Trump said he wants Democrats to launch a second impeachment probe if he tries to push through his Supreme Court pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy on Monday morning issued an apology for his show having run with a since-retracted story falsely accusing Nashville’s Democratic mayor of engaging in a coronavirus cover-up, admitting that the mayor did not conceal information from the public as alleged.Last week, a supposed bombshell by a local Fox affiliate in Nashville set the conservative media ecosystem on fire. According to the report by Fox 17—a Sinclair-owned station—the mayor’s office allegedly covered up numbers that showed relatively low spread of COVID-19 in bars and restaurants. The clear implication of the story was that the city was hiding the data in order to justify its coronavirus lockdown orders on public businesses.The story, which focused on a selective misreading of emails, was quickly picked up by large right-wing digital outlets such as The Daily Wire and Breitbart and soon found its way to Fox News’ pro-Trump opinion shows. Tucker Carlson—who has become one of the network’s loudest coronavirus skeptics— kicked off his show on Thursday with the story, claiming the Fox 17 report was “conclusive proof” that Nashville officials hid key health stats “for no justifiable reason,” while explicitly calling for Mayor John Cooper’s impeachment.His Fox primetime colleague Laura Ingraham also jumped on the report, claiming it exposed “a sinister COVID cover-up,” comparing it to something “you’d expect from communist China” or “Soviet Russia.” The following morning, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade insisted the emails were proof that “they lied” while saying Cooper “has to resign yesterday.”Fox 17’s explosive report, however, was quickly and easily debunked by other media outlets. The data about the low number of cases at the time tied to bars and restaurants was disclosed at a July 2 press conference. A local Nashville reporter also published a story on the numbers back on August 4. Eventually, the station fully retracted the story.“In a segment that aired earlier this week, we incorrectly asserted that Mayor Cooper's office withheld COVID-19 data from the public, which implied that there had been a cover up,” the station said in a statement. “We want to clarify that we do not believe there was any cover-up, and we apologize for the error and oversight in our reporting.”“We continue to have questions about the level of transparency that the government showed to the restaurant and bar industry—whose livelihood was on the line,” the statement continued. “As journalists, we will continue to ask those questions and hold elected officials accountable.”> Here's Steve Doocy spending 30 seconds admitting the story they ran last week about a Nashville coronavirus "cover-up" was totally wrong. Fox had used it to demand the mayor's resignation and speculate that similar "cover-ups" are happening everywhere. https://t.co/sH2n25vabz pic.twitter.com/7iTbG2xl4C> > — Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) September 21, 2020In a brief standalone segment on Monday morning, Doocy addressed the retraction during the first hour of Fox & Friends.“We wanted to give you update on a story last week,” he noted. “On Friday, we reported on allegations that the mayor of Nashville had hidden coronavirus numbers. That was according to our local Nashville Fox affiliate.”“They have since retracted their story. And we now know the mayor’s office did apparently not conceal those numbers and did release them to the public and so this morning on this Monday we wanted to apologize for any confusion,” Doocy concluded.A Fox News spokesperson told The Daily Beast that both Carlson and Ingraham will also be addressing the retracted story on their programs Monday nightRead more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
On Feb. 13, 2016, then-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in a ranch bedroom in Texas. It was 268 days before the November election and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was quick to quip that there would not be a replacement until the next president was chosen. On Friday evening, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of complications from cancer 46 days before the presidential election. But McConnell has already made it clear that he sees no reason to wait for voters to weigh in on who should pick her replacement. The Kentucky Republican declared just hours after the death was announced: “President Donald Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”McConnell’s monomaniacal focus on filling the courts with young conservatives will be tested in the next few months by a variety of factors. But the main one will be whether four Senate Republicans will prove unwilling to go along with confirming a replacement for Ginsburg after their party spent 237 days denying Judge Merrick Garland—President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Scalia seat—a hearing, let alone a vote. Already, one of those Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK), has said she would not support filing a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, citing the Garland precedent, a position she reiterated on Friday night. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) had made a similar declaration. And even close Trump allies—albeit ideologically heterodoxical ones—were making arguments to let the election conclude before filling the post. “Of course they should [wait] but they won’t,” Alan Dershowitz, a celebrity attorney who also served on Trump’s legal defense during the impeachment trial, said on Friday night, reacting to the news. “I’m deeply distressed. She was a great woman, a great justice, and a great American… I think the Republicans are going to try to push it through… If it’s a close election, they will want to have their justices on the bench.”Asked if he had the chance, what he would say to President Trump now, Dershowitz added, “I would say Republicans ought to stick to their position that they took when Scalia died… Let the American people decide who they want to see nominate the next Supreme Court justice.”But elsewhere, there were not many overt calls for patience from Trump world figures. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who chairs the Judiciary Committee through which any nomination must go, had previously said he would also oppose any confirmation during an election year. But the senator also finds himself in a dogged re-election fight, with a particular need to ramp up support from conservative voters in his state. The statement he released after Ginsburg’s death conveyed no position on—and, therefore, no hesitation with—filling the seat. “It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Justice Ginsburg,” Graham said. “Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer who possessed tremendous passion for her causes. She served with honor and distinction as a member of the Supreme Court. While I had many differences with her on legal philosophy, I appreciate her service to our nation. My thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends. May she Rest In Peace.”For Democrats, there are few if any tools they possess to stop a nomination from going through, save mustering up an overwhelming amount of public pressure to persuade those four Republicans to not only oppose a nominee through the election, but through the period after the election until the next president is inaugurated.It’s a gargantuan task. Among Democrats and liberal activists, there was widespread mourning, but also an immediate, historic sense of urgency and calls to action and strategizing. Around 9:30 p.m. on Friday, various progressive groups, including Demand Justice, convened an emergency conference call to discuss the way forward following Ginsburg’s death, according to a source familiar with the matter. On the call, several participants shared their thoughts and prayers, and discussed vigils that would be held this weekend. Publicly, Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeted that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president”—adopting, verbatim, the language McConnell had used after Scalia’s death. But to many Democrats, the question was not whether McConnell would push for a nominee, but when. “I think the only question is whether he tries to jam it through now or the lame duck. Either would be a clear abuse of the process but that won’t stop McConnell,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “Under no scenario,” Manley added, would McConnell wait until the next president. Manley said that it was his suspicion that the process would happen after the election due to the sheer logistics of getting a nominee confirmed. There was, he noted, the need for a background investigation, a review by the Judiciary Committee itself, a hearing on the nominee, and procedural hurdles that could drag out two or more weeks. The average number of days to confirm a Supreme Court justice is 70, according to the Congressional Research Service. But there is also nothing that prevents McConnell from scrapping those norms and rules altogether, should he want to expedite matters. “Rules are rules, but they’ve long become accustomed to them breaking the norms,” said Manley. Within the GOP conference, there’s less of a clear sense as to what McConnell will do. The Kentucky senator, focused on retaining the GOP majority at all costs this fall, faces a situation where the politics of an election eve Supreme Court fight could have varying effects for his most vulnerable members. A key swing vote for Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), faces the re-election battle of her career this fall, and could burnish the independent image she touts by opposing any confirmation. Other moderates in tough races could make similar calculations. So too could Sen. Mitt Romney—the president’s sharpest GOP critic in the senate—as well as several retiring Republicans. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Outsider’s Champion, Has Died at 87 Here Are the Ways to Stop Mitch and Trump From Replacing RBGTo placate those members, McConnell could hold off until after the election. But he’s not the only actor in this play. Trump has long credited his 2016 win to the conservative voter enthusiasm over the possibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. And a potential vacancy at the high court has never been far from the minds of top White House officials. Earlier this month during a formal press conference in the Diplomatic Reception Room, Trump announced he had expanded his list of possible judicial picks by 20 individuals including Sens. Ted Cruz (TX), Tom Cotton (AR) and Josh Hawley (MO) as well as a rising Republican rising star, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. “Should there be another vacancy on the Supreme Court during my presidency, my nominee will come from the names I have