DON'T WAIT.

We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:

TOP STORIES

Latest News

IRS Agents Claim Joe Biden Was Shielded from Agency Investigation

 October 30, 2024

Two longtime IRS agents, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, have come forward with allegations that the agency blocked investigations into Joe Biden, coinciding with the probe into the tax dealings of his son, Hunter Biden.

Amid an investigation into Hunter Biden, the whistleblowers now claim that a pattern emerged of agency unwillingness or inability to apply proper scrutiny to prominent figures, including Joe Biden before and after he ascended to the White House, as the Daily Mail reports.

The accusations began with the tax investigation into Hunter Biden, which was initiated in 2018. This probe eventually led to a formal indictment and guilty pleas in a case that highlighted Hunter's extravagant expenditures while he neglected his tax responsibilities.

Initial Claims of IRS Restrictions Surface

According to Shapley and Ziegler, their efforts to investigate were stifled by the IRS. They suggested that this was rationalized by management by citing the proximity to an electoral period, a time typically marked by heightened sensitivity to politically charged investigations.

Ziegler emphasized the constraints placed on their investigative process, stating, "There were a lot of overt investigative steps that we were not allowed to take because we had an upcoming election."

This limitation reportedly extended to inquiries regarding Joe Biden, referred to in insider discussions as "the big guy."

This term became a point of contention, with prosecutors instructing IRS investigators to avoid probing too deeply into matters potentially involving Joe Biden.

Allegations of Consequences and Retaliation

The whistleblowers reported facing retaliation for their attempts to bring these issues to light, claiming that their careers suffered as a result.

Shapley noted a particular instance of perceived insincerity when an IRS supervisor sent an email thanking the men for their work following Hunter Biden’s guilty plea to tax crimes, a gesture they viewed with skepticism.

Further detailing their challenges, Shapley described feeling oppressed by the agency, stating, "The IRS just has a smothering blanket on me hoping that I quit, that they find some way to terminate me or commit suicide or something."

Ziegler echoed this sentiment of battling against a formidable opponent, remarking, "I am up against a machine that has millions of dollars that has the ability to fight me."

Testimony to Congress and Ongoing Legal Battles

Both Shapley and Ziegler have testified before Congress regarding what they described as deliberate delays by the IRS in investigating Hunter Biden, even during the tenure of the Trump administration.

These delays were part of a broader accusation of the IRS’s pattern of non-investigation when it came to influential figures.

Amid these controversies, Hunter Biden has launched a lawsuit against the IRS, naming Shapley and Ziegler. He alleges that they were part of a smear campaign aimed at damaging his reputation.

The controversy took another turn when Shapley revealed that U.S. Attorney David Weiss sought to prosecute Hunter Biden outside of Delaware but claimed that his request for special counsel status was denied, a denial that both the DOJ and Weiss have refuted.

Public and Legal Repercussions

The public disclosure by the whistleblowers has ignited debate over the integrity of federal investigative processes and the impartiality of agencies like the IRS, FBI, and DOJ, especially in cases involving politically influential figures.

Prosecutors highlighted in the indictment against Hunter Biden that he "lived lavishly while flouting the tax law," a lifestyle funded by neglecting his tax duties during a period marred by substance abuse issues.

As the legal and public scrutiny continues, the IRS faces questions about its handling of cases involving high-profile individuals and the alleged protection extended to them, potentially influencing public trust in federal institutions.