This shocking story is a testament to the power of dogged investigative journalism in uncovering truths that powerful institutions desperately want to keep under wraps. It lays bare a pattern of deceit, where public posturing on corruption is merely a facade for private actions that enrich a political dynasty. The American people and the global community deserve a full and transparent accounting of these actions, and this declassified evidence provides a crucial piece of the puzzle, confirming that where there’s smoke, there’s indeed fire. Meanwhile, Representative James Comer has revealed that documents made public by CIA Director John Ratcliffe show that Joe Biden’s office, during his tenure as vice president under President Barack Obama, actively blocked the release of a sensitive intelligence memo from US officials stationed in Kyiv. The memo allegedly detailed Ukrainian leaders’ frustration with Biden’s 2015 visit to Kyiv and their concerns over Hunter Biden’s lucrative role at Burisma Holdings, an energy firm that paid him a staggering $1 million annually.

Declassified Documents and the Shadows of Influence in U.S.-Ukraine Relations

The recent declassification of CIA documents from 2015 sheds new light on a troubling chapter involving the Biden family, Ukrainian energy interests, and efforts to suppress unflattering intelligence. This revelation not only underscores perceived double standards in anti-corruption rhetoric but also vindicates former President Trump’s push for scrutiny—efforts that led to his 2019 impeachment.

The Biden Family’s Business Ties to Burisma: A Primer on the Alleged Corruption

At the heart of this story lies Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private natural gas producer, which faced persistent allegations of corruption and regulatory favouritism in the mid-2010s. In April 2014, Hunter Biden—son of then-Vice President Joe Biden—joined the board of Burisma, earning up to $50,000 per month despite lacking deep experience in the Ukrainian energy sector. This arrangement raised eyebrows, as it coincided with Joe Biden’s high-profile role in leading the U.S. anti-corruption push in Ukraine, including pressuring the country to reform its judiciary and energy oversight.

From a financial perspective, such board positions aren’t uncommon for well-connected individuals, but the optics here were problematic. Ukrainian officials and international watchdogs viewed Hunter’s involvement as a potential conflict of interest, especially given Burisma’s history of investigations into bribery and illicit payments. The company had been under scrutiny by Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office for issues like money laundering and abuse of power, with founder Mykola Zlochevsky—a former environment minister—accused of amassing unexplained wealth during his tenure. Critics argued that the Biden name lent undue legitimacy to Burisma, potentially shielding it from deeper probes while the U.S. publicly condemned similar practices elsewhere. This wasn’t just a family side hustle; it symbolized a broader tension between personal gain and public duty, eroding the credibility of America’s anti-corruption stance abroad.

The 2015 Intelligence Report: Ukrainian Officials’ Stark View of a “Double Standard”

The declassified CIA memo, dated December 2015, captures raw intelligence from Biden’s official visit to Kyiv that month—a trip framed as a bold stand against Ukrainian graft. According to the report, multiple senior Ukrainian officials privately expressed dismay over the Biden family’s Burisma ties, describing them as emblematic of a U.S. “double standard” on corruption. One official reportedly quipped that while America lectured Ukraine on cleaning house, the Bidens’ involvement suggested selective blindness when it suited influential families.

This intel wasn’t speculative; it stemmed from direct debriefs with Ukrainian counterparts who felt betrayed by the hypocrisy. They noted how Hunter’s board seat persisted amid Burisma’s scandals, contrasting sharply with U.S. demands for firing corrupt prosecutors like Viktor Shokin. Financially, this double standard risked undermining investor confidence in Ukraine’s energy market, where foreign capital was already skittish due to perceived cronyism. The report’s blunt assessment—that such dealings “undermine U.S. policy objectives”—highlighted how personal entanglements could torpedo diplomatic goals, a lesson every finance executive knows from navigating conflicted transactions.

The Cover-Up: Biden’s Office Blocks Dissemination of Embarrassing Intel

What elevates this from eyebrow-raising to scandalous is the subsequent handling of the report. Newly surfaced emails and memos reveal that Biden’s national security team, upon learning of the intel, explicitly directed the CIA not to share it beyond a tight circle. The directive came from Biden’s chief Ukraine advisor, Colin Kahl, who argued that wider dissemination would be “politically problematic” and could “embarrass the vice president.” This suppression occurred in real time, just as Biden was delivering anti-corruption speeches in Kyiv, including a December 9, 2015, address where he boasted of U.S. commitment to rooting out graft. This mirrors a board burying adverse audit findings to protect executive reputations—a breach of fiduciary duty that invites regulatory backlash. By quashing the report, the administration prioritized image over integrity, potentially delaying accountability for Burisma’s issues and fuelling perceptions of elite impunity. The declassification, prompted by recent Freedom of Information Act requests, exposes how internal checks can be sidelined when political stakes rise, a cautionary tale for any overseer of corporate ethics.

Trump’s Call to Zelenskyy: A Principled Demand for Transparency

Fast-forward to July 2019, when President Trump spoke by phone with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump urged Zelenskyy to investigate Burisma-related corruption, specifically mentioning the Bidens’ ties and the dismissal of prosecutor Shokin. From a vantage in finance, where due diligence is paramount, this wasn’t meddling—it was a legitimate call for forensic accounting on a deal that screamed conflict. Trump framed it as resuming probes halted under pressure, echoing the very anti-corruption reforms Biden himself had championed. Trump’s ask aligned with U.S. interests: ensuring taxpayer-funded aid to Ukraine (over $390 million in military support at the time) wasn’t tainted by unresolved scandals. He wasn’t inventing claims; public reports, including from the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had already flagged Hunter’s $3.5 million in 2014 earnings from Burisma as a red flag. In a world of opaque offshore dealings, Trump’s directness—asking a partner nation to “do the right thing”—was a bold stroke for accountability, much like demanding audited financials from a questionable merger partner. The Impeachment witnesses that outline Trump quid pro quo lied.

The Impeachment: A Bogus Quid Pro Quo Narrative Unravels

Trump’s overture triggered his first impeachment, with Democrats alleging a quid pro quo: withholding $391 million in U.S. security aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on political rivals. The House charged “abuse of power,” painting the call as extortion. Yet, the declassified documents retroactively bolster Trump’s defense—the aid was released shortly after the call, with no evidence of explicit linkage, and Zelenskyy himself later said he felt no pressure.

The “quid pro quo” charge was a partisan overreach, ignoring that Biden had openly bragged about withholding $1 billion in loan guarantees to oust Shokin—a move unchallenged at the time. Impeachment became a shield against scrutiny, diverting from Burisma’s shadows. This parallels to SEC probes derailed by influence peddling: the process prioritized narrative over facts, costing political capital and public trust without resolving the underlying issues. This revelation isn’t about gotchas; it’s a reminder that true leadership demands consistent standards, whether in boardrooms or the Situation Room. The Biden family’s Burisma saga, the suppressed report, and the impeachment saga illustrate how proximity to power can blur ethical lines, much like insider trading scandals that plague markets. It reaffirms the need for robust oversight— ethics reforms, and independent audits—to safeguard against such double standards. It’s important to understand the agenda and the ideology of the political left.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The FBI’s findings on the 2020 election results, and in essence, a confidential human source told FBI counter-intelligence in the summer 2020 that China’s government was shipping fake driver’s licenses to the United States to manufacture “tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in votes” for Joe Biden – however, this report was left unaddressed by the FBI in the previous administration. Well, the FBI – under Kash Patel – has uncovered that in addition to that unaddressed report, the Biden family was actually taking millions of dollars from China. Biden’s CIA director, Bill Burns, also took millions of dollars from the Chinese government. The entire foreign policy establishment of the Biden White House had millions of dollars being injected into it from the Chinese government. They also used fake IDs and fake ballots to help ensure Biden would win the 2020 election and censored massive amounts of people on the internet and social media platforms to silence anything regarding Trump and the election including his loyal supporters.

BUT, this is just the tip of the iceberg; because it has now become less of a discussion about Trump’s alleged inability to move past an election loss, to being a discussion where (in the absence of Biden curated censorship on social media platforms), people are raising points about questionable behaviours that were observed during that period. This includes CAPTURED videos of officials pulling suitcases of ballots from underneath tables after the poll watchers went home because of “water pipes” allegedly breaking.

But, here is where it gets even more interesting: the aforementioned report – which was one of two recently sent by FBI Director Kash Patel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley – was sent to US intelligence agencies on August 24th, in the year 2020, as an uncorroborated advisory, then suddenly recalled with little explanation other than the bureau wanted to “re-interview” the source. Meanwhile, the recall notice specifically asked spy agencies to erase or delete the original intelligence memo.

THIS BIDEN FAMILY CORRUPTION VALIDATES THE 2023 IMPEACHMENT ENQUIRY

This corruption, implicating the Biden family, and linking them with the Chinese government validates the impeachment enquiry into then president Biden in 2023 – or at least the issues that were brought up in justification of the impeachment enquiry.

For some context, while on the campaign trail, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden insisted that he had no role whatsoever in his son’s business dealings. He would later state publicly that he had no involvement in or knowledge of his family’s business affairs. But, the foundation of Joe Biden’s repeated denials was then shaken by a growing pile of evidence. First, there were the explosive revelations of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop. Then, there were statements made by Hunter Biden’s former business associate Tony Bobulinski, and a series of bombshell disclosures made by Devon Archer, who is Hunter Biden’s business partner.

In particular, a readout of some of Mr Archer’s key revelations from a July 31 closed-door testimony before Congress in 2023, included that Hunter Biden put his father, who was the then vice president, on speakerphone during business meetings over 20 times and that the elder Biden was put on the call to sell “the brand.” This thus gave credence to Mr Archer’s testimony as proof that Joe Biden lied when he denied involvement in his son’s business dealings, while the Joe Biden’s supporters insisted the conversations amounted to “casual” small talk and that, at most, Hunter Biden had peddled the “illusion of access” to his father rather than the real deal. The White House also downplayed the significance of Mr Archer’s testimony, with then spokesperson Ian Sams saying it failed to provide the kind of bombshell evidence of wrongdoing that Republicans claimed.

But, on the heels of that denial, congressional investigators also then found evidence of a $200,000 “direct payment” to Joe Biden from family members, which many said was further evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s business affairs.

In the course of that period, the FBI was working around the clock protecting the Biden’s from being held accountable. Which brings us to the matter of the source of information about the Bidens and the FBI’s involvement. In this respect, US Department of Justice officials corroborated some of the information an FBI source provided to the bureau on allegations that then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, were bribed.

Then, members of Congress obtained and released a copy of the summary from FBI agents who spoke with the source, with the source conveying comments from Burisma executives concerning the Bidens. Among them was the claim that it cost $5 million to pay one Biden and $5 million to pay another Biden. Hunter  Biden worked for Burisma, a Ukrainian firm, for years while president Biden was vice president, including in 2016. That’s the year the discussion involving bribery took place.

In light of this, US attorney Scott Brady, who was appointed under President Donald Trump in 2017, told members of the impeachment committee that he was tasked by superiors to accept and vet Ukraine-related information sent to or gathered by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which includes the FBI. After working to corroborate some of the information from the interview summary, Scott Brady said his team passed the summary and the work they’d done to multiple offices, including the US attorney’s office for the District of Delaware. That office is headed by US Attorney David Weiss. Now, David Weiss has for years been investigating Hunter Biden for intentional tax avoidance and other crimes. Scott Brady’s team then briefed David Weiss’ team in October 2020 on the summary, known as an FD-1023.

However, and rather concerningly, neither David Weiss’ office nor any of the other US attorney’s offices who received the 1023 from Scott Brady’s team reached back out about the document, according to Scott Brady. He said there was “both a scepticism of the information that they were developing, that they had received, and weariness of that information” from David Weiss and David Weiss’ team.

Well, I raise these points on the Biden family’s corruption, a claimed scepticism of sources, and a captured and corrupt FBI – because what has been exposed by Kash Patel and the FBI under this second Trump administration is not at all far fetched from what we have already observed concerning the dealings of the mentioned parties – during Joe Biden’s impeachment hearing, it also validates what many already knew, despite Joe Biden not having been impeached.

WHAT FOLLOWS THE FBI’S EXPOSURE OF THE ELECTION CORRUPTION? 

But, the question we then ought to ask is what now, that the FBI has exposed the corruption in the 2020 election? After all, Trump is now the president of the US, and Biden is out of office. Well, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that his panel will launch a formal investigation into why the FBI in September 2020 ordered the withdrawal and destruction of an explosive “raw intelligence” report alleging Beijing involvement in the 2020 election fraud.

Grassley confirmed receipt of the now-declassified document and said it raises “serious national‑security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI.” The Senate Judiciary Committee is now requesting internal communications, a formal justification for the FBI’s “substantive recall” of the document, and a review of the FBI’s compliance with federal intelligence record-keeping laws. And so, its about to be a very interesting time to have been an FBI director or employee in the period of the election fraud and concealed documentation.

But now, interestingly, the aforementioned pre-election document itself does not assert that fraudulent ballots were (in fact) cast, and explicitly warns that the information should not be actioned without FBI coordination. HOWEVER, the scale and specificity of the allegations—now under Senate scrutiny—have dramatically reignited questions over how US intelligence agencies handled politically sensitive reports implicating the Chinese Communist Party in election interference. Furthermore, because of documented election fraud in states in the 2020 election, this should also warrant directing more questions towards US intelligence on its handling of reports of election interference, even that which was not immediately tied to the Chinese government – because clearly there were issues with those elections.

In fact, you would recall that we discussed here on ‘The War Room’ the corruption that took place in the state of Georgia, where ballots were tabulated twice & counted twice AND it was NOT Done Accidentally!

THE FBI WAS RIDDLED WITH LIBERAL AGENDAS AND INCLINATIONS

We also have to address the intelligence related elephant in the room. More specifically, why is there this unmistakable dichotomy between the FBI in 2020 which concealed information about election manipulation AND the FBI in 2025 which made this a headline discussion?

Perhaps the answer lies with the fact that intelligence organisations have been used, or perhaps have allowed themselves to be used, as a tool of political destruction, against some of the same citizens they were created to protect; especially in reference to the continuing “Wiretapgate” debacle, where we are seeing the widespread abuse of intelligence by incumbent administrations to target their political opposition. Now, the danger of politicisation is widely accepted throughout the intelligence community as the greatest hazard, in theory, to the intelligence profession. If an intel service cannot be accepted as an unbiased arbiter, it loses the trust of its people, and risks becoming irrelevant and unheeded. History is littered with intel failures; one need only look to the invasion of Iraq to see how politicisation can lead to costly failure and a “trust gap” that can take years to bridge and resolve.

However, it has become clear to the public that intelligence leadership learned long ago to stop listening to its own philosophy on truth and a lack of politicisation. For instance, in the US, for the longest time (especially under Democrat leadership) politicisation and political correctness walked hand in hand throughout the intelligence community, as well as every other government agency. The political correctness mindset that now dominates every college campus is also positioned firmly throughout the government — particularly within the intelligence community, which saw its greatest personnel influx ever in the post-9/11 period.

This, of course, means that those individuals who joined in this period were raised under the Bush administration and reached professional maturity primarily under the Obama administration, in which they were immersed in a political correctness environment. In fact, you would recall watching Evelyn Farkas admit on live television that the Obama administration wanted the intelligence community to “get as much information as you can” before Donald Trump took office resembles some sort of social science experiment gone bad — and it frames the problems wrought by political correctness and the subsequent political brainwashing. And so, with Evelyn Farkas, we saw a mid-level official, permanently dwelling in a bubble of progressive liberalism, acknowledge being complicit in the breaking of US ethics rules and perhaps law — because, as she explained, that’s what they needed to do, seemingly because Donald Trump was a conservative candidate and a stark contrast to the politically correct dispensation they knew.

To appreciate how aggravatingly corrupt this is, here’s a comparison with how the Biden’s were treated by the FBI, through the lens of a hearing where Senator Ron Johnson clashed with then FBI Director Christopher Wray, about how the FBI handled the evidence against the Bidens.

DEMOCRATS HAVE A HISTORY OF ELECTION CORRUPTION

Now, in balancing the discussion, the FBI corruptions did not occur in isolation. It took place against the backdrop of the leadership of a Democratic establishment that – itself – is notorious for election corruption. For instance, in 2016, WikiLeaks published internal Democratic Party documents that revealed the extent to which the party organisation had interfered in the primaries against Bernie Sanders to tilt the scales in Hillary Clinton’s favour.

But, that was not an end in of in itself because former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne revealed how he worked with the FBI to arrange an $18 million bribe to Hillary Clinton from a foreign government to allow the deep state to control her in 2016 (although, of course, she thankfully lost that election).

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso