Some Intel Officials Who Dissed Hunter Laptop Story on CIA Payroll

Some of the 51 intelligence officials who signed on to a letter in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign that the New York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" were on the CIA's payroll as contractors and had special access to CIA facilities.

The disclosure means those signatories were likely earning taxpayer dollars from their work with the intelligence community headed by President Donald Trump while simultaneously working with Joe Biden's presidential campaign to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a joint interim staff report Tuesday that detailed how CIA contractors colluded with the Biden campaign to mislead American voters.

When the statement was released on Oct. 19, 2020, there were repeated assertions that the signatories were former intelligence officials with no access to classified information. But the report showed an internal CIA email from Oct. 20, 2020, where an employee wrote to a colleague: "I also love that at least a few of the random signatories belong to individuals currently working here on contracts." In reply, the colleague wrote, "This frustrates me. I don't think it is helpful to the Agency in the long run."

The report showed that the highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement before its publication. Then-CIA Chief Operating Officer Andrew Makridis testified in April he informed then-Director Gina Haspel or then-Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release, suggesting that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess the statement's validity. Plus, Makridis' office appeared to signal approval of the statement in a move that departed from standard protocols.

"The 51 former intelligence officials' Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start," the report stated.

The report said the statement originated with a call from top Biden campaign official – and now Secretary of State – Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell. The goal of the statement was to give Joe Biden talking points to use in response should the laptop be brought up in his debate against Donald Trump, which is what happened.

At the time of the statement's publication, signatories Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckely were on the CIA's payroll as contractors, the report said. In an email Tuesday to the New York Post, Morell denied being a contractor at the time of the statement writing, "If you write that, you would [be] wrong."

But the report contains internal CIA documents that showed Buckley and Morell had active contracts with the CIA and Buckley even held a green badge, allowing him access to secure CIA facilities when the statement was published.

"We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community," Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in a news release. "Now with this interim report, we reveal how officials at the highest levels of the CIA were aware of the statement and CIA employees knew that several of the so-called former officials were on active contract with the CIA. The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government."

Although the Hatch Act bars most CIA employees from engaging in partisan political activities, it's not as clear about contractors. But Makridis testified he agreed with testimony from Morell that it would be inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process, the reported said.

Further, Makridis stated that he would have examined the relevant ethical circumstances in more detail before signing off on the statement, according to the report. He said that if he were the CIA director at the time, he "would [have made] a call to the office of general counsel and [had] that person come in, and we would have [had] that discussion."