Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back.
Last week was … a lot, legally speaking. While much of the Trump administration’s efforts have shifted to trying to get courts to agree that President Donald Trump can deploy troops from red states to bring blue cities to heel, there are still many other terrible developments.
We’ve got a throwback to Elon Musk’s idiotic actions, the Fifth Circuit is likely going to decide it’s totally groovy to force religion into the classroom, James Comey’s attorney is taking a page from Trump’s playbook, and the Supreme Court looks primed to strike down conversion therapy bans—because why not hurt trans kids more. Oh and last—but never least—is the Department of Justice’s meme antics undermining its own case against Luigi Mangione.
Well, well, well. If it isn’t the consequences of Musk’s own actions.
The New York Times recently prevailed in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over the Trump administration’s refusal to provide a list of Musk’s security clearances when he was a government contractor prior to 2025. Now the administration will have to cough it up.
They tried to say that it would violate Musk’s privacy, but the court noted that Musk bragged publicly of his “top secret clearance” in 2024, making it not really all that private to begin with.
The Times did not request additional information—like Musk’s application for clearances or any investigative materials—but the government still claimed that it couldn’t provide the form because it would show whether clearances were subject to any conditions, even if the conditions themselves were redacted.
This is where Musk’s boasts about his ketamine use, his cringe-worthy blunt rotation with Joe Rogan, and his chats with Vladimir Putin came back to bite him.
To grant a security clearance, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency must review foreign influences and drug use. The court said that, while Musk has not publicly discussed any conditions, he has publicly addressed his drug use and contacts with foreign leaders. And since the DCSA is supposed to consider those things, the public has an interest in the DCSA’s performance of its duties.
You can expect the Trump administration to continue fighting this because it would likely crack open the door for FOIA requests about Musk’s clearances at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—and they desperately don’t want that.
In another horrible development, the Fifth Circuit has ordered a full court review of the three-judge panel decision in Roake v. Brumley—and it’s not an exaggeration to say that we should all be worried.
Both the Louisiana lower court and the three-judge panel ruled that the law requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional, because it so obviously is.
The fact that they agreed to a review and requested new briefs and oral arguments is a sign that there’s an appetite to reverse it. This would mean getting a decision on the books holding that the government can force the display of the Ten Commandments—but only the Protestant version chosen by the state.
Next stop will be the Supreme Court because, much like they did with abortion, states are going to keep passing objectively unconstitutional laws, shoving them up to the Supreme Court to bless them. Terrific system we have here.
One of the challenges James Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said he will raise—and file a motion to dismiss the case—is an unlawful appointment claim.
Basically, that would be that Lindsey Halligan, installed as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for the sole purpose of indicting Trump’s enemies, is not legally allowed to be in her role. Her predecessor, Erik Siebert, served the limit of 120 days in the interim position, allowing the federal judges to appoint him.
The issue is whether that created a new vacancy or not. If it did not, then that 120-day interim use is gone forever, which is why the court ruled that Alina Habba isn’t legally in her role in New Jersey. In that case, the Trump administration argued that the 120-day clock starts over with each interim appointment, but that would make the 120-day interim limit entirely useless.
There would be a sort of grimly hilarious symmetry if the Comey prosecution falls apart because a judge decides that Halligan was not properly in her role. Trump hit a stroke of luck when his all-time favorite lower-court judge Aileen Cannon ruled, wildly incorrectly, that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and threw out the entire classified documents case.
What’s good for the goose, etc.
Tuesday’s oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar made it clear that the Supreme Court is going to strike down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Doing so would also knock out similar laws throughout almost half of the country.
There’s no credible argument for conversion therapy, which tries to force minors to be heterosexual and cisgender. Major health care organizations have denounced it, and people forced to undergo it report high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
The right-wing argument in Chiles is that it violates the free speech of therapists if they can’t compel children to listen to how their identity is bad and wrong.
It’s an absolute sham of a lawsuit, with no evidence that the plaintiff ever intended to offer conversion therapy or received any complaints. Her lawyer, with the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ group Alliance Defending Freedom, told the court that Chiles was the subject of “anonymous complaints” that they declined to provide.
