IRS whistleblowers expose Hunter Biden's crimes and DOJ coverup

[unknown]

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1672963527026307077

 

[devil21]

Mine aren't. So drop it.

The Ignore User feature works very well. He, or you, wouldn't be the first in history to place me on Ignore.

No one is ever forced to read anything I write.

 

[dannno]

The Ignore User feature works very well. He, or you, wouldn't be the first in history to place me on Ignore.

No one is ever forced to read anything I write.

Mods don't put people on ignore, reading your posts is their job.

 

[acptulsa]

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why are they trying to make me like & respect Hunter Biden?

 

[unknown]

This is a tough one.

Hate the IRS but also hate the Biden criminal cartel.

 

[dannno]

This is a tough one.

Hate the IRS but also hate the Biden criminal cartel.

People who believe in putting other people in prison for not paying taxes should probably go to prison for not paying taxes. That's what they want, isn't it?

 

[unknown]

People who believe in putting other people in prison for not paying taxes should probably go to prison for not paying taxes. That's what they want, isn't it?

I feel you on that, but you know, it's the IRS.

 

[Working Poor]

Hunter's distraction psyop has been laughably scripted and staged.....

Well yea maybe. I like to turn things around in my head to try and determine if I have tipped over.

 

[Occam's Banana]

People who believe in putting other people in prison for not paying taxes should probably go to prison for not paying taxes. That's what they want, isn't it?

I feel you on that, but you know, it's the IRS.

"People who believe in putting other people in prison for not paying taxes should probably go to prison for not paying taxes putting other people in prison for not paying taxes."

Fixed.

 

[Occam's Banana]

New York Times independently verifies IRS whistleblower's claim that DOJ obstructed Hunter Biden tax probe
The IRS whistleblowers' testimony was "confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation."
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-y...im-that-doj-obstructed-hunter-biden-tax-probe
Katie Daviscourt (28 June 2023)

The New York Times has independently confirmed the authenticity of IRS whistleblowers' claims that allege Biden's Department of Justice interfered with the probe into Hunter Biden's taxes.

In the article, NYT revealed that the IRS whistleblowers' testimony was "confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation." The paper buried the confirmation far down in the 21st paragraph of the article.

The confirmation in question is in regards to explosive testimony from multiple IRS whistleblowers that claim Biden's Department of Justice interfered with the federal probe into Hunter Biden's taxes, revealing that United States Attorney David Weiss was blocked by the DOJ from pursuing charges against Hunter Biden in California.

​

The DOJ's interference also delayed "authenticating a WhatsApp message in which Hunter Biden demands payment from Chinese officials, during which he noted that his father was in the room."

On Thursday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith released five new documents revealing evidence from two IRS whistleblowers who alleged the Justice Department's interference, claiming that "the Biden Department of Justice is intervening and overstepping when it comes to the investigation of the president's son."

In an interview with the House Ways and Means Committee on May 26, 2023, Gary Shapley, a supervisory special agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation, said that "Since October 2022, IRS CI has taken every opportunity to retaliate against me and my team."

"Even after IRS CI senior leadership has been made aware on a recurring basis that the Delaware US Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice was acting improperly, they acquiesced to a DOJ request to remove the entire team from the Hunter Biden investigation, a team that had been investigating it for over 5 years."

Shapley said he was "blowing the whistle" because the "Delaware US Attorney's Office, Department of Justice Tax, and Department of Justice provided preferential treatment and unchecked conflicts of interest in an important and high-profile investigation of the President's son, Hunter Biden."

The IRS whistleblower said that the investigation, which was first launched in November of 2018, had been running smoothly until Biden became the "presumptive Democratic nominee for President in early April 2020," leading to "career DOJ officials dragg[ing] their feet on the IRS taking these investigative steps" which included approving a search warrant and 15 interviews.

In a June 16, 2020 call between himself, another special agent, and the chain of command up to the Director of Field Operations, Shapley said he "pointed out that if normal procedures had been followed we already would have executed search warrants, conducted interviews, and served document requests. Nevertheless, my IRS chain of command decided we would defer to DOJ."

