House GOP Probes Possible DOJ Interference in Hunter Biden Whistleblower Investigation

Signage is seen at the United States Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, on Aug. 29, 2020. Andrew Kelly/Reuters

House Republicans are probing concerns that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may be hampering an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) into whistleblower disclosures regarding the tax investigation of Hunter Biden.

Earlier this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) revealed whistleblower testimony from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigators Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler claiming that the DOJ and IRS had sought to slow-walk and protect Mr. Biden, the president’s son, during an investigation into millions of dollars in foreign income that he failed to report.

Among other disclosures, the whistleblowers said they were blocked from carrying out otherwise lawful search warrants over concerns about the political “optics” of pursuing investigatory leads.

The tax charges ultimately recommended against the first son, two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay tax, fell far short of the series of felonies proposed by prosecutors.

Following the disclosures, the whistleblowers said, they faced almost immediate retribution from their superiors—illegal under U.S. laws intended to protect whistleblower disclosures.

However, a request for the DOJ OIG to investigate, Republicans said, has yielded few results, prompting concerns among Republicans investigating the matter that the DOJ may be “hindering” the investigation for political reasons.

In an Aug. 22 letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz (pdf), Mr. Smith, House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sought answers about whether and how the OIG was investigating the whistleblower allegations and claims of retaliation.

The testimony offered by Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler, the Republicans said, “raised serious questions about the federal government’s commitment to evenhanded justice.”

Whistleblowers IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley (left) and IRS Criminal Investigator Joseph Ziegler (right) swear before the Full Committee on Oversight and Accountability at a hearing about the Biden Criminal Investigation at the U.S. Congress in Washington on July 19, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“IRS whistleblowers made protected disclosures to Congress regarding DOJ’s investigation of Hunter Biden,” they wrote. “Specifically, the IRS whistleblowers testified that DOJ’s investigation was purposely slow-walked and subjected to improper and politically motivated interference. Further, the DOJ and IRS have reportedly engaged in unlawful whistleblower retaliation against the IRS employees.”

The Republican chairmen argued that evidence uncovered in the interim has continued to corroborate the claims made by the whistleblowers.

Mr. Comer, who has led a separate investigation into Mr. Biden’s foreign business dealings, has uncovered $21 million in foreign funds that flowed into the accounts of Mr. Biden, members of his family, and his business associates.

According to testimony from Mr. Devon Archer, a business associate of Mr. Biden’s, then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand” that his son used to make these high-level business contacts, which include high-ranking Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, and Romanian sources.

On July 26, Mr. Biden appeared in a Delaware district court for a hearing on his plea agreement, under which Mr. Biden was to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes and have a felony firearms charge diverted as part of a pretrial agreement.

Hunter Biden (C.) leaves the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Wilmington, Del., on July 26, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

However, that agreement went much further, theoretically granting Mr. Biden total immunity from any prosecution for tax, gun, or drug crimes committed between 2014 and 2019, when most of Mr. Biden’s high-level business deals took place.

During that hearing, prosecutors acknowledged that Mr. Biden could be open to further prosecution, including violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Concerns about the unusually generous arrangement ultimately prompted the judge in the case to reject the deal, spurring Attorney General Merrick Garland to raise U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the lead prosecutor in Mr. Biden’s case, to the status of special counsel.

Possible Political Interference

Republicans suggested that this move—and the plea agreement itself, which Mr. Biden’s lawyers said was not sought by the U.S. attorney’s office until May 2023—were indicative of further DOJ interference to protect the president’s son.

“The DOJ appears to be continuing to sacrifice its professional responsibility to cover for the President’s son—and perhaps, the President himself,” the legislators wrote.

This conduct, they said, raises concerns that the DOJ may be preventing the OIG from carrying out a full investigation into the matter.

Republicans wrote that they requested an update on the status of the whistleblower investigation on July 17. At that point, the OIG confirmed that they had received information from the whistleblowers, but “have not indicated whether their office is meaningfully investigating the disclosures.”

In response, Mr. Horowitz said his agency was “mindful of the potential limitation on the OIG’s jurisdiction” over the matter, citing provisions in the Inspector General Act requiring that such issues be referred to another body within the DOJ.

Their comments, the Republicans said in a press release, “raise concerns that DOJ is hindering the OIG’s ability to investigate.”

“Based on your statements and the DOJ’s pattern of politically motivated actions, we are concerned that the DOJ is limiting your office from fully investigating the disclosures provided to your office,” the three lawmakers wrote in the letter.

They concluded with a request for clarification on the matter, including whether the OIG has been “limited in any way from fully investigating the whistleblowers’ disclosures,” and if so, how and why these limitations are in place.