Whistleblower: Hunter Biden Case has been "slow walked" at the Direction of the DOJ...

[DKW 86 7,727]

 

[AUDub 11,426]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-whistleblower-gary-shapley-hunter-biden-b2346365.html

He won't testify under oath in a position where the narrative won't be carefully controlled and for a damn good reason. 

[homersapien 11,812]

From the referenced article:

Identity of Mr Shapley’s other attorney raises alarms

In his interview with CBS, Mr Shapley said he is a registered Republican and suggested that he should be thought of as “not a political person” because he has never been involved in political campaigns, though his position as an IRS criminal investigator means participating in political campaigns would be a violation of federal law.

He also told the television network that his legal efforts are being aided by a nonprofit staffed by former Republican congressional staffers in addition to Mr Lytle, a former federal prosecutor who has experience representing federal employees who’ve been accused of political bias as well as white-collar criminal defendants.

But it is the involvement of that nonprofit, Empower Oversight, that has raised suspicions of political motivations among people close to congressional oversight efforts, particularly after Mr Shapley declined to speak to the Democratic-led Finance Committee.

In addition to Mr Lytle, Mr Shapley has also been represented in his whistleblower matters by the president of Empower Oversight, Tristan Leavitt.

Mr Leavitt is a former Trump administration appointee to the Merit System Protection Board who also spent time working for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency charged with enforcing whistleblower protection laws as well as the Hatch Act, a New Deal-era statute which prohibits federal employees from engaging in certain partisan activities while on the government payroll.

Since leaving government service at the end of the Trump administration, he has been involved with representing a group of former FBI special agents who call themselves “The Suspendables”.

The ex-agents claim they were unlawfully retaliated against for expressing what they describe as conservative political viewpoints and for voicing concerns about excessive use of force when arresting suspects charged with crimes stemming from participation in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Mr Leavitt testified alongside several of the agents at a congressional hearing last week, during which two of his clients admitted to receiving funds from a prominent ex-aide to former president Donald Trump, Kash Patel.

While Mr Leavitt claimed in his testimony that his clients were unlawfully retaliated against for making protected disclosures of alleged wrongdoing, a top FBI official stated in a letter reported by The New York Times that one of the agents in question had his security clearance revoked for having “espoused an alternative narrative about the events at the US Capitol” in communications with supervisors, as well as refusing to carry out orders to join an FBI Swat team to aid the arrest of a suspect known to own multiple AR-15-style rifles and who belonged to the Three Percenter anti-government extremist movement.

According to sources familiar with congressional efforts to verify Mr Shapley’s allegations, Mr Leavitt’s involvement raised “a big red flag” because of allegations that his clients may have lied to the House Judiciary Committee regarding their receipt of funds from Mr Patel and in their description of events leading up to their dismissal from government service.

The sources say Mr Shapley’s use of Mr Leavitt as an attorney and the nature of the allegations — which they described as appearing to be a run-of-the-mill dispute between criminal investigators and prosecutors over whether the former has collected enough evidence for the latter to justify bringing charges against a target — give them reason to believe the IRS special agent is part of a coordinated effort to browbeat prosecutors into charging Hunter Biden and weaponise dispute between investigators and prosecutors against both the Biden administration and President Biden’s family.

One person with knowledge of Mr Shapley’s efforts told The Independent that members of Congress and staff have also been troubled by the way legally protected taxpayer information — information which House and Senate committees take great pains to keep secret — has made it into the right-wing press at the same time it has been provided to the House and Senate panels with jurisdiction over the IRS.

They noted that he was previously represented by a prominent Washington, DC attorney with extensive experience in representing law enforcement and intelligence whistleblowers and said Mr Shapley appeared to change attorneys because his first attorney appeared more concerned with following the law than getting his allegations into the press.

[DKW 86 7,727]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-whistleblower-gary-shapley-hunter-biden-b2346365.html

He won't testify under oath in a position where the narrative won't be carefully controlled and for a damn good reason. 

Funny, when HRC refused to testify under oath, no one on this board cared.

[AUDub 11,426]

23 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Funny, when HRC refused to testify under oath, no one on this board cared.

She testified under oath for 11 hours over Benghazi. 

[DKW 86 7,727]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

She testified under oath for 11 hours over Benghazi. 

And when she was "interviewed by FBI," it was never under oath.

https://weartv.com/campaign-says-fbi-interviewed-clinton-about-her-emails-while-she-was-secretary-of-state

[AUDub 11,426]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And when she was "interviewed by FBI," it was never under oath.

https://weartv.com/campaign-says-fbi-interviewed-clinton-about-her-emails-while-she-was-secretary-of-state

Believe it or not you don't actually have to be under oath to be charged with lying to the FBI under section 1001.

This is why I always emphasize "SHUT UP!"

[aubiefifty 17,492]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Funny, when HRC refused to testify under oath, no one on this board cared.

two wrongs do not make a right.

[AUDub 11,426]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

two wrongs do not make a right.

She sat in front of a very hostile committee for a day of grilling. This guy won't do that. 

Even then the senate committee won't be nearly as hostile as those loons in the house committee on Benghazi were. 

[aubiefifty 17,492]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

She sat in front of a very hostile committee for a day of grilling. This guy won't do that. 

Even then the senate committee won't be nearly as hostile as those loons in the house committee on Benghazi were. 

oh i agree. i was proud of her that day as well. so many idiots think she had the power to control the military and nip it in the bud which was a big assed lie that they even made a movie about it. a general refused to put boots on the ground until he got intel from drones or satellites. this is fact. then they accused her of gutting security when in fact the repukes did this as well. it was shameful because basically she called repukes deplorables. i did not vote for her but now i wish i had.

[DKW 86 7,727]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Believe it or not you don't actually have to be under oath to be charged with lying to the FBI under section 1001.

This is why I always emphasize "SHUT UP!"

It also almost 100% guarantees that the truth was not being told. Whats the impetus for telling the truth?

[AUDub 11,426]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

It also almost 100% guarantees that the truth was not being told. Whats the impetus for telling the truth?

Title 18 Section 1001. If you materially mislead the FBI that's quite literally a felony.

It's a charge you should be pretty familiar with given all the Trump lackeys convicted under it lol. 

[AU9377 5,577]

Prosecutors bring charges.  Agents investigate and present evidence to prosecutors.  The prosecutor handling this case was appointed by Donald Trump and was not replaced by the Biden administration when they took office in order to avoid being accused of placing their hand on the scales or otherwise influencing his actions.  I don't think anyone would be shocked to learn that Hunter Biden failed to pay taxes on money earned from a foreign government.  I question whether this guy is stepping outside his lane when he accuses someone of failing to do their job while never having done their job in the first place. It just smells fishy.

I listened to Ron DeSantis give an interview today wherein he stated outright that he would direct the DOJ as to when to prosecute and when not to prosecute.  He went as far as to say that he would fire anyone that did not do as he directed.  Bill Barr did more heavy lifting for Trump than any AG in the history of the Justice Dept, until even he could no longer stomach what he was being asked to do.  Merrick Garland is a well respected, very moderate former Federal Judge.  He is not going to take direction from the White House.  I feel certain that he demanded that those in charge of the investigation when he took over as AG remain in their posts in order to insulate the DOJ from this sort of claim.

[DKW 86 7,727]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

Title 18 Section 1001. If you materially mislead the FBI that's quite literally a felony.

It's a charge you should be pretty familiar with given all the Trump lackeys convicted under it lol. 

Yea, right. and they dont prosecute it but once in a blue moon. 

WHY WASNT HRC CHARGED THEN? Hell every adult in the room knew she was lying about the email server. She never allowed the FBI to see what was on the email server. 
We really don't know if she was lying or not. The email server was wiped almost clean as glass before anyone saw it if indeed anyone ever did. She admittedly expunged what 30K emails and was never held accountable for it. 

And as for the prosecutions with the trump campaign, we were promised arrests and prosecutions, and convictions for Treason, Sedition, and Collusion for 4-6 years. Exactly how many did we actually, factually get? ZERO. So for 4-6 years of promises, we got zero results. We got a couple of let's just say it, near meaningless charges when compared to what we were promised every day for 4-6 years. 

That's why of adult voters in America only the die-hard Democrats actually believe one word of RUSSIANS, RUSSIANS, RUSSIANS!

Go read the thread on the latest polling. No one with any sense of self-thinking in America buys one word of this s*** anymore.

Again, from the polling:

Quote

 

------BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS-------

MOST VOTERS SAY TRUMP’S COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA AND THE STEELE DOSSIER ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE STORIES

VOTERS ARE NOT SURPRISED THAT THE FBI VIOLATED ITS OWN POLICY TO START THE TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE

-----IN A TOTAL BREAK WITH THE AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC--------------

MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS BELIEVE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP IS DISINFORMATION, TRUMP COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,426]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

WHY WASNT HRC CHARGED THEN? Hell every adult in the room knew she was lying about the email server. She never allowed the FBI to see what was on the email server. 
We really don't know if she was lying or not. The email server was wiped almost clean as glass before anyone saw it if indeed anyone ever did. She admittedly expunged what 30K emails and was never held accountable for it. 

Because Hilary isn't a dumbass and knows not to make a provably false statement. It isn't about what you know, but what you can prove.

Remember, she's an attorney herself, and is well aware of the fact that "I don't recall" and the 5th Amendment is your best friend in interviews with the FBI lol. 

That's why Sussman got off when Durham tried to throw a flimsy 1001 at him.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

WHY WASNT HRC CHARGED THEN? Hell every adult in the room knew she was lying about the email server.

 

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

We really don't know if she was lying or not.

 

[DKW 86 7,727]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Because Hilary isn't a dumbass and knows not to make a provably false statement. It isn't about what you know, but what you can prove.

Remember, she's an attorney herself, and is well aware of the fact that "I don't recall" and the 5th Amendment is your best friend in interviews with the FBI lol. 

That's why Sussman got off when Durham tried to throw a flimsy 1001 at him.

And this is why we never need anyone like her in the WH. 

[DKW 86 7,727]

ichy, knowing shw was lying and proving she lied are, as dub said two wildly different things. 

[AURex 2,129]

 

hahahah -- As always, for conservatives, any topic turns into WHATWABOUNTISM. hahaha