“I.R.S. Official Is Said to Assert Political Meddling in Hunter Biden Inquiry”

NYT:

As Justice Department officials weigh whether to indict Hunter Biden, the investigator overseeing the Internal Revenue Service’s portion of the case has come forward with allegations of political favoritism in the inquiry that stand to add to the already fraught circumstances facing the department.

Congressional leaders learned of the investigator’s allegations on Wednesday when a lawyer sent them a letter asking for whistle-blower protections for his client. The letter stated that the unnamed client, identified as an “I.R.S. criminal supervisory special agent who has been overseeing” an ongoing and sensitive case, had knowledge of an array of misconduct including political meddling, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times.

While the letter from the lawyer, Mark D. Lytle, did not name Hunter Biden, Senate and House Republicans put out statements specifying that it was referring to him. The disclosure fed claims by congressional Republicans that a Justice Department run by the president’s political appointees could not be trusted to make a decision about his son based on the facts and law.

The letter said the client had information that would contradict sworn testimony to Congress from a senior political appointee, an apparent reference to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who has offered assurances that the U.S. attorney in Delaware, David C. Weiss, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, would be free to run the investigation.

In response, Hunter Biden’s criminal defense lawyer, Christopher Clark, fired back on Thursday, claiming that the I.R.S. supervisor broke the law by disclosing confidential taxpayer information and called on the Justice Department to investigate the supervisor. Mr. Clark said that the only way it was known that the supervisor’s complaints could be linked to the Hunter Biden investigation would be if the supervisor or his lawyer disclosed it, either of which, he said, would have been improper.

Share this: