The complaint is he portrayed the 1023 information as being reported by the person who actually has the supposed recordings. That is not true. He did not say "The 1023 states someone told the source they have recordings" There is a huge difference
Great, lock them all up. President Biden, Hunter, President Trump, Ivanka, Kushner, all of them. All the congress members doing insider trading, too. Regardless, you were once again wrong and Kushner was not paid two billion dollars, correct?
I don't see that at all. The 1023 was filled out by someone reporting that the foreign national has recordings. That is ultra-clear. (Why would a foreign national fill out the 1023?) I take it the whistleblower is a third individual who reported the existence of the 1023. I just don't see what you're getting at. There is nothing that Grassley is saying that is confusing
wiki: An FD-1023 (CHS Reporting Document) is the form FBI agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources. FD-1023s merely document that information; they do not reflect the conclusions of investigators based on a fuller context or understanding. Recording this information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI in our investigations
FBI apparently already looked into it and moved on. When the like of Ron Johnson and Jim Jordan said hold on.... lol, you guys should really hold on. https://www.newsweek.com/more-republicans-cast-doubt-joe-biden-tapes-legitimacy-1806803 Several Republican lawmakers are pumping the brakes on the controversy surrounding the alleged audio recordings of President Joe Biden speaking with a Ukrainian executive who supposedly bribed Biden several years ago. House GOP members have been pressing the FBI for weeks to release an unclassified document that describes a report from a confidential source detailing an alleged bribery scheme between a foreign national and Biden while he was serving as vice president. The document, which was shown to select lawmakers last week, alleges that Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, accepted a $5 million bribe to push the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, over potential corruption. However, according to Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, the version of the FD-1023 form shown to a group of Republican lawmakers was a redacted version of the form that omitted reference to 17 audio recordings of phone calls between Biden family members and the Ukrainian executive at Burisma who allegedly bribed the president and his son. According to Grassley's account, who spoke about the redacted reference on the Senate floor Monday, the Burisma executive in question has 15 audio tapes of such conversations with Hunter Biden, and two audio tapes of phone calls with the president. News of the recordings have invigorated calls from Republicans for the FBI to unseal the FD-1023 in question for the American public to view without any "unnecessary" redactions. Many GOP lawmakers point to the allegations against Biden as a sign that the federal prosecutors are acting in a "two-tiered" justice system, one where former President Donald Trump faces a federal indictment over his handling of classified documents, and another where the FBI ignores allegations against Biden. But according to a senior law enforcement official who spoke with NBC News, the accusations contained in the FD-1023 were reviewed by the FBI and a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney when the report was first made in June 2020, and the claims were deemed unsubstantiated. Republicans themselves are also cautioning to take the information contained in the FD-1023 with heavy skepticism, including House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who said during an interview with Newsmax Tuesday, "We don't know if [the tapes are] legit or not." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin also spoke with conservative radio show host Vicki McKenna about the allegations against Biden on Tuesday, and cautioned to take the information in the FBI form "with a grain of salt." "Well, that's what this person says, but again, take that with a grain of salt," Johnson said in response to McKenna bringing up the alleged audio recordings. "This could be coming from a very corrupt oligarch who could be making this stuff up. Until you hear the audio tapes, until you know what the FBI did to investigate it, again, you have to suspend your judgment." On Wednesday, more Republicans doubted the audio recordings' legitimacy. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio told radio show host and Newsmax personality Chris Salcedo, "We don't know for sure if these tapes exist."
Something about 2nd or 3rd party source, but none of that matters here. The FD-1023, on it's own, means almost nothing. Any one of us can provide information to the FBI and that "unverified reporting" and information is documented in a FD-1023 form. There were a lot of news about the FBI refusing to turn over the FD-1023 (they did show a redacted version to members of Congress after much political pressure). The FBI released a statement on it below. This frankly looks like the GOP grasping at something they initially thought was powerful and is now starting to back off once they realize what it is or is NOT. I'm sure some in the GOP will continue to make noise though. https://socxfbi.org/SFSA/SFSA/Featu...FBI-on-the-FD-1023-Request-from-Congress.aspx What are FD-1023s, and why is protecting them important? As many of you know, the FD-1023 is the form our special agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources (CHSs). FD-1023s merely document that information; they do not reflect the conclusions of investigators based on a fuller context or understanding. Recording this information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI in our investigations. Protecting this type of information from wider disclosure is crucial to our ability to recruit sources and ensure the safety of the source or others mentioned in the reporting. CHSs are critical to cases across all FBI programs — whether it’s violent crime, drug cartels, or terrorism. It would be difficult to effectively recruit these sources if