Last summer Hunter Biden's attorney Chris Clark told Delaware prosecutors that if they charged Hunter Biden for the 2014-2015 years (the years involving Burisma and, we now know, allegations both Hunter and Joe were bribed), they would be committing "career suicide." https://t.co/3blH7Iws1D
On the eve of the plea hearing, Hunter Biden’s legal team called the clerk of the court to convey completely bogus allegations that the IRS whistleblower documents in @RepJasonSmith's amicus brief contained "grand jury secret information"--which if truly leaked can be prosecuted.
@RepJasonSmith This was without question a shot across the bow of our client, SSA Gary Shapley, and his fellow IRS whistleblower SA Joe Ziegler, both of whom were extremely careful *NOT* to release any information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) grand jury information.
@RepJasonSmith After yesterday's stunning developments, Hunter's lawyers are redoubling their efforts to take down these courageous IRS whistleblowers. Last night they filed a 10-page motion that specifically identified the IRS whistleblowers' testimony and documents as "prohibited by law."
@RepJasonSmith These baseless attacks have already been happening behind the scenes. A month ago today, the New York Times reported: "Hunter Biden’s lawyers have told the Justice Department that Mr. Shapley has broken federal laws that keep grand jury material secret." nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/…
@RepJasonSmith If Hunter Biden's legal team had their way, the IRS whistleblowers would be prosecuted instead of their client. This is simply outrageous.
In response, @EMPOWR_us has set up a special Law Enforcement Whistleblower Defense Fund. Please help share .DefendWhistleblowers.com
@RepJasonSmith Axios reports: “Hours after the hearing, Biden's team was still fuming.” How did they take out their anger? By filing a new brief outrageously suggesting *our* client, SSA Gary Shapley, is guilty of criminal conduct. axios.com/2023/07/27/rej…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 Today @JudiciaryGOP released the transcript of its November 7, 2023 transcribed interview with Special Counsel Weiss. As you can see in the screenshot, Weiss claimed credit for being willing to do the interview, but said Congress would really have to wait for the full answers to its questions.
14 months later, Weiss apparently decided he didn't care enough to bother answering those questions in his report. While @JusticeOIG should absolutely open an investigation now that the Hunter Biden case is finally closed and Weiss has finished his report, Congress still deserves answers to the questions Weiss previously refused to answer.
But before diving into the Weiss congressional interview transcript, let's remember what he had to say before that date... On May 25, 2023,@Jim_Jordan wrote to ask for all documents surrounding the retaliatory removal of SSA Shapley and his team from the Hunter Biden investigation. Then-U.S. Attorney Weiss responded for DOJ that the Department couldn't respond because it was "an open matter."
Chairman @Jim_Jordan properly responded that DOJ could explain its role in the whistleblower retaliation without getting into charging decisions.
💣 But 19 months later, DOJ has been completely successful in blocking @US_OSC, @JusticeOIG, and @TIGTA from completing investigations into DOJ's role in the retaliatory removal.
🚨 One thing that didn't receive much attention in connection with yesterday's @Weaponization hearing is that @JusticeOIG Michael Horowitz released several new pieces of information corroborating what @EMPOWR_us has previously disclosed to @Jim_Jordan and @JudiciaryGOP. (You can find a list of some here: .)
Based on that new info, below are the top questions I would have asked IG Horowitz at yesterday's hearing if it were me... 🧵
➡️ Mr. Allen wrote to a coworker of the COVID-19 vaccine that he was "waiting until the opening rounds are finished and more data is available." But as you noted in your statement to the Committee, Mr. Allen's "hesitation about taking the COVID-19 vaccine" meant to the FBI's Insider Threat Office that Mr. Allen "may pose" an "insider threat" to the FBI. You found that focus on vaccination status played a role in suspending Mr. Allen's clearance, but many other employees whose security clearances were suspended by the FBI also expressed reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine, and the questionnaire asking FBI employees to rat out coworkers' views on the vaccine comes from another case than Mr. Allen's altogether.
❓ What kind of atmosphere existed in the FBI's Insider Threat Office such that "vaccine hesitancy" was viewed as making an FBI employee a possible "insider threat"?
❓ Have you examined how many other Insider Threat assessments referenced views on the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not?
❓ What kind of atmosphere existed in the FBI's Security Division such that vaccine views were taken into account when making security clearance decisions?
❓ Have you examined how many other security clearance suspension or revocation memos referenced views on the COVID-19 vaccine? If not, why not?
➡️ According to your statement to the Committee, Investigator 1 told your office that "edits made to the suspension memorandum 'grossly mischaracterized' Mr. Allen's communications."
❓Who made these edits? His supervisory special agent, Sean Clark? His assistant section chief, Dena Perkins? His section chief, Jeffrey Veltri?
❓ What was their motivation for mischaracterizing Mr. Allen's communications? Was it simply whistleblower animus, or was it also animus against Mr. Allen's political, religious, or medical views?
🚨 This afternoon I transmitted a 22-page letter to @Jim_Jordan putting the lie to the FBI's claim that "[t]he FBI has not and will not retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower disclosures."
As our press release on the letter outlines, one of the key retaliators pushing the politicization of the FBI was Jeffrey Veltri, now SAC of the FBI's Miami Field Office and running the investigation into the second Trump assassination attempt: .
Not only did Veltri improperly politicize the FBI's Security Division, we've now learned he was under investigation for retaliating against whistleblowers who objected to his heavy-handed tactics and disregard of the law surrounding security clearance adjudications.
This investigation delayed his appointment as the Miami SAC.
These issues will be the subject of hearing next Wednesday @JusticeOIG Michael Horowitz will testify at along with me and FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen.
Yesterday @EMPOWR_us submitted a detailed 29-page retaliation complaint to the @JusticeOIG on behalf of a second whistleblower from within the FBI's Security Division, who saw firsthand the FBI's improper actions against FBI whistleblowers--and then suffered them herself.
She is the second Security Division employee we've filed a retaliation complaint with the OIG about.
This article details some of the whistleblower disclosures our client made about the political bias of FBI official Jeffrey Veltri, who is now the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Miami Field Office and spoke at today's press conference. nypost.com/2024/07/02/us-…
🧵 @US_OSC is proposing a new process by which it will make disclosure referrals and retaliation findings public with the consent of the whistleblower, which is an excellent proposal.
But something OSC should do immediately is to stop requesting that the whistleblower keep disclosure referrals confidential.
Why should a whistleblower refrain from publicizing the referral of their own whistleblower disclosure, regardless of whether OSC chooses to?
By using the very broad phrase "information...related to this matter," OSC's restraining language could even be misconstrued to constrain their communications about even the underlying information, and not just the fact of OSC's referral.
In other words, it could suggest to a whistleblower that they shouldn't make further protected disclosures--even to entities like Congress.
This could be interpreted as contradicting the spirit of the Grassley anti-gag rider which has restricted appropriations since FY 1989 (including today: ).