Mike Huckabee: Surprise, Surprise! Whistleblower Reveals Preferential Treatment in Hunter Biden Case
Would it surprise you to hear that Biden-appointed federal prosecutors have engaged in preferential treatment and politics to block criminal tax charges against Hunter Biden? Me neither.
That’s the story being told by a decorated supervisory IRS agent who has come forward as a whistleblower to Michael Horowitz in the “Justice” Department’s Office of the Inspector General. He’s requested whistleblower protection and is not being named.
And the story he tells conflicts with sworn congressional testimony by Attorney General Merrick Garland that the decision on whether or not to bring charges against Hunter had been left entirely to the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for Delaware, David Weiss.
John Solomon at Just the News obtained a letter sent Wednesday by Mark Lytle, attorney for this whistleblower, to multiple congressional oversight committees, saying he seeks to provide information to the tax-writing committees — the only ones, according to tax privacy laws, that have the authority to see detailed disclosures concerning such a sensitive, high-profile case. That would be a necessary step toward providing the information to other committees in the coming weeks.
“Despite serious risks of retaliation,” Lytle wrote, “my client is offering to provide you with information necessary to exercise your constitutional oversight and wishes to make the disclosures in a non-partisan manner to the leadership of the relevant committees on both sides of the political aisle.”
The letter itself doesn’t say the information specifically concerns Hunter Biden, but Solomon has independently confirmed through interviews with multiple people that it does.
Lytle wrote, “The protected disclosures 1) contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee [that would be Garland], 2) involve failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the case [that might relate to the Biden-appointed Garland as well], and 3) detail examples of preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject were not politically connected.”
Why, if that were true, it would mean… we have a double standard of justice. Surely not!
Here’s the full letter…
Solomon describes this IRS agent as having a “sterling record,” having worked on major international banking cases and won several merit awards. “His emergence now in such a politically charged case is certain to inflame a debate over unequal justice in Washington.” Let it be so.
Ironically, when this agent first tried to come forward late last year, he did it with the help of whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because Zaid is the big Democratic attorney who co-founded the whistleblower law firm whose client (falsely) accused Trump of an inappropriate phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, leading to Trump’s impeachment.
We note with approval that the IRS whistleblower has apparently changed attorneys.
Hunter is supposedly being investigated over tax issues and allegations of money laundering. Recall that Hunter had failed to resolve a tax bill of over $2 million when a wealthy friend of his, “sugar brother” Hollywood entertainment lawyer Kevin Morris, gave him the money to pay it. He also paid the $20,000-a-month rent — no, that’s not a typo — on Hunter’s Malibu Beach pad. It was Morris who also advised Hunter on selling his paintings to “anonymous” buyers.
As Solomon explained it to Sean Hannity, this agent was supervising the other agents assigned to the U.S. attorney to investigate Hunter. Last fall, he learned that two Biden appointees, two U.S. attorneys in two different cities, “declined to bring criminal charges that were recommended by the investigators, by U.S. Attorney Weiss, and green-lighted by the tax division inside the Justice Department.”
In other words, everyone was on board except the two Biden political appointees. And this “has brought the case to a standstill,” he said.
The whistleblower goes on to say that Weiss had told his team that, since he’d been blocked, he went to the DOJ to be upgraded to a special counsel and was told no. So when he later heard Garland testify to Congress that Weiss was working independently with no political interference, he knew that was not true.
So he went to the Treasury inspector general and then to the DOJ inspector general. Now, according to the letter, he wants to go before Congress. He comes equipped with emails, government memos, the works, all documenting political interference and special treatment.
Solomon has an exclusive interview with his attorney here…
And a final note: Solomon broke the news Wednesday night that it was Secretary of State Antony Blinken who called former acting CIA Director Mike Morell and said “I need you to get this done” regarding the “classic hallmarks” letter. None of the intel officials who signed that letter to shield Joe Biden from the laptop story had seen any evidence to back up what they were saying. They were essentially following an order for, in the words of Rep. Jim Jordan, “a political operation, not an intelligence operation.” So, how much about this did Biden know?
RELATED: As for news from the bottom tier of the “justice” system (Hunter’s on the top; Trump is on the bottom), District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can subpoena former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.
On Thursday morning, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary administrative stay of Pomerantz’s subpoena while it considers an appeal by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. The stay takes no position on the merits of the appeal; it just means Pomerantz doesn’t have to testify right away.
Pomerantz, as you know, was the special prosecutor who loudly resigned when Bragg initially balked at indicting Trump. He went back to the big Democratic law firm that had loaned him to Bragg (reportedly for free) to go after Trump, and he wrote a book called “GET TRUMP.” Kidding — the name of the book is “People vs. Donald Trump.”
Just before the book’s scheduled publication date of Feb. 7, Law.com reported that Pomerantz could be disbarred and might even face a criminal charge for writing that highly inappropriate book. The book is wildly Trump-deranged, going so far as to compare Trump to mobster John Gotti.
The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys took this very seriously, saying, “The most likely implication for any lawyer publicly opining about the guilt of a suspect is a formal complaint to the state bar association that he has violated his ethical duties. This complaint could result in his suspension or termination from the practice of law.”
Pomerantz’s book has also upset the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, which called it “unfortunate and unprecedented.” The president of that organization said that by publishing a book about an ongoing case, Pomerantz is “upending the norms and ethics of prosecutorial conduct” and is “potentially compromising an ongoing criminal investigation.” And our guess is that compromising the Trump case is probably what most New York lawyers are so mad at him for.
On his Wednesday evening show, Hannity asked two legal analysts for comment, with Emily Compagno happy to see that the judge “took Bragg to school” on why Congress has the authority to look into this prosecution. Compagno called his case against Trump “a blatant perversion of justice” and noted the pushback against Bragg at the state level.
Gregg Jarrett said the judge saw right through Bragg’s motion to prevent Pomerantz’s testimony, which was “doomed to fail,” a “desperate bid … to cover up and conceal his own wrongdoing by bringing an indictment against Trump that is unsupported by the law, contradicted by the facts, and politically driven.” So there.
He said a key witness (apparently referring to attorney Bob Costello) testified that Bragg withheld exculpatory evidence in the Trump case and that for this, Bragg should “face disbarment proceedings” and the judge should charge him with criminal contempt.
Jarrett laughed at Bragg’s argument that Pomerantz’s testimony might disclose sensitive and confidential information about the case, saying Pomerantz “already did that in a 300-page book that was little more than a personal and venomous screed against Donald Trump.” He made it clear in the book that the prosecution was political and that they hated Trump personally. (How did he think this would help the case?) This judge echoed the concerns of the prosecutors’ organizations, saying that Pomerantz has “placed himself in criminal liability.”
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
