LISTEN HERE:
Under the stewardship of Republican leading the three pivotal House committees, a combined investigation is being launched into how the Justice Department managed the allegations centered on Hunter Biden.
This move follows subsequent allegations of improprieties within the agency itself. This joint oversight is the united front of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means committees, examining the broader federal case encompassing President Joe Biden’s younger son.
This encompasses the days following the announcement of his misdemeanor tax offence plea deal with the Justice Department last month.
This joint political pursuit was initiated following the House Ways and Means Committee, overseen by Chairman Smith, voting to publicize a trove of insightful testimony from IRS employees involved in the Hunter Biden case.
The testimony transcripts provided by Greg Shapley and another unnamed agent shed light on patterns of bureaucratic delay tactics and procrastination of enforcement actions, a course that unfolded in the months leading up to the 2020 election won by Biden.
Despite the whistle blowers’ assertions, the Justice Department has remained steadfast in its denial – emphasizing time and again that the U.S Attorney David Weiss in Delaware, the federal prosecutor who spearheaded the investigation, had been granted ‘full control’ of the case.
Considered ‘slow-walking investigative steps,’ the Department has refrained from making any concessions regarding the claims verbalized by the whistle blowers.
Grassroots action arose in April with the initial IRS whistleblower, Mr. Shapley, making his concerns public.
His attorney reached out to GOP Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, informing him that his client was privy to issues relating to conflict of interest in the ultimate consequence of what was then an ongoing criminal investigation linked to Hunter Biden.
Chairman Smith, who also leads the Ways and Means Committee and thereby has dominion over the IRS, agreed to question Shapley at the end of May for a prolonged interview.
During this session, Shapley unveiled multiple hindrances he, and several other IRS agents assigned to the case, experienced while attempting to interview those connected to the investigation or while issuing search warrants.
The whistleblowers maintain that their individual testimonies unearth a pattern of bias and favoritism within the handling of the Hunter Biden case, and not mere disagreements with superiors over which investigative steps should be undertaken.
Critics would argue they are merely whistleblowing for the thrill of it, making spurious allegations and exploiting their positions.
One of the most contentious claims made by the whistleblowers relates to Weiss requesting the Justice Department in March 2022 authorize him as special counsel, thus enabling him to move the tax-related charges against Hunter Biden to jurisdictions beyond Delaware. Unfortunately for Weiss, this request was never granted.
A second IRS whistleblower, who chose to maintain anonymity, presented his enduring dissatisfaction with how the Hunter Biden case was dealt.
The whistleblower referenced instances back during the Trump administration when Attorney General William Barr held office. The whistleblower claimed to have initiated the investigation into Hunter Biden in 2015 and probed extensively into his personal life and financial affairs.
Investigation into alleged retaliatory actions has prompted both whistleblowers to confess they’ve faced backlash from the IRS post-voicing their concerns over the handling of Hunter Biden’s case.
Shapley, a seasoned supervisory agent, informed the committee that Weiss played a key role in obstructing his job promotion following his decision to communicate his concerns about the Biden case with congressional investigators.
The second anonymous whistleblower disclosed his removal from the Hunter Biden investigation, a dismissal that happened concurrently with Shapley’s. Although IRS officials announced this decision, the unidentified whistleblower has reasons to believe the directive originated from figures within the Justice Department.
Unfortunately, concrete evidence to substantiate this claim is lacking. The whistleblowers base their allegations on observations they have made internally as they proposed different investigative paths.
In response to these concerns, the triumvirate of Republican chairmen, alongside Senators Grassley and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, have corresponded with the Justice Department seeking an immediate review into allegations of retaliation.
The whistleblower’s characterizations of the situation have been challenged by the Justice Department, which claims Weiss’ role came with ‘full authority over this matter.’
The agency has defended its role emphasizing that it requires no further approval to file charges as Weiss sees fit. Attorney General Merrick Garland dismissed the idea that Weiss sought the special counsel designation.
Weiss, in a recent letter dated June 30th, further quashed these accusations by assuring House Republicans that the Justice Department hadn’t retaliated against Shapley.
Weiss proceeded to reassure the department that, if charges were to be pressed against Hunter Biden in a jurisdiction outside Delaware, he would indeed receive the special status to do so.
Around then, the three Republican chairmen laid out a tight deadline for the department to arrange interviews with nearly a dozen individuals, an effort intended to transcribe these discussions for thorough review.
The chairmen warned that if the deadline isn’t met, they would resort to the issuance of congressional subpoenas to force compliance. In his recent letter, Weiss expressed his willingness to converse with congressional officials on such topics but reaffirmed his inability to share information pertaining to the Hunter Biden case due to it being an ongoing criminal investigation.
Public comments by Garland indicate that he wouldn’t inhibit Weiss from testifying before Congress. Every step of the way, each side is adhering to its narrative. It will be the responsibility of Congress to discern the truth in these complex matters.
