Days before an October 7, 2022 meeting at which, Gary Shapley has claimed for months, his “red line” was crossed, the thing he has used to excuse months of leaking as “whistleblowing,” he scripted the things — including a demand for a Special Counsel to make the decision that David Weiss announced having made in the meeting — that Shapley claimed to record in real time at the meeting.

Indeed, the documents House Ways and Means released last month purporting to support their complaints about the Hunter Biden prosecution show that Shapley’s tantrum had been going on for weeks and had started in significant part because the charges he was demanding wouldn’t be rolled out in advance of the 2022 election.

It has already been established that no other attendee at the October 7, 2022 meeting has backed Gary Shapley’s version of that meeting. No other attendee remembered David Weiss conveying that he didn’t have the authority to make this charging decision regarding Hunter Biden on his own. Most attendees have charitably explained that Shapley didn’t understand what he was hearing, particularly with regards to Special Attorney versus Special Counsel status. In his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Matthew Graves attributed Shapley’s claims to, “the garble that can happen when you layer hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay. And when you look at a lot of this, it’s someone said that someone said that someone said.”

Even just Shapley’s own notes undermine his claim. As I have noted, between his hand-written contemporaneous notes and his emailed memorialization, Shapley reordered how things happened at the meeting, moving the reasons Weiss gave on October 7 for why he wouldn’t charge 2014 and 2015 — the charges against Hunter Biden that would have to be charged in DC — after Shapley’s own claim that David Weiss didn’t have the authority to make that prosecutorial decision.

Per his contemporaneous notes, the first thing discussed after the discussion about the leak was Weiss’ rationale for not charging 2014 and 2015, the two more substantive years that would have to be charged in DC. Once you’ve explained that, then whether or not Weiss got Special Attorney status for DC is significantly moot (2016 was only ever treated as a misdemeanor).

In his email to his boss, though, Shapley moved that discussion to after his argument, covering the DC charges, the LA charges, and the involvement of DOJ Tax Attorney, that Weiss didn’t have authority to charge. If Weiss had already explained his prosecutorial decision about the most problematic Burisma years — something Shapley’s hand-written notes record him has having done — then none of the other complaints about these years (that Weiss or Lesley Wolf let the Statutes of Limitation expire, that Weiss didn’t get Special Attorney authority in DC) matter. Shapely reorders his notes to hide the fact that the DC decision didn’t matter.

Shapley’s hand-written notes record Weiss sharing a prosecutorial decision — not to charge the 2014 and 2015 tax years. By making a decision not to charge in DC, Weiss was exercising the prosecutorial authority Shapley claimed Weiss said he didn’t have. Once you describe Weiss making a prosecutorial decision, then any claim that he didn’t have prosecutorial authority crumbles.

It crumbles even more given a few other details.

Shapley’s retroactive memorialization of the October 7, 2022 expresses great fury over Weiss’ decision not to charge the 2014 and 2015 years, as well as the delay of charges until after the election.

But Shapley learned of this weeks and even months earlier. 

On July 29, for example, Joseph Ziegler asked Lesley Wolf about timing. Per Shapley’s own memorialization, she said Weiss was aiming to indict before the end of September, but Wolf herself expressed doubt that would happen. That comment on timing, coupled with her stated disinclination to toll the 2014 tax year, was a pretty solid indication that she was disinclined to charge 2014.

Zeigler

Any dates or goals?

Wolf

David has indicated that the end of September would be his goal to charge. The is reflective of keeping everything on track. They do not want to get any closer to a mid-term. If doesn’t happen by end of September it would have to wait until November after the elections. She stated she does not think that is likely to by charged by September.

Sol on 2014 blows on November 8, 2022.

X Factor on timing will include any delay defense counsel has requested and that they would be amenable to toll statutes. She is not leaning toward tolling again…but it is possible.

Current plan is that the prosecution recommendation will be collaborative with DOJ Tax and USAO.

[snip]

They will communicate any decisions on specific tax years and decision to charge or not charge to the prosecution team in advance of any final document. [my emphasis]

On August 16, the IRS investigators had a meeting with David Weiss, one that Wolf happily arranged on August 8. Because Wolf and other DOJ personnel could’t attend, that would be a second meeting the IRS had with David Weiss alone.

On August 11, DOJ Tax tried to set up a meeting for the following day, an invitation which Ziegler accepted; Shapley was not invited. There’s no memorialization of this meeting, at which DOJ Tax probably explained why it viewed the 2014/2015 tax years as weaker charges.

On August 15, in advance of the meeting with Weiss, Shapley reminded  Darrell Waldon and Michael Batdorf about the forthcoming meeting with Weiss. Only Michael Batdorf, the second-level supervisor who testified that Shapley had a habit of, “a tendency to go to level like grade 7 five-alarm fire on everything,” responded. Shapley’s August 17 memorialization of the August 16 meeting, shared with those supervisors again, showed that Weiss was “leaning” towards only charging the CA charges, 2017 to 2019. Shapley recorded Weiss aiming to charge by the end of September, but said himself it’d be “October/November” (even though, in July, Wolf had said that if it wasn’t charged by September, it would be after November).

Here’s what Shapley said about 2014 and 2015 in that email:

We again pushed back on not charging 2014/2015. DOJ Tax continues the position that the defenses (load/taxes paid by another person on half the income) would make it too complex for the jury. I believe their position is unsupportable–both considering precedent and evidence. I made it clear that not only do we disagree with that position but that we could provide countless prosecution recommendations that included diverted income to nominees and various loan claims to support our position. The USA agrees with us but then talks to DOJ Tax and they convince him otherwise. This has happened a couple times. As a result, we will continue to communicate our position to ensure this moves forward consistent with how other tax cases would be treated with similar fact patterns.

I explained that 2014 is not charged how it would severely diminish of the overall conduct and would essentially sanitize some major issues to include the Burisma/Ukraine unreported income. I also explained that if 2014 is not charged and/or included in a statement of facts in a guilty plea, that the unreported income from Burisma that year would go untaxed. I believe leaving out 2014/2015 would deliver a message that is contrary to IRS’s efforts to promote voluntary compliance. [my emphasis]

Some of this is about getting taxes paid — the explanation Shapley would repeat in his memorialization of the October 7 meeting. But some of it is about tying Hunter’s tax crimes to Burisma.

Once again, Batdorf was the only who responded. He said he would escalate Shapley’s concerns still further, so the Chief and Deputy Chief of IRS could “at least show full support for the 2014/2015 years.” In Waldon’s testimony, he expressed being surprised at the October 7 meeting, because “I was not fully aware of a decision regarding some of the investigative years,” (49) a view that may stem from Shapley’s efforts in August to reverse this decision.

On August 18, Mark Daly from DOJ tax sent the investigative team (but not Shapley) an email that seems consistent with presenting to grand juries in both Delaware and Los Angeles in September — but not DC, once again consistent with a decision not to charge 2014 and 2015. Of note: this email was saved on June 27 of this year, before Ziegler and Shapley testified to the Oversight Committee on July 19 and Ziegler offered to go back to find more materials. Ziegler appears to have already taken steps to share information that he feigned was just a response to Congressional inquiries.

Shapley appears to have memorialized an August 25 email from Lesley Wolf asking a newly added FBI agent, along with Ziegler and Mark Daly, not to use email to coordinate between meetings. Shapley wasn’t a recipient of this particular email. It’s an example of the double set of books Shapley confessed to in his original deposition.

On September 20, 2022, over a week before the interview of James Biden (Hunter’s uncle and sometime business partner and Joe’s brother) and the day after Martin Estrada was confirmed as US Attorney for Los Angeles, Shapley emailed Weiss, cc’ing no one else, asking for a call in the following two days. The next day, September 21 at 1:23PM, Weiss said he would set up a meeting “in the near term,” including IRS and FBI, to provide an update. This email thread, which Shapley would pick up over a month later, would become the one where Shapley’s paranoia about Weiss cutting off communication with Shapley first expressed. As we’ll see, this Shapley request to Weiss was also the ultimate genesis of the October 7 meeting.

Just over two hours after Weiss promised an update shortly on September 21, Shawn Weede, Weiss’ Criminal Chief, wrote to set up the meeting Weiss had promised, proposing the meeting for September 28 (still one day before the interview of James Biden). Shapley responded 22 minutes later, noting that he would be in the Netherlands on the day of the proposed meeting, but would be willing to call in.

The next day, at 11:15AM, Weede wrote back to say a “sanitized” meeting was unworkable, and so proposed the meeting for the week of October 3, after Shapley got back.

Also on September 22, Shapley memorialized a meeting that started at 2:30PM noting that Lesley Wolf and DOJ Tax’s Mark Daly joined the meeting late, but without documenting anyone else who attended. The memorialization was closely focused on briefings of Estrada’s office on the case (though Shapley refers to Estrada as “her”). It also clearly records DOJ tax still conducting their review, as well as a decision not to charge either the gun charge and/or anything else until after the election — precisely the eventuality that Wolf had warned would happen almost two months earlier.

Gun charge will likely not be indicted in October.

[snip]

USAO and DOJ Tax made the decision not to charge until after the election. They said why should they shoot themselves in the foot by charging before.

Within an hour after the start of the call, Shapley was going ballistic about precisely that eventuality. Starting at 3:34PM, Shapley alerted Batdorf — but not his immediate supervisor, Waldon,

Big news on Sportsman. Joe Ziegler and I need to speak with you as soon as possible.

