Posted BY: RM | NwoReport
The Department of Justice’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation took an unexpected turn as new details emerge about the role of whistleblowers and political influence. Initially, U.S. attorney David Weiss seemed willing to forego prosecuting Hunter Biden, even considering ending the investigation without requiring a guilty plea for any charges. However, a significant shift occurred after two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley, and Joseph Ziegler, came forward to House Republicans with revelations about the investigation’s irregularities.
These whistleblowers claimed that prosecutors hindered their efforts to investigate Hunter’s tax crimes and even tipped him off about impending interviews and searches. Their testimony apparently had a considerable impact on the case’s trajectory. Hunter Biden’s legal team believed the whistleblowers’ revelations influenced the outcome, although senior law enforcement officials disagreed. This discord escalated when Hunter’s lawyers argued that the whistleblowers violated the law by disclosing investigation details to Congress and should be prosecuted.
The timeline of events reveals that David Weiss’s stance on the case changed in the spring, coinciding with the accusations made by the I.R.S. officials handling the case. Suddenly, Weiss demanded that Hunter Biden plead guilty to tax offenses. This unexpected shift caused a notable shift in the dynamic, leading to a breakdown in the cooperation between Hunter’s legal team and the Department of Justice.
Furthermore, the plea deal that emerged from this collaboration faced controversy due to provisions that shielded Hunter from potential charges related to other crimes. This revelation caused the deal to unravel, attracting scrutiny from the judge overseeing the case. Adding to the controversy, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss as special counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation, despite previous claims that Weiss already had extensive investigative powers. This move fueled allegations of a potential cover-up, leaving the investigation’s credibility and transparency in question. The evolving situation highlights the intricate interplay of legal, political, and whistleblower dynamics within the justice system.