THE HUNTER BIDEN STATEMENT: HOW SENIOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
OFFICIALS AND THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN WORKED TO MISLEAD AMERICAN
VOTERS
Interim Joint Staff Report of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization
of the Federal Government, and
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
May 10, 2023
1
Executive Summary
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have
six ways from Sunday to getting back at you.”
– Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), January 3, 2017.
1
In the heated days shortly before the 2020 presidential election, a news story appeared in
the New York Post detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father,
now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with President Biden’s awareness.
2
This article,
based on materials obtained from an abandoned laptop once owned by Hunter Biden, called into
question statements made by President Biden denying awareness of the international business
dealings of his son, Hunter.
3
Five days after the Post story, 51 former intelligence community
officials, using their official titles and citing their national security credentials, released a public
statement suggesting the story “ha[d] all the classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation.
4
Three
days after that, Vice President Biden used this public statement in a nationally televised
presidential debate to rebut President Trump’s criticisms, asserting “there are 50 former national
intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan.”
5
Much has been written about how social media companies and news outlets improperly
censored or ignored allegations on the flimsy basis that it was “hacked” materials;
6
and “can’t be
verified”;
7
or, in the inspired words of National Public Radio, a “waste of time” and a “pure
distraction.”
8
These censorship decisions were wrong then, but they look even more egregious
1
Rachel Maddow, Schumer: Trump ‘being really dumb’ on intel, MSNBC (Jan. 3, 2017).
2
Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian
businessman to VP dad, N.Y.
POST (Oct. 14, 2020); see also Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Hunter Biden
emails show leveraging connections with his father to boost Burisma pay, N.Y.
POST (Oct. 14, 2020).
3
The Hill (@thehill), Twitter (Sept. 21, 2019, 3:04 PM) (Joe Biden claiming, “I've never spoken to my son about his
overseas business dealings.”), https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1175486006348460032; Press Briefing, Jen Psaki,
White House Press Secretary, in Washington, D.C. (Apr. 5, 2022) (explaining how President Biden stands by his
statement that he never spoke to Hunter Biden about his overseas business dealings). See also Miranda Devine,
Hunter Biden’s biz partner called Joe Biden ‘the Big Guy’ in panicked message after Post’s laptop story, N.Y.
POST
(July 27, 2022) (“In an email to Hunter, Jim and other partners on May 13, 2017, Gilliar outlined an equity
breakdown in which 10% of the lucrative CEFC joint venture would be held by Hunter ‘for the big guy.’ That email,
which was previously revealed by The Post, was found on the laptop Hunter abandoned at a Delaware repair shop in
April 2019. Another former associate of the first son, US Navy veteran Tony Bobulinski, publicly declared in
October 2020 that ‘big guy’ was a reference to President Biden — and alleged that Biden was aware of, and
involved in, the planned CEFC deal.”).
4
Jim Clapper et al., Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails (Oct. 19, 2020). See also Natasha Bertrand,
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, P
OLITICO (Oct. 19, 2020).
5
COMM. ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, October
22, 2020, Participants: Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and President Donald Trump (R),
https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-22-2020-debate-transcript/.
6
See, e.g., Katie Paul, Twitter, Facebook restrict users' dissemination of New York Post story on Biden, REUTERS
(Oct. 15, 2020); Kari Paul, Facebook and Twitter restrict controversial New York Post story on Joe Biden, T
HE
GUARDIAN (Oct. 14, 2020).
7
Zachary Evans, 60 Minutes Anchor Insists Hunter Biden Emails ‘Can’t Be Verified’ When Pressed by Trump,
N
AT’L REV. (Oct. 22, 2020).
8
See, e.g., Brian Flood, NPR issues major correction after falsely claiming Hunter Biden laptop story was
'discredited' by intelligence, F
OX NEWS (Apr. 2, 2021); Joe Concha, Media’s pre-election burial of Hunter Biden
story proves dereliction of duty,
THE HILL (Dec. 11, 2020).
2
with the passage of time. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop have since been authenticated
and the Post’s reporting has been verified by several other news outlets.
9
What has not been examined, until now, is how 51 former federal employees with
intelligence and national security credentials came together to insert themselves into the thick of
the presidential campaign. Beginning in April 2022—and renewed earlier this year when
Republicans resumed control of the House of Representatives—the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been conducting oversight into the
origins of this statement.
10
The Committees wrote to all 51 former officials requesting relevant
documents and testimony. Consistent with the obligation to keep the House apprised of
investigative activities,
11
this interim report summarizes the key information learned to date.
• The public statement by 51 former intelligence officials was a political operation to
help elect Vice President Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Contemporaneous
emails show the organizers’ intent in drafting and releasing the statement: “[W]e think
Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate and we want to offer
perspectives on this from Russia watchers and other seasoned experts,”
12
and “we want to
give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”
13
• The Biden campaign took active measures to discredit the allegations about Hunter
Biden by exploiting the national security credentials of former intelligence officials.
On October 17, 2020, Biden campaign advisor—now Secretary of State—Antony
Blinken contacted former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Acting Director Michael
Morell to discuss the Post’s reporting. Morell told Blinken that he was not familiar with
the reporting and Blinken later emailed Morell a USA Today article alleging the FBI was
investigating whether it was Russian disinformation.
14
At the bottom of the email was the
signature block of Andrew Bates, then-director of rapid response for the Biden
campaign.
15
Following this outreach from the Biden campaign, Morell began the process
of drafting the statement—something Morell testified would not have happened but for
Blinken’s communication. In addition, following the October 22 presidential debate—
during which Vice President Biden used the public statement to rebut President Trump’s
criticisms—Biden campaign chairman Steve Ricchetti called Morell to thank him for the
statement.
9
See, e.g., Katie Benner et al., Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues, N.Y. TIMES
(Mar. 16, 2022); Craig Timberg et al., Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop, W
ASHINGTON POST
(Mar. 30, 2022).
10
See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member et al., H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Ms. Nada Bakos, c/o
Central Intelligence Agency (Apr. 6, 2022).
11
See, e.g., H. Res. 12, 118th Cong. (2023).
12
Email from Kristin Wood to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 19, 2020, 7:27 AM) (on file with the
Committees).
13
Email from Michael Morell to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 18, 2020, 4:48 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
14
Email from Tony Blinken to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 10:53 PM) (on file with the Committees).
15
Id.
3
• Blinken’s outreach to Morell was the impetus for the public statement. Morell
testified that he had no intention of drafting the statement until Blinken reached out to
him. Morell, who at the time was reportedly under consideration to be appointed CIA
Director in the Biden Administration if Biden won the election,
16
conceived the statement
and concluded it would have greater credibility if it was supported by a significant
number of signatories.
17
Thereafter, Morell contacted several former intelligence officials
to help write the statement, solicit cosigners, and help with media outreach.
• The Biden campaign coordinated dissemination of the statement to members of the
media. Morell tasked Nick Shapiro, his former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor
at the CIA, with placing the statement in major publications. Specifically, Morell
apprised Shapiro that, “[b]etween us, the campaign would like” a specific reporter with
the Washington Post to run the statement first.
18
Shapiro crafted an email for three
separate media outlets and sent the content of the email to the Biden campaign’s Director
of Rapid Response, Andrew Bates, stating “This is what I gave them.”
19
After peddling
the statement to the Washington Post and the Associated Press with apparently no result,
Shapiro found a willing partner in Politico. Politico published a story about the statement
under the headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel
officials say.”
20
• The Committees have evidence that an employee affiliated with the CIA may have
assisted in obtaining signatories for the statement. One signer of the statement, former
CIA analyst David Cariens, disclosed to the Committees that a CIA employee affiliated
with the agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (“PCRB”) informed him
of the existence of the statement and asked if he would sign it.
21
The Committees have
requested additional material from the CIA, which has ignored the request to date.
The Committees’ oversight continues. Notably, the Biden Administration has declined to
cooperate with this oversight to date. On March 21, 2023, the Committees wrote to the CIA,
requesting documents in the CIA’s possession relating to the statement and interactions between
the CIA and the signatories of the statement.
22
The Committees requested that the CIA furnish
these documents by April 4, 2023.
23
The CIA has so far failed to comply to this oversight
request. On April 20, 2023, the Committees wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken
requesting information in his possession about his role in the origins of the statement.
24
On May
16
Erin Banco, Biden Weighs Mike Morell as His CIA Chief. A Key Dem Senator Says Don’t Bother, THE DAILY
BEAST (Dec. 2, 2020). See also Transcribed Interview of Mr. Michael Morell at 91 [hereinafter “Morell Interview”].
17
See Email from Michael Morell to Kristin Wood (Oct. 18, 2020, 8:01 PM) (on file with the Committees). Morell
Interview at 44.
18
Email from Michael Morell to Nick Shapiro (Oct. 19, 2020, 8:21 PM) (on file with the Committees).
19
Email from Nick Shapiro to Andrew Bates (Oct. 19, 2020, 11:22 PM) (on file with the Committees).
20
Bertrand, supra note 4.
21
Email from David Cariens to Committee staff (March 5, 2023, 3:02 PM) (on file with the Committees).
22
Letter from Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman Michael R. Turner, Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, to Hon. William J. Burns, Dir., Cent. Intel. Agency (Mar. 21, 2023).
23
Id.
24
Letter from Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman Michael R. Turner, Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, to Hon. Antony Blinken, Sec., Dep’t of State (Apr. 20, 2023).
4
4, 2023, via counsel, Secretary Blinken responded.
25
Although he denied asking Morell to write
the statement, Secretary Blinken did not dispute that his communication was the impetus for the
statement.
26
Secretary Blinken provided none of the documents that Committee requested. The
Committees will continue to pursue additional information about the actions and events
described in this report.
Americans deserve to have confidence that their government, particularly its premier
intelligence agency, is free from politicization. The infusion of bare-knuckle partisan politics into
America’s intelligence agencies is cause for grave concern. Former federal employees have a
right to engage in the political process—a fundamental right that the Committees do not dispute.
Here, however, the signers of the Hunter Biden laptop statement relied on their national security
credentials and used their official titles to lend heft to their statement and to insinuate access to
secretive information unavailable to other Americans. And these signers did so in coordination
with a political campaign for the explicit purpose of giving a candidate for office a “talking
point” to dismiss legitimate criticism of his family’s business practices.
Consistent with the Committees’ obligations to keep the House of Representatives
informed of its oversight, this interim report presents what the Committees have learned to date
about the origins of the public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely
discredited public allegations about the Biden family. Although more work remains, this report
presents the Committees’ findings to date.
25
Letter from Jonathan C. Su, counsel for Secretary Antony Blinken, to Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, and Chairman Michael R. Turner, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (May 4, 2023).
26
Id.
5
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 5
I. The Biden campaign used the national security credentials of 51 former intelligence
community employees to falsely discredit allegations of Biden family influence-peddling. 6
A. Biden campaign advisor Antony Blinken’s outreach to former CIA Acting Director
Michael Morell was the impetus for the public statement, which was intended to give the
Biden campaign a “talking point” with which to respond to the Hunter Biden
allegations. .......................................................................................................................... 6
B. Morell recruited Polymeropoulos to draft the public statement. ...................................... 12
C. Morell, Polymeropoulos, and former CIA officer Kristin Wood solicited other former
intelligence officials and employees to sign the public statement. ................................... 17
D. Some former intelligence officials objected to the first draft of the public statement for
being too political, one sought to “strengthen the verbiage,” and others refused to sign it
altogether........................................................................................................................... 20
E. On October 19, 2020, Morell sent the CIA the finalized public statement for review,
calling it a “rush job,” and quickly secured its approval. ................................................. 23
F. Contrary to the signers’ assessment, the intelligence community publicly stated that the
Hunter Biden laptop was not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. ...................... 27
II. The Committees have evidence that the CIA may have promoted the statement to other
intelligence community officials.......................................................................................... 32
III. The Biden campaign coordinated with the organizers to promote the public statement with
the media. ............................................................................................................................. 36
A. Morell and Shapiro worked with the Biden campaign to release the statement to the
media. ................................................................................................................................ 36
B. Politico ultimately published a story about the statement, falsely calling the Hunter Biden
laptop and emails Russian disinformation. ....................................................................... 44
C. The Politico article and public statement helped to support the continued suppression of
the allegations uncovered from emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. ................................... 51
IV. The statement had its intended effect of giving Vice President Biden a “talking point” to
use in the presidential debate. .............................................................................................. 53
A. Then-Vice President Biden relied on the public statement in the presidential debate to
falsely assert that Hunter Biden allegations were a Russian “plan.” ................................ 53
B. The statement’s signatories celebrated after the debate. ................................................... 54
C. The Biden campaign called Morell and thanked him for his service to the campaign. .... 58
V. Some signatories expressed outrage about Congressional oversight into the origins of the
statement. ............................................................................................................................. 60
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 62
6
I. The Biden campaign used the national security credentials of 51 former intelligence
community employees to falsely discredit allegations of Biden family influence-
peddling.
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden
used the position and influence of his father for personal gain with the apparent awareness of
President Biden.
27
This article raised doubts about President Biden’s earlier denial of ever
speaking to his son about his international business dealings.
28
The Post reported on an email in
which a Ukrainian businessman urged Hunter Biden to “use [his] influence to convey a message
/ signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions.”
29
In another email, the
same businessman thanked Hunter Biden for arranging a meeting with his father, calling it “an
honor and pleasure.”
30
The Post reported that these emails came from a laptop belonging to
Hunter Biden that he had abandoned in a Delaware computer shop.
31
The Biden campaign knew it had a serious political liability with these allegations. This
is because then-Vice President Biden’s son had monetized his relationship with his father to
secure lucrative, shady opportunities overseas.
32
In the days leading up to the 2020 election,
Hunter Biden’s laptop and the email trove it contained provided evidence of this arrangement.
33
To prevent President Trump from effectively raising these allegations in the final presidential
debate, the Biden campaign sought to discredit the allegations by employing the national security
credentials of compliant former intelligence community members.
A. Biden campaign advisor Antony Blinken’s outreach to former CIA Acting Director
Michael Morell was the impetus for the public statement, which was intended to
give the Biden campaign a “talking point” with which to respond to the Hunter
Biden allegations.
On October 17, 2020, senior Biden campaign advisor and now Secretary of State Antony
Blinken called Michael Morell, the former CIA Acting Director, and asked him if he had seen
the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop and emails and whether Morell believed the
Russians were involved in disseminating those emails.
34
Morell claimed that he had not read the
story, but at that point he began researching it.
35
Morell testified:
27
Morris & Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,
supra note 2.
28
See, e.g., Nick Givas, Joe Biden again denies speaking to son about Ukrainian business dealings, Fox News, Oct.
10, 2019.
29
Morris & Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,
supra note 2.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
See, e.g., Matt Viser et al., Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion-dollar deals with a Chinese energy company,
W
ASHINGTON POST (Mar. 30, 2022) (“But the new documents . . . illustrate the ways in which his family profited
from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service.”).
33
Morris & Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,
supra note 2.
34
Morell Interview at 18.
35
Statement of Michael Morell, dated March 28, 2023, at 2 [hereinafter “Morell Statement”]; Morell Interview at
18–20.
7
Q. In an email to Nick Shapiro, you said that you would, quote,
explain tomorrow on the phone how this came to be,
meaning this public statement. . . . Can you tell us what you
said to Mr. Shapiro during that call? . . .
A. Sure. I told him that I had received a call from Tony Blinken,
then a senior official on the Biden campaign, asking me if I
had seen The New York Post story. . . . I believe he
summarized it for me, and he asked me if I thought the
Russians may have been involved in any way in the
emergence of these emails.
Q. So that was—now—
A. I should also say I don’t know whether he called me or
whether he sent me an email.
Q. Okay.
A. Just to be clear.
Q. In the production the committee received, we did not get an
email from him—
A. Correct.
Q. —initiating that call except—but for a USA Today article
that he forwarded—
A. Yes.
36
At 10:53 p.m., after his initial call with Morell, Blinken forwarded to Morell a USA
Today article, titled “A tabloid got a trove of data on Hunter Biden from Rudy Giuliani. Now, the
FBI is probing a possible disinformation campaign.”
37
Notably, at the bottom of Blinken’s email
was the signature block of Andrew Bates, then-Director of Rapid Response for the Biden
campaign.
38
As the Biden campaign’s Director of Rapid Response, Bates “was charged with
36
Morell Interview at 20.
37
Email from Tony Blinken to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 10:53 PM) (on file with the Committees); Morell
Statement at 2; Morell Interview at 18–20; see also Caren Bohan et al., A tabloid got a trove of data on Hunter
Biden from Rudy Giuliani. Now, the FBI is probing a possible disinformation campaign., USA
TODAY (Oct. 17,
2020).
38
Morell Statement at 2; see Email from Tony Blinken to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 10:53 PM) (on file with
the Committees).
8
defending” then-Vice President Biden “and his team against attacks on the campaign trail, while
also employing an aggressive offensive strategy against President Trump and his team.”
39
Morell confirmed during this transcribed interview that he received two communications
from Blinken on October 17, 2020. Morell speculated that the first communication occurred
before 2:16 p.m. that day, based on the timestamp in a text message that Morell sent to Marc
Polymeropoulos, a former CIA Acting Chief of Operations for Europe and Eurasia. The second
communication was via email at 10:53 p.m. Morell testified:
Q. There were two separate communications. There was the
first call or email, and then there was the subsequent email
with the USA Today article?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
39
Brooke Singman, Meet the Rapid Response director: Top Biden aide on how the 2020 campaign was unlike any
other, F
OX NEWS (Nov. 23, 2020).
9
Q. What was the time of the email?
A. So I don’t know for sure, Congressman, but I believe he
called to ask the question first and then followed up with the
email.
Q. Close together?
A. I think—you know, given the timestamps [in the text
message] on here, I feel that, you know, when I say—
Congressman, I say: Just wondering if you guys, if you think
the Russians played in the Hunter Biden thing. That was at
2:16 p.m. on the 17th. He sends me the USA Today article
later that night.
Q. Right.
A. Right. I think he called me or sent me an email prior 2:16
p.m. So there’s some gap there I think between the first
contact and the second.
Q. Okay. That’s what I assumed. When you got the USA Today
article—and I believe it was at 10:53 that evening—[that]
was that the first time you had seen [the] USA [Today]
article.
A. So I referenced the FBI investigation in the early afternoon
of the 17th in my conversation with Marc Polymeropoulos.
I don’t remember whether I saw it. The first thing I did when
Mr. Blinken called me is I did some research. I had not read
The New York Post article. I went and read it. I did some
internet searches. I did a little bit of research here before I
reached out to Marc. It’s possible I found it then. It’s also
possible that, when Mr. Blinken called me, he mentioned it
to me. I just don’t remember.
Q. In that timeframe, then, you would have got the call from
Mr. Blinken prior to 2:16.
A. I believe so, sir.
Q. Excuse me, Mr. Morell, as part of the research that you did
in between the contact with Mr. Blinken and the contact with
Marc [Polymeropoulos], did you contact any individuals as
a part of that research?
10
A. I did not.
Q. So the full sum of that research involved your internet
searches?
A. Yes.
40
Morell testified that the statement was a direct result of his interactions with the Biden
campaign, explaining that the call from Blinken triggered his interest in preparing the
statement. He explained:
Q. But, prior to his call, you—you did not have any intent to
write this statement?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. So his call triggered—
A. It did, yes.
Q. —that intent in you?
A. Yes. Absolutely.
41
Although Morell denied in his transcribed interview that the Biden campaign specifically asked
that he prepare a statement,
42
Polymeropoulos, who helped to prepare the initial draft of the
statement, told the Committees that Morell “did mention to me that someone in the kind of Biden
world had asked about doing this.”
43
When asked to elaborate, Polymeropoulos testified: “Morell
said that to me, that someone from kind of the Biden world had asked for this. And he did not tell
me who it was or any of the other kind of details of it.”
44
Morell testified repeatedly that his purpose for organizing, drafting, and disseminating
the statement was to help Vice President Biden become president. He testified:
Q. What was the intent of the statement?
A. There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern
with the American people that the Russians were playing on
this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden.
45
***
40
Morell Interview at 19-20.
41
Id. at 21-22.
42
Id.
43
Transcribed Interview of Mr. Marc Polymeropoulos at 17 [hereinafter “Polymeropoulos Interview”].
44
Id. at 21.
45
Morell Interview at 11.
11
Q. So is it fair to say that the text of the letter makes it clear that
the focus is actually on Russian interference, not on the
political candidates?
A. It’s correct. I would just repeat what I said earlier just to be,
you know, totally clear, that there were two intentions here,
right? One was to make clear to the American people that
the Russians were interfering in the election, and the other
was to help Vice President Biden in the debate.
46
***
Q. You wanted to help the Vice President why?
A. Because I wanted him to win the election.
Q. You wanted him to win; that’s why?
A. Yes, sir.
47
An October 19, 2020, email exchange between Morell and former CIA Director John
Brennan made abundantly clear that Morell’s intentions were to “give the [Biden] campaign,
particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on [President] Trump on
this issue.”
48
46
Id. at 78.
47
Id. at 102.
48
Email from Michael Morell to John Brennan (Oct. 19, 2020, 9:29 AM) (on file with the Committees). See also
Jim Clapper et al., supra note 4.
12
Lastly, an October 18 email from Morell to former CIA senior intelligence officer Kristin
Wood shows that the statement was meant to help the Biden campaign. Morell wrote that he had
“control of the document. The more former intelligence officers the better. Campaign will be
thrilled.”
49
B. Morell recruited Polymeropoulos to draft the public statement.
Upon concluding his communication with Blinken and performing internet searches,
Morell then enlisted Polymeropoulos to begin preparing the statement. Morell recruited
Polymeropoulos because, in Morell’s wording, he was a former “acting chief of operations for
the part of the world that covers Russia,” “had a very good understanding of what the Russians
did in [the] 2016 [election],” and is an expert “in Russian disinformation.”
50
In a text message exchange, Morell asked Polymeropoulos if he thought “the Russians
49
Email from Michael Morell to Kristin Wood (Oct. 18, 2020, 8:01 PM) (on file with the Committees).
50
Morell Interview at 56-57.
13
played in the Hunter Biden email thing,” opining that it “[k]inda feels that way to me.”
51
Polymeropoulos responded, “It does to me too.”
52
Morell then expressed some doubt about the
“strange” way in which the emails were placed “into the public domain,” with Polymeropoulos
responding: “They,” presumably referring to the Russians, “will always look for a
dissem[ination] mechanism third party. Yes this is odd . . . a blind computer guy.”
53
After
Polymeropoulos agreed to work with Morell on the draft, Morell asked Polymeropoulos to
“send me a list of what you see as the hallmarks” of Russian involvement in the story.
54
51
Text message exchange between Michael Morell to Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 17, 2020, 2:16 PM) (on file with
the Committees).
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id. See also Email from Marc Polymeropoulos to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 8:01 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
14
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 17, 2020)
55
55
Text message graphics in this report were generated by the Committee from screen shots produced by Marc
Polymeropoulos. The graphics were created to assist in reading the messages.
15
Morell explained that Polymeropoulos wrote the first draft of the statement. Morell
testified:
Q. Okay. What was your role in the creation of the statement?
A. I organized it.
Q. So you drafted that?
A. I did not do the first draft.
Q. Okay.
A. Marc Polymeropoulos did the first draft. Then I redrafted it.
Yeah, I’m the organizer, and I played a major role in drafting
it.
56
Polymeropoulos similarly testified:
Q. And what role did Mike Morell play in the creation of the
statement?
A. . . . I think Mike Morell on the—I think it was on the 17th—
had wrote me a text asking me if I thought there was any—
kind of any Russian involvement in this. I said that I thought
that there was, based on my professional background. He
asked if I would be willing to write something with him on
this. And that’s how this began.
57
Polymeropoulos explained that he and Morell initially discussed preparing an op-ed,
which eventually morphed into a statement. He testified:
Q. Did you say you had a conversation with Mr. Morell?
A. About?
Q. About this letter. Or was it only over text message?
A. So I think from what I recall, two—a couple things
happened. First, he wrote me the text. I then—I believe he
asked, and I looked at my records and I just don’t have the
exact date, but shortly after that he asked me to come over to
his house.
56
Morell Interview at 11.
57
Polymeropoulos Interview at 10.
16
Q. Okay.
A. And we discussed this there.
I don’t recall how it morphed from what I thought was an
op-ed into a letter. He did mention to me that someone in
the kind of Biden world had asked about doing this.
Q. But he didn’t–
A. He did not tell me who it was, and I did not ask.
Q. So you prepared the backgrounder that’s exhibit 4.
58
A. Right.
Q. Was that before or after you went to Morell’s house?
A. I believe it was after, but I actually don’t recall. I see that
text was on the 17th, and I think I sent the backgrounder on
the 17th as well. But I actually don’t recall if this was before
or after.
Q. And as you understand it, Mr. Morell took your
backgrounder and turned it into the letter?
A. That’s right.
Q. And do you know if any other person helped him do that?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Or whether he did it himself?
A. I don’t know.
59
Morell kept Polymeropoulos in the dark about his interactions with Blinken and the
Biden campaign. Polymeropoulos was not aware of these facts until the Committees informed
him during his transcribed interview. He testified:
Q. Are you aware that now Secretary of State Antony Blinken
58
The “backgrounder” refers to a document Polymeropoulos created that contains the purported reasons why he
believed the Hunter Biden laptop and emails were part of a Russian information operation to interfere in the 2020
presidential election. See Email from Marc Polymeropoulos to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 8:01 PM) (on file
with the Committees).
59
Id. at 17-18.
17
called Mr. Morell some time on or about October 17th,
2020, to inquire as to whether Mr. Morell believed Russia
might have been involved in the Hunter Biden email story in
some way?
A. That’s the first I heard of that. I was not aware of that at all.
Q. Were you aware that Secretary Blinken also sent an article
to Mr. Morell from USA Today titled “A tabloid got a trove
of data on Hunter Biden from Rudy Giuliani. Now, the FBI
is probing a possible disinformation campaign”?
A. No.
60
C. Morell, Polymeropoulos, and former CIA officer Kristin Wood solicited other
former intelligence officials and employees to sign the public statement.
As Morell testified, a goal of writing a statement was to “help Vice President Biden”
win the election.
61
To achieve this goal, Morell wanted to affix as many signatures from former
intelligence officials and employees as he could. For Morell, “The more former intelligence
officers the better.”
62
Morell seemed to believe that the statement would have a great effect with more signatories.
Morell admitted this fact to Nick Shapiro, his former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor
at the CIA, who was tasked with pushing the public statement to the media, writing: “The real
power is the number of former, working-level IC officers who want the American people to
know.”
63
60
Id. at 16.
61
See Morell Interview at 11, 78, 102.
62
Email from Michael Morell to Kirstin Wood (Oct. 18, 2020, 8:01 PM) (on file with the Committees).
63
Email from Michael Morell to Nick Shapiro (Oct. 19, 2020, 8:21 PM) (on file with the Committees).
18
Morell testified:
So, breaking into two pieces here, the first piece is that three of us
took responsibility for sending it out to officials to try to get
signatories. Myself, Marc Polymeropoulos, and a woman named
Kristin Wood. Kristin worked for me at the [Central Intelligence]
Agency. She worked directly for me at the Agency as my aide. We
were very close friends. I asked her to do that. She agreed. And
then, in terms of getting it to the media, that was entirely Nick
Shapiro’s responsibility here. So he took that responsibility on.
64
On October 18, Morell sent an email to several former intelligence personnel, writing
about helping to give Vice President Biden “a talking point to use in” the final presidential
debate.
65
Specifically, Morell wrote, “because we think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at
this week’s debate and we want to give the VP a talking point to use in response,” Morell
pleaded, “[w]e would be honored if each of you would be willing to join us in signing the
64
Morell Interview at 15-16.
65
Email from Michael Morell to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 18, 2020, 4:48 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
19
letter.”
66
The next day, Wood sent an email to several former intelligence personnel within her
network, using language from Morell’s email the previous day.
67
66
Id.
67
Email from Kristin Wood to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 19, 2020, 10:27 AM) (on file with the
Committees).
20
Like Morell, Wood wrote that the group intended for the public statement to help then-
Vice President Biden’s candidacy, specifically in regards to the upcoming debate: “[W]e think
Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate and we want to offer perspectives on
this from Russia watchers and other seasoned experts.”
68
D. Some former intelligence officials objected to the first draft of the public statement
for being too political, one sought to “strengthen the verbiage,” and others refused
to sign it altogether.
The initial statement was so nakedly partisan that some of the former intelligence
officials refused to sign it until portions of it were removed. In the initial draft, Morell and
Polymeropoulos included two paragraphs about Vice President Biden’s relationship with
68
Id.
21
Ukraine, which were later omitted from the final version of the public statement:
For those who argue that it is important for the truth to come out –
even if it comes at the cost of foreign interference – let us share our
understanding of the what [sic] transpired between Vice President
Biden and the Ukrainians. It is not what Biden’s opponents want
Americans to think.
When the Vice President took a private and public stand against the
then Prosecutor General of Ukraine Victor Shokin, he did so as a
matter of Obama Administration policy, because Shokin was
corrupt, because he was not investigating corruption in Ukraine, and
because the Obama Administration wanted a prosecutor who would.
This included any corruption at Burisma. Shokin was not
investigating Burisma. Biden was not protecting Burisma. Indeed,
by arguing that Ukraine needed an aggressive prosecutor, Biden was
arguing for just the opposite. The Russians want you to think
otherwise.
69
Some of the signatories objected to these paragraphs as “too political,” as shown in an
email exchange between Morell and Nick Rasmussen, former Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center. Morell explained to Rasmussen that “some folks thought [the two
paragraphs] too political. Just Russia and intel now. Better.”
70
In addition to the edits removing reference to Ukraine, other emails show that former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper offered editorial advice to “strengthen the
verbiage.”
71
On October 18, after reviewing the draft statement, Clapper emailed Morell that he
69
Email from Michael Morell to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 19, 2020, 1:38:31 AM) (on file with the
Committees).
70
Email from Michael Morell to Nick Rasmussen (Oct. 19, 2020, 8:41 AM) (on file with the Committees).
71
Email from James Clapper to Michael Morell (Oct. 18, 2020, 6:10 PM) (on file with the Committees).
22
would “gladly sign on,” having “said as much [about the Hunter Biden laptop and emails] on
CNN Friday evening.”
72
He also offered an editorial suggestion to a key phrase in the statement:
I have one editorial suggestion for the letter: I think it would
strengthen the verbiage if you say this has all the classic earmarks
of a Soviet/Russian information operation rather than the “feel” of a
Russian operation.
73
Morell responded that Clapper’s “editorial suggestion has been made. It was a good one.”
74
Other former national security officials were approached and declined to sign the
statement.
75
By his own account, Morell solicited the signatures of 36 former intelligence
officials,
76
26 of whom did not sign. Ultimately, the following individuals agreed to add their
name to the statement:
Jim Clapper;
Mike Hayden;
Leon Panetta;
72
Id.
73
Id.
74
Email from Michael Morell to James Clapper (Oct. 18, 2020, 7:47 PM) (on file with the Committees).
75
Morell Interview at 14.
76
See Morell Statement at 3 n.9.
John Brennan;
Thomas Finger;
Rick Ledgett;
23
John McLaughlin;
Michael Morell;
Mike Vickers;
Doug Wise;
Nick Rasmussen;
Russ Travers;
Andy Liepman;
John Moseman;
Larry Pfeiffer;
Jeremy Bash;
Rodney Snyder;
Glenn Gerstell;
David B. Buckley;
Nada Bakos;
Patty Brandmaier;
James B. Bruce;
David Cariens;
Janice Cariens;
Paul Kolbe;
Peter Corsell;
Brett Davis;
Roger Zane George;
Steven L. Hall;
Kent Harrington;
Don Hepburn;
Timothy D. Kilbourn;
Ron Marks;
Jonna Hiestand Mendez;
Emile Nakhleh;
Gerald A. O'Shea;
David Priess;
Pam Purcilly;
Marc Polymeropoulos;
Chris Savos;
Nick Shapiro;
John Sipher;
Stephen Slick;
Cynthia Strand;
Greg Tarbell;
David Terry;
Greg Treverton;
John Tullius;
David A. Vanell;
Winston Wiley; and
Kristin Wood.
77
E. On October 19, 2020, Morell sent the CIA the finalized public statement for review,
calling it a “rush job,” and quickly secured its approval.
On October 19, 2020, at 6:34 a.m., Morell sent the final version of the statement to the
CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) for review.
78
According to Morell,
the PCRB consists of CIA officers—“not contractors”—and their sole function is to determine
whether former and current CIA personnel are disclosing classified information in any materials
they may release publicly.
79
This is because “[a]ll CIA officers, as a condition of employment,
sign the standard CIA secrecy agreement when entering on duty . . . [and this] lifelong obligation
which exists to help avoid the damage to national security” requires they submit any materials
they intend to publicize to the PCRB for approval.
80
Morell directed the PCRB that “[t]his is a rush job, as it need to get out as soon as
possible.”
81
Morell wanted the public statement released before the October 22, 2020,
presidential debate. Specifically, he testified:
77
Jim Clapper et al., supra note 4; Bertrand, supra note 4.
78
Email from Michael Morell to PCRB staff (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:34 AM) (on file with the Committees).
79
Morell Interview at 29.
80
CIA, PREPUBLICATION CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD, https://www.cia.gov/about/organization/prepublication-
classification-review-board/ (emphasis in original).
81
Email from Michael Morell to PCRB Staff (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:34 AM).
24
Q. And, in this, you described . . . it as a rush job to the officials
at the CIA. Why? Were you trying to get it out?
A. We were trying to get it out before the debate, yes.
Q. Before the debate?
A. Yes, ma’am.
82
The PCRB responded on October 19, 2020, at 7:11 a.m., that it received the submission.
83
Morell testified the statement was “approved . . . as written.”
84
Although the timing of the
PCRB’s approval is uncertain, it appears to have come before 5:51 p.m. In response to a text
message at that time from Polymeropoulos, who “[d]idn’t see” a response from PCRB, Morell
82
Morell Interview at 28. COMM. ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, supra note 5.
83
Email from JAMESAG2 to Michael Morell (Oct. 19, 2020, 07:11 AM) (on file with the Committees) (“Michael,
[y]our submission has been received and the tracking number is 999145/t21667. Regards, PCRB Staff.”);
84
Morell Interview at 28.
25
texted that the PCRB “cleared” the statement.
85
Notably, none of the former intelligence officials
who signed the letter and produced documents to the Committees, including Morell, have
produced the PCRB’s email approving the statement.
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 19, 2020)
85
Text message from Marc Polymeropoulos to Michael Morell (Oct. 19, 2020, 5:51 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
26
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 19, 2020)
Morell testified:
Q. And was the email the only communication you had with the
CIA?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not speak to any of the officials on the phone?
27
A. I did not. I did not.
86
F. Contrary to the signers’ assessment, the intelligence community publicly stated that
the Hunter Biden laptop was not part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
On October 19, while Morell and others worked procuring more signatories for the
statement, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—who, unlike the statement’s
signatories, was in government as the top intelligence official in the United States and privy to
all classified information—stated publicly that “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some
Russian disinformation campaign.”
87
He further stated: “Let me be clear: The intelligence
community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that.”
88
Director
Ratcliffe issued this statement in response to Congressman Adam Schiff’s claim that Hunter
Biden’s laptop and emails came “from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now
that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son.
89
86
Morell Interview at 28. Morell has not produced the email from the PRCB approving the public statement. In his
statement to the Committees, Morell stated that his document production is incomplete because, since 2015, he
began “to regularly delete all communications in his personal email account.” Morell Statement at 1.
87
Mark Moore, DNI John Ratcliffe says info on Hunter Biden laptop isn’t Russian disinformation, N.Y. POST (Oct.
19, 2020).
88
Id.
89
Olivia Beavers & Joe Concha, Ratcliffe, Schiff battle over Biden emails, politicized intelligence, THE HILL (Oct.
19, 2020).
28
Rather than give the then-Director of National Intelligence’s statement credence or at
least a modicum of deference, Morell rejected it wholesale. He testified:
Q. So did the statement put out by the Director of National
Intelligence that day or earlier that morning, did that have
any influence on your decision with the letter, specifically,
what Mr. Ratcliffe said?
A. No.
Q. Even though he said . . . the emails were not part of some
Russian disinformation operation.
A. It did not because, as a former intelligence officer with much
more experience than Mr. Ratcliffe, I don’t know how he
could have came to that conclusion. How could he know . . .
it wasn’t part of Russian disinformation?
***
Q. So you were obviously aware of Mr. Ratcliffe’s statement
that morning before you sent the letter out?
A. Yes.
Q. And, as you sit here today, do you believe the Russians were
involved in the Hunter Biden laptop matter?
A. I don’t know. I mean, I still have suspicions, Congressman.
Q. Would you organize such a letter today knowing what you
know now?
A. I would have to write it differently because we now know
the emails are authentic, right? So you couldn’t say anymore
we don’t know whether it’s information or disinformation.
But I still have suspicions about a Russian role in these
emails getting to The New York Post.
90
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ratified Director Ratcliffe’s statement. In a
letter to Senator Ron Johnson, then-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, the FBI stated, “we have nothing to add at this time to the October
19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable
intelligence” on Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails.
91
90
Morell Interview at 37, 39.
91
Even Perez, FBI says it has ‘nothing to add’ to Ratcliffe’s claim on Russian disinformation, CNN (Oct. 21, 2020).
29
Letter from FBI to Senator Ron Johnson (Oct. 20, 2020)
30
Even after learning of Ratcliffe’s statement that the laptop and emails were not Russian
disinformation, Morell and Polymeropoulos were not dissuaded. In one text exchange on
October 19, Polymeropoulos remarked to Morell: “Did u see Ratcliffe[?] Omg[.]”
92
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 19, 2020)
92
Text message from Marc Polymeropoulos to Michael Morell (Oct. 19, 2020, 5:51 PM) (on file with the
Committees). Polymeropoulos produced these text messages to the Committees with redactions, including what
follows “OMG.”
31
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 19, 2020)
32
II. The Committees have evidence that the CIA may have promoted the statement to
other intelligence community officials.
According to a written statement provided to the Committees by former CIA official
David Cariens, the CIA—or at least an employee of the CIA—may have helped in the effort to
solicit signatures for the statement. Cariens explained that he spoke with the PCRB in October
2020 regarding the review of his memoir and during that call the CIA employee “asked” him if
he would sign the statement.
93
As Cariens explained:
When the person in charge of reviewing the book called to say it was
approved with no changes, I was told about the draft letter. The
person asked me if I would be willing to sign. . . . After hearing the
letter’s contents, and the qualifiers in it such as, “We want to
emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New
York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian
involvement . . .” I agreed to sign.
94
93
Email from David Cariens to Committee staff (March 5, 2023, 3:02 PM) (on file with the Committees).
94
Id.
33
Cariens’s statement did not provide the precise timing of his communication with the
PCRB. However, the Committees received an email exchange, produced by Kristin Wood, in
which Cariens wrote, “Yes, I want to sign,” on October 19, at 10:35 a.m.—eight minutes after
Wood sent the mass distribution email soliciting signatures.
95
PCRB was in possession of the
statement since 6:34 a.m. on October 19, when Morell emailed it to the unit for approval.
96
PCRB acknowledged receipt of the statement, at 7:11 a.m. that same day.
97
Cariens’s revelation is potentially shocking. As he recounted, a CIA employee informed
him about the statement, the CIA employee read the text of the statement to him, and the CIA
employee asked Cariens if he would like to join.
Indeed, even Morell testified that such an action by a CIA employee would be
“inappropriate.” Morell explained:
A. I did not coordinate with the CIA. I would have—had I known
[Carien’s allegation], I would have reacted very negatively to this.
This might—you know, had I known at the time this might have
been in the letter, then I certainly would have reported this to then
95
Email from David Cariens to Kristin Wood (Oct. 19, 2020, 10:35:50 AM) (on file with the Committees).
96
Email from Michael Morell to PCRB staff (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:34 AM) (on file with the Committees).
97
Email from JAMESAG2 to Michael Morell (Oct. 19, 2020, 07:11 AM) (on file with the Committees).
34
the Director of the Agency.
Q. And why would you have done this?
A. Because this is inappropriate.
Q. And why is it inappropriate?
A. It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor
to be involved in the political process.
Q. Do you know the people who were engaged in this review for the
CIA?
A. I do not.
Q. You don’t know any of the people who work in that process.
A. I do not, sir.
98
Similarly, Polymeropoulos testified that such an action from the CIA would be
“incredibly unprofessional”:
Q. Does what Mr. Cariens described there, that interaction with the
PCRB, sound like a quid pro quo to you?
99
A. I can’t comment on this. This is—to me, this is something that the
PCRB in my experience would never engage in something like that.
They are just straightforward back and forth in terms of approval.
The idea they would have a comment on any other thing that they
were working on, that to me is not even close to what I’ve
experienced with them.
Q. Does that concern you?
A. If it’s true, it would concern me, for sure. But I just—I have a hard
time believing that occurred. If it did, that’s incredibly
unprofessional.
100
Likewise, upon being confronted with Cariens’s statement, Shapiro testified:
No. I mean, I have no idea what happened here, to be very—this is
98
Morell Interview at 30-31.
99
Quid pro quo, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed. 2020) (“something given or received for
something else.”).
100
Polymeropoulos Interview at 24.
35
the first I’m hearing of this.
But my guess—and lawyers would probably tell me not to guess or
defend the PRB, but what I could’ve seen happen is someone in the
PRB being inappropriate and asking, hey, are you signing this thing?
Which, PRB shouldn’t be sharing, like, materials they get from one
former with other formers. Like, that shouldn’t be.
Because, as a former, if you send something—I’ve never sent
something, but I know people who have—you’re doing that because
you’re supposed to, but you’re also hoping it stays within
confidence. Like, usually, if you’re going to send something to the
PRB, you’re sending it elsewhere, and you don’t want the PRB
spreading that.
So my guess for this was that it was someone who acted
inappropriately and was just stupidly outing it and asking these folks
if they were going to sign it.
I can’t imagine the PRB trying to get someone to sign it by offering
to clear something else. That would be really bad.
101
Given the gravity of this allegation, the Committees sent a letter to CIA Director William
J. Burns, on March 21, 2023, requesting documents about the CIA’s review of the statement and
its interactions with former CIA employees, such as Cariens, about the statement.
102
The
Committees requested that the CIA furnish these documents by April 4, 2023.
103
To date, the
CIA has failed to respond to this request. The Committees have also sought to follow up with
Cariens for additional information.
101
Transcribed Interview of Mr. Nick Shapiro at 26 [hereinafter “Shapiro Interview”].
102
Letter from Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman Michael R. Turner, Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, to Hon. William J. Burns, Dir., Cent. Intel. Agency (Mar. 21, 2013).
103
Id.
36
III. The Biden campaign coordinated with the organizers to promote the public
statement with the media.
The Committees’ oversight has also revealed that the Biden campaign worked with
Morell and the other organizers of the statement to promote the statement publicly. Specifically,
in coordination with the Biden campaign, Morell enlisted Shapiro, a long-time “national security
and strategic communications” aide, to coordinate dissemination efforts with the media.
104
A. Morell and Shapiro worked with the Biden campaign to release the statement to the
media.
According to testimony provided to the Committees, Morell worked with Shapiro to
disseminate it publicly. Morell testified that, “in terms of getting [the statement] to the media,
that was entirely Nick Shapiro’s responsibility here. So he took that responsibility on.”
105
Email
correspondence between Morell and Shapiro, Shapiro and journalists, and Shapiro and the
Biden campaign reveal the extent of this effort.
On October 19, as Morell continued to recruit former intelligence officials to affix their
names to the statement, he emailed Shapiro that he “[s]hould have something to give to the
media through you tomorrow afternoon.”
106
Morell promised Shapiro that he would “explain
on the phone tomorrow how this came to be.”
107
104
See 10th Avenue Consulting, https://www.10thavenueconsulting.com/ (last visited May 4, 2023) (“Founder and
CEO, Nick Shapiro has more than 15 years of crisis management, national security and strategic communications
experience in the White House, at the CIA and in the private sector. Previously, Shapiro was the CIA's Deputy Chief
of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Director. Shapiro also served in the White House as a Senior Counterterrorism
and Homeland Security Aide on the National Security Council, and he was a National Security Spokesperson for
President Obama.”).
105
Morell Interview at 16.
106
Email from Michael Morell to Nick Shapiro (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:36:42 AM) (on file with the Committees). In
emails that Mr. Shapiro produced to the Committees, the timestamps are inconsistent the with times and, in one
instance, the date, in which events unfolded. When the Committees inquired about these discrepancies, Mr.
Shapiro’s counsel provided the following response: “[I]t appears that such timestamp inaccuracies are a common
issue faced by individuals, like Mr. Shapiro, who use the Gmail email server. The primary cause for these
discrepancies appears to be the result of inaccurate time zone settings in the Gmail application, the web browser,
and/or the computer settings itself. Unless the user manually corrects the time zone settings in Gmail, the computer’s
setting, and/or their web browser, the emails will continue to reflect an inaccurate time zone – regardless of where
the user may have sent the email. Although we cannot rule out other technical issues, various online publications
suggests that this is the most common reason for these discrepancies.” Email from Timothy Sini, counsel for Nick
Shapiro, to Committee staff (May 3, 2023, 10:00 PM) (on file with the Committees). Mr. Shapiro’s counsel affirmed
that, despite the timestamp discrepancies, Mr. Shapiro “emailed the Washington Post, the AP, and Politico, prior to
the publication being run in the Politico. He emailed [Andrew] Bates at some point after contacting at least one of
these media companies and prior to Politico running the story.” Email from Timothy Sini, counsel for Nick Shapiro,
to Committee staff (May 5, 2023, 11:53 AM) (on file with the Committees).
107
Email from Michael Morell to Nick Shapiro (Oct. 19, 2020, 6:36:42 AM) (on file with the Committees).
37
Later on October 19, Morell sent Shapiro “some thoughts when dealing with
reporters.”
108
Specifically, Morell informed Shapiro that, “[b]etween us,” the Biden campaign
preferred that a certain reporter with the Washington Post run the statement first.
109
Morell asked
Shapiro to “share with the campaign when you share with” the reporter.
110
Morell also sent
Shapiro a lengthy script of information to share on various levels of sourcing—on the record, off
the record, and on background.
111
108
Email from Michael Morel to Nick Shapiro (Oct. 19, 2020, 8:21:10 PM) (on file with the Committees).
109
Id.
110
Id.
111
Id.
38
In the background information that Morell gave Shapiro to tell reporters, Morell claimed
the genesis of the public statement came from feedback from other Russia experts: “In talking
to people, outside of government, who [Morell] worked with and who know Russia, [Morell]
was struck by the fact that all of them thought Russia is involved here. [Morell] thought people
should know that.”
112
This assertion is disingenuous for several reasons.
First, Morell admitted in testimony to the Committees that he spearheaded the effort to
publish the public statement for overtly political reasons—to help Vice President Biden in the
debates and ultimately win the election.
113
Second, other than soliciting thoughts from and
collaborating with Polymeropoulos,
114
Morell testified he did not speak to anyone about
potential Russian involvement with Hunter Biden’s laptop, but rather researched the issue
himself following his conversation with Blinken. He explained:
A. The first thing I did when Mr. Blinken called me is I did
some research. I had not read The New York Post article. I
went and read it. I did some internet searches. I did a little
112
Id.
113
See Morell Interview at 11, 78, 102.
114
See text message exchange between Michael Morell to Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 17, 2020, 2:16 PM) (on file
with the Committees).
39
bit of research here before I reached out to
[Polymeropoulos].
***
Q. [A]s part of the research that you did in between the contact
with Mr. Blinken and the contact with [Polymeropoulos], did
you contact any individuals as a part of your research?
A. I did not.
115
Finally, Morell’s claim is undercut by his disclosure that a majority of the people who he asked
to sign the statement declined to do so.
116
Although the precise reasons they declined are not
yet known, these facts cast doubt on Morell’s intended perception that a groundswell of Russia
experts organically concluded that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian intelligence
operation.
Shapiro emailed the Washington Post reporter the statement, along with scripted on-the-
record comments and background information.
117
It is important to note that Shapiro kept one of
the most important elements of this story off the record—namely, “We are not making a call on
whether the materials are true or not, just that Moscow played a role in getting the information
out.”
118
115
Morell Interview at 20
116
See Morell Statement at 3 n.9. Bertrand, supra note 4. Morell solicited the signatures of 36 former intelligence
officials, and 26 of those individuals did not sign the public statement.
117
Email from Nick Shapiro to Washington Post reporter (Oct. 19, 2020, 9:25 PM) (on file with the Committees).
118
Id.
40
Appearing not to receive a favorable response from their preferred Washington Post
journalist, Shapiro sent the public statement and an identical email to an Associated Press
reporter about two hours later.
119
119
Email from Nick Shapiro to Associated Press reporter (Oct. 19, 2020, 11:15 PM) (on file with the Committees).
41
Shapiro made sure to update the Biden campaign—specifically, Andrew Bates, Director of
Rapid Response—after reaching out to the Washington Post and the Associated Press, stating,
“This is what I gave them.”
120
120
Email from Nick Shapiro to Andrew Bates (Oct. 19, 2020, 11:22 PM) (on file with the Committees).
42
After apparently not receiving a favorable response from the Associated Press reporter,
Shapiro later sent the email with the public statement to Politico about an hour later.
121
Politico,
of course, eventually published the story.
121
Email from Nick Shapiro to Natasha Bertrand (Oct. 20, 2020, 12:27 AM) (on file with the Committees).
43
In his transcribed interview, Shapiro testified about the process of soliciting the statement
to the media. He testified:
Q. And we understand from your productions that there were three
journalists that you sent the statement to: of The
Washington Post, of the Associated Press, and Natasha
Bertrand of Politico?
A. Yep.
Q. Why those three?
A. because I was asked to go to first. And then the AP is
a really good outlet you want stories in. And then Politico – I don’t
know why I went to Politico after that.
***
Q. We know that Natasha Bertrand is the one that ultimately ran with
the article. Why did and decline to do so?
A. I don’t remember. I know we – I’m sure we spoke. But you’d have
to ask them. Reporters decline things all the time.
44
Q. Okay. But they did get back to you, I assume, over the phone?
A. Yeah.
Q. Because we didn’t have any of those records and –
A. Yeah. I looked back at the emails, and it’s clear that I spoke to them
before I emailed them, which is normal. When I’m talking to a
reporter, I’ll call them and say, “Hey, you know, I’ve got this idea.
What do you want to do?” And then, considering it was a letter, I’m
sure I said, “I'll follow up and send it to you,” which is what I did
with each of them.
And then, for each of them, we got back on the phone. And
Washington Post and AP said no. And Politico I think I probably
just reiterated these points to Natasha.
122
B. Politico ultimately published a story about the statement, falsely calling the Hunter
Biden laptop and emails Russian disinformation.
On October 19, 2020, at 10:30 p.m., Politico published the public statement it received
from Shapiro, with an accompanying article titled: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo,
dozens of former intel officials say.”
123
122
Shapiro interview at 20-22.
123
Bertrand, supra note 4.
45
Supporters of the Biden campaign immediately promoted the article, including Jen
Psaki, who would later become the White House Press Secretary under President Biden.
124
124
Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki), Twitter (Oct. 19, 2020, 10:45 PM),
https://twitter.com/jrpsaki/status/1318382779659411458.
46
Despite Politico’s conclusory headline, Morell, Polymeropoulos, and Shapiro all testified
that their statement was not intended to make a conclusive determination about whether the
Hunter Biden allegations were disinformation. Morell testified that “the statement clearly says
that we’re not saying this is disinformation.”
125
Polymeropoulos testified that, at the presidential
debate, “Vice President Biden” had “mischaracterize[ed]” the statement by calling “it
disinformation, which is not what the letter said.”
126
And Shapiro testified:
Q How do you feel now that you know that the contents on the laptop
were not Russian disinformation?
A Meaning that they were real?
125
Morell Interview at 26.
126
Polymeropoulos Interview at 28.
47
Q Yes.
A I’m sure glad that we put that in the letter, saying that we don’t know
if this is real or not.
127
Notwithstanding these recent protestations, there is no evidence that the statement’s
signers attempted to correct Politico’s misleading headline. Indeed, Morell “knew” the media
would not run the letter’s caveats. He testified:
Q. Do you regret that those caveats [in the statement] that you seem to
be relying on heavily today weren’t really part of the public
discourse and the political discourse around this letter?
A. I knew they wouldn’t be. I knew they wouldn’t be, as much as we
tried, right? As you guys know better than anybody, right, politics
is hyperbole and particularly debates. There’s a lot of hyperbole
around, a lot of people taking things and taking them a little bit
further, right? You know that better than I do. So I wasn’t surprised
at all that – you know, when President Biden – when Vice President
Biden talked about this at the debate that he didn’t say, “Hey, I have
to put some caveats on this.” That's not what happens at debates.
***
Q. So you knew when you put this product out with caveats that its
utilization politically likely wouldn’t include those caveats?
A. I guessed that politicians would not use the caveats. I was hoping
that fact-checkers and I was hoping the media – disappointed in that
regard – would pay more attention to them.
Q. But you testified earlier that you were accelerating – you were
requesting an acceleration of the review of this material so it could
be used in a debate, right?
A. Yes, sir.
128
Indeed, contemporaneous documents show that some of the signatories adopted
Politico’s framing that the laptop was Russian disinformation. One of the intelligence officials
who signed onto the statement, Thomas Fingar, the former Deputy Director of National
Intelligence for Analysis and Chair of the National Intelligence Council, wrote to colleagues at
Stanford University that the statement “conveys our judgment that the Hunter Biden emails story
127
Shapiro Interview at 28.
128
Morell Interview at 88-89.
48
published by the NY Post and seemingly endorsed by Trump’s Director of National Intelligence
is actually Russian disinformation.”
129
Fingar, in sharing the Politico story with Stanford’s public affairs team, appeared intent
on having the university promote the story among its networks.
130
But Fingar’s Stanford
colleagues did not seem willing. One Stanford employee immediately grasped the statement was
nothing more than a political document.
131
Indeed, she used the word “political” four times in
her terse response to Fingar explaining that Stanford cannot endorse these sorts of “political
opinions.”
132
129
Email from Thomas Fingar to Noa Ronkin and Ari Chasnoff (Oct. 20, 2020, 10:28 AM) (on file with the
Committees).
130
STANFORD-FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, All FSI People / Staff,
https://fsi.stanford.edu/people/noa-ronkin-0; https://fsi.stanford.edu/people/ari-chasnoff (last visited May 4, 2023).
131
Email from Noa Ronkin to Thomas Fingar (Oct. 20, 2020, 1:00 PM) (on file with the Committees).
132
Id.
49
In an October 20 email to the signers of the statement, Morell wrote that “Politico did a
nice job getting out the story of our letter.”
133
Morell, however, expressed no concern about the
story’s conclusory headline that the laptop was Russian disinformation.
Similarly, on October 20, a day after Politico ran its story about the statement, Shapiro
emailed another signatory, John Sipher, a former career CIA officer, to sit for an interview with
MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow.
134
Shapiro noted an interest in placing a statement
signatory before a friendly talk show host and ensuring that signatory had “Russia expertise” and
“will not be seen as political.”
135
Here, too, there was no mention about nuancing Politico’s
headline or caveating the assertions in the statement.
133
Email from Michael Morell to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 20, 2020, 1:40 PM) (on file with
Committees).
134
Email from Nick Shapiro to John Sipher (Oct. 20, 2020, 10:33 AM) (on file with the Committees).
135
Id.
50
Likewise, Jeremy Bash,
136
another former intelligence community official, appeared on
MSNBC the same day the statement was released. His assertions about Hunter Biden’s laptop
and emails were unambiguous and did not include nuanced caveats in the statement. He said:
We need to talk about it, Nicole. [The Hunter Biden allegations]
looks like Russian intelligence, this walks like Russian intelligence,
this talks like Russian intelligence. This effort by Rudy Giuliani and
the New York Post and Steve Bannon to cook up supposed dirt on
Joe Biden looks like a classic Russian playbook disinformation
campaign.
137
136
President Biden appointed Bash to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board in August 2022. White House,
President Biden Announces Key Appointments to Boards and Commissions (Aug. 26, 2022),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/26/president-biden-announces-key-
appointments-to-boards-and-commissions-6/.
137
Nicole Wallace, Bash On Pushing Of Disinformation On Biden: This Looks, Walks, & Talks Like Russian
Intelligence, MSNBC (Oct. 19, 2020); see also Deadline: White House, MSNBC (Oct. 19, 2020).
51
The MSNBC host then amplified the falsehood: “I think Jeremy has made clear we
shouldn’t look at [the statement] as anything other than a Russian disinformation operation.”
138
If these intelligence officials were concerned about Politico’s misrepresentation of their public
statement, there has been no contemporaneous indication of such a concern.
C. The Politico article and public statement helped to support the continued
suppression of the allegations uncovered from emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
In a recent retrospective, the New York Post explained how the public statement
contributed to the continued suppression of the underlying allegations contained in the emails on
Hunter Biden’s laptop—namely, Hunter Biden’s pattern of monetizing his familial relationship
with Vice President Biden’s likely knowledge. The Post piece reasoned:
Yes, that letter from the Dirty 51 had “all the classic earmarks” of a
disinformation operation, all right — one designed to ensure Joe
Biden won the presidency. And it was essentially a CIA operation,
considering 43 of the 51 signatories were former CIA.
In the two years since, not one of them has admitted they are wrong.
138
Id.
52
[One signer] David Priess at least gets marks for subjecting himself
to a cross-examination on Fox News one recent afternoon. He tried to
defend the letter by saying people were too stupid to understand it.
The letter was “still true” because it did not use the words “Russian
disinformation,” but concocted the weasel phrase “earmarks of a
Russian information operation.”
He knows perfectly well that Biden and the media drew no
distinction, that the letter he signed was used to censor and deride The
Post’s accurate story and deny the American people the truth about
one of the two candidates for president.
139
Similarly, an opinion writer with the Washington Post observed:
In addition to these meetings with current officials, a group of 51
former intelligence officials released a public letter when the story
broke in which they alleged that the release of Hunter Biden’s emails
“has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,”
adding, “If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote in this election.”
They were not right. But together, these warnings by current and
former national security officials gave Twitter the pretext to censor
the story — and mainstream news outlets the excuse to dismiss or
ignore it, which many of them did.
140
139
Miranda Devine, It’s been two years since 51 intelligence agents interfered with an election — they still won’t
apologize, N.Y. POST (Oct. 19, 2022).
140
Marc A. Thiessen, The suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop is a huge scandal, THE WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 9,
2022).
53
IV. The statement had its intended effect of giving Vice President Biden a “talking
point” to use in the presidential debate.
The public statement signatories had a common goal: “to help Vice President Biden in
the debate” and to help him win the presidency.
141
Indeed, some of the former intelligence
officials who signed the public statement were deeply satisfied that Vice President Biden
referred to the statement in the final presidential debate before the election. After the debate, the
signers congratulated themselves on a job well done, and the Biden campaign even called to
thank Morell for organizing the effort.
A. Then-Vice President Biden relied on the public statement in the presidential debate
to falsely assert that Hunter Biden allegations were a Russian “plan.”
On October 22, 2020, the last debate between then-Vice President Biden and President
Trump took place at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.
142
After President Trump
pressed Vice President Biden about his son’s laptop and emails, Biden called the American
people’s attention to the statement, noting the significance of the intelligence community
officials who signed the statement:
President Trump: It’s the laptop from hell.
Moderator: President Trump, we’re talking about race right now
and I do want to stay on the issue of race. President
Trump –
Vice President Biden: Nobody – Kristen, I have to respond to that.
Moderator: Please, very quickly.
Vice President Biden: Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks
who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a
Russian plan. They have said that this has all the
characteristics — four– five former heads of the CIA,
both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of
garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good
friend Rudy Giuliani.
President Trump: You mean, the laptop is now another Russia, Russia,
Russia hoax? You gotta be –
Vice President Biden: That’s exactly what — That’s exactly what –
141
Morell Interview at 78, 102.
142
COMM. ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, supra note 5.
54
President Trump: Is this where you’re going? This is where he’s going.
The laptop is Russia, Russia, Russia?
143
Two days later, the Washington Post took note of Vice President Biden’s reliance
upon the public statement, noting critically:
Joe Biden leaned heavily on a letter from former U.S. intelligence
and defense officials in Thursday night’s debate to argue that Russia
orchestrated a disinformation operation allegedly involving
damaging information obtained from his son’s laptop that was
promulgated by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W.
Giuliani.
***
The Biden campaign’s decision to lean into accusations of Russian
involvement in the episode, despite lacking specific proof, risks
eroding public trust in U.S. allegations of foreign election
interference if the suspicions in this case turn out to be unfounded,
according to intelligence and foreign policy experts.
144
B. The statement’s signatories celebrated after the debate.
The signers of the statement were pleased with Vice President Biden’s response and his
reliance upon the statement during the debate, as emails between them make clear. One signer,
Gregory Tarbell, former CIA Deputy Executive Director, wrote that the talking points “worked
well during the debate” and applauded Morell, Polymeropoulos, Wood, Shapiro, and others on
what the “[g]reat idea” for the statement.
145
143
Id.
144
Annie Linskey & Paul Soone, Biden relies on pattern of activity to blame Russia for release of data from what is
said to be his son’s laptop, T
HE WASHINGTON POST (Oct. 24, 2020).
145
Email from Gregory Tarbell to Michael Morell (Oct. 23, 2020, 2:25 AM) (on file with the Committees).
55
In response, Wood stated that Vice President Biden’s mention of the statement during the
debate “was really cool.”
146
Polymeropoulos voiced similar sentiments, calling it “very cool.”
147
146
Email from Kristin Wood to Gregory Tarbell (Oct. 23, 2020, 3:02 AM) (on file with the Committees).
147
Email from Marc Polymeropoulos to Kristin Wood (Oct. 23, 2020, 4:34 AM) (on file with the Committees).
56
Four day earlier, in a private exchange with Morell, Polymeropoulos expressed his
appreciation for “including me on this letter.” He wrote:
Thanks again for including me on this letter. I’m glad I could
contribute. I am terrified of 11/3. Future of our country, internal and
also external to the world, at stake. I’m not usually dramatic, but this
is it. For our lifetimes. Four more years of this means I move to the
greek [sic] islands and bury my head in the sand.
148
Text message between Michael Morell and Marc Polymeropoulos (Oct. 19, 2020)
Morell testified to the self-satisfaction the signatories felt for their involvement in the
presidential debate. He testified:
Q. And then we also have a number of emails that have been produced
148
Text message from Marc Polymeropoulos to Michael Morell (Oct. 19, 2020, 5:51 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
57
to the committee where the people on – a number of the people who
signed it were sort of congratulating each other for the fact that it
was, in fact, used in the debate.
A. Yes, sir.
149
In a final email to the signatories, Morell expressed his own satisfaction in successfully
getting the statement published. He wrote to his co-signatories:
I think this is the most important election since 1860 and 1864 when
the very existence of the country was on the ballot. Now, it is our
democracy and the Constitution that are on the ballot. We all, of
course, took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the
Constitution. I think all of you did that yesterday by signing this
letter.
150
149
Morell Interview at 99.
150
Email from Michael Morell to Unnamed Intelligence Officials (Oct. 20, 2020, 1:40 PM) (on file with the
Committees).
58
C. The Biden campaign called Morell and thanked him for his service to the campaign.
After the October 22, 2020, presidential debate, Biden campaign chairman Steve
Ricchetti called Morell and thanked him for the statement. Morell testified:
Q. Did you talk to [Steve Ricchetti] at all regarding the statement that
you helped organize and put out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you talk with him?
A. After the debate – I think it was after the debate – in fact, I’m pretty
sure it was after the debate – I got a phone call from Jeremy Bash,
who I work with at Beacon and who is active politically. And Jeremy
said: Do you have a minute to talk to Steve Ricchetti? I said: Of
course. He was the head of the Biden campaign at the time. And
59
Jeremy got him on the line, and Steve thanked me for putting the
statement out.
151
151
Morell Interview at 96-97.
60
V. Some signatories expressed outrage about Congressional oversight into the origins
of the statement.
The Committees are in possession of emails exchanged among some of the senior former
intelligence officials following the Committees’ oversight requests regarding the origins of the
statement. While the Committees fully recognize and respect every Americans’ right to engage
in the political process, the Committees have a legitimate legislative purpose in understanding
how these officials used their intelligence credentials and official titles to mislead American
voters about serious Biden family allegations in the final days before the 2020 election.
The emails exchanged following the Committees’ oversight suggest outrage among some
signatories for having to explain the origins of the statement. Former National Security Agency
Director Michael Hayden asked some co-signers—including Morell, John Brennan, Jeremy
Bash, Thomas Fingar, and others—if they “should have a coordinated response.”
152
Brennan
responded that he would voice his “strong opposition to such political tactics,” asserting that
complying with the Committees’ request for documents and testimony “would serve as a
precedent that [Chairman Jordan] and others could seek to leverage when making frivolous
requests of other former intelligence officials in the future.”
153
152
Email from Michael Hayden to Jim Clapper et al. (Feb. 7, 2023, 1:11 PM) (on file with the Committees).
153
Email from John Brennan to Michael Hayden (Feb. 7, 2023, 2:18 PM) (on file with the Committees).
61
Morell, to his credit, rejected Hayden’s suggestion to coordinate a response, counseling
his former colleagues: “If at least some of us respond, I think it would be a mistake to coordinate.
We would, for sure, be accused of a conspiracy to obstruct a Congressional investigation.”
154
154
Email from Michael Morell to Michael Hayden et al. (Feb. 7, 2023, 1:39 PM) (on file with the Committees).
62
Conclusion
The American people deserve to know that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails were real.
They always were real. The allegations that they were the product of Russian disinformation
were false. Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge, almost two years after the
2020 election, “a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by [Hunter]
Biden in a Delaware repair shop” was “authenticated by people familiar with them and with the
investigation.”
155
On the morning of October 19, 2020, at least 12 hours before the statement was released
by Politico, then-Director Ratcliffe publicly stated, on behalf of the intelligence community, that
Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails were not Russian disinformation.
156
Within 24 hours of then-
Director Ratcliffe’s statement, the Department of Justice and the FBI confirmed his
declaration.
157
Reflecting on that moment, former-Director Ratcliffe recently stated:
You had the intelligence community and the law enforcement
community on behalf of the United States of America saying this is
not Russian disinformation. . . . You have literally had the Bidens
lie about it—Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Biden administration,
Biden White House officials, the Democratic Party, Democratic
politicians, the left-leaning media. . .
The gaggle of former intelligence and law enforcement officials—
you know—the famous 51 . . . . All of this was really a domestic
disinformation campaign for political reasons. . . . There is no other
explanation for it.
The people that had access to the intelligence and had possession of
Hunter Biden’s laptop . . . all of the people in a position to talk about
the evidence and the intelligence told the American people the
truth.
158
As the Wall Street Journal opined, the American people will “never know what effect the
‘October Surprise’ of 2020, the New York Post’s reporting of the discovery of a laptop
belonging to Hunter Biden containing all sorts of embarrassing emails, might have had on the
election that year if it had received wider circulation.”
159
Former Attorney General William Barr
155
Katie Benner et al., Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues, N.Y. TIMES (Mar.
16, 2022).
156
Moore, supra note 87.
157
Perez, supra note 91.
158
Brooke Singman, Ratcliffe: Hunter Biden laptop was a partisan domestic 'disinformation campaign', FOX NEWS
(Feb. 2, 2023).
159
Gerard Baker, Hunter Biden’s Laptop and America’s Crisis of Accountability, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 21, 2022).
63
believes the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story “probably affected the outcome” of the
2020 election, “given how close the election was.”
160
On November 3, 2020, the American people went to the polls to elect the president of the
United States with the false impression that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.
The American people cannot get back the 2020 election, but they have every right to demand
reforms from Congress so that the 2024 election will not be similarly compromised.
The United States is witnessing in real time the growth of a censorship industrial
complex, in which partisan “experts”—like the former intelligence officials who signed the
statement—reserve for themselves the right to determine what is and is not true and what
Americans can and cannot hear. Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, a writer for
the New York Times observed that, in the United States, “[f]ree speech threatens democracy as
much as it also provides for its flourishing.”
161
To address this threat, progressive “experts
prescribe[] two critical steps: [1] America must become less free and [2] less democratic. . . .”
162
These goals, in their view, will only be achieved by “following the wisdom of disinformation
experts and outgrowing our parochial attachment to the Bill of Rights.”
163
This is frightening and
shows why the Committees’ oversight is so important.
There is a direct line between Twitter’s continued suppression of the New York Post story
on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the statement by the former intelligence officials. One
disinformation commentator captured the significance of the censorship of the Hunter Biden
laptop and emails story to American democracy and self-government:
The laptops are real. The FBI has known this since 2019, when it
first took possession of them. When the New York Post attempted to
report on them, dozens of the most senior national security officials
in the United States lied to the public, claiming the laptops were
likely part of a Russian “disinformation” plot. Twitter, Facebook,
and Google, operating as fully integrated branches of the state
security infrastructure, carried out the government’s censorship
orders based on that lie. The press swallowed the lie and cheered on
the censorship.
The story of the laptops has been framed as many things, but the
most fundamental truth about it is that it was the successful
culmination of the yearslong effort to create a shadow regulatory
bureaucracy built specifically to prevent a repeat of Trump’s 2016
victory.
160
Jerry Dunleavey, Barr says Hunter Biden Russian disinformation claims ‘probably affected’ election outcome,
W
ASHINGTON EXAMINER (Mar. 22, 2022).
161
Emily Bazelon, The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 13, 2020) (internal
quotations marks and citation omitted).
162
Jacob Siegel, A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century, TABLET (Mar. 28, 2023).
163
Id.
64
It may be impossible to know exactly what effect the ban on
reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptops had on the 2020 vote, but
the story was clearly seen as threatening enough to warrant an
openly authoritarian attack on the independence of the press. The
damage to the country’s underlying social fabric, in which
paranoia and conspiracy have been normalized, is incalculable.
164
This interim report presents the material facts the Committees have learned to date about
the origins of the public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely
discredited—on the eve of the 2020 presidential election—legitimate allegations about the Biden
family’s influence-peddling operation. The Committees present this information now to keep the
House of Representatives appraised of our oversight work. The Committees’ oversight into this
matter continues in earnest.
164
Id.
