Dem 51
image description
GOP 49
image description

Hunter Biden Whistleblower Is Undercut by New Witnesses

IRS-agent-turned-whistleblower Gary Shapley has alleged that the investigation into Hunter Biden's past was impeded by the DoJ, possibly on orders from the Very Top. No, not AG Merrick Garland. More Top than that. The sound of whistles blowing delighted House Republicans, so they are investigating Hunter nine ways to Sunday based on the remarks from Shapley. They are so happy to provide a national service to out what Donald Trump calls the "Biden Crime Family."

Only maybe Shapley misremembered things, or worse yet, is lying. New testimony from FBI and IRS officials undercuts what Shapley said. Oops. CNN got ahold of transcripts from their testimony. In the transcripts, the officials say things that contradict Shapley on key points.

At issue is a meeting in Oct. 2022 among prosecutors and agents working on Hunter Biden's case. Shapley has stated that during the meeting, then-U.S. Attorney for Delaware and current special counsel David Weiss, a Trump appointee, said that he was not the deciding person about whether to charge Biden. Normally U.S. attorneys are the charging people, so if Shapley's remark is true, it could imply interference from above and would mean that Weiss was not in charge of his own investigation—a very strange matter, at best.

In addition to Weiss and Shapley, there were five other people present at the meeting. Three of them have now testified before a House Committee on camera. They disputed Shapley's allegation. One of the people present at the meeting with Weiss, FBI special agent Thomas Sobocinski, told the Committee: "I do not remember—I don't—he didn't say that. In my recollection, if he would have said that, I would have remembered it." Shapley's previous boss, Darrell Waldon, who was also at the meeting, told the Committee: "I do not recall that ever being said." FBI Assistant Special Agent Ryeshia Holley told the Committee: "I don't remember him saying that." Then she added that Shapley may have been confused or misunderstood.

Weiss' problem was that U.S. attorneys in other states didn't want to partner with him (presumably because they thought the case—which Weiss had been pursuing for 4 years—was too weak to stand up in court). Thus it was not that some higher up was blocking him, but that he was having trouble finding a venue to bring charges. Now that Weiss has been made a special prosecutor, the only thing that will change is that he can now bring charges in other jurisdictions, even if the U.S. attorneys there want no part of it.

And not only are there now other witnesses to the meeting who contradict Shapley, but Weiss has joined in as well. Shapley said that Weiss' request to be a special counsel was denied (again, presumably from someone above him, which would have to be Garland). Weiss wrote a letter to the Committee saying that he never requested special counsel status. If he never requested it, it could hardly be turned down. U.S. attorneys can charge anyone who violated a federal law within their jurisdiction. That is basically their job description.

The end is not in sight here, but now the Republicans' whole case that Hunter Biden received kid gloves treatment is based on the testimony of one witness who claims to have heard evidence at a meeting. Now three other people present at the same meeting have testified that they didn't hear it. Also on one key point (Weiss being denied special counsel status), Weiss himself has said he never even asked for it.

To make things even more interesting, the law banning drug users from owning firearms may be unconstitutional. If it is, then the government has no more right to ask if someone is a drug user than to ask if someone eats meat. Here's the problem. In June 2022, the Supreme Court, in the Bruen decision, struck down a century-old New York State gun law because it hasn't been around long enough and does not fit the American tradition. This says that gun laws that don't have a very long historical basis are not valid. During the 18th century and much of the 19th century, there were no laws prohibiting people who used alcohol or drugs from owning guns. That is a much newer invention. Some states had laws about that, but the first federal law dates from 1968. Consequently, in court, Biden will argue that on account of Bruen, the federal law requiring people to state on a form whether they use drugs is unconstitutional because it isn't 200 years old. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, people can't be convicted of violating it. If Biden is tried and formally acquitted, there goes the "Biden Crime Family" attack Republicans would love to use in 2024.

Biden's arraignment is now set for Sept. 26 in Delaware, The judge has ordered him to appear in person. He had a plea deal but it fell apart. He is expected to plead not guilty.

Also worth noting that the crime Biden is accused of (and which he probably committed) is lying on the federal form he filled in to buy a gun. He said he wasn't a drug addict, when he was. He had the gun for less than 2 weeks and never used it. Nevertheless, lying on a federal form is a crime. Readers with good memories may recall that Biden is not the only person ever to have lied on a federal form. Just to name one other example, Justice Clarence Thomas filled out financial disclosure forms over multiple years where he failed to report—as required by federal law—in-kind gifts worth millions of dollars from billionaires who had a keen interest in how he voted on certain cases before the Supreme Court. He has not been charged or investigated for essentially the same crime as Biden: lying on a federal form. Do we have a two-tiered justice system? We report, you decide. (V)

This item appeared on Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.                     State polls                     All Senate candidates