Back in 2015, then-Vice President Joe Biden quietly urged the CIA to bury a report that could have cast a shadow over his family’s business dealings in Ukraine.
As reported by Fox News, the CIA recently uncovered an email from February 2016 showing Biden’s strong preference to keep the intelligence—detailing Ukrainian officials’ concerns about his family’s alleged corrupt ties—under wraps, a request the agency honored.
The declassified email, marked with a crossed-out “SECRET” classification, included a blunt directive: “Good morning, I just spoke with VP/NSA and he would strongly prefer the report not/not be disseminated,” signed by a redacted name titled “PDB Briefer.” When a vice president steps in to halt the spread of intelligence, it’s hard to see this as anything but a shield for family dealings, especially given the timing of his Ukraine policy role. Such actions erode trust in institutions meant to operate above personal agendas.
The intelligence report in question, created in 2016 based on data from December 2015, highlighted Ukrainian officials’ frustration during Biden’s visit to Kiev. They expected substantive talks on personnel matters, only to find his public speech generic and devoid of deeper engagement.
More damning, the report noted that these officials privately discussed U.S. media scrutiny over the Biden family’s alleged corrupt business practices in Ukraine, viewing it as proof of a double standard in American governance. If foreign allies see hypocrisy in our leadership, it undermines any claim to moral authority on anti-corruption crusades. This isn’t just a family matter; it’s a national credibility issue.
The CIA confirmed that, despite the report meeting dissemination thresholds, Biden’s preference ensured it never left agency walls. A senior official called this interference “extremely rare and unusual,” hinting at political motivations that have no place in intelligence handling.
During his December 2015 trip to Kiev, Biden delivered a speech urging Ukraine to reform its anti-corruption efforts and energy sector, famously stating, “Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities.” The irony stings when juxtaposed with Ukrainian officials’ private musings about his own family’s ties, as captured in the suppressed intel. Words lose weight when actions don’t align.
At the same time, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, a gas firm where Hunter Biden held a lucrative board position. Months later, in March 2016, Biden pressured Ukraine to oust Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid, a move that now looks even more suspect under the shadow of this hidden report.
Biden later boasted about this leverage at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event, recalling, “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion’... If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’” Such brazenness, paired with efforts to silence related intelligence, suggests a pattern of prioritizing personal stakes over transparent governance.
Years later, in July 2019, President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, pressing for probes into the Biden family’s dealings, led to Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Though acquitted in February 2020, the episode spotlighted the same murky connections Biden sought to obscure in 2015.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden was under federal investigation for suspicious foreign transactions during this period, adding fuel to concerns about the family’s Ukrainian ventures. When intelligence is stifled to protect such interests, it’s not just a political skirmish; it’s a betrayal of public accountability.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who declassified these records, sees this as a clear case of intelligence politicization, with a senior official quoting him as saying, “This is an example of politicization of intelligence that we need to work to eliminate and for what we have zero tolerance.” His push for transparency is a rare counterweight to years of buried truths, though heavy redactions in the documents still shield some details.
The House of Representatives’ later impeachment inquiry into Biden, finding he engaged in “impeachable conduct” and “abused his office” to enrich his family, aligns with the unease these records provoke. While representatives for Biden offered no immediate comment to Fox News Digital, the silence speaks volumes against a backdrop of damning evidence.
Ratcliffe’s commitment to declassifying information in the public interest, as emphasized by CIA officials, offers a sliver of hope for restoring faith in our systems. Yet, when a vice president can sway intelligence distribution, it’s a stark reminder that power unchecked can taint even the most sacred duties of office.
These revelations aren’t just a footnote in political history; they’re a call to demand leaders who place national integrity above personal gain. If we ignore such manipulations, we risk normalizing a governance where influence buys silence, and that’s a price no free society can afford.