In a follow-up, Shapley explained that the “bad news” he had was precisely what he had been warned about in July, that the charges would be delayed until after the election.

Bad news. Continued inappropriate decisions affecting timing. i.e. Election. We can talk later if you are busy….I believe their actions are simply wrong and this is a huge risk to us right now.

Note: There was no risk to the IRS of delay after the election. It would mean the 2014 charges would toll (unless Hunter’s lawyers agreed to waive tolling, as they had before), but that’s another thing Shapley was warned about. A significant part of Shapley’s tantrum seems to stem from a personalized concern that charges would not come out before the election.

Batdorf ended the exchange by instructing, “Please ensure your ASAC and SAC are updated as well.”

Shapley did that, but not until almost two hours later, in a 5:28PM email to Darrell Waldon (his ASAC), Lola Watson (his SAC), and Michael Batdorf. Without noting that he had already bypassed chain of command, Shapley complained,

During todays SM call there was some information provided to the team concerning decisions made by the USAO and DOJ that need to be discussed. For example, the AUSA stated that they made a decision not to charge until after the election. In itself, the statement is inappropriate let alone the actual action of delaying as a result of the election. There are other items that should also be discussed that are equally inappropriate.

None of those other items “that should be discussed” were obviously reflected in his memorialization of that call.

At least on paper, this tantrum, made two weeks before a pre-election leak to the WaPo, was about something he had been warned of in July, not news at all, but one tied — explicitly in his mind — to the election, not timing per se.

Side note: Unlike Ziegler’s, many of the documents Shapley shared are stripped of all metadata. Not this email, though. This email — which he shared twice (Attachment 5, Attachment 24) — both reflect a creation date of September 20 (this is European notation), over eight hours apart, with the second reflecting Tristan Leavitt as document author.

That would mean these documents were saved after Darrell Waldon (September 8) and Michael Batdorf (September 12) testified. There’s good reason to believe these documents were chosen with some knowledge of the IRS supervisors’ testimony.

To make it plain: For months, Gary Shapley claimed that his red line was crossed on October 7, 2022. But the emails he himself turned over show that’s not true. His red line was crossed on September 22, 2022, and the red line had a lot to do with making charges public in advance of the election.

Importantly, that means his red line was crossed before the leak to the WaPo, not afterwards.

The day after Shapley’s tantrum started — which no one at DE USAO or FBI would have known about — the FBI ASAC seconded the plan to wait until Shapley returned before holding the meeting that would become the October 7 one, noting that then Weiss could be present.

Meanwhile, on September 28, Waldon emailed Ziegler and all the other people Shapley had involved in his tantrum, noting that he was trying to arrange a meeting with Weiss and Poole. Ziegler responded to everyone, on the morning of September 29, promising any update from prosecutors in CA. Waldon responded asking Ziegler to call him. And Ziegler responded, suggesting they should do a pitch on the 2014 and 2015 years to DC prosecutors: “we also need to request the presentation of 2014 and 2015 to the criminal chief / US attorney in DC – similar to what we would do in California for 2017 2018 and 2019.” Again: Waldon seems to have been surprised when, at the October 7 meeting, Weiss announced that the decision had been made.

That was at 11:11AM on September 29. At 2:25PM, Ziegler went into the interview with James Biden, Hunter’s uncle. Lesley Wolf and two other prosecutors who, like Ziegler, would not be at the October 7 meeting, also participated in the interview. The interview focused largely on the 2017 to 2019 years (though also asked questions that might reflect a campaign finance investigation into Kevin Morris), but which Ziegler now points to as critical testimony supporting his argument for felony charges in 2018. Shapley was already a week into a tantrum about charges not being filed before the election before this interview.

Seven minutes after the James Biden interviewed finished — based on public records, at least, the last major investigative step in the investigation, Weede proposed and the ASAC confirmed a meeting for October 7 at 11AM. The FBI ASAC confirmed as well. Then the next day, a Friday, the ASAC followed up to confirm once again, management and investigators would be present. She followed up again at end of day Monday, October 3, confirming she and her boss, Thomas Sobocinski would attend. Weede confirmed. The ASAC touched base once again on Tuesday morning.

Only at that point, on October 4 — with no record in the thread that Shapley had told his own boss, Waldon, that this meeting was in the works, did he respond to the ASAC alone, asking for her top three items “so we can be on the same page.”

His own list might was effectively a first draft of the things he would record as having happened in notes and a memorialization email days later: Special Counsel, the delay until after the election, and venue.

At 2:26PM, WaPo posted the story that preempted prosecutors’ decision to wait until after the election before charging — the decision Shapley first learned of in July but staged a tantrum about more recently.

At 4:34, the ASAC responded, asking if Shapley’s ASAC (Waldon) would attend, and describing her own agenda as:

• Delays
• Venue
• Communication
• Anything further that develops by tomorrow

Of course: that “anything further that develops” had already developed: the story in the WaPo.

Shapley responded a minute later, saying, he had just tried to call her, but that yes, both Shapley and his SAC would attend.

Nine minutes after that exchange occurred with no mention of the WaPo story, Shapley informed his bosses about it.

Just an FYI that there was a media leak today purportedly from the “agent” level on Sportsman. I imagine it will be a topic of discussion at tomorrows meeting in Delaware. I spoke with Justin Cole about this to provide anything he may need.

I have no additional insight that is anything but a rumor.

Federal agents see chargeable tax, gun-purchase case against Hunter Biden – Espotting.com

Just keeping you informed.

[Link to original WaPo story, but note that Shapley shared an Espotting link]

As I’ve noted, Shapley’s reference to rumors is inconsistent with his past statements about the leak.

As all that was going on, the other DE AUSA besides Wolf, Carly Hudson, wrote Ziegler at 10:07AM on October 6, asking him what he was supposed to remind her about — something he heard immediately after the James Biden interview on September 29.

David asked me to remind him what you [s]aid “regarding the call you received from management after the James Biden meeting.”  I’m not 100% sure what he means.  Would you mind reminding me about that call so I can remind him?

Ziegler didn’t respond until 6:51PM, well after the WaPo had published the story. Ziegler explained that IRS management had been informed that DOJ Tax didn’t anticipate charging until 2023; they weren’t done with the approval process.

They heard from DOJ-Tax that they don’t expect the case to be indicted until 2023 as they still have various levels of approval. I think this is what you are asking about.

There’s no documentary record of it, but it would be inconceivable that Ziegler hadn’t shared this with Shapley when he heard it, on September 29. Which is to say that Shapley knew there were reasons — beyond the fact that James Biden wasn’t interviewed until September 29 and beyond the election — why Hunter wasn’t going to be charged until after the election.

Nevertheless, going into a meeting he would much later pitch as his “red line,” a meeting that ended up significantly focused on a pre-election leak promising charges, Shapley would claim the election was what was causing the delay.

[GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING]

Because the way Capitol Hill beats work, the prospect of a vote that could put Jim Jordan second in line to the Presidency has focused on horserace.

To be sure, given the narrow margins and the historic incapability of Republican men to count votes, the horserace will be determinative. For example, to succeed, Jordan would not only have to win the support of most of the 55 people who voted against him last week in a secret ballot where he had no challenger, but if only 205 Republicans vote — as reportedly happened in that poll — then Hakeem Jeffries would be elected Speaker with the 212 Democrats expected to show up and vote for him.

But almost no reporting has focused on how catastrophic a Jordan Speakership would be — the earliest death knells of democracy that the election of Trump, which a Jordan Speakership would primarily serve, would guarantee.

What reporting there has been has focused on Jordan’s role, 30 months ago, in Trump’s attempted coup, which the January 6 Committee summarized this way:

Representative Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s efforts. He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the election had been tainted by fraud. On January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session. During that call, the group also discussed issuing social media posts encouraging President Trump’s supporters to “march to the Capitol” on the 6th.661 An hour and a half later, President Trump and Representative Jordan spoke by phone for 18 minutes.662 The day before January 6th, Representative Jordan texted Mark Meadows, passing along advice that Vice President Pence should “call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.” 663 He spoke with President Trump by phone at least twice on January 6th, though he has provided inconsistent public statements about how many times they spoke and what they discussed.664 He also received five calls from Rudolph Giuliani that evening, and the two connected at least twice, at 7:33 p.m. and 7:49 p.m.665 During that time, Giuliani has testified, he was attempting to reach Members of Congress after the joint session resumed to encourage them to continue objecting to Joe Biden’s electoral votes.666 And, in the days followingJanuary 6th, Representative Jordan spoke with White House staff about the prospect of Presidential pardons for Members of Congress.667

To be sure, in his role in the attack, Jordan exhibited utter contempt for democracy.

But what has gotten less attention is the degree to which Jordan has used his position chairing the Judiciary Committee and Weaponization Committee to serve the longer slow-moving attack on democracy.

A Jordan Speakership would undoubtedly escalate Jordan’s assault on rule of law generally and any prosecution of Donald Trump specifically. It would likely directly (by platforming Russian disinformation) and indirectly (by undermining further US aid) help Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Both would make it more likely Trump would win the 2024 election.

Indeed, that’s a telling aspect of Matt Gaetz’ comments when he first announced his (ultimately successful) attempt to depose Kevin McCarthy. Gaetz repeatedly complained that the House hadn’t yet subpoenaed Hunter Biden, and demanded that Republicans use “the power of the purse” to,

zero out the salaries of the bureaucrats who have broken bad, targeted President Trump, or cut sweetheart deals for Hunter Biden.

[snip]

Joe Biden deserves impeachment for converting the Vice Presidency into an ATM machine for virtually his entire family.

At least for Gaetz (who might well be rewarded with a gavel in a key committee, were Jordan to succeed), this is about shutting down investigations into Trump and fabricating investigations into Biden from the fumes of five year old dick pics.

There’s a specific aspect of Jordan’s actions, however, that deserves more attention in advance of tomorrow’s scheduled public vote: The degree to which Jordan has used the power of his gavel to engage in the same kind of stochastic terrorism that Trump uses to enforce his will.

I’ve already noted how the Gary Shapley media tour (in which Jordan cooperated with James Comer and Jason Smith) ended up getting the team of investigators, including ones still pursuing indictments of Hunter Biden, targeted. As Thomas Sobocinski — who continues to oversee FBI agents investigating Hunter Biden — explained in testimony in early September, the family members of his own team have been followed and AUSA Lesley Wolf has faced specific threats.

[T]his is affecting my employees. I now have FBI employees that names are out there. I have FBI employees and former FBI retired agents who’ve served for 20plus years whose parents are getting phone calls, whose photos with their girlfriends, who their children who are being followed. That is not something that we were prepared for, and I was concerned about having that continue or expand to other one of my employees.

[snip]

[W]ithout going into specifics, my office and the FBI have done things and initiated things to ensure that [Lesley Wolf] remains safe.

Again, some of these people are currently trying to indict Hunter Biden, and they’re getting swarmed by a mob teed up by Republican efforts.

In the recent Matthew Graves testimony, Graves repeatedly refused to name the members of his team because he knew the transcript would be made public, resulting in threats against prosecutors, on top of the ones DC prosecutors have already faced.

What I can tell you is, I’ve unfortunately had way too many instances of documents getting into the public domain that have our prosecutors’ names in them and me receiving what we call urgent reports about security concerns because of threatening or harassing behavior that they’re receiving … and that we’ve had to take steps for a number of people in our office to mitigate the risk.

Nevertheless, Jordan persisted, to his very last question to include those names in this transcript (I assume he’ll send out letters under their names, as he has with others involved in these investigations).

In the Tim Thibault interview, in which it became clear over time that Republicans had ruined the career and reputation of the guy who had led investigations into two Democratic members of Congress and single-handedly opened an investigation, in 2016, into the Clinton Foundation off of Clinton Cash based off the unsubstantiated claims of others trying to get payback, Thibault described not just how he was targeted — for which he accepted a good deal of the blame on account of his social media posts — but how others were impugned by association.

[T]hose two agents that worked on the Tony Bobulinski EC, I’m aware that they received significant backlash for only doing their job. Why? Because of my social media conduct and Mr. Bobulinski thinking I was a bad agent, that put them in a bad spotlight. Those are the guys that are the victims, the true victims. And no one came and spoke on their behalf. Right? They — they’re just line agents doing their darn job.

As one Democratic staffer noted, though none of 18 sources for such claims to Jordan’s committees have offered any corroboration for the claims, Jordan and his staffers nevertheless continued to push the claims to the media. “[T]he public push or allegations that were being sort of repeated by this committee never stopped.” Jordan is cultivating rumors about the FBI and other agencies to foster retaliation campaigns in the media.

His actions with Fani Willis are perhaps most telling. Jordan first started tampering in Willis’ investigation in August, though — perhaps having learned his lesson when he similarly tampered in Alvin Bragg’s case — he has chosen to send letters rather than subpoenas.

• August 24: Jordan to Willis
• September 7: Willis to Jordan
• September 27: Jordan to Willis
• October 11: Willis to Jordan

As is the norm for Jordan, his claims are based on conspiracy theories from biased sources. His most recent letter for example, dated to September 27, sources his claim that “there are credible reports” that Willis coordinated with Jack Smith to two articles, one ten months old.

Finally, there are credible reports that your investigation and indictment was coordinated with the Department of Justice and Special Counsel Jack Smith. 30

30 Josh Gerstein, Prosecutor in Trump documents case has history pursuing prominent politicians, POLITICO (June 13, 2023); Jerry Dunleavy, Trump special counsel Jack Smith was involved in Lois Lerner IRS scandal, WASHINGTON EXAMINER (Nov. 25, 2022). [links added]

Not even the propaganda outlet, Washington Examiner, supports Jordan’s claim. Neither of those stories even mention either Willis or Georgia.

Notably, Jordan doesn’t note that in his September 12 interview — an interview conducted just over two weeks before he sent this letter — Thibault denied interacting with Willis’ team four times: “No, ma’am. … Never. … Never. … No, ma’am.” Jordan doesn’t note that this particular conspiracy theory — which, even if true, would be squarely within the expectation that state and federal law enforcement can cooperate and share information — has not been substantiated by a guy who would have had firsthand visibility (though, because of the delay in predicating an investigation against the fake electors, only on the earliest parts of the DC investigation; Jordan did not, publicly at least, ask Steve D’Antuono this question during his June interview).

A far more important detail from these letters is in Willis’ first reply, dated September 7 (which she resent as part of her recent response). After laying out constitutional reasons why Jordan shouldn’t get involved and referring him, as a non-member of the bar, to where he could information on Georgia’s RICO law, she provides ways that the House Judiciary Committee could more usefully spend their time, such as on funding for victim-witness advocates.

She then notes that Jordan should show more concern about the safety of people involved in the criminal justice system — precisely the kind of people that Jordan has instead sown threats against.

As it seems you have a personal interest in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, you should consider directing the USDOJ to investigate the racist threats that have come to my staff and me because of this investigation. For your information, I am attaching ten examples of threats this office has received. See Exhibits F through O. I am providing these examples to give you a window into what has happened to my staff and me as I keep the promise of my oath to the United States and Georgia Constitutions and do not allow myself to be bullied and threatened by Members of Congress, local elected officials, or others who believe lady justice should not be blind and that America has different laws for different citizens.

As noted, she included a number of the threats she and her office have received. We always hear about such threats, but only get to see what they include if they get charged.

The dripping racism of many of these threats is breathtaking.

Of particular interest are the two threats sent on the same day that Jordan first targeted Willis, on August 24, especially the one that echoes things Jordan included in his letter — such as the paragraph in which Jordan argues Willis should have charged this in 2021 and since she didn’t was obviously just trying to impact the election. Even more notably, this threat appears to invoke Jordan’s campaign against Willis explicitly.

To the Biggest liar of A DA ever, WE ARE COMING FOR YOU FANI….. YOU TOUCH ANYONE ATTACHED TO TRUMP AND WE WILL BURN YOUR CITY TO THE GROUND WITH YOU IN IT. YOU ARE GOING TO GET REMOVED FROM OFFICE. IF THIS WAS REALLY A CRIME YOU WOULDVE DONE IT IN 2021. YOU ARE FAKE AS HELL. A DEMOCRATS PUPPET. YOU ARE ONLY DOING THIS TO KEEP HIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. WELL WE ARE GOING TO FUCK YOU U P. DON’T GO OUT AT NIGHT YOU BLACK BITCH, WE ARE GOING TO SEPARATE YOU FROM YOUR CAR & DRIVER. JIM IS COMING FOR YOU. HALLELUJAH!!!!, BUT HE’S ONLY GOING TO FIND A BODY …. [bold mine, all caps and other punctuation original]

This is, quite simply, the language of the lynch mob.

And if the taunt, “Jim is coming for you,” is, indeed, indication that the person who sent this threat had read Jordan’s earlier letter to Willis, it means it took just hours for Jordan’s threats, posing as oversight, to translate into violent racist threats against Willis, her daughter (in the other threat sent that day), and the entire city of Atlanta.

This is not new. Jordan has been sowing threats against Donald Trump’s enemies for years, since the focus on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

But even in his current position, Jordan is using his gavel as a means to tee up threats based on conspiracy theories, threats designed to make every single imagined opponent of Donald Trump worry about their careers, their safety, their life.

This week, Jordan will and already has been mobilizing similar mobs against his fellow Republican members of Congress in order to pursue even more power, an even bigger gavel.

Which is why all the stochastic threats Jordan has already mobilized deserve more attention.

Deep into one version of what is referred to as the “Hunter Biden” “laptop,” (according to reports done for Washington Examiner by Gus Dimitrelos*) there’s a picture of a check, dated November 14, 2018, for $3,400, paid to a woman with a Slavic name. The check bears a signature that matches others, attributed to Hunter Biden, from the “laptop” also attributed to him. Along with a line crossing out Hunter’s ex-spouse’s name on the check, the check was marked on the memo line: “Blue Water Wellness” along with a word that is illegible–possibly “Rehab.”

The check appears in a chat thread, dated November 26, 2018, apparently initiated to set up tryst with an escort in New York  City. Just over 12 hours after setting up that tryst, the Russian or Ukrainian woman who manages the escort service, Eva, wrote back, asking Hunter if he was in New York, because she had a problem with his check, that $3,400 check dated twelve days earlier. Hunter was effusively apologetic, and offered to pay the presumed sex worker via wire, because it’s the only way he could be 100% certain it would get to her. Shortly thereafter, he sent two transfers from his Wells Fargo account, $3,200 plus $30 fees, directly to the woman’s bank account, and $800 via Zelle drawn on Wells Fargo.