shared with the American public, including the original list and these 20 additions,” Trump said during a press conference on Sept. 9. Trump then challenged former Vice President Joe Biden to release a list of potential nominees—a dare the Democratic nominee has, so far, ignored. But while Trump recently produced a fresh list of potential nominees, speculation about whom he would pick has centered largely around Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who serves on the Seventh Court of Appeals. In picking Barrett, Trump would please his conservative base but also create a potentially thorny confirmation process at a time when tensions are already at a fever pitch. A former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett has the reputation as a conservative, but in many ways is still untested on major issues that could come up before the Supreme Court. At 48, Barrett would be the youngest of the potential justices Trump has considered for the court and she has the least experience of anyone on the Supreme Court bench. News of Ginsburg’s death broke as Trump was at a Minnesota campaign rally, giddily running through a standard roster of applause lines. As he spoke, he did not appear to know about the political and legal grenade that had just been tossed into official Washington. Two Trump aides told The Daily Beast mid-speech that the president didn’t know, though various other senior administration officials were well aware and preparing to discuss the matter with him, as soon as later in the evening.Amy Coney Barrett, the Trump Supreme Court Pick Who’ll Troll Liberals the HardestThough apparently not yet informed of Ginsburg’s death, Trump did mention the importance of the court—part of a familiar rally riff that took on new weight in light of the new political reality. “And that's why the Supreme Court is so important, because the next president will get one, two, three or four Supreme Court justices,” Trump said. “I had two. Many presidents have had none, they've had none, because they're there for a long time."At the White House in Washington, DC, the American flag was quickly lowered on Friday to half-staff in memory of Justice Ginsburg, according to White House spokesman Ben Williamson.As Trump boarded Air Force One, he told reporters he had just learned of Ginsberg’s death. "Just now?" he responded when asked about her death, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman — whether you agree or not — she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
Peru's Congress is set to vote on Friday over whether to oust President Martín Vizcarra after impeachment proceedings were launched last week, a bid that has roiled the copper-producing country but has appeared to lose steam in recent days. Vizcarra, or a lawyer on his behalf, will mount a defense to lawmakers after they voted to impeach the centrist leader on grounds of "moral incapacity" over alleged links to an case of irregular government contracts with a little-known singer. The opposition-dominated Congress must gather at least 87 votes out of 130 lawmakers to remove 57-year-old Vizcarra, who does not have his own party representation in the legislature.
At the end of an elegant dinner in May 2019 in downtown Kyiv, Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach handed a thick packet of papers to a former senior U.S. official he’d known for years. The packet was unremarkable in its presentation, the papers clipped on the top and crunched in the corners. The packet bore no insignia, title, or index page, and did little in the way of intriguing the former U.S. official. It wasn’t until months later that the official read through the pages. What was more remarkable was that U.S. intelligence had, for over a month, warned that Derkach was a stalking horse for the Russian security services and their attempts to interfere in American politics. It was the first in a series of reports, beginning in the spring of 2019, naming Derkach as part of a broader push to upend the U.S. election once again. Despite the odd nature of the handoff, the dinner was one of the earliest known attempts by Derkach, current and former officials say, to pass materials to Americans in an attempt to push the debunked conspiracy theories that the former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter were complicit in the siphoning of millions of dollars from the Ukrainian people and that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. (The latter is “a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” according to President Donald Trump’s former point person for the region, Fiona Hill.) Derkach’s dossier was not flagged for officials inside the State Department until months later, when Derkach began holding press conferences and Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, reiterated the same talking points as Derkach on a range of issues. But officials inside the U.S. intelligence and national security apparatus, with the help of officials on the ground in Kyiv, had drafted reports warning that Russian proxies, including Derkach, were attempting to undermine the 2020 election process in America.Seven current and former U.S. officials spoke with The Daily Beast about Derkach, his relationship to Trump loyalists, and the escalating warnings about Derkach’s activities. Those warnings extended to leaders on Capitol Hill who learned that Ukrainians with ties to Russia were inserting themselves in the U.S. election. Last week, the Treasury Department blacklisted Derkach as an “active Russian agent.” The blacklisting has caused problems for one legislator in particular: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who is nearing the end of a probe into Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine—specifically, the discredited notion that the then-vice president halted a corruption probe that might have interfered with his son Hunter’s business interests there. It’s a would-be controversy that’s been fueled by a nexus of Trump allies and pro-Russian Ukrainians. During Trump’s impeachment, the story was publicly discredited, but Johnson has said the imminent result of his probe will be damning for Biden. “What our investigations are uncovering, I think, will reveal this is not somebody we should be electing president of the United States,” Johnson told a local Wisconsin TV station on Tuesday.Those kinds of comments have prompted sharp rebukes, even from Republicans, about the use of a Senate committee as a vehicle for an explicitly political venture—and for Russia’s election-meddling hopes. In December 2019, as Politico first reported, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) warned Johnson about his investigation into the Bidens and Ukraine. Burr told Johnson that the probe may only further Russia’s ambitions to undermine the 2020 election, according to two individuals familiar with the matter. It is unclear whether Johnson received any intelligence briefing or other warning that specifically mentioned Derkach. According to a source familiar with the GOP probe, Derkach did not arrive on the Democratic side’s radar until late 2019. Asked by The Daily Beast if Johnson had been warned, or specifically briefed, about the threat posed by pro-Russian Ukrainian figures, a spokesperson for Johnson did not provide comment as of press time.But by the early months of 2020, those observing the course of the Johnson investigation up close clearly saw Derkach’s links to a Ukrainian self-described source of the investigation, the Giuliani associate and former Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko. At that point, said the source, it should have been clear to all involved that Russian disinformation underpinned the Johnson inquiry. Derkach told Politico in July that he’d sent materials related to Biden to members of Congress, including to Johnson and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), his partner in the probe. But despite this information, and despite Burr’s overture, Johnson pushed forward. “Johnson is just a contrarian in nature. If you come to him and say that the Ukraine stuff seems fishy, he will very likely just tell you it’s his investigation and to get lost,” said a Republican close to the administration. That raised concerns among intelligence officials and fellow lawmakers that the Wisconsin Republican was promoting claims that U.S. intelligence has already debunked—and that the boosting of such material would sow further distrust in the election. On Wednesday, with the conclusion of Johnson’s probe nearing, those tensions spilled onto the floor of the Senate. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Democratic leader, introduced a resolution “calling for an end to the use of congressional resources to launder Russian disinformation through Congress.” Schumer said the allegations that Johnson has aired are the same ones pushed by Derkach and argued that Johnson has “wittingly or unwittingly” promoted Russian disinformation. “Members of the Senate,” followed Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “have been presented with specific warnings about these Kremlin-backed conspiracies and lies, again and again, including in classified settings.”Johnson indignantly responded that it was Democrats who had enabled Russian meddling attempts. He strenuously denied dealing with Derkach at all—and even professed not to know the Ukrainian. “We did not accept any information from Mr. Derkach whatsoever,” said Johnson. “I don’t know who Derkach is… Yet Democrats persist in pushing this false allegation. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure our committee has alleged anything yet.”* * *NAMING NAMES* * *Suspicions about Derkach reached senior levels of the Trump administration by the early spring of 2019, after pro-Russian Ukrainians, aligned with Trump aides like Giuliani, ramped up a smear campaign against the then-U.S. ambassador in Kyiv, Marie Yovanovitch. One former senior administration official recalled contacting a colleague in the intelligence community to find out where the false narrative was coming from. That was when the official remembered first learning about Andriy Derkach.“I was aware by the end of that conversation that he was more than a Ukrainian parliamentarian,” the senior official told The Daily Beast. The U.S. intelligence official left no doubt that Derkach was a Russian intelligence asset. One other individual who spoke to The Daily Beast said it was “somewhat unclear” in the spring of 2019 how close Derkach’s ties to Russia ran—if he was being paid, for example—and if the Ukrainian politician was merely passing on Russian disinformation or if he had been directed to promote it.By early April 2019, at least two intelligence reports circulated to the administration about individuals suspected of involvement in foreign initiatives to interfere in the upcoming election. Each report contained about five names, the ex-senior official said. Derkach’s name was among them. It is unclear, however, if