we can’t assure them of their confidentiality. And without these sources, we would not be able to build the cases that are so important to keeping Americans safe. What has Congress asked for, and how has the Bureau responded? On May 3, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability issued a subpoena to the FBI requesting an “unclassified FD-1023 form.” On May 10, OCA responded in writing to the committee, assuring them of the FBI’s commitment to working with them to provide information necessary for their legitimate oversight interest while also protecting CHS information. OCA staff followed up with an in-person meeting with committee staff on May 15 to learn more about their legislative interests and specific informational needs. Subsequently, on May 22, a deputy assistant director (DAD) of the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence briefed committee staff. That briefing: Included a detailed discussion of the Attorney General’s Guidelines regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources policy — which strictly limits when and how CHS information can be provided outside of the FBI — as well as the reasons behind the policy. Emphasized the importance of the FBI protecting not only the identity of a specific CHS but also information that would tend to identify the source, such as contextual material found in many of the kinds of investigative materials requested by the committee, such as FD-1023s. Explained the importance of closely protecting source information to preserve sources and methods and maintain investigative integrity, to prevent a potential decline in the FBI’s recruitment of sources and their candor in reporting, and to protect sources and individuals associated with them from being physically harmed or even killed. The briefing highlighted that the FBI’s obligation to protect CHS information extends at least for the life of the source. Presented an overview of the various levels of approval that go into reviewing FD-1023s, as well as the policies that govern how FD-1023s are routed internally. The DAD outlined how the FBI analyzes the veracity of source reporting and the internal oversight mechanisms designed to weigh reporting against other information known or developed by the FBI, and cautioned that raw, unverified source reporting may lack that important context. On May 30, OCA communicated with the committee to inform them that we had identified responsive information that we were prepared to offer the committee as an extraordinary accommodation, and that a previously scheduled call between Director Wray and the chairman would still take place the following day. On May 31, Director Wray had separate calls with the chairman and ranking member. The Director discussed the good faith efforts the FBI has taken to accommodate the committee’s request. He also conveyed that the FBI had identified an FD-1023 that the FBI believes is responsive to the subpoena. The Director further offered to produce that document with limited redactions for review at their earliest convenience, along with an important briefing to provide context to the document. Today, June 5, the FBI produced to the chairman, ranking member, and limited staff members an FD-1023 containing minimal redactions that was responsive to the committee’s subpoena. The minimally redacted document was produced on a read-and-return basis, which means the document was not left with the committee at the conclusion of the briefing. In addition, two FBI senior executives provided a contextual briefing on the document, the importance of protecting the safety of CHSs, and the integrity and effectiveness of the FBI’s CHS program. The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are important, not only for the integrity of FBI investigations but also the protection and safety of our sources. Moreover, these safeguards are routinely employed in response to congressional requests and in court proceedings. Throughout this entire process, both OCA and OPA have communicated that this is an extraordinary accommodation given the sensitivities surrounding FBI FD-1023s. Over the past three-plus weeks, OPA has released six public statements about this matter, including the following: “Director Wray has offered to produce the requested document, with limited redactions to protect the confidentiality and safety of sources, by bringing it to a secure location in the U.S. Capitol for the chair and ranking member to review. The FBI has continually demonstrated its commitment to working with the committee to accommodate its request, from scheduling briefings and calls to now allowing the chair and ranking member to review information in person. By offering to provide access to the requested document in combination with a briefing to offer context, the FBI has agreed in good faith to give the committee all of the information it originally asked for and more. The commonsense protections the FBI has requested to maintain the confidentiality of that sensitive information are routinely employed both in response to congressional requests and in court in criminal proceedings to protect the physical safety of sources and the integrity of investigations. The FBI remains committed to cooperating with the committee in good faith.” As you’ve heard Director Wray say repeatedly, the FBI must always be committed to doing the right thing in the right way. We’ve attempted to achieve that in our handling of this subpoena, striking an appropriate balance between upholding our commitment to cooperating with congressional oversight and protecting our confidential sources. We thought it was important for you, our FBI workforce, to have the full picture of our efforts on this matter.
that's a nice wall of text, but the other guy seems to be saying that Grassley is lying and/or is misleading about something. I don't see it. If Grassley is lying someone please pull out a direct quote and specify where the problem is
Add one more note The FD-1023 in question was apparently investigated in June of 2020 (under the Trump Admin). The coincidence (or not!) is it's related to what Trump and Giuliani pushed before the 2020 election. I think you can read between the lines.
let's get this thread back on track https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/15/the-bidens-coerced-burisma-to-pay-10-million-in-bribes-says-credible-fbi-source/ The Bidens ‘Coerced’ Burisma To Pay $10 Million In Bribes, Says Credible FBI Source Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden. BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND JUNE 15, 2023 The Bidens allegedly “coerced” a foreign national to pay them $10 million in bribes, according to individuals familiar with the investigation into the FBI’s handling of the FD-1023 confidential human source report. What, if anything, agents did to investigate these explosive claims remains unknown, however, with sources telling The Federalist the FBI continues to stonewall. On Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed a foreign national — identified by individuals with knowledge of the matter as Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky — allegedly possessed 17 recordings implicating the Bidens in a pay-to-play scandal. While 15 of the audio recordings consisted of phone calls between Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden, two were of calls the Ukrainian had with then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to the FD-1023. The Federalist has now learned the FD-1023 reported the CHS saying the Bidens “coerced” Zlochevsky to pay the bribes. Sources familiar with the investigation also explained the context of Zlochevsky’s statements, and that context further bolsters the CHS’s reporting. In the FD-1023 from June 30, 2020, the confidential human source summarized earlier meetings he had with Zlochevsky. According to the CHS, in the 2015-2016 timeframe, the CHS, who was providing advice to Zlochevsky, told the Burisma owner to stay away from the Bidens. Then, after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest, the CHS asked Zlochevsky if he was upset Trump won. Zlochevsky allegedly told the CHS he was dismayed by Trump’s victory, fearing an investigation would reveal his payments to the Biden family, which included a $5 million payment to Hunter Biden and a $5 million payment to Joe Biden. According to the CHS, the Burisma executive bemoaned the situation, claiming the Bidens had “coerced” him into paying the bribes. The CHS responded that he hoped Zlochevsky had taken precautions to protect himself. Zlochevsky then allegedly detailed the steps he had taken to avoid detection, stressing he had never paid the “Big Guy” directly and that it would take some 10 years to unravel the various money trails. It was only then that Zlochevsky mentioned the audio recordings he had made of the conversations he had with Hunter and Joe Biden, according to the CHS. The broader context of this conversation adds to the plausibility of Zlochevsky’s claims that he possessed recordings implicating the Bidens. And we already know from Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer that the FBI considered the CHS, who relayed Zlochevsky’s claims to the FBI, a “highly credible” source. Further, according to individuals familiar with the investigation, the FBI admitted the CHS’s intel was unrelated to the information Rudy Giuliani had provided the Western District of Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney’s office — the office then-Attorney General William Barr had tasked with reviewing any new information related to Ukraine. Sources told The Federalist that investigators out of the Pittsburgh office, in addition to reviewing Giuliani’s information, searched internal FBI databases and came across an earlier FD-1023 related to the CHS. That earlier FD-1023 then led to agents questioning the CHS on June 30, 2020, uncovering the details concerning Burisma’s alleged bribery of the Bidens. What the FBI did to investigate the allegations is unknown, with sources telling The Federalist the bureau refused to either confirm or deny that the DOJ under Barr sent the FD-1023 to Delaware for further investigation. On the contrary, the FBI allowed Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, to falsely represent to Americans that Barr and Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady had closed the investigation. Raskin’s deceit, tolerated by the FBI, forced Barr to publicly correct the record. The FBI is also refusing to provide any information on what, if any, steps it took to investigate the detailed claims contained in the FD-1023. But sources familiar with investigative procedures maintain there was insufficient time between the June 30, 2020, interview of the CHS and the FBI headquarters’ closing of an assessment related to the FD-1023 in August 2020 to properly probe the matter. “They couldn’t have done much,” one source said. There is also no independent confirmation from Delaware indicating any investigative steps were taken regarding the FD-1023. Agents in Delaware “could have sat on it,” according to one individual familiar with the investigation. While the FBI’s efforts to unwind the pay-to-play scheme seem to have been nonexistent, banking records released in May by the House Oversight Committee show congressional investigators are unraveling the complex web behind the Biden family business. Those records provide concrete evidence of a pattern of public corruption involving foreign nationals, with Joe Biden at the helm. There are still more banking records to review, along with the many details recently discovered when the whistleblower came forward with the FD-1023. Apparently, Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden.
So I read Grassley's statements. This is just him politicking. It is misleading to suggests two standards and political influence based on this FD-1023, when the FD-1023 was apparently investigated by the FBI during Trump presidency. May 10 2023: “While the FBI has failed to produce the specific document by the subpoena deadline, their offer to provide an accommodation process in response to our legitimate request indicates the document is real. So the question remains, what did the FBI do to investigate very serious allegations from an apparent trusted FBI source implicating then-Vice President Biden? Today’s letter from the FBI raises additional questions, including whether the FBI has an open investigation based on these allegations. The American people pay the FBI’s salaries, and they’re entitled to a fulsome response,” Grassley said. June 12 2023 on the Senate floor: As the public knows that 1023 involves an alleged bribery scheme between then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden and a foreign national. The same allegations that Chairman Comer and I made public on May 3 of this year. And on the same day that the FBI provided a redacted version of the 1023 to the House Oversight Committee, the Justice Department announced that former President Trump had been indicted and charged with 37 crimes relating to his alleged mishandling of classified records. Attorney General Garland signed off on prosecuting Trump for conduct similar to what Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton engaged in. Two standards of justice in this country will turn our constitutional Republic upside down. Thanks to the political infection within the Biden Justice Department and FBI, we’re well along the road for that to happen.
Yep, this fall in the: I'm sure some in the GOP (and their darlings) will continue to make noise though
Anyone can report to the FBI and have a 1023 filled out. They can be a foreign national. It is not ultra clear the foreign national did not make this report to the FBI. Grassley says based on the 1023 there are recordings. He doesn't make clear the person who reported this to the FBI IS NOT the person who supposedly has the recordings. This can be seen by all the right wing media, twitter comments, message board comments, comments on Fox News articles. People believe the person who contacted the FBI actually has recordings and they were the one who talked to Biden. Why didn't Grassley say "The 1023 states a source contacted the FBI stating a foreign national told the source they have recordings."? To cause confusion and have said exactly what is being said on all the venues I listed earlier.