"From around October 2020 through October 2022, I was the IRS CI manager who interacted directly with the United States Attorney, David Weiss, and individuals at DOJ Tax Division the most," Shapley said.

On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters that Weiss had "complete authority to make all decisions on his own" and required no permission from the Justice Department to bring charges.

However, Shapley refuted Garland's claims, insisting that Weiss was blocked by Biden's Department of Justice from charging Hunter, which he authenticated in past emails.

Shapley told CBS News, "I documented exactly what happened. And it doesn't seem to match what the attorney general or the US attorney are saying today."

In an e-mail correspondence between Shapely and his supervisor following a meeting with Weiss on October 7, 2022, Shapley wrote that "Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed."

"There were really earth-shaking statements made by David Weiss that really brought to light some of my previous concerns. And the first one was that he is not the deciding person on whether or not charges are filed," Shapley said. "It was just shocking to me."

David Weiss is the Trump-appointed Delaware US Attorney who issued a plea deal last week for the probe into Hunter Biden.

 

[Occam's Banana]

New York Times independently verifies IRS whistleblower's claim that DOJ obstructed Hunter Biden tax probe
The IRS whistleblowers' testimony was "confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation."
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-y...im-that-doj-obstructed-hunter-biden-tax-probe
Katie Daviscourt (28 June 2023)

[...]

Competing Accounts of Justice Dept.’s Handling of Hunter Biden Case
An I.R.S. investigator’s testimony describing strains over the inquiry into President Biden’s son is at odds with the version laid out by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/irs-official-justice-dept-hunter-biden.html
[archive link: https://archive.fo/OmXAt]
Glenn Thrush & Michael S. Schmidt (27 June 2023)

At a Senate hearing in March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, spent seven minutes grilling Attorney General Merrick B. Garland about the Hunter Biden investigation, reading a series of unusually specific queries from a paper in his hands.

Did David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware kept on under Mr. Garland to continue overseeing the inquiry, have full authority to bring charges against President Biden’s son in California and Washington if he wanted to? Had Mr. Weiss ever asked to be made a special counsel? Was the investigation truly insulated from political considerations?

That encounter has taken on new significance after House Republicans released testimony last week from a senior Internal Revenue Service investigator on the case that appeared to contradict Mr. Garland’s assurances to Mr. Grassley and others that Mr. Weiss had all the freedom and authority he needed to pursue the case as he saw fit.

The I.R.S. official, Gary Shapley, oversaw the agency’s role in the investigation of Mr. Biden’s taxes and says his criticism of the Justice Department led to him being denied a promotion. He told the House Ways and Means Committee that Mr. Weiss had been rebuffed by top federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington when he had raised the prospect of pursuing charges against the president’s son in those jurisdictions.

Mr. Shapley, testifying under what Republicans say are whistle-blower protections, also said that he had witnessed Mr. Weiss saying last year that he would not be the “deciding official” regarding whether to prosecute Mr. Biden, and that Mr. Weiss had been turned down when he sought special counsel status, which would have allowed him greater flexibility in handling the case.

In providing accounts of internal discussions at odds with Mr. Garland’s testimony, Mr. Shapley gave Republicans a fresh opening to raise questions about the case and to cast doubt on the Justice Department’s repeated statements that Mr. Weiss had complete control of the investigation with no political interference.

But it remains unclear how much of the difference in the accounts reflects possible factors like miscommunication, clashing substantive judgments among agencies over how best to pursue a prosecution, or personal enmity among officials working on a high-pressure, high-profile case. Investigators like Mr. Shapley whose job it is to uncover evidence often have different perspectives from prosecutors who have to take into account how to treat defendants fairly and present cases to juries.

Republican efforts to link Hunter Biden’s problems to his father have often come up short, and Mr. Garland, a former federal appeals court judge, has taken pains to distance himself from core decision-making in the politically polarizing cases that have landed on his desk. Still, Republican leaders now see Mr. Garland as a potentially vulnerable figure as they look for ways to undercut the president heading into the 2024 campaign.

“If it comes true what the I.R.S. whistle-blower is saying, we’re going to start impeachment inquiries on the attorney general,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Fox News on Monday.

Mr. Garland, addressing reporters on Friday, forcefully denied Mr. Shapley’s claims. Mr. Weiss said in a letter to Congress this month that he had not been constrained in pursuing the investigation. Mr. Weiss said in the letter, dated June 7, that he had been “granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.” He has yet to face more specific questions from House Republicans in the wake of Mr. Shapley’s testimony.

White House officials dismissed Mr. McCarthy’s impeachment threat as a “distraction.” And Hunter Biden’s lawyers have told the Justice Department that Mr. Shapley has broken federal laws that keep grand jury material secret. Mr. Shapley’s lawyer, Mark D. Lytle, said his client “has legally protected rights to blow the whistle.”

“There are so many unanswered questions here that I think the only solution is having Garland or Weiss, or both, testify before Congress or have a long press conference where they answer everything that’s being thrown at them,” said John P. Fishwick Jr., who served as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia from 2015 to 2017.

“Is this just a disgruntled guy who didn’t get his way, as happens in every investigation?” he added, referring to Mr. Shapley. “Or is there something else going on?”

Mr. Weiss announced this month that Mr. Biden had agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges of having failed to file his 2017 and 2018 taxes on time. Mr. Weiss also charged Mr. Biden in connection with his purchase of a handgun in 2018 but said he would not prosecute the charge under a two-year pretrial diversion program.

The Hunter Biden investigation was initiated by the Trump Justice Department in 2018 and eventually handed to Mr. Weiss, a Republican whose reputation for nonpartisanship had earned him the support of Delaware’s two Democratic senators during his confirmation a few months earlier.

Mr. Weiss was, according to the committee’s transcripts, determined to keep the inquiry under wraps as long as possible, thanking his team for keeping the investigation secret in a strategy session shortly after the 2020 election.

After President Biden was elected, the department’s interim leadership kept Mr. Weiss in place and in charge of the inquiry. Mr. Garland, after being confirmed, continued that arrangement, and was eager to avoid any suggestion of political meddling, according to people in his orbit.

But if Mr. Garland was content with how the politically explosive case was being handled, Mr. Shapley, a 14-year I.R.S. employee, was stewing in the shadows.

He recounted in his testimony that he had been arguing in meetings with Mr. Weiss and other prosecutors to aggressively pursue charges against Mr. Biden stemming from his failure to pay taxes in 2014 and 2015, two years not covered under Mr. Biden’s agreement to plead guilty on the misdemeanor tax charges. During those years, Mr. Biden was earning income from work for a Ukraine-based energy company and Chinese clients that Mr. Shapley suggested was being channeled through entities that had a presence in Washington and the Los Angeles area.

It is not clear if Mr. Weiss was convinced those strands of the investigation should be prosecuted or was simply making sure all potential charges were pursued thoroughly. But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony.

A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.

While Mr. Weiss had the authority to pursue leads that led to jurisdictions other than his own in Delaware, the department’s practices dictated that he secure the approval and cooperation of the U.S. attorneys in those districts before proceeding.

If Mr. Weiss wanted to move ahead without their approval, he could have brought the issue to Mr. Garland’s attention, and the attorney general could then appoint him “special attorney,” which would allow him to bypass the standard chain of command. There is no indication that Mr. Weiss appealed for help from Mr. Garland or his top deputies — or that he even communicated about the case with anyone in leadership beyond the department’s top career official at headquarters.

When Mr. Grassley, at the hearing in March, pressed Mr. Garland on that point — without referring explicitly to Mr. Shapley’s claim, which would not become public for months, but tracking closely what Mr. Shapley would tell the Ways and Means Committee — the attorney general said he would “assure” that Mr. Weiss would be able to bring charges outside Delaware if that was his wish. At a news conference after the transcript was released, Mr. Garland repeated that message.

As the investigation ground on, Mr. Shapley had grown disenchanted with the lack of progress in the investigation, and by his account was so upset over the conduct of the Justice Department he found it hard to sleep.

He testified that Mr. Weiss, despite his public statements to the contrary, was also unhappy, and that he complained about being handcuffed by higher-ups in the department.

Things came to a head during a meeting among investigators on Oct. 7, when Mr. Weiss made an unexpected admission to him in the presence of several other federal law enforcement officials, according to Mr. Shapley’s account.

“He surprised us by telling us on the charges, quote: ‘I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,’” said Mr. Shapley, a longtime Republican who has said he is motivated by the evenhanded application of justice, not politics.

“To add to the surprise, U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main D.O.J. at that time and was denied that authority,” he added.

Mr. Weiss, he said, was then told “to follow D.O.J.’s process.”

Mr. Shapley did not say if Mr. Weiss told him who had turned down his request to appoint a special counsel, a decision that can only be made by an attorney general under department regulations.

After Mr. Garland last week denied Mr. Shapley’s account, Mr. Shapley’s lawyer, Mr. Lytle, issued a statement naming six F.B.I. and I.R.S. agents who he said witnessed the exchange, which Mr. Shapley also recorded in a contemporaneous email.

Later, Mr. Shapley blamed Mr. Weiss, without evidence, for helping to kill a promotion he had hoped to get, by criticizing him to his superiors at the I.R.S.

“I think it tainted me,” he told the Ways and Means Committee. “I think that they retaliated against me because of that. There’s really no other explanation for it.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Weiss did not return a request for comment. In his June 7 letter to Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he wrote that he had “ultimate authority” over every aspect of the investigation, which seemed to contradict Mr. Shapley’s claim that he had said he was not the deciding official in the case. (Mr. Jordan subsequently sent a letter asking Mr. Weiss to clarify what “ultimate authority” means.)

In a short news release last week setting out the terms of the deal with Mr. Biden, Mr. Weiss added without explanation: “The investigation is ongoing.” It is unclear whether that phrase was just Justice Department boilerplate, a hint about the possibility of more charges arising from the inquiry or a shield against demands for documents and testimony about the Biden case from Congress.

Mr. Garland, who often sidesteps requests for comment on ongoing investigations, has been uncharacteristically blunt in refuting Mr. Shapley’s testimony.

“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters last Friday, referring to whether Mr. Weiss had sought special counsel status.

Under the special counsel regulation, Mr. Weiss would have been required to inform Mr. Garland about any major developments in the investigation, including his request to bring charges in California and Washington. Mr. Garland, in turn, would have to inform Congress in writing if he decided to overrule any major investigative decision, like charging Mr. Biden.

“If you provided the Delaware U.S. attorney with special counsel authority, isn’t it true that he would not need permission from another U.S. attorney to bring charges?” asked Mr. Grassley, a longtime chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in March.

“It’s a kind of a complicated question,” replied Mr. Garland.

He then suggested it was also an irrelevant one, arguing that Mr. Weiss “already” possessed the same authority under both scenarios.

Mr. Grassley did not appear to be convinced.

A correction was made on June 27, 2023: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized a letter that Representative Jim Jordan sent to David C. Weiss. It did not address his use of the term “ultimate authority.” The letter also was not sent on Monday. It was sent last week.

 

[Occam's Banana]

RazörFist | Welcome to Misdirection Month! - Razör Rants
If only we could get Vladimir Putin into a submarine, we'd have the ideal distraction.
https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/welcome-to-misdirection-month!-razör:7

 

[devil21]

Mods don't put people on ignore, reading your posts is their job.

The definition of moderator is to be a moderate middle observer, with no biases one way or another, especially biases stemming from financial incentives that may benefit one or both parties the moderator is supposed to be impartial toward.

I remember a time when moderators on RPF were barely seen, since that's what moderators were for. The good ol' days. Moderators posted when they had something to say. Now...well....yeah.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"The Biden DOJ would never have charged Hunter if his last name wasn't Biden."

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1673744169636864005

 

[nobody's_hero]

The definition of moderator is to be a moderate middle observer, with no biases one way or another, especially biases stemming from financial incentives that may benefit one or both parties the moderator is supposed to be impartial toward.

I remember a time when moderators on RPF were barely seen, since that's what moderators were for. The good ol' days. Moderators posted when they had something to say. Now...well....yeah.

I remember a time when moderators banned for less. Good ol' days indeed. Lost a lot of contributing members over the years because a mod was having a bad day.

Honestly man it's just. . . the arrogance that you exude (you're not alone in this), and maybe not aware of it.

Skepticism is healthy (even necessary) but some people take it to such extremes that everyone becomes your enemy, and your lesser, for not embracing your perceptions. We've all probably been guilty of it at some point or another. I've had some heated moments for sure and it's a wonder I wasn't at least temp banned on occasion.

This forum has become so paralyzed by paranoia it's little more than an echo chamber, certainly not much use for political action. A shell of its 2008-self.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1677081227822764033

BREAKING — Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, the "missing witness" in the Biden corruption investigation, accuses the Bidens of receiving bribes from individuals linked to Chinese military intelligence and using an FBI mole named "One Eye" to share classified information with CEFC China Energy.

In an exclusive video obtained by @mirandadevine at The Post, Luft claims that he provided incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice during a secret meeting in Brussels in March 2019, but he alleges that it was covered up.

According to Luft, he voluntarily informed the US government about a potential security breach and compromising information regarding Joe Biden, who was vying to be the next president at the time.

However, instead of being recognized as a whistleblower, he claims to have now become the target of the very same people he informed.

Luft asserts that his recent arrest in Cyprus was an attempt to prevent him from testifying to the House Oversight Committee about the Biden family's alleged corruption.

Luft denies being an arm dealer stating that he "has never traded a bullet in his entire life."

He further states that "nowhere in my indictment has the DOJ claimed or presented evidence that I bought, sold shipped or financed any weapons."

Luft alleges that Joe Biden, shortly after his vice presidential term, attended a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, DC, with his son Hunter and officials from CEFC.

Luft claims that his account of the meeting was later corroborated when the famous laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, which contained all the emails and receipts, was handed to the FBI.

According to Luft, CEFC was paying Hunter $100,000 a month and his uncle Jim Biden $65,000 in exchange for their connections and the use of the Biden name to promote China's Belt and Road Initiative globally.

Luft denies operating as an unregistered foreign agent and questions why he is being indicted for ghostwriting an innocuous article for which he received no payment when the Bidens' influence-peddling on behalf of foreign governments goes unpunished.

"Why does the mother of all FARA cases which is the Biden's systemic influence peddling on behalf of foreign governments for which they raked in millions go unpunished?"

Luft challenges the government to release the minutes of the Brussels meeting and make public the evidence against him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1677081227822764033
...

U.S. Attorney announces charges against whistleblower

https://twitter.com/alx/status/1678533756171239429

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/alx/status/1678527826121596929

 

[Champ]

I remember a time when moderators banned for less. Good ol' days indeed. Lost a lot of contributing members over the years because a mod was having a bad day.

Honestly man it's just. . . the arrogance that you exude (you're not alone in this), and maybe not aware of it.

Skepticism is healthy (even necessary) but some people take it to such extremes that everyone becomes your enemy, and your lesser, for not embracing your perceptions. We've all probably been guilty of it at some point or another. I've had some heated moments for sure and it's a wonder I wasn't at least temp banned on occasion.

This forum has become so paralyzed by paranoia it's little more than an echo chamber, certainly not much use for political action. A shell of its 2008-self.

Yup. This is how this place is now. If I attempt to post my honest thoughts on certain topics, I will have a bunch of people breathing down my neck, like some mob of intimidators, just daring me to say it again, lest I suffer some kind of interweb consequences. And I am of the belief that this is a desired result by some of these people.
They want me and others to feel this intimidation so that we don't participate here anymore. It's been like this since around 2015, shortly after Trump announced his candidacy and has only gotten worse through the years.

Basically, if I do not show severe and intense hatred of Trump, anything I say will be attacked and condemned. I will be some kind of outsider or other. Everything revolves around Trump and the issues he brought to the forefront of political discussions. So with that being the case, I have taken my time and business elsewhere since this is the way it is here now. Trump has a thousand flaws, but has also done some good outside of his presidency, there is nuance here, there is gray area, yes it exists. It's a mixed bag, but these thoughts are disallowed by those that are trying to intimidate others out of these forums, because I did not condemn him. It's a joke and not in the spirit of Ron Paul, having vigorous discussion and debate, not even in the slightest. It's all about shutting debate down entirely.

Hundreds, maybe thousands have left since 2015 as a result of this culture. And it does not seem like there is any hope in this ever changing. Let the echo chamber continue forth!