those spring 2019 reports specified that Derkach was an “active Russian agent,” as the Treasury Department put it.The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined comment for this report. Despite U.S. intelligence warnings that Derkach was involved in foreign subversion of the 2020 election and the Yovanovitch smear, the State Department famously took no action to protect her. Foggy Bottom recalled Yovanovitch in May 2019, about a month after those warnings. By July, President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart for “a favor, though”: a public announcement of a corruption investigation into Joe Biden.In May, Derkach ramped up his attempts to pass on his disinformation about the Bidens and Ukraine’s alleged election interference. He contacted Americans he’d formerly worked with or knew from their time working in the country for the U.S. government. Giuliani flew to Kyiv that month to meet with Ukrainian politicos and businessmen in an effort to pressure the government to open an investigation into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and into the Bidens’ dealings in Ukraine.On Wednesday afternoon, Giuliani told The Daily Beast he handed over documents to the State Department that he’d gathered from individuals in Kyiv willing to aid his work. Giuliani planned to meet Telizhenko, a former Ukrainian diplomat, on his initial trip to Ukraine in May 2019 before he canceled. The Washington Post and BuzzFeed reported that Telizhenko met Giuliani in New York that same month. The former New York City mayor declined to answer whether he ever briefed Trump on Derkach’s findings, saying, “I can’t tell you what I discussed with my client.”* * *‘SOMETIMES RUMORS ARE TRUE’ * * *But even if Giuliani was explicitly warned about Derkach, such warnings might have backfired. “The nature of the Trump inner circle—whether that’s the president himself, people in or out of the administration, on Capitol Hill, or Rudy Giuliani—is that because of their views towards the intelligence community, if you come to them and say this guy might be an asset of so and so, it just makes it more likely that they double down on the relationship. That’s how toxic things are now,” said the Republican close to the administration. By the time Giuliani traveled to Ukraine in May, he was in contact with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two operators born in the former Soviet Union who helped set up meetings for the former mayor in Ukraine. Parnas and Fruman became major characters in the impeachment trial of Trump as several witnesses described their backdoor attempts to work with Giuliani to pressure Ukraine to open investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens. Both men were indicted last fall for allegedly violating campaign finance laws, activities first exposed by The Daily Beast. As Derkach circulated disinformation packets and Fruman, Parnas, and Telizhenko coalesced around the Giuliani endeavor, former U.S. officials say other Ukrainian politicos attempted to get in on the action. One former senior U.S. official said a current adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, before joining his team, reached out to Telizhenko and Giuliani in an effort to draw closer to the Trump administration. Source for ‘Ukraine Collusion’ Allegations Met Devin NunesRudy Giuliani and His Ukraine Ally Sprint Away from Their ‘Russian Agent’ PalIn the summer of 2019, as the Trump administration took steps to withhold military aid to Ukraine to force the Zelensky administration to announce a Biden investigation, additional, updated reports were drafted and circulated inside intelligence circles outlining the ways in which Russia was relying on proxies, including Ukrainian individuals, to spread disinformation relevant to the 2020 presidential election. Derkach was listed in at least one of those reports as a part of the Russian campaign, two former senior U.S. officials said. Derkach kicked his messaging campaign into high gear that fall. He held several press conferences, sometimes with other parliamentarians with close ties to Russia. And in December, during the height of the impeachment process, Giuliani appeared again in Kyiv, this time to meet with Derkach. Derkach posted a photo of the two holding documents and smiling. (Despite meeting Derkach in person in December, Giuliani said he’d first connected with him in November.)By then, Derkach and Giuliani were using strikingly similar language. Derkach blasted the so-called black ledger that purported to show millions in illicit payments to former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort; Giuliani called the ledger a “stinko document.” Derkach claimed in a dossier he attempted to circulate around Washington that “officials of the embassy of Ukraine in the United States” “distor[ed] the public image of the US presidential candidate D. Trump by disseminating inaccurate information.” Giuliani accused “Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, members of it, the [Ukrainian] ambassador, the embassy in collecting specifically dirt, described as dirt” on Trump. That claim was first championed by Telizhenko, who worked in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and became a partner of Giuliani over time. (Derkach, Telizhenko, and Giuliani all appeared in an anti-Biden television series produced by the Trumpist network OAN, and Giuliani has interviewed both Derkach and Telizhenko on his YouTube video series Common Sense