A new report has revealed that some of the 51 intelligence officials who signed a letter during the 2020 presidential campaign dismissing the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. These signatories had special access to CIA facilities, indicating they were earning taxpayer dollars from their intelligence community roles while aiding Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
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 on Tuesday. The report detailed how CIA contractors worked with the Biden campaign to mislead American voters. An internal CIA email from October 20, 2020, revealed that some signatories were current CIA contractors.
Top CIA officials knew about the statement before its release. Then-CIA Chief Operating Officer Andrew Makridis testified in April that he informed then-Director Gina Haspel or then-Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about the statement, allowing senior leadership to evaluate its validity. The report indicated that Makridis’ office approved the statement, deviating from standard procedures.
The report described the 51 intelligence officials’ statement as a political operation from its inception. The statement originated from a call between Biden campaign official Antony Blinken and former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell. Its purpose was to arm Joe Biden with talking points for his debate against Donald Trump.
Internal CIA documents showed that signatories Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors when the statement was published. Buckley even had a green badge for secure CIA facility access.
Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) underscored the dangers of a weaponized federal government, stating, “The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government.”
While the Hatch Act prohibits most CIA employees from partisan political activities, it is less clear about contractors. Makridis testified that it would be inappropriate for a current staff officer or contractor to engage in the political process. He emphasized that if he were the CIA director, he would have consulted the office of general counsel before approving the statement.
