In a striking example of “burying the lede,” the New York Times revealed, deep into a story on bombshell IRS whistleblower testimonies, that the newspaper has independently confirmed the most sensational allegation from that testimony — a confirmation that calls into question multiple statements provided by the U.S. Attorney General.
Two IRS whistleblowers said last week that their investigation into Hunter Biden’s unpaid taxes encountered politically driven roadblocks from officials connected to the Biden Administration.
That allegation, if true, could prove devastating to the Biden White House and his 2024 re-election campaign.
One of the whistleblowers, IRS official Gary Shapley, told the House Ways and Means Committee that top prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. denied a request from U.S. Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, to bring charges against Hunter Biden in those districts.
Shapley also told the Committee that he personally witnessed Weiss claim that he would not be the deciding official on whether to bring charges against Hunter Biden.
The second whistleblower, who remains anonymous, confirmed Shapley’s account.
Those two whistleblower accounts run contrary to multiple public comments Garland has made about the supposed independence of the Hunter Biden investigation.
Garland had earlier told U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that the Trump-appointed Weiss had complete authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden in California and the District of Columbia if the evidence supported it.
The New York Times buried the following bombshell:
“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.”
The New York Times describes Garland’s testimony as “at odds” with Shapley’s account.
But the third confirmation means three separate source now oppose the on-the-record version of the investigation related by Garland. That is, that there was no interference from the Biden Administration into the IRS’s investigation of Hunter Biden’s unpaid taxes.
Either Garland’s is inaccurate when he says Weiss had complete authority over investigation, or all three sources are telling the same lie.
In addition to contradicting his testimony before Congress, those confirmations also contradict statements Garland made at a press conference five days ago in response to the release of the whistleblower testimonies.
During that press conference, Garland insisted that Weiss had complete independence over all aspects of the investigation.
“As I said at the outset, Mr. Weiss, who was appointed by President Trump as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and assigned this matter during the previous administration, would be permitted to continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute anyway in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to,” Garland said.