This is just another case where the plaintiff is nothing but a straw man standing in to get the desired conservative result—which is to protect the free speech of bigots at the expense of the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ kids.
The DOJ is in trouble over how hyped it is to talk about Mangione’s guilt while in the midst of prosecuting him, with the public affairs deputy director posting on X interviews of Trump saying that Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me.”
This is pretty much a textbook example of prejudicial pretrial statements, which are not allowed, as pretty much every DOJ prosecutor knows. But the DOJ is being steered by people whose main interests are creating cool meme content and hurting people, so they might not be so familiar.
When the court ordered the Trump administration to explain what happened here, they said that, since the person who made the post wasn’t part of the prosecution team, they weren’t violating the rule.
This is nonsense, of course, as it would basically mean that the DOJ could pop off with these statements any time as long as the actual prosecutor on the case isn’t the one to say it.
But this isn’t the first time that the attention-hungry, meme-driven administration ran into trouble with Mangione, who’s now moving to block the DOJ from seeking the death penalty because of the highly televised perp walk they made him do.
Republican lawmakers are ecstatic about the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James, cheering on President Donald Trump's corrupt and vindictive prosecutions of his perceived enemies as he slides the country further into autocracy.
Career prosecutors had refused to seek an indictment against James, saying there was not enough evidence that James committed mortgage fraud and that the case was unlikely to end in a conviction.
But Trump fired the prosecutor who wouldn’t go along with his corrupt demand to indict his enemies and installed unqualified sycophant Lindsey Halligan as Virginia's top federal prosecutor, who went on to follow Trump's orders to seek out the indictment.
Now, Republicans are gleefully mocking James, whose indictment mirrors that of the civil fraud case James successfully brought against Trump, and are lauding the Trump administration for indicting her.
"Crooked NY AG Letitia James, used taxpayer money to maliciously prosecute President Trump over non-crimes, has now been INDICTED based on legitimate bank fraud allegations," Rep. Claudia Tenney (D-NY) wrote in a post on X.
"Back in 2024, Letitia James posted, 'No one is above the law. Even when you think the rules don’t apply to you.' Here's the reality: 1–No one is above the law 2–You cannot commit mortgage fraud 3–She thought the rules didn't apply to her 4–She got indicted. Law & order is back," Rep. Byron Donalds (D-FL) wrote in a post on X.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)—who is running a likely unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign in New York—cheered what she called James' "long overdue indictment" calling it a "critical step toward restoring accountability and the rule of law."
Actual legal experts say, however, that James is unlikely to be convicted, as the charges are even less than thin gruel.
"It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York," Molly Roberts, a senior editor at the legal outlet Lawfare, wrote in an article on the site in which she laid out all of the reasons why the evidence does not exist that James committed fraud.
Democrats condemned the Trump DOJ for seeking the indictment, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saying that the "baseless indictment ... is part of Donald Trump's corrupt weaponization of the criminal justice system against anyone who has sought to hold him accountable."
"This is what tyranny looks like. President Trump is using the Justice Department as his personal attack dog, targeting Attorney General Tish James for the ‘crime’ of prosecuting him for fraud—and winning," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in a post on X. "One U.S. Attorney already refused this case. So, Trump hand-picked an unqualified hack that would go after another political enemy. This isn't justice. It's revenge. And it should horrify every American who believes no one is above the law."
James, for her part, vowed to fight the charges.
"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system," James said in a statement. "I am not fearful—I am fearless. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."
And given that the prosecutor who sought the charges couldn’t even fill out the indictment form correctly, she’s likely to beat them.
Most Americans give a failing grade to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. according to a new poll released on Thursday from nonpartisan health policy group KFF.
The survey was conducted after Kennedy, along with President Donald Trump and Dr. Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, held a press event pushing unscientific medical claims, including the promotion of a false link between autism and Tylenol.
In KFF’s poll, 59% of the public said they either somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy has been handling his job. The vast majority of his disapproval comes from Democrats and independent voters, but even 25% of Republicans also said they disapproved of him.
Poll respondents also strongly opposed Trump’s allegations about a link between Tylenol and autism. Among those surveyed, 65% said it was probably or definitely false that the link is real. Among parents, 60% also expressed doubt about Trump’s position.
Reflecting the Trump administration’s embrace of unscientific anti-vaccine stances, trust in the Centers for Disease Control is down significantly from the public support the agency had under former President Joe Biden. In KFF’s September 2023 poll, 63% of the public said they trusted the agency on vaccines. That is now down to 50% under Trump.
Following the event with Kennedy, Oz, and Trump, global health leaders soundly rejected their unscientific claims and reaffirmed support for the use of Tylenol-style drugs during pregnancy. For instance, the European Medicines Agency told Reuters, “Available evidence has found no link between the use of paracetamol during pregnancy and autism.”
That position was echoed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, who slammed the White House for “dangerous claims and misleading information that sends a confusing message to parents and expecting parents.”
Medical experts have also said not using pain relievers like Tylenol during a pregnancy when treating a fever can lead to severe medical problems, including miscarriage and other complications that could affect fetal health.
Related | RFK Jr. continues quest to Make America Sick Again, vaccines edition
Kennedy’s tenure has been plagued with a series of ill-informed medical recommendations and actions. He has pushed to limit the availability of vaccines for dangerous conditions like COVID-19 and a measles outbreak claimed lives while the administration pursued cutbacks and sidelined medical experts.
The public distaste for Kennedy’s actions has increased efforts from congressional Democrats like Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens, who has said she intends to introduce articles of impeachment against Kennedy.
“His contempt for science, the constant spreading of conspiracy theories, and his complete disregard for the thousands of research hours spent by America’s top doctors and experts is unprecedented, reckless, and dangerous,” Stevens said in a September statement.
It’s hard to find good help these days. What’s a president to do when all he wants is to use the might of the state to persecute his political enemies, but all of these pencil-necked geek attorneys keep saying things like “sir, there is no case here”?
President Donald Trump’s retribution jamboree is being stalled out by career Justice Department prosecutors worried about stupid things like “the law” and “ethics.”
Take Elizabeth Yusi, a career prosecutor who has been an assistant U.S. attorney for about 15 years. According to MSNBC, Yusi will be telling Lindsey Halligan, a real-estate lawyer who has been interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for about 15 minutes, that there’s no probable cause to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud.
How dare she?
Looks like Halligan is going to have to roll up her sleeves and take care of this herself, just like she did with bringing charges against former FBI Director James Comey. Sure, the indictment was comically thin, and sure, she didn’t manage to make one of the ginned-up charges stick, and sure, she had to present it to the grand jury herself.
Halligan, of course, was installed in her job because she’s perfectly happy to take on the shoddiest, most vindictive prosecutions. She was brought in to bring charges against Comey after her predecessor, Eric Siebert, said he wouldn’t.
Trump took a victory lap after Halligan secured an indictment against Comey, but for all the fanfare over that, there is so much more that has to happen before Trump can live out his fantasy of putting Comey behind bars.
Sadly for Trump, all of those steps require prosecutors. Many, actually.
At the moment, Halligan might need to consider a crash course in trial preparation, because as of Tuesday, no career attorneys from her office have entered an appearance in Comey’s case, even though the arraignment is on Wednesday. Though to be fair, Halligan probably doesn’t know about this, since she’s never been a prosecutor and her only client as a defense attorney was Trump.
Instead, it looks like Halligan is going to bring in prosecutors from outside her office. Can’t wait for a passel of freshly minted Liberty University School of Law graduates to handle a politically explosive and high-profile prosecution. Well, at least those who weren’t smart or vicious enough to land a clerkship with the many Trump judges eager to mold new baby fascists.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the Trump administration’s eagerness to have one state invade another, it seems to all rest—legally speaking—on the shoulders of one lawyer: Eric Hamilton.
Hamilton handled Sunday night’s hearing about deploying National Guard troops to Oregon and was then bundled off to Illinois to argue about how cool and legal it would be if Texas troops were deployed to Chicago.
Normally, of course, there is a veritable army of DOJ attorneys to handle these things. But between resignations and purges, the DOJ doesn’t have a lot left in the tank.
The agency lost 70% of its civil rights division. The top national security prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia was just purged. Multiple high-level prosecutors who refused to sign off on the DOJ’s quid pro quo with Mayor Eric Adams were also fired. Two-thirds of the attorneys tasked with defending Trump’s signature initiatives—like birthright citizenship and immigration—have bolted. And Trump has rapidly depleted the entire federal attorney bench.
This is also why there’s such turmoil among some U.S. attorneys right now. Trump knows he can’t get people like Alina Habba—another of his former personal attorneys—or Halligan confirmed by the Senate. But he also knows that only the most bone-deep partisan loyalists will do his bidding.
Eventually, all that the DOJ will have left are people who previously represented Trump in some personal capacity. Fortunately for Trump, that’s a lot of people. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they all suck.
Democratic Virginia Rep. Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, twin brother of Trump impeachment figure Alexander Vindman, blasted out to his Twitter followers a call to vote for Democrats Jay Jones and Abigail Spanberger days after texts showed the former referenced killing Republicans.
Meanwhile, a House of Delegates candidate in conservative southside Virginia doubles and triples down on support of Jones amid social media pushback.
As Jones’ controversy and campaign unraveled over the weekend, Vindman, D-Va., took to X to issue comments standing behind the entire Democratic ticket.
"We’re just a month out from Election Day in Virginia. It’s time for our Commonwealth to send a message that we’re tired of Republican chaos," Vindman wrote Sunday, two days after texts came to light showing Jones envisioning the murder of then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah.
Virginia "make a plan to vote — early if you can," he said, adding "for" and the three X handles for gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, lieutenant gubernatorial nominee Ghazala Hashmi and Jones.
"Your voice couldn’t be more important this year," concluded Rep. Eugene Vindman, who coincidentally holds Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger's former seat.
The post got ratioed by critics, including one telling Vindman, "Nobody is voting for Jay ‘Two Bullet’ Jones."
"Get lost," the man wrote.
Another respondent posted a meme image of the Harrison family from "Pawn Stars" speaking with a customer and the caption "We need to tone down the political violence rhetoric" – "Virginia Democrats: Best I can do is murder your children."
A third posted the ubiquitous "Marked Safe From… Today" flag meme, with the caption "Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones."
"Virginia — not for lovers anymore," another wrote, referring to the Old Dominion’s famous 50-year tourism slogan.
Rep. Eugene Vindman's brother Alexander Vindman was a key figure in then-Rep. Adam Schiff's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Schiff defended then-witness Alexander Vindman in congressional hearings after Trump and other Republicans repeatedly condemned the former Ukraine-focused National Security Council staffer.
In Washington, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine also defended his support for Jones, saying he's known the former Norfolk state delegate for 25 years.
"I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized — I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff," Kaine said.
At the other end of Virginia, a Democrat running for a seat in Pittsylvania County and vicinity doubled and tripled down on her endorsement of Jones as the controversy continued.
Candidate Melody Cartwright, a former graphic designer at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, lambasted the delegate whom Jones had incidentally texted the invective to and vociferously defended the attorney generalship nominee.
Jay Jones "will defend Virginia's rights, healthcare, and education. Stay the course," Cartwright wrote on X, inscribing Jones’ handle.
"I stand with (Jay Jones) period. End of statement," Cartwright wrote in a second tweet, both of which were lambasted by critics.
"Then you stand for a man who fantasizes about the murder of his political opponent's children and wants to kill them, the parents, and piss on their graves," replied former Energy Department staffer Matt van Swol.
Another critic said Cartwright’s comment wasn’t just a show of support but "an endorsement of an (expletive) death-obsessed lunatic."
"No one is surprised. By you, by him, or by your entire party. It’s who you are," wrote conservative figure Western Lensman.
Another reply included a one-second clip of conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart from his CPAC 2012 intro video, saying "War," which had been one of the last appearances by the major right-wing figure before his death just days later. Breitbart's stern-faced delivery of the singular word grew into a memorialization on the right in the time since; depicting the view that the left holds visceral hatred for the right.
Virginia Del. Eric Phillips, R-Martinsville, who defeated Cartwright last cycle and faces her again, told Fox News Digital it’s "not the Virginia way" to even entertain chatter in terms of what Jones referenced in his texts.
"It's disturbing and disgraceful for my opponent to defend Jay Jones' vile comments," Phillips said of Cartwright.
"Standing with someone who talks about shooting colleagues in the head, harming their children, and desecrating graves is indefensible," Phillips added.
"Anyone who excuses or embraces that kind of hate has no business asking to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates."
In a separate tweet, Cartwright also bashed Virginia Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chester, who originally had shared Jones’ texts with the National Review and Fox News Digital.
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday wouldn’t say where a reported bribe paid to a top Trump official ended up.
In September 2024, Tom Homan, who currently serves as the administration’s “border czar,” reportedly took a $50,000 cash bribe from undercover FBI agents who were posing as businessmen. In turn, Homan reportedly agreed to help them obtain border-security contracts from a potential Donald Trump administration.
However, once Trump took office, his politicized Department of Justice closed an investigation into the matter, seemingly allowing Homan to get off scot-free.
As if that weren’t bad enough, it still leaves the question about where the $50,000 is now.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, probed Bondi at a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee about that very matter.
"What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan?" Whitehouse asked Bondi.
"The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review,” Bondi replied, avoiding the question. “They found no evidence of wrongdoing.”
"What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?" Whitehouse asked, not letting Bondi off the hook.
"You're welcome to talk to the FBI," Bondi said, again deflecting, even though the FBI reports to Bondi.
After Bondi kept refusing to answer, Whitehouse replied, “I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question.”
The question should have been easy for Bondi to answer: Either Homan kept the money, or he gave it back. If he gave it back, Bondi could have easily said so. But if Homan kept it, did he report the earnings on his tax filings? If he didn't report it, Homan would have committed a second crime—tax evasion.
“On top of the Epstein files, she needs to release EVERYTHING on the Tom Homan investigation, including the video,” Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee wrote Tuesday in a post on X, referring to a reported video of the bribe. “Where is the $50k?”
It’s unclear if we will ever get the answer. Democracy Forward, a group seeking to stop corruption in the executive branch, sued the Trump administration on Monday for refusing to release the recording of Homan accepting the bribe.
“The Trump-Vance administration continues to erode public trust and weaken accountability with the American people,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a news release. “These law enforcement agencies must follow the law and release this critical recording without delay. The public deserves answers about why this investigation was closed and whether senior Trump officials are being shielded from scrutiny that would apply to anyone else.”
This case is the latest in which Trump has let his allies break the law, while at the same time seeking to punish his perceived enemies with sham charges.
Already, Trump’s corrupted DOJ successfully sought an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, even though federal prosecutors do not believe Comey committed a crime.
And MSNBC reported on Monday that federal prosecutors are bracing for a top colleague to be fired once she tells her boss, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, that there is no reason to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James, another enemy of Trump’s.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2015 told the CIA he would "strongly prefer" an intelligence report documenting Ukrainian officials’ concerns with his family’s ties to "corrupt" business deals in the country "not be disseminated" — and so it wasn’t, according to a newly-declassified email and records made public by the agency.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified the heavily redacted records, which he said he believes is an example of "politicization of intelligence."
Fox News Digital obtained the declassified documents, which were discovered during a CIA review of historical agency records.
A senior CIA official briefed Fox News Digital on the declassified documents and intelligence report, stating that the intelligence was discovered along with an email showing that Biden "expressed a preference to not share the report."
Representatives for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
CIA officials discovered and declassified an email dated February 10, 2016, with the subject line stating: "RE: OVP query regarding draft [REDACTED]." The email was sent to the CIA.
The classification of the email was listed, and crossed out, as "SECRET."
"Good morning, I just spoke with VP/ NSA and he would strongly prefer the report not/not be disseminated. Thanks for understanding," the email states, signed by a redacted name, but with the title of "PDB Briefer." The "PDB" is the presidential daily brief.
The report in question included intelligence revealing that Ukrainian officials viewed the Biden family’s alleged ties to corrupt business practices in Ukraine "as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power."
"Intelligence officials agreed that, at the time of collection, it would have met the threshold [for dissemination], but based on the Office of the Vice President’s preference, the information was never shared outside of the CIA," the official said.
The CIA, during its review, confirmed that Biden’s request was granted and that the intelligence report "had not been disseminated."
The senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that it was "extremely rare and unusual" and "inappropriate to go outside of the intelligence community and inquire with the White House on the dissemination of a particular report for what appears to be political reasons."
The newly declassified intelligence report, which Biden sought to keep private, had a subject line of: "NON-DISSEMINATED INTEL INFORMATION: Reactions of [REDACTED] Ukrainian Government Officials to the Early December Visit of Senior United States Government Official."
The document states the date of the information came in December 2015. The document was created in 2016.
At the time, Biden was vice president and was running U.S.-Ukraine relations and policy for the Obama administration.
The intelligence document stated that "officials within the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko expressed bewilderment and disappointment at the 7-8 December 2015 visit of the Vice President of the United States to Kiev, Ukraine."
"These officials highlighted that, prior to the visit, the Poroshenko administration and other [REDACTED] Ukrainian officials expected the U.S. Vice President to discuss personnel matters with Poroshenko during the visit, and had assumed that the U.S. Vice President would advocate in support of or against specific officials within the Ukrainian Government," the intelligence states.
"After the visit, these officials assessed that the U.S. Vice President had come to Kiev almost exclusively to give a generic public speech, and had not had any intention of discussing substantive matters with Poroshenko or other officials within the Ukrainian government," the intelligence states.
"Following the visit of the U.S. Vice President, [REDACTED] officials within the Poroshenko administration privately mused at the U.S. media scrutiny of the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President’s family to corrupt business practices in Ukraine," the intelligence states. "These officials viewed the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President’s family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power."
Biden, on Dec. 9, 2015, gave a speech in Ukraine, in which he discussed corruption in the country.
"And it’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption," Biden said in the speech. "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform."
In that speech, Biden also said Ukraine’s "energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles — not sweetheart deals."
"It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income," he said. "Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities. Every other democracy in the world — that system pertains."
DEVON ARCHER: HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA EXECS ‘CALLED DC’ TO GET UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED
At the time, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. Several months later, in March 2016, Biden successfully pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin. At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden had a highly lucrative role on the board, receiving tens of thousands of dollars per month.
Biden, at the time, threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired.
"I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.' … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’" Biden recalled telling then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
Biden recollected the conversation during an event for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.
But during his first term, President Donald Trump was impeached after a July 2019 phone call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine, specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Burisma and Joe Biden’s successful effort to have former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ousted.
At the same time as that call, Hunter Biden was under federal investigation, prompted by his suspicious foreign transactions.
Trump was acquitted in Feb. 2020 on both articles of impeachment against him — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — after being impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019.
Meanwhile, the declassified intelligence report had a "warning," noting that "due to the extreme sensitivity, this report should be distributed only to the renamed recipients. No further distribution is authorized without prior approval of the originating agency. Violation of established handling procedures are subject to penalty, including termination of access to this reporting channel."
It added that "any discussion of or reference to information in this report [REDACTED] is strictly prohibited. Any references to this report in derived or finished intelligence should include this warning."
A senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that Ratcliffe believes the suppression of this intelligence is an example of "politicization of intelligence."
"Director Ratcliffe believes this is an example of politicization of intelligence that we need to work to eliminate and for what we have zero tolerance," a senior CIA official told Fox News Digital. "We believe transparency is important. We will release information and avoid any future weaponization of the intelligence community."
As for the heavily redacted nature of the intelligence report, the senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that the agency was "careful about protecting CIA sources and methods with redactions."
The official stressed that Ratcliffe believes in "maximum transparency" and said he will continue to declassify CIA information and intelligence "when it serves the public’s interest."
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry against Biden during his presidency, and found, after years of investigating, that he engaged in "impeachable conduct," "abused his office," and "defrauded the United States to enrich his family."