Former Burisma lawyer registers as foreign agent more than seven years later amid Hunter Biden investigations

A lawyer who previously represented the head of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that once employed Hunter Biden, registered retroactively as a foreign agent for the work he did for the natural gas company seven years ago.

The registration from John Buretta came in documents filed Thursday with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires lawfirms and lobbyists to disclose their work representing the interests of foreign clients.

The disclosure from Buretta for the 2016 work he did for Mykola Zlochevsky — who co-founded Burisma Holdings in 2002 — came more than seven years after the fact, raising questions and concerns about why Hunter Biden, who also performed work on behalf of Burisma and Zlochevsky at the time, did not register as a foreign agent under FARA.

Buretta previously worked as a defense lawyer for Zlochevsky amid corruption investigations into the Burisma chief by the Ukrainian government and, according to FARA documents, U.S. authorities.

BIDENS ALLEGEDLY 'COERCED' BURISMA CEO TO PAY THEM MILLIONS TO HELP GET UKRAINE PROSECUTOR FIRED: FBI FORM

In the forms filed this week, Buretta's law firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, noted, "In January 2016, Mr. Buretta was retained to represent Mykola Zlochevsky in connection with possible investigations by governmental authorities in the United States. The representation thereafter broadened to include Burisma Holdings Limited, as well as governmental investigations in Ukraine, and continued until April 2017. The representation included both registrable and non-registrable activities. This registration and related materials cover all interactions with U.S. government officials in the course of the representation."

As part of his representation of Zlochevsky, the law firm noted in the form that Buretta met with three Obama administration officials in March 2016 and sent another U.S. government official a letter in September 2016.

"In these interactions, Mr. Buretta identified his clients and presented facts relevant to potential U.S. and Ukrainian investigations, including information from a UK proceeding involving his clients," the law firm noted.

Buretta's law firm did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment, but in a statement to the Washington Examiner explained that the filing came after a discussion with the DOJ.

"After discussions with the Department of Justice regarding FARA’s scope, Cravath has filed a retroactive registration covering legal services provided to two former clients in March and September 2016, and a supplemental statement terminating the registration as of September 2016," a Cravath, Swaine & Moore spokesperson told the outlet.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS CONSIDER HOLDING HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

In recent years, the DOJ has strengthened its enforcement of FARA violations. During former President Donald Trump's administration, the DOJ prosecuted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for failing to register as a foreign agent for work he performed in Ukraine.

Unlike Buretta, however, Manafort, who was eventually sentenced to prison, was not allowed to retroactively file a FARA disclosure to avoid charges being levied against him.

Included in the Thursday FARA filing was a breakdown of how much money Cravath received from Burisma Holdings. From January 2016 to August 2017, the firm was paid nearly $350,000, according to the documents.

The filing from Buretta and his attorneys comes as House Republicans continue to investigate Hunter Biden, who has been accused of violating FARA, wire fraud, money laundering, and other alleged crimes.

Then-Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden allegedly "coerced" Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired, according to allegations contained in an unclassified FBI document released last July by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Grassley said he released the document, which describes an alleged criminal bribery scheme involving Joe Biden and a Ukrainian business executive, so that the American people can "read this document for themselves without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats."

The document in question was an FBI-generated FD-1023 form — a confidential human source (CHS) reporting document — that reflects the FBI's interview with a "highly credible" confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top executive of Burisma Holdings over the course of several years starting in 2015. Hunter Biden, at the time, sat on the board of Burisma.

Biden has acknowledged that when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, and at the time, Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board, receiving thousands of dollars per month. The then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin were not fired.

Biden allies maintain the then-vice president pushed for Shokin's firing due to concerns the Ukrainian prosecutor went easy on corruption, and say that his firing, at the time, was the policy position of the U.S. and international community.

The House Oversight Committee next week will hold a meeting to consider a resolution to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after violating his congressional subpoenas.

The Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden for a closed-door deposition last month as part of the House Republican-led impeachment inquiry against President Biden. He defied the subpoena and held a press conference outside the Capitol complex instead.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Multiple venues on the 2024 presidential campaign trail

It would be like playing the Super Bowl at Churchill Downs.

The Stanley Cup Finals at Fenway Park.

Running the Indianapolis 500 in the old Boston Garden.

The 2024 presidential campaign likely won’t unfold in all the old familiar places.

THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: LEGISLATION ON COLLEGE SPORTS RELEGATED TO THE JV

The presidential proving ground for former President Trump may be in various courthouses, ranging from New York to Atlanta.

But House Republicans hope the presidential validation field for President Biden in 2024 is in the halls of Congress.

House Republicans didn’t accomplish much in 2023. But in mid-December, House GOPers finally conjured up the votes to formalize an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. That dynamic — emerging in an election year — could expose whether voters buy the GOP narrative that Mr. Biden, Hunter Biden and his family have something to hide about overseas business entanglements and financial dealings.

Or, the maneuver could reveal whether Republicans came up with blanks.

There is also the risk that voters believe the GOP is just engineering a not-so-shadow campaign to knife President Biden politically in 2024.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., began inching toward a House impeachment inquiry in late June and early July. But McCarthy never had the votes to officially launch an inquiry. And we all know what happened to McCarthy.

There were two camps of Republicans in the House when it came to impeachment. Not so much on whether the House should impeach Mr. Biden, but on how long an impeachment investigation should take.

One cohort of GOPers argued last summer they could wrap up the investigation soon and determine by fall whether they should impeach President Biden. They fretted about dragging things out into an election year. The other group didn’t set a timetable. Lawmakers appeared determined to let any inquiry run its course. 

And so, here we are in 2024 — a presidential election year. Republicans burned valuable time through 2023 fighting over who should be Speaker of the House and potential rendezvous with government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. So is there any surprise impeachment drifted into 2024?

And therein lies possible trouble.

Of course, any impeachment investigation is dangerous for a sitting president. But historically, it has been just as dangerous for the party undertaking the impeachment investigation.

Consider for a moment: what political benefit has any party ever reaped from an impeachment? Ever? And that includes the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

What do Democrats have to show with their two impeachments of former President Trump? Few consequences. Mr. Trump roared back stronger than ever after the Capitol riot and is the presumptive Republican nominee.

CONGRESS' FIGHT OVER IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD LAST A WHILE

What did House Republicans get from their impeachment of former President Clinton in 1998? Well, Republicans almost lost control of the House. And the Republicans of 1998 churned through two House Speakers. The Clinton impeachment signaled the end for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. Gingrich’s intended successor — former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., never became Speaker. It was revealed the night before the House impeached former President Clinton for deeds related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky that Livingston had also had an affair. So Livingston stepped aside.

This is why impeachments are risky. They often backfire. And while there’s a lot of turmoil, they don’t shift the political landscape.

"Without evidence, you simply cannot persuade those suburban voters who will sometimes vote Republican and sometimes vote Democratic, that the Republicans are doing the right thing in the House," said University of Mary Washington political scientist Stephen Farnsworth. "As much as the far right conservatives in the safe seats are going to want this impeachment inquiry to move forward, the reality is that doing so may very well cost the Republicans their majority."

We have no idea how or if House Republicans will actually impeach President Biden.

It’s about the math.

Republicans begin 2024 with a 220-213 advantage in the House. The already meager GOP majority could dwindle further. Republicans cannot lose more than three votes on any roll call and still pass something without assistance from the other side. 

Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, will resign in mid-January. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., is out until February recovering from cancer treatment. That means that in late January, Republicans effectively will have 218 operational votes in a 432-member House. They can lose two votes on any given roll call. Otherwise, the Democrats will prevail.

So, it’s unclear if Republicans will ever have the votes to impeach President Biden.

That presents the worst case scenario for the GOP.

Here are three problems:

If Republicans fail to impeach President Biden, the conservative base will be apoplectic.

That’s because Republicans have talked and talked about impeachment since President Biden took office. They potentially raised the bar and failed to deliver. Their voters could turn tail on them.

Then you have this mid-December impeachment inquiry vote. The average voter doesn’t follow the grand details of "impeachment" and the difference between an inquiry and actually impeaching the president. But all House Republicans — including those from battleground districts or the 18 districts President Biden won — are on the hook. That vote alone could be enough to torpedo many of those Republicans in the general election, regardless of how they try to finesse it.

Finally, imagine Republicans not impeaching President Biden, but keeping impeachment on the table with regular hearings and days of closed-door depositions. The public wonders why Republicans are dithering. Their base is displeased that they didn’t impeach the President. Skeptics ask what Republicans are spending all of their time on.

It could be a lose-lose-lose scenario.

Never mind that Republicans run headlong into a legislative jumble later this month and February with possible government shutdowns. And utterly nothing is figured out about securing the border despite weeks of talks. That hamstrings the release of potential aid to Ukraine and Israel. Republicans linked President Biden’s international assistance package to border security. That may work politically. But now it’s looking like it’s imperiling any way to get Ukraine and Israel the money they need.

This is why Republicans are now teeing up a potential impeachment inquiry against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And Republicans are planning to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for skipping out on a subpoena for a deposition last month.

A contempt of Congress citation cuts two ways.

Republicans will wail that Hunter Biden didn’t comply with a subpoena. But McCarthy, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Scott Perry, R-Penn., and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., all defied subpoenas in 2022 from the House committee investigation the Capitol riot.

That said, it is hard for the House to enforce a subpoena against a sitting member from one of its committees.

However, watch to see if the Justice Department prosecutes Hunter Biden if the House holds him in contempt. The DoJ prosecuted former Trump aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for not complying with subpoenas. If the DoJ doesn’t prosecute, Republicans will argue that the Biden Justice Department is shielding the President’s son. Former President Trump will assert that he’s getting unfair treatment facing prosecution from Special Counsel Jack Smith.

So there are two venues for the 2024 campaign trail.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Yes. States like Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and New Hampshire could determine who is president.

But the battlefield is in the halls of Congress and courtrooms across the nation.

Mayorkas acknowledges that majority of illegal immigrants released into US: ‘I know the data’

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday acknowledged that the majority of illegal immigrants encountered at the border are released into the U.S., as he also sought to highlight the number the administration has removed.

Mayorkas spoke on "Special Report" on Thursday and was asked by anchor Bret Baier about Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sources who have told Fox News that they are releasing over 70% of migrants crossing every day.

"It would not surprise me at all. I know the data," Mayorkas said. "And I will tell you that when individuals are released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings. They are on alternatives to detention. And we have returned or removed a record number of individuals. We are enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. "

MAYORKAS PUNTS ON IMPEACHMENT QUESTION, FAULTS CONGRESS AMID BORDER CRISIS 

Separately the secretary said that there are "well more than a million" migrants released into the U.S. annually, and argued repeatedly that it is up to Congress to provide more funding and immigration reform to fix what he has called a "broken" system. He said that the agency is limited in detention capacity by funding provided by Congress.

"When somebody enters the country, we place them in immigration enforcement proceedings pursuant to immigration law, and if their claim for relief, their claim to remain in the United States succeeds, then by law they are able to stay here," he said.

The interview comes as Mayorkas is facing increasing pressure over the Biden administration’s handling of the crisis at the southern border. There were over 302,000 migrant encounters in December, after an FY 2023 that saw a record 2.4 million encounters overall. A recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report said that the agency had removed 142,580 illegal immigrants in FY 23, up considerably from 72,177 in FY 22 and 59,011 in FY 21, but still down from the highs of 267,258 under the Trump administration in FY 19.

The administration has continued to push for deeper legislative reform and funding, but Republicans have blamed the crisis on the Biden administration’s policies, including its rolling back of Trump-era policies, narrowed ICE enforcement and its expanded releases into the interior. Some have also called for Mayorkas’ impeachment and hearings on that will take place next week.

EX-DHS OFFICIALS BACK JOHNSON'S AGGRESSIVE BORDER STANCE IN FUNDING FIGHT, SAY GOP MUST HAVE ‘CLEAR RESOLVE’ 

DHS has said that it has seen more removals since Title 42 ended in May it has removed more than 470,000 people, which is more than in the entirety of FY 2019. It has also said it is working to expand the use of expedited removal and increase deportation flights to Venezuela.

But Fox has also reported that officials have told lawmakers that they are releasing over 5,000 illegal immigrants a day into the U.S. interior, and that doesn’t include the migrants being let in at ports of entry after having used the CBP One app.

The comments comes as negotiations are ongoing between lawmakers and the administration over a supplemental funding request by the administration -- which includes $14 billion for border funding. But Republicans have said that the package must increase limits on asylum and the administration’s use of parole, which they say attracts migrants to the border. Senate Democrats have balked at those demands, but the administration has expressed optimism about the talks.

Mayorkas said the magnet was not the policies, but the broken system.

"What is a magnet is the fact that the time in between an encounter of an individual at the border and their final ruling in their immigration case can sometimes take six or more years. That is a magnet, which is why precisely why I am working with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate to deliver a solution for the American people, to deliver a fix to an immigration system that everyone agrees is broken, and that is long overdue," he said.

Fox News' Charles Creitz and Bill Melugin contributed to this report.
 

House GOP plans first step toward holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress

House Republicans will take a first step next week toward holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, after he skipped a closed-door interview last month.

The House Oversight and Judiciary committees will vote Wednesday on resolutions to hold Hunter Biden in contempt, paving the way for a floor vote in which Republicans will need near unity from their increasingly narrow majority.

“Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with our subpoenas constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution. We will not provide him with special treatment because of his last name,” Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a joint statement.

Both committees are also expected to issue a report, which hasn't been released yet, making their case for why they believe the president’s son should be held in contempt.

It’s the latest in the standoff between House Republicans and Hunter Biden, whose legal team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. Republicans will ultimately need the Justice Department to agree to enforce any referral — making it unlikely that Hunter Biden will face new charges.

Republicans subpoenaed the president’s son to appear behind closed doors for an interview on Dec. 13. Instead, Biden skipped the appearance and spoke briefly to reporters outside of the Capitol, defending his father, President Joe Biden, and reiterating that he is willing to take part in a public hearing.

Congressional Democrats, the White House and Hunter Biden allies have criticized Republicans for refusing to accept the offer for public testimony, pointing back to remarks from Comer earlier last year where he seemed open to the idea. But House Republicans have rejected holding a public hearing — unless Hunter Biden meets with them privately first — arguing that the president’s son shouldn’t dictate their subpoenas.

Republicans are months into their investigation aimed at President Joe Biden that has largely focused on the business deals of his family members. They view Hunter Biden as one of their biggest targets. They are also working to get interviews with James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, and Rob Walker, a Hunter Biden business associate.

The contempt step comes as Republicans are nearing a decision about whether or not to pursue articles of impeachment against Joe Biden. It is far from clear they will have the votes to impeach him, even after Republicans voted to formalize their inquiry last month.

Republicans have poked holes in previous statements by Joe Biden and the White House, and they’ve found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to try to build his own influence. But they’ve struggled to find a smoking gun that shows actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president were meant to benefit his family’s business deals.

Posted in Uncategorized

House Republicans consider holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress

The House Oversight Committee next week will hold a meeting to consider a resolution to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after violating his congressional subpoenas.

The House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden for a closed-door deposition last month as part of the House Republican-led impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

HOUSE GOP PROBING IF BIDEN WAS INVOLVED IN HUNTER'S 'SCHEME' TO DEFY SUBPOENA, POTENTIAL 'IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE'

Hunter Biden offered to testify in public only, and when denied, appeared on Capitol Hill to deliver a statement to the press, defying that subpoena.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said they would take steps to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress. 

HUNTER BIDEN WILL NOT SIT FOR DEPOSITION BY GOP, SAYS FATHER NOT 'FINANCIALLY' INVOLVED IN HIS BUSINESS

Comer announced his committee would hold a markup meeting to "consider a resolution and accompanying report to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for defying lawful subpoenas." The markup will take place Jan. 10 at 10:00 a.m.

"Our investigation has produced significant evidence suggesting President Biden knew of, participated in, and benefitted from his family cashing in on the Biden name," Comer said Friday. "We planned to question Hunter Biden about this record of evidence, but he blatantly defied two lawful subpoenas, choosing to read a prepared statement outside of the Capitol instead of appearing for testimony as required." 

JORDAN SAYS HUNTER BIDEN MADE A 'HUGE CHANGE' BY SAYING HIS FATHER WAS 'NOT FINANCIALLY INVOLVED' IN BUSINESS

Comer added: "Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with our subpoenas constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution. We will not provide him with special treatment because of his last name."

Fox News has learned that the House Judiciary Committee will also hold a similar markup on Jan. 10 at 10:00 a.m. recommending Hunter Biden be held in contempt of Congress. 

Committee markups are the first step to bringing a resolution to hold an individual in contempt of Congress for a full vote on the House floor. 

Meanwhile, last month, Comer and Jordan expanded their investigation to probe whether President Biden was involved in his son's "scheme" to defy his subpoena for deposition earlier this month — conduct, they say, "could constitute an impeachable offense." 

 Hunter, when making his public statement last month, said his "father was not financially involved in my business." 

"No evidence to support that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen," Hunter Biden said. 

The House impeachment inquiry against Biden was formalized by the full House last month. The inquiry is being led by Comer, Jordan and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith. 

GOP wants to impeach Maine secretary who cut Trump from ballot. It won’t be easy

Republicans who want to unseat Maine's secretary of state for barring former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot will face long odds impeaching a stalwart and influential Democrat whose party holds firm control over both Legislative chambers.

Shenna Bellows is the first secretary of state in history to block someone from running for president by using the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. Trump, the early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, appealed the decision on Tuesday and is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court.

As Maine lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Wednesday to begin this year's legislative session, retribution against Bellows was among the first orders of business for many Republicans. They filed an order of impeachment against her, called for her to resign and encouraged legislators to vote her out of office.

“The secretary of state has jumped in way over her boots on this one,” said Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham, the House Republican leader.

Bellows was elected secretary of state three years ago by the Maine Legislature, and Democrats have since maintained a solid majority in both houses, meaning there's little chance those same legislators would reverse course and oust her. Bellows said Wednesday she stands by her decision to unliterally remove Trump from the state's ballot, and isn't fazed by the calls for removal.

“This is little more than political theater produced by those who disagree with my decision,” Bellows said. “I had a duty to uphold the laws and the Constitution and that's what I did. And what I will continue to do — to serve the people of Maine.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Some legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

However, several high-ranking Maine Republicans say they feel Bellows' action was a partisan one, and betrayed the confidence of Maine's people.

Faulkingham said during a news conference that Bellows’ decision “threatens to throw our country into chaos” by encouraging other secretaries to make arbitrary decisions about ballot access. Rep. John Andrews filed an impeachment order that he said will be on the legislative calendar next Tuesday or Thursday, and Rep. Shelley Rudnicki said on the House floor that Bellows' “behavior is unacceptable for a secretary of state” and she should resign.

Bellows, Maine's 50th secretary of state and the first woman to hold the office, ascended to the role in January 2021. She had a long history in Maine politics and liberal advocacy before that.

She grew up in rural Hancock before attending Middlebury College, and served as a Democratic state senator from 2016 to 2020. Prior to that, in 2014, she ran an unsuccessful campaign against longtime Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins that resulted in a fairly easy win for the incumbent, but increased Bellow's name recognition.

She was also the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine from 2005 to 2013 and worked on drives to legalize same-sex marriage, same-day voter registration and ranked choice voting — all of which were ultimately successful.

A fake emergency phone call led to police responding to Bellows' home last week, the day after she removed Trump from the ballot. Democrats and Republicans in the state widely condemned the call, known as “swatting.” Bellows said she, her family and her staff have been the target of more harassment this week.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills said via a spokesperson Wednesday that the efforts to impeach Bellows are “unjustified.” Mills also believes the question of whether Trump violated the 14th amendment must be answered by courts.

“Without a judicial determination on that question, she believes that the decision of whether the former President should be considered for the presidency belongs in the hands of the people,” wrote the spokesperson, Ben Goodman.

The Maine Democratic Party asserted that decisions about ballot access are part of Bellows' duties as secretary of state.

Trump appealed Bellows' decision to a Maine Superior Court. The Colorado Supreme Court also found Trump ineligible for the presidency, and that decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bellows said Wednesday that, “Should the Supreme Court of the United States make a decision that applies to the whole country, I would absolutely uphold it.”

While Maine has just four electoral votes, it’s one of two states to split them. Trump won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there, should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate, could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.

Campaign Action

Prosecutor on Jack Smith team discouraged FBI from investigating Clinton Foundation in 2016

EXCLUSIVE: A top prosecutor on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team discouraged the FBI from pursuing an investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016 due to what he viewed as negligible evidence, despite multiple Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) related to hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign transactions, Fox News Digital has learned.

Ray Hulser, the former chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section (PIN), who serves on Smith’s team currently prosecuting former President Trump, was identified as the official who "declined prosecution" of the Clinton Foundation in 2016 in Special Counsel John Durham’s report.

FBI IGNORED 'CLEAR WARNING SIGN' OF CLINTON-LED EFFORT TO 'MANIPULATE' BUREAU FOR 'POLITICAL PURPOSES'

According to the Durham report, in January 2016, "three different FBI field offices, the New York Field Office, the Washington Field Office, and the Little Rock Field Office, opened investigations into possible criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation."

The report reveals that the case was opened referring to an intelligence product and corroborating financial reporting that a particular commercial "industry likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence."

DURHAM FINDS DOJ, FBI 'FAILED TO UPHOLD' MISSION OF 'STRICT FIDELITY TO THE LAW' IN TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE

The investigation out of Washington was opened as a "preliminary investigation, because the case agent wanted to determine if he could develop additional information to corroborate allegations in a recently-published book, 'Clinton Cash' by Peter Schweizer, before seeking to convert the matter to a full investigation," the report states.

But the New York and Little Rock investigations included predication "based on source reporting that identified foreign governments that had made, or offered to make, contributions to the Foundation in exchange for favorable or preferential treatment from Clinton." 

The Durham report revealed that because three different FBI field offices opened investigations related to the Clinton Foundation, there was a "perceived need to conduct coordination meetings between the field offices, FBI Headquarters, and appropriate U.S. Attorney’s offices," as well as "components" from main Justice Department.

DESPITE ACQUITTAL, DURHAM TRIAL OF SUSSMANN ADDED TO EVIDENCE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PLOTTED TO TIE TRUMP TO RUSSIA

"These meetings likely were deemed especially important given that the investigations were occurring in an election year in which Clinton was a declared candidate for President," the report states, including details from those meetings.

One meeting detailed in the report took place on Feb. 1, 2016. Present for that meeting were several FBI officials, as well as Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell and Hulser, who, at the time, was Public Integrity Section chief.

Durham interviewed Hulser as part of his investigation. Hulser told Durham that the FBI briefing on the Clinton Foundation was "poorly presented and that there was insufficient predication for at least one of the investigations due to its reliance on allegations contained in a book." 

"Hulser downplayed information provided by the New York Field Office CHS [confidential human source] and recalled that the amount involved in the financial reporting was ‘de minimis,’" the report states.

However, Durham’s team reviewed the financial reporting to better "understand the allegations."

"The reporting, which in itself is not proof of wrongdoing, was a narrative describing multiple funds transfers, some of which involved international bank accounts that were suspected of facilitating bribery or gratuity violations," the Durham report states in a footnote. "The transactions involved occurred between 2012 and 2014, and totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars."

The Durham report does not explicitly state the words "Suspicious Activity Report," however, the activity described is that which would normally be the subject of such reports.

A source familiar with the matter, however, told Fox News Digital that there were multiple SARs filed related to the Clinton Foundation during that time. In 2012, Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

Banks have a duty to file SARs, but it is up to the Justice Department to determine if there is any criminality.

Due to the Clinton name, the Clinton Foundation or Clinton-related accounts likely had a "PEP" designation within financial institutions. PEP is short for politically exposed person, meaning the individual, through their prominent position or relationships, could be more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption.

The Hunter Biden federal criminal investigation was predicated, in part, by SARs on funds from "China and other foreign nations." Those SARs have been reviewed as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden, led by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.

MONEY LAUNDERING INVESTIGATOR WARNED OF HUNTER BIDEN'S 'UNUSUAL,' 'ERRATIC' PAYMENTS FROM CHINA IN 2018

Meanwhile, the Durham report states that during the February 2016 meeting, Hulser "declined prosecution" of the Clinton Foundation on behalf of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section.

Hulser told Durham during his interview, though, that he "made it clear" that "his decision was not binding on the various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices or FBI field divisions."

In interviewing another individual present for the meeting, Durham learned that the Justice Department’s reaction to the Clinton Foundation briefing was "hostile." 

"There are mega indications that the Obama Justice Department slow-walked and discouraged the Clinton Foundation investigation, including discouraging the FBI from pursuing it," former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy said. 

With regard to Hulser, McCarthy told Fox News Digital that "it has been obvious from the beginning that the decision by the Biden Justice Department to appoint a special counsel was utterly political and done to create distance between the attorney general and the president from the decision to bring charges against Trump, that Smith has conducted it throughout with an eye on the election calendar." 

"Nobody should be surprised if people on Smith's staff have been involved in situations that make it politically conflicting for them to be involved in this," McCarthy said. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges stemming from Smith's investigation related to both Jan. 6 and 2020 election interference, as well as his case related to classified records.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's office declined to comment on this story. 

As for the Clinton Foundation probes, in another meeting in February 2016, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe "initially directed the field offices to close their cases, but following objections, agreed to reconsider the final disposition of the cases."

According to current Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate’s interview with Durham’s team, he recalled McCabe stating that the DOJ said "there’s nothing here" and "why are we even doing this?"

FLASHBACK: DNI DECLASSIFIES BRENNAN NOTES, CIA MEMO ON HILLARY CLINTON 'STIRRING UP' SCANDAL BETWEEN TRUMP, RUSSIA

At the end of the meeting, it was announced that for "any overt investigative steps to be taken," McCabe’s approval "would be required."

Meanwhile, by May 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey directed the FBI’s New York Field Office to "cease and desist" from the Clinton Foundation investigation due to "some undisclosed counterintelligence concern."

Durham was "not able to determine what the counterintelligence issue raised by Comey was." 

By August 2016, a meeting was held to direct that the Washington and Little Rock investigations "be closed and consolidated" into the New York investigation. But during the meeting, U.S. attorneys’ offices "declined to issue subpoenas."

Durham included this information in his report to show "the contrast" between how the FBI handled Clinton matters in comparison to the Trump-Russia probe, known internally as "Crossfire Hurricane."

"As an initial matter, the NYFO and WFO investigations appear to have been opened as preliminary investigations due to the political sensitivity and their reliance on unvetted hearsay information (the Clinton Cash book) and [confidential human source reporting]," the report states. "By contrast, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was immediately opened as a full investigation despite the fact that it was similarly predicated on hearsay information."

Durham added that while the DOJ appeared to have had "legitimate concerns" about the Clinton Foundation investigation occurring so close to the presidential election, "it does not appear that similar concerns were expressed by the Department or FBI regarding the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's nearly two-year investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.

Durham found that the FBI "failed to act" on a "clear warning sign" that the bureau was the "target" of a Hillary Clinton-led effort to "manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes" against Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Hulser was the top prosecutor for the government's 2015 corruption case against New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez – which was dismissed after a hung jury failed to reach a verdict. He also was involved in the Justice Department's prosecution of former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was convicted of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee.

House Democrats accuse Trump of raking in $7.8 million in foreign payments while president

House Democrats are accusing former President Donald Trump of taking in more than $7.8 million from foreign governments via payments to the Trump Organization while he was in the White House.

A majority of that came from the Chinese government and state-owned entities, Democrats said, while the rest came from 19 other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar.

Minority staff on the House Oversight Committee released a 156-page report on Thursday detailing claims that the former president repeatedly violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which states that federal officials may not accept gifts or cash from foreign state actors without Congressional approval. 

"After promising ‘the greatest infomercial in political history,’ former President Donald Trump repeatedly and willfully violated the U.S. Constitution by failing to divest from his business empire and allowing his businesses to accept millions of dollars in payments from some of the most corrupt nations on earth," the top Democrat on the committee Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said.

JACK SMITH DISPUTES TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CLAIM IN APPEALS COURT

"The limited records that the Committee obtained show that while Donald Trump was in office, he received more than $5.5 million from the Chinese government and Chinese state-owned enterprises, as well as millions more from 19 other foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia through just four of the more than 500 entities he owned."

Along with the report, Oversight Democrats also produced more than 400 pages, some redacted, of documents from Mazars USA LLC — Trump’s former accounting firm. 

They accused the former president of allowing his businesses to profit off of foreign cash while suggesting he provided benefits to those countries in return.

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ISSUE EXPEDITED RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE

Much of the investigation appears to have focused on the Trump Organization’s hotels in Las Vegas, New York, and Washington, D.C., as well as Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Some of the payments appear to be linked to short-term hotel stays while Trump was in office, like room and dining fees. 

Other cashflows are for longer-term arrangements. The report said that Trump received more than $615,000 from Saudi Arabia while in office, both through its lease of the 45th floor of Trump Tower and through stays at Trump International Hotel in DC. 

The Indian government spent at least $282,764 on Trump properties during his administration, including the cost of two units of Trump Tower. 

It’s not immediately clear whether all of the contracts or agreements on the Trump Tower payments were made before the former president took office or started his 2016 campaign. The report noted that Mazars only handed over information for Trump Tower for the year 2018.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization pointed out that Beijing-backed bank ICBC "was a tenant who signed a 20 year office lease in a Trump Tower in 2008, almost a decade before President Trump entered office." 

The spokesperson also said "foreign profits were donated in full to the United States Treasury for patronage at our properties while President Trump was in office."

"The house democrats are desperate to save face for Hunter Biden but there there is a large difference between someone who leases commercial office space to a foreign company a decade ago (in 2008 to be exact) versus the son and family members of the Vice President extracting money from China, Ukraine and Romania and others while providing no apparent or tangible goods and services. It would be dishonest to not clearly distinguish between the two," the spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

"We do not have the ability or viability to stop someone from booking through third parties — Expedia etc — hence the voluntary donation of profits on an annual basis which has been covered ad nauseam."

The report conceded that the overall findings were based on just a fraction of Trump’s accounting records — and Raskin blamed Republicans for their inability to get the rest.

TRUMP BLASTS MANHATTAN JUDGE, DEFENDS HIS 'VERY GOOD CHILDREN' AMID TRUMP ORG CIVIL TRIAL FROM NYAG LAWSUIT

"While the figures and constitutional violations in this report are shocking, we still don’t know the extent of the foreign payments that Donald Trump received—or even the total number of countries that paid him and his businesses while he was President—because Committee Chairman James Comer and House Republicans buried any further evidence of the Trump family’s staggering corruption," Raskin said.

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., responded to Fox News Digital: "It’s beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Trump. Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not."

"The Bidens and their associates made over $24 million by cashing in on the Biden name in China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Romania. No goods or services were provided, other than access to Joe Biden and the Biden network," Comer said. 

He’s one of three committee chairs currently leading an impeachment inquiry of President Biden, specifically looking into whether he and his family profited off of foreign business deals while he was vice president.

In addition to the payments listed above, Democrats accused Trump of taking in $465,744 from Qatar for Trump Tower, $303,372 from Kuwait toward Trump Tower and Trump’s D.C. hotel and $248,962 from Malaysia spent at the D.C. hotel.