Anonymous IRS Whistleblower Reveals Himself in Hunter Biden Investigation
LISTEN HERE:
In an unexpected turn, IRS special agent Joseph Ziegler, who had opted to remain anonymous, has been named as the whistleblower pointing towards potential political bias in the Hunter Biden investigation.
Ziegler made his first official appearance in front of the House Oversight Committee this week, pairing up with his IRS supervisor, Gary Shapley.
Shapley himself has previously raised issues regarding political interference impacting legal decisions within ongoing federal inquiries into the activities of the president’s son.
Ziegler, with a 13-year tenure as a special agent within the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division, has accumulated profound experience in his field. In this unfolding case, he projects a strong conviction that Hunter Biden has been unjustly spared a more serious tax felony charge, and instead faced only a lesser one.
Furthermore, as per Ziegler’s forthcoming testimony, a keen examination of certain communications and text messages has the potential to contradict President Biden’s assertions that he played no role in his son’s foreign business affairs.
This dichotomy likely piques the curiosity of those planning to pay close attention to the detailed expose.
Shedding light on the undermining of principles, Ziegler intends to detail the ‘erosion of moral standards and power misuse posing a risk to our nation,’ which he has personally observed.
This calls into question the integrity of the highest levels of power, generating worrying observations that deserve contemplation and action.
Ziegler plans to provide testimony about multiple instances when standard procedures were not followed by prosecutors.
He alleges that the investigation was intentionally delayed, that unnecessary obstacles were put forth to hinder effective examination of the case, and suggests that the traditional process was disrupted, including blocking the interrogation of Hunter Biden’s adult children.
Moreover, Ziegler looks forward to urging both Congress and the Biden administration to think about appointing a ‘special counsel’ for the Hunter Biden case.
His recommendation also extends to the resultant investigations that have sprung from the core case, emphasizing a need for impartiality in these highly sensitive matters.
Gary Shapley, who has engaged in numerous media interviews since his dialogue was published by the House Ways & Means Committee, backs up Ziegler’s statements.
His expected testimony contends that prosecutors have intentionally kept some evidence, discovered on Hunter Biden’s laptop, out of sight from the investigators.
Shapley’s upcoming statements foresee an accusation against the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware.
He accuses them of delaying integral parts of the process such as, conducting interviews, issuing document requests, and executing physical search warrants across California, Virginia, and Delaware. All until the aftermath of the 2020 presidential elections, strategically so it appears.
Shapley intends to express that, ‘Prepared warrants were available as early as April 2020. The local Delaware Attorney’s Office, however, dismissed these notions until the conclusion of the November 2020 elections and never resumed activity afterwards.’
The subtext suggests a potential misuse of power, further intensifying the controversy.
A separate issue that Shapley is prepared to address is the hurdle investigators encountered while pursuing leads derived from Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud account.
During the analysis of the account, several interactions with high-ranking executives at CEFC China Energy were unearthed, allegedly showing Hunter Biden claiming to conduct business in the presence of his father, Former Vice-President Joe Biden.
The revelation ignited a spark in the investigators who sought permission to explore the implications of the message content further.
However, this request was stonewalled by the prosecutors, thwarting an interesting lead into the investigation. Shapley’s testimony highlights this incident as an interference in the fairness of the probe.
Revealing further inconsistencies, Shapley is expected to testify that plans were in place to execute a search warrant at the guesthouse of the Biden’s Delaware residence. The evidence was enough to secure ‘probable cause’ for the action, in theory granting permission for the search to take place.
Despite the presence of ‘probable cause’, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf cited concerns for how this action would appear to the public and its potential to negatively affect public perception.
Shapley argues that this choice highlights a clear bias, given the visual implication of a search warrant executed at President Biden’s household was deemed too concerning, thereby preventing the investigation from proceeding.
Nonetheless, the original decision not to permit complete scrutiny of the location is being raised as a major point of contention in the entire episode. Impartial investigations and law must persevere above political optics and convenience.
Shapley’s potential elaborations on these points promise to add significant interest to the public discourse on the matter.
In conclusion, these critically important testimonies by Ziegler and Shapley can potentially shed light on any potential bias and misconduct within the IRS and its handling of the Hunter Biden investigation.
With both whistleblowers now front and center, they hold in their hands the ability to influence the narrative surrounding a case that has garnered significant attention.