about the Bidens.) But Telizhenko said he soured on Derkach over time. He told The Daily Beast that he warned Giuliani about working with the Ukrainian parliamentarian. “There were a lot of rumors going on about his background—that he might be working for the Russian government or the Kremlin. I didn’t know a lot about his background, but I had heard these things,” Telizhenko said in an interview Wednesday. “The rumors were also about… that he was working for someone—Russian or American, I don’t know. Sometimes rumors are true. Sometimes they are not. I knew he was doing something but I didn’t pay attention.”Two sources, a current senior administration official and an ex-official, said that in the closing months of last year, word had whipped around the upper echelons of the Trump White House about a roster—a “no-fly list,” as the current official described—of names of individuals suspected of involvement in U.S. election interference, a key topic of scandal during the Trump-Ukraine saga and the resulting impeachment drive on Capitol Hill. Derkach’s name was on it.“There were several people for, if you were smart, you would avoid them and the information they were peddling, and just say, ‘Well, Rudy’s just doing his own thing, I guess,’” said the former senior official, who said high-level aides, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, were aware of the list. (Bolton did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)This official also said they weren’t aware of any serious effort to persuade Trump to rein in Giuliani, nor were they aware of anyone reaching out to Giuliani to tell him to stop. Neither source knew of any time when Trump was verbally briefed on the list.“What good would that have done?” the current official remarked.* * *PARALLEL TRACKS * * *Johnson launched in earnest the probe into Burisma, the energy company that Hunter Biden consulted for, immediately after Joe Biden had won the South Carolina primary and cemented his status as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. But the narrative of Ukraine and supposed Democratic corruption has drawn in the Wisconsin senator for years, and during Trump’s impeachment, Johnson often teased a fuller investigation into Biden’s ties to Ukraine, which by then had become central to the GOP’s impeachment counter-programming.Johnson, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s panel for Europe and has frequently traveled to the region, was among the first prominent U.S. politicians to amplify claims and theories known to have been fueled by pro-Russia actors like Derkach. Johnson has endorsed the narrative that the government of Ukraine tried to undermine Trump during the last election—a story that Derkach has also been pushing since 2017. In an Aug. 10 letter describing his current investigation, Johnson explained that its origins date to 2017, when his committee focused on Ukraine as the alleged source of the real foreign collusion in the prior year’s presidential race. He lamented that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tasked the Intelligence Committee with the interference probe, “sidelining” his own investigation. Though Derkach has claimed to have sent material to GOP committees on Capitol Hill, Johnson strenuously denied speaking with him, dealing with him, or even knowing who he is. Johnson claims Democrats are the ones relying on Derkach’s supposed disinformation. “Our investigation relies on U.S. documents from U.S. agencies and U.S. persons—there is no Russian disinformation in our record,” said Johnson during a meeting of his committee on Wednesday morning. But to Democrats who have been skeptical of Johnson’s probe, the question of whether he has taken information directly from Derkach is beside the point—thanks to the frequency with which Derkach and Johnson have made similar claims. In press conferences and conversations with Giuliani on his video show Common Sense, Derkach has alleged that Hunter Biden “stole” more than $16 million from the Ukrainian people when he accepted a payment from the energy firm Burisma. “The funds were obtained by criminal means,” Derkach claimed in a November 2019 press conference. In his Aug. 10 letter, Johnson said he had not targeted the Bidens for investigation but, rather, “their previous actions” had put them in the crosshairs—and said he could “not disagree more” with the idea that there was no evidence of wrongdoing or criminal activity by the Bidens in Ukraine. Derkach has also claimed that Joe Biden blocked Ukraine from investigating corruption allegations regarding Burisma. Johnson has made similar assertions, claiming that Biden had conditioned a $1 billion loan to Ukraine on the firing of a prosecutor who was probing Burisma. (This narrative is complicated by the fact that many in the U.S. and the international community had called for the firing of that prosecutor, Viktor Shokin; Johnson himself signed a 2016 letter recommending “urgent reforms” at the office.)To Democrats, the parallel arguments made the connection clear. “The Russian government is again interfering in our election,” Wyden said from the Senate floor on Wednesday. “This has been confirmed by our intelligence community. Its interference campaign includes disinformation about Vice President Biden and the work he was doing to fight corruption in Ukraine. To spread this information, Russia enlists the help of characters like Andriy Derkach and Andrii Telizhenko.” Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.