LISTEN HERE:
Next week, prominent figures from the Internal Revenue Service who have petitioned claims of potential bias in the government’s examination of Hunter Biden, will give their account before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.
The committee has confirmed that Gary Shapley, an IRS whistleblower who led the investigation, along with another anonymous informant will address the panel on the afternoon of July 19th. The whistleblowers contend that personnel at the Justice Department, FBI, and IRS played a biased hand in the inquiry into Hunter Biden. Arguments have been raised that judgments in the case bore traces of political sway.
There has also been an allegation that federal prosecutors sidelined queries associated with President Biden. Doubts have been raised on whether David Weiss, the U.S. attorney managing the inquiry, had comprehensive reign to impose charges.
The upcoming testimony is set within the larger backdrop of the committee, directed by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, examining the business transactions of the Biden family.
‘Under my leadership since January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability made significant advancement in our inquiry into the domestic and foreign business engagements of the Biden family, to gauge whether those activities might undermine U.S. national security and President Biden’s impartial leadership,’ Comer pronounced in a brief note.
Speaking about the diverse commercial activities of the Biden family, Comer noted, ‘From the multitude of financial archives we’ve gathered, it appears the Biden family incorporated over 20 shell companies, participated in deliberately intricate financial interactions with foreign rivals and made a planned effort to conceal payments and evade critical examination.’
Comer indicated that the whistleblowers effectively corroborated ‘numerous outcomes of our exploration’
Furthering his comments on the whistleblowers information, Comer remarked, ‘In addition, the whistleblowers brought to our attention how the Justice Department disregarded evidence implicating Joe Biden, alerted Hunter Biden’s legal team, allowed time to expire concerning certain potential allegations, and facilitated a favorable legal outcome for Hunter Biden.’
Comer reflected the widespread dissatisfaction that Americans justifiably feel towards a legal system that appears to provide special treatment to individuals such as the Bidens.
Comer iterated the need for a public hearing with the whistleblowers and other witnesses to shed light on the potential ‘misuse of federal law enforcement resources.’ He underscored the integrity of these whistleblowers and the opportunity for an average American to hear their testimonies directly.
Comer shared his eager anticipation of the upcoming testimonies with the hope that the Oversight Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and Ways and Means Committee, will bring clarity and responsibility to the situation.
The impending testimony is part of a joint investigation by the Oversight Committee, Judiciary Committee, and House Ways and Means Committee into the federal examination of Hunter Biden and whether political bias influenced legal decisions.
House Republicans are pressing for a comprehensive understanding of these potential issues and are demanding that over a dozen federal officials, including the leading U.S. attorney on the Hunter Biden investigation, appear before various congressional committees for official interviews concerning possible political interference and misconduct throughout the extended investigation into the president’s son.
Last month, the Justice Department announced a plea agreement that Hunter Biden had submitted, which may potentially spare him prison time. This agreement includes Hunter Biden’s guilty admission to two misdemeanor charges of willingly failing to pay federal income taxes and one charge of firearm possession by a person who is unlawfully using or addicted to a controlled substance.
Hunter Biden is scheduled to appear in court for the first time on July 26. Despite the allegations of bias, the Justice Department maintains that there was no political influence exerted on the outcomes of their investigation.