It turns out that Christopher Wray did bring the infamous FD-1023 form allegedly implicating President Biden in a pay-for-play scheme to be viewed by committee chair James Comer and Democrat Jamie Raskin. But the document still hasn’t been viewed by the public or even the entire investigative committee. Comer found this unsatisfactory and will reportedly be proceeding with Contempt of Congress charges against Wray on Thursday. But a few more details about the document emerged after the meeting, adding fuel to the fire surrounding this potentially explosive story. (National Review)

The House Oversight Committee will begin the process of holding FBI director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress, committee chairman James Comer(R., Ky.) announced Monday, citing the bureau’s continued refusal to turn over a whistleblower document alleging President Biden’s involvement in a bribery scheme.

Comer said that FBI officials confirmed the credibility of the FBI-generated whistleblower document — which alleges that then-vice president Biden received $5 million as part of a bribery scheme — during a briefing in a secure SCIF on Capitol Hill on Monday.

The bureau agreed to privately brief Comer and ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin after the chairman threatened to hold Wray in contempt for refusing to turn over the document to the committee, but the concession does not appear to have assuaged Comer’s concerns.

Comer told reporters that this investigation “is not dead” and it “must” continue. It remains shocking (at least to me) that Chris Wray still feels entitled to simply ignore an Oversight Committee subpoena over the release of an unclassified document. As we’ve pointed out here previously, the identity of any individuals bringing this information forward could easily be redacted for public release while being considered in full by the committee in a closed session.

The new items that were confirmed this week are still interesting, however. Wray confirmed that the informant is “highly credible” and has been used in multiple cases, being generously compensated for their contributions. But Raskin was quick to point out that the informant was only relating information that he heard from another person. He described the contents of the form as being “secondhand hearsay.”

The FBI claimed that their reticence in releasing the document was at least in part, because it related to an “ongoing investigation.” But they revealed to Comer and Raskin that they didn’t believe they had enough evidence to go beyond an “assessment” to a “preliminary investigation.” So it doesn’t sound as if they’re investigating it at all, at least at this point. That’s fairly remarkable when you consider all of the other documents that have come to light demonstrating the spiderweb of LLCs that the Biden’s clearly set up to launder foreign money.

But there may be one other factor allegedly holding the FBI back. According to Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Bureau is reportedly “afraid” the Biden informant will be “killed” if their identity is revealed.

A member of the House Oversight Committee on Monday claimed the FBI is fearful that the informant who provided information alleging a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden “will be killed” if their identity is revealed.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) made the allegations in a tweet Monday after House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) were allowed by the bureau to review the bombshell accusations in the informant file at the Capitol.

Here’s the tweet.

Just left meeting for House Oversight. The @FBI is afraid their informant will be killed if unmasked, based on the info he has brought forward about the Biden family.

— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) June 5, 2023

It’s unclear what Wray may have said to leave Paulina Luna with that impression, but it’s certainly curious. If this is all just “second-hand hearsay” as Raskin suggests, why would someone want to kill the whistleblower? And who might that “someone” be? You might understandably suspect that if someone was threatening (or even suspected of threatening) to murder a witness, the FBI would be all over them like a wet blanket, right? And threats to the witness would also lend credence to the veracity of the information. Why silence someone who was just making up unprovable stories?

At this point, the case against Biden Inc. is looking stronger and stronger. But the complicity of the FBI in covering for Biden’s family and hushing up damning reports about their activities may turn out to be the even larger story here.