One of the key allegations by the IRS Whistleblowers is that the Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss was restrained from prosecuting Hunter Biden on felony tax charges, and that he sought but was denied appointment of a special prosecutor.
This restraint was part of the whistleblower claim that Hunter was given preferential treatment, which eventually ended with a planned guilty plea to two misdemeanor tax charges:
The first IRS whistleblower, Shapley, came forward in April when his attorney reached out to GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to say that his client had information about a “failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition” of what was then an ongoing criminal investigation related to Hunter Biden. In hourslong testimony, Shapley described several roadblocks that he and the several other IRS agents on the case faced when trying to interview individuals relevant to the case or issue search warrants.
Perhaps Shapley’s most striking claim was that Weiss asked the Justice Department in March 2020 to be provided special counsel status in order to bring the tax cases in jurisdictions outside Delaware, including Washington, D.C., and California, but was denied.
An email from Weiss may corroborate the allegation, at least in part:
In a letter to Jim Jordan (pdf.), Weiss denied being restricted:
In a press conference on Friday, June 23, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland flatly denied and scoffed at the whistleblower accusation:
Attorney General Merrick Garland pushed back Friday against claims from IRS whistleblowers that the Justice Department interfered with the investigation into Hunter Biden, saying more broadly that attacks on the department’s independence are corrosive.
The Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday released a transcript of testimony from Gary Shapley, an IRS official who, among other things, claimed that Garland had denied a request from U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware to be appointed special counsel. That designation would have would have given Weiss the same status as the prosecutor leading the investigation into former President Donald Trump.
Weiss never made such a request, Garland said Friday, and always had full authority to file charges wherever and however he saw fit against President Joe Biden’s son. And Garland added that if Weiss — first appointed U.S. Attorney by Donald Trump — agrees to testify before Congress, the Justice Department will not stand in the way.
“He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” Garland said. “I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him for bringing a prosecution given that he has that authority.”
Yesterday, June 24, 2023, the attorney for Whistleblower Gary Shapley issued a statement challenging Garland’s denial. Attorney Mark Lytle, a former senior DOJ official, issued the following statement:
“In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript. Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.”
Neither Garland nor Lytle have direct personal knowledge. David Weiss does, and so do the people identified in the attorney statement, including Shapley. They should all testify.
But Weiss does not appear to be willing to comply with a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. He should testify, and his emails and other communications should be produced.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY