Claims Validated: The DOJ Covers-Up the Hunter Biden Cover-Up

Attorney General Garland

A high-ranking government official has confirmed some of the claims made by IRS whistleblowers regarding the Justice Department’s alleged obstruction in the investigation into Hunter Biden. However, this official did not validate the accusation that Attorney General Merrick Garland and U.S. Attorney David Weiss misled Congress by asserting Weiss’s ultimate authority over the investigation.

The persistence of Weiss and the Department of Justice in defending their stance has led to increased scrutiny and calls for more aggressive action from the House. Oversight Committees are being urged to issue and enforce subpoenas to uncover potential concealment of corruption within the Biden family by the DOJ, as well as any attempts to hide this alleged obstruction.

In recent weeks, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a series of interviews revealing new details about the DOJ and FBI’s interference in the Hunter Biden investigation. Stuart Goldberg, a high-ranking official in the DOJ’s criminal tax division, provided testimony that corroborated claims made by IRS whistleblowers about the Justice Department’s intervention in their investigation.

Goldberg explained the role of the tax division in tax crime investigations, which includes decisions on opening grand jury investigations and authorizing tax offense prosecutions. He noted that in sensitive cases like Hunter Biden’s, the tax division exercises more stringent supervision. This included the necessity for higher-level authorization for investigative steps such as attorney subpoenas.

Goldberg also testified that the tax division’s approval was essential for a U.S. attorney’s office to bring felony tax charges. He clarified that this division decided which specific charges could be filed. If the tax division refused to approve charges, the U.S. attorney’s office could appeal to the deputy attorney general for resolution. However, Goldberg mentioned that such appeals were rare, occurring only once in the past three years.

This information aligns with earlier testimonies from IRS whistleblowers, who stated that they required approval from Washington, D.C., to proceed with various investigative steps. They also indicated that Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss had expressed that he was not the final decision-maker in Hunter Biden’s case.

Despite these revelations, when asked to confirm whether the DOJ tax division had authorized criminal felony charges against Hunter Biden in 2022, Goldberg was instructed by his lawyer not to answer. The committee then shifted focus, asking who was the primary decision-maker in the case’s tax component. Goldberg’s response was ambiguous, suggesting that while Weiss led the case, the tax division had oversight responsibilities under DOJ policies.

Goldberg’s testimony did not fully align with Weiss’s claim of being the ultimate decision-maker. He noted that the tax division’s role was to authorize or reject cases based on departmental policies, implying that Weiss’s “ultimate authority” was limited to the scope defined by these policies.

Similarly, when questioned about Garland’s statement regarding Weiss’s authority, Goldberg suggested that the Attorney General’s remarks implied that such authority was subject to DOJ’s standard policies and rules, unless explicitly overridden by the Attorney General.

This nuanced testimony raises concerns about potential obfuscation by the DOJ and its officials. Goldberg’s carefully worded responses and the refusal to answer key questions have fueled suspicions of a broader cover-up within the Department, involving both the investigation into Hunter Biden and the Department’s handling of inquiries into this matter.

What are your thoughts? Comment below…

2 Replies to “Claims Validated: The DOJ Covers-Up the Hunter Biden Cover-Up

  1. Why does Garland resemble a Usedcondom still on its user, dressed in a sit in order to improve his appearance? His his name really Richard Garland? Its an amazing thing that people need to be told over and over and over and over again there is a Chiddit House rat in the Lavatory and its not until the rat bites their gonads that they do anything about it, if they even do

  2. Why does Garland resemble a Usedcondom still on its user, dressed in a suit, in order to possibly improve his appearance? Is his name really Richard Garland? Its an amazing thing that people, even those designated to help rid crime, need to be told over and over and over and over again there is a Chiddit House rat in the Lavatory and its not until the rat bites their fruit that they do anything about it, if they even do

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *