u200dapproving requests, or maybe an assistant special\u200c agent in charge \u2064or on occasion \u2063even \u2064the\u2062 special\u200b agent \u200cin charge. But never in his career\u2063 had Brady seen anything like this. <\/p>\n
4. FBI Reluctance In Investigating<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/ol>\n
The former U.S. attorney\u2019s testimony\u200d also made clear the FBI was\u200c reluctant to assist\u2064 their investigation. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt was a challenging working relationship,\u201d Brady noted, saying he believed \u201cthere\u200d was reluctance on the part of the FBI to really do\u200c any tasking related to our \u2062assignment \u2026 and looking into allegations of Ukrainian corruption broadly and then specifically \u2064anything that intersected with Hunter Biden\u200d and his role in Burisma.\u201d <\/p>\n
When pushed on where the problems originated, Brady \u2064said, \u201cIt was somewhere \u200dat FBI \u200cheadquarters,\u201d but he \u201chad\u200b no visibility into where that choke point was.\u201d But it \u200bwas somewhere \u200bbelow the deputy director \u200band\u200c principal assistant deputy attorney general<\/a>\u2064 because whenever the FBI refused to\u200c cooperate, forcing \u2064Brady to elevate the issue to FBI headquarters or \u200bthe DOJ, the\u2064 issues were resolved by the\u2062 various \u2063high-level officials. <\/p>\n
Unbeknownst \u2062to\u200b Brady, that \u2064also proved to be the case\u200b when it came to his office briefing the Delaware U.S. attorney\u2019s \u2064office \u200bon \u200cthe results of his \u2063assessment. Brady testified \u2064that he had been trying for some time to arrange a briefing with the \u200bDelaware U.S. attorney\u2019s office, only to learn\u200d later \u2064that Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley \u200dWolf had not wanted to take the briefing. IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley \u200drecently revealed that the meeting \u200donly came \u200dabout after Main Justice ordered Delaware\u200b to meet with Brady\u2019s team to be briefed on \u200dthe results\u200c of their vetting. <\/p>\n
5. FBI Headquarters \u200bTells \u200cPittsburgh Agents\u200b to Play Coy<\/h2>\n
<\/ol>\n
\u201cReluctance\u201d appears to be an understatement, \u2063though, as Brady \u2063further\u2062 testified that \u200da member\u2062 of the \u2062Pittsburgh \u200bFBI team relayed that FBI \u200dheadquarters had\u2064 directed them \u201cnot\u2062 to affirmatively share information\u201d but rather \u201conly \u200cto share information with \u200d [Pittsburgh] if we asked \u200dthem a direct question relating to\u2064 that information\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n
That \u201cis not typically how the investigative\u2064 process\u2063 goes,\u201d Brady added.<\/p>\n
That the FBI agents had directions only \u200dto share information with\u200d the U.S. attorney\u2019s office \u200bif asked a\u200d direct question seems to explain Brady\u2019s\u200d later\u200d testimony. The former U.S. attorney later testified that when the Washington field office discovered \u200ban older FD-1023 report\u2064 that included a discreet statement mentioning Hunter Biden\u2019s service on the Burisma\u2062 Board, the Pittsburgh office requested to see the FD-1023. \u200bApparently, relying on the\u200b FBI to convey relevant information to the prosecutors was not an\u200c option. In this case, that FD-1023 led to \u200bthe confidential human source providing \u2064extensive \u200cadditional information<\/a> about \u200bthe Bidens\u2019 involvement \u2064and alleged bribe-taking from Burisma, \u2064so it \u2062is a good thing\u200c Pittsburgh \u200basked to see\u200b the actual document.<\/p>\n
When it\u2062 came \u200bto the Hunter \u200cBiden laptop, however, Brady and his team of prosecutors didn\u2019t know what\u2063 they didn\u2019t know, so they never asked whether the\u2063 FBI had seized\u200d any\u2063 of Hunter Biden\u2019s electronic devices. With \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d being Delaware\u2019s protect-Biden policy, the Delaware\u2064 office opted\u200d against informing\u200b the Pittsburgh\u200c U.S. attorney\u2019s office of the existence of \u2062the\u2064 laptop. Rather, \u2064Brady testified that he first learned of the laptop\u2019s existence when the New York Post broke the story in mid-October. <\/p>\n
6. Delaware Refuses to Play Nice <\/h2>\n
<\/ol>\n
Not only did Brady testify about the challenges\u200c of working with the FBI, \u2062but he also faced \u2064issues with the Delaware U.S.\u200d attorney\u2019s \u200doffice. <\/p>\n
\u201c[I]t was regularly\u200d a challenge \u200cto interact \u2062with the investigative team from Delaware,\u201d Brady testified. \u201cThere was \u2064no information\u200c sharing\u201d or \u201cvery limited\u201d information sharing, from\u2062 Delaware. In fact, \u201cat one point, the communication between our offices was so \u2064constricted that we \u200dhad to provide \u2064written questions to \u200cthe investigative\u2062 team in Delaware, almost\u200c in the form \u2064of \u200dinterrogatories, and receive written answers back,\u201d Brady testified. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis was very \u2063unusual,\u201d Brady continued, noting that \u201ctypical \u2063U.S. attorney to U.S. attorney office \u200dcommunications, even\u2062 on sensitive matters, is\u200d fairly clear and transparent.\u201d \u200b\u201cWe\u2019re all\u200d professionals,\u201d Brady\u2063 explained. <\/p>\n
Yet,\u2063 with Delaware, the Pittsburgh U.S. attorney\u2019s office had to resort to submitting a list of written questions to U.S. Attorney\u200c David Weiss\u2019s team, which \u2063the Delaware prosecutors then \u2062responded to in writing, much\u200c as interrogatories are served on\u2063 opposing parties\u200b in litigation.<\/p>\n
Jim \u200cJordan, the chair \u200cof the Judiciary Committee, asked Brady if he had ever seen anything like \u2062this\u200c during his time as an assistant U.S. attorney or U.S.\u2062 attorney. <\/p>\n
\u201cNot where \u2062an office had to submit written \u2062interrogatories to another office for permission,\u201d Brady \u200bsaid.<\/p>\n
7. Lying About Brady<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/ol>\n
Another challenge he faced, Brady explained,\u200d was false \u200crepresentations being made to\u200c senior FBI leadership about what the U.S. attorney\u2019s\u2062 team was or wasn\u2019t doing. \u201cThere was information that \u200cwas being shared up that chain\u200d at the FBI that was incorrect,\u201d Brady\u200d explained, and it rose all the way\u200c up to\u200b AG Barr. <\/p>\n
Brady noted that while \u2062they resolved the issue, \u2062it presented an\u200d unnecessary challenge to handling the vetting process. <\/p>\n
Of \u2064course, some of the same people likely used that same \u200ctactic by lying about the Pittsburgh vetting process to the press. And more \u2062recently, Democrats such \u200bas Jamie Raskin resorted to\u200c peddling\u200b falsehoods, such \u2063as that Barr\u2019s \u200chandpicked prosecutor, Brady, \u2064had\u2064 closed the assessment into the FD-1023. <\/p>\n
During his Monday testimony, Brady also confirmed that Barr had accurately described the true scenario \u2014 that the FD-1023 \u200chad been \u2064passed \u2062on to\u200c the\u200b Delaware\u200c U.S. attorney\u2019s office for further investigation \u2014 and that Raskin was lying, at I reported<\/a> here \u2064in The \u2063Federalist. <\/p>\n
But \u2062what else could \u200ca Biden \u2063apologist do but\u2063 lie \u2014 after whistleblowers exposed the DOJ and FBI\u2019s obstruction and the evidence of the president\u2019s corruption? <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\u200d rnrn <\/p>\n
\u2062 Lack of\u2064 Resources Hindering Investigation Progress<\/p>\n<\/h2>\n
\u200b The Bureaucratic Obstruction\u2064 Faced by\u200c U.S. Attorney Scott Brady in Ukrainian Corruption\u2062 Probe<\/p>\n
Former U.S. Attorney \u2063Scott Brady,\u200c who is based\u2064 in\u200d Pittsburgh,\u2063 testified before the House Judiciary Committee\u2064 on\u2064 Monday about the various bureaucratic roadblocks \u200dhis team faced\u200b while screening evidence of Ukrainian \u200dcorruption before the 2020 election.\u2062 The details revealed\u2063 during the six-hour hearing were so outrageous that a lawyer for the minority party even questioned\u2062 whether Brady\u2063 was speaking in hyperbole.<\/p>\n
The situation Brady faced was much worse\u2062 than what has been reported by\u2062 the\u200b media so far, as the full transcript of the interview reviewed by The Federalist establishes. Here are the \u200dseven most\u200c shocking\u200d details revealed during Monday’s hearing.<\/p>\n
1. FBI Drags Its Feet While \u2064Tying Brady’s Hands<\/p>\n
Brady\u2064 began the closed-door hearing \u2062by explaining that \u2063in early \u2063January 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr assigned him to vet evidence related to Ukrainian corruption. While Brady promptly opened a matter \u200bin the U.S. attorney’s office for the Western District\u2064 of Pennsylvania, he testified that he didn’t believe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Pittsburgh-based U.S. attorney testified before the House Judiciary Committee, highlighting bureaucratic obstruction faced by his team while screening evidence of Ukrainian corruption before the 2020 election. Former U.S. Attorney Scott Brady detailed outrageous roadblocks during the six-hour hearing, leaving a lawyer stunned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2081077,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2081076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2081076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2081076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2081076\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2081077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2081076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2081076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2081076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}