by RICK MORAN
Yesterday, I wrote about the bombshell story involving a senior IRS supervisor who was seeking whistleblower protection from Congress for information that would contradict sworn testimony of a “senior political appointee” as well as “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.”
Now, the New York Post has been able to discover the name of that senior political appointee. As I speculated yesterday, the political appointee is U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has continually assured Congress that there was no political interference in the IRS investigation of Hunter Biden.
Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump holdover, is heading up the Justice Department probe into the younger Biden.
In April 2022, the AG told Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) that “there will not be interference of any political or improper kind” in the investigation of Hunter Biden led by Weiss.
“He is the supervisor of this investigation,” Garland said of Weiss, adding, “we put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee from the previous administration, who is the US attorney for the district of Delaware, and … you have me as the attorney general, who is committed to the independence of the Justice Department from any influence from the White House in criminal matters.”
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley asked Garland in March whether Weiss could bring charges against Hunter Biden without the approval of other DoJ officials even if the crime took place outside of Delaware.
“In April 2022, you testified to Sen. Hagerty that the Hunter Biden investigation was insulated from political interference because it was assigned, as you just now told me, to the Delaware US attorney’s office,” Grassley said at the time.
“However, that could be misleading.”
“Without special counsel authority, he could need permission of another US attorney in certain circumstances to bring charges outside the district of Delaware.”
Garland responded, “The US attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority to make those kind of referrals that you’re talking about or to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary. And I will assure that if he does, he will be able to do that.”
If the whistleblower can prove that any of that is false — and it’s assumed he has some kind of documentary proof that it is — Garland, at the very least, could be forced to resign. Not only did he make the claim of “no interference” to Hagerty, but he also made it several times.