Those transfers from Hunter Biden’s Wells Fargo account to a presumed sex worker with a Slavic name took place between the day, October 31, 2018, when IRS Agent Joseph Ziegler, newly arrived on IRS’ international tax squad, launched an investigation into an international online sex business and the day, December 10, 2018, when Ziegler would piggyback off that sex business investigation to launch an investigation into Hunter Biden. The Hunter Biden investigation was initially based off a Suspicious Activity Report from Wells Fargo sent on September 21, 2018 and from there, quickly focused on Hunter’s ties to Burisma, precisely the investigation the then President was demanding.

Understand: The entire five year long investigation of Hunter Biden was based off payments involving Wells Fargo quite similar to this one, the check for $3,400 to a sex worker associated (in this case, at least) with what Dimitrelos describes as an escort service.

Research on the company yielded bank reports indicating that [Hunter Biden] made payments to a U.S. contractor, who also had received payments from that U.K. company.

Only, this particular payment — the need to wire the presumed sex worker money to cover the check — ties the escort service to one of the businesses of former Fox News pundit Keith Ablow: Blue Water Wellness, a float spa just a few blocks down the road from where Ablow’s psychiatric practice was before it got shut down amid allegations of sex abuse of patients and a DEA investigation. Emails obtained from a different version of the “laptop” show that on November 13, Blue Water Wellness sent Hunter an appointment reminder, albeit for an appointment on November 17, not November 14. That appointment reminder is the first of around nine appointment reminders at the spa during the period.

The tryst with the presumed sex worker with the Slavic name does appear to have happened overnight between November 13 and 14.  Between 1:58 and 6:33AM, there were two attempts to sign into Hunter’s Venmo account from a new device, five verification codes sent to his email, and two password resets, along with the addition of the presumed sex worker to his Zelle account at Wells Fargo, which he would use to send her money over a week later. All that makes it appear like they were together, but Hunter didn’t have his phone, the phone he could use to pay her and so tried to do so from a different device. Maybe, he gave up, and simply wrote her a check, from the same account on which that Zelle account drew.

None of which explains why he appears to have written “Blue Water Wellness” on a check to pay a presumed sex worker. Maybe he was trying to cover up what he was paying for. Maybe he understood there to be a tie. Or maybe it was the advertising Blue Water did at the time.

Deep in a different part of the laptop analyzed by Dimitrelos, though, a deleted invoice shows that Hunter met with former Fox News pundit Keith Ablow on the same day as Hunter apparently wrote that check to the presumed sex worker. The deleted invoice reflects two 60-minute sessions billed by Baystate Psychiatry, the office just blocks away from the float spa.

Emails obtained from a different version of the “Hunter Biden” “laptop” show that at some point on November 26, 2018, as Hunter first arranged a tryst in New York City and then, no longer in New York, sent a wire directly from Wells Fargo to the presumed sex worker, someone accessed Hunter’s Venmo account from a new device — successfully this time — one located in Newburyport, MA, where former Fox News pundit Keith Ablow’s businesses were.

There are a number of things you’d need to do to rule out the possibility of Russian involvement in the process by which a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden showed up at the Wilmington repair shop of John Paul Mac Isaac, from there to be shared with Rudy Giuliani, who then shared it with three different Murdoch outlets and a ton of other right wing propagandists, many of them members of Congress.

One of those would be to rule out that any of the sex workers tied to this escort service had a role in compromising Hunter Biden’s digital identity, thereby obtaining credential information that would make it easy to package up a laptop that would be especially useful to those trying to destroy the life of the son of Donald Trump’s opponent. There’s no evidence that any of the sex workers were involved, but throughout 2018, there are a number of device accesses involving Hunter’s Venmo account, the iCloud account packaged up on “the laptop,” and different Google accounts — including between the day on November 13 when Hunter appears to have met the woman with the Slavic name and the date on November 26 when he wired her money — that should at least raise concerns that his digital identity had been compromised. I’ve laid out just a fraction of them in this post and this post, both of which focus on the later period when Hunter was in the care of the former Fox News pundit.

If you wanted to compromise Hunter Biden, as certain Russian-backed agents in Ukraine explicitly did, doing so via the sex workers, drug dealers, and fellow junkies he consorted with in this period would be painfully easy. Indeed, in Hunter’s book, he even described other addicts walking off with his, “watch or jacket or iPad—happened all the time.” Every single one of those iPads that walked away might include the keys to Hunter’s digital life, and as such, would be worth a tremendous amount of money to those looking to score their next fix. To rule out Russian involvement, you’d have to ID every single one of them and rule out that they were used for ongoing compromise of Hunter or, barring that, you’d have to come up with explanations, such as the likelihood that Hunter was trying to pay a sex worker but didn’t have his phone with him and so used hers, for the huge number of accesses to his accounts, especially the iCloud account ultimately packaged up.

Of course, explaining how a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden showed up at Mac Isaac’s shop would also require explaining how a laptop definitely belonging to Hunter Biden came to be left in former Fox News pundit Keith Ablow’s possession during precisely the same period when (it appears) Hunter Biden’s digital life was getting packaged up, a laptop Ablow did nothing to return to its owner and so still had when the DEA seized it.

Bret Baier lied about the Hunter Biden laptop

Given the unanswered questions about the role of a former Fox News pundit in all this, you’d think that Fox personalities would scrupulously adhere to the truth about the matter, if for no other reason than to avoid being legally implicated in any conspiracies their former colleague might have been involved with, or to avoid kicking off another expensive defamation lawsuit.

Sadly, Bret Baier couldn’t manage to stick to the truth in his attempt to sandbag former CIA Director Leon Panetta on Friday. Baier debauched the gravity of an appearance purportedly focused on the Hamas attack and aftermath,  with what he must have thought was a clever gotcha question about a letter Leon Panetta signed in October 2020 stating the opinion that the emails being pitched by Murdoch outlet New York Post, “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The letter not only expressed an opinion, but it cited four specific data points and two observations about known Russian methods, all of which were and remain true to to this day.

And in the process, Bret Baier made a false claim.

Bret Baier made a false claim and all of Fox News’ watchers and all the other propagandists made the clip of Bret Baier making a false claim go viral, because they apparently either don’t know or don’t care that Baier couldn’t even get basic facts right. They are positively giddy that Baier used the tragedy of a terrorist attack to demonstrate his own ignorance or willful deceit about Fox’s favorite story, Hunter Biden’s dick pics.

From the get-go, Baier adopted a rhetorical move commonly used by Murdoch employees and frothy right wingers sustaining their blind faith in “the laptop:” He conflated “the laptop” with individual emails.

Baier: I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you about that letter you signed onto from former intelligence officials saying that the laptop and the emails had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. Obviously the New York Post and others saying the Hunter Biden letter was the real disinformation all along. Um, that letter was used in the debate, I haven’t asked you this. But do you have regrets about that, now looking back, knowing what you know now? [my emphasis]

The spooks’ letter Panetta signed addressed emails, not “the laptop.” The only use of the word “laptop” in the letter was in labeling this a potential “laptop op,” a way to package up emails meant to discredit Joe Biden. The letter even includes “the dumping of accurate information” among the methods used in Russian information operations.

Having conflated emails and “the laptop,” Baier then asked whether Panetta thinks “it,” now referring just to “the laptop,” not even the hard drives of copies from the laptop in question, was real.

Panetta: Well, you know, Bret, I was extremely concerned about Russian interference and misinformation. And we all know it. Intelligence agencies discovered that Russia had continued to push disinformation across the board. And my concern was to kind of alert the public to be aware that these disinformation efforts went on. And frankly, I haven’t seen any evidence from any intelligence that that was not the case.

Baier: You don’t think that it was real?

Having first conflated emails and the laptop, then substituted the laptop for the emails addressed in the letter, Baier then falsely claimed that, “Hunter Biden said it was his laptop.”

Panetta: I think that, I think that disinformation is involved here. I think Russian disinformation is part of what we’re seeing everywhere. I don’t trust the Russians. And that’s exactly why I was concerned that the public not trust the Russians either.

Baier: I don’t want to dwell on this because we have bigger things to talk about. Bigger urgency. But obviously, Hunter Biden said it was his laptop, and this investigation continues. [my emphasis]

I understand how frothy right wingers misunderstand what Hunter Biden has said about the data associated with “the laptop,” but Baier presents as a journalist, and you’d think he’d take the time to read the primary documents.

Hunter Biden admits some data is his, but denies knowledge of the “laptop”

The claim that Hunter Biden has said “the laptop” was his arises from three lawsuits: first, from Hunter Biden’s response and counterclaim to John Paul Mac Isaac’s lawsuit, then of Hunter’s lawsuit against Garrett Ziegler, and finally, the lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani.

Regarding the first of those filings, Hunter Biden based his countersuit against JPMI on an admission that JPMI came into possession of electronically stored data, at least some of which belonged to him. But he specifically did not admit that JPMI “possessed any particular laptop … belonging to Mr. Biden.”

5. In or before April 2019, Counterclaim Defendant Mac Isaac, by whatever means, came into possession of certain electronically stored data, at least some of which belonged to Counterclaim Plaintiff Biden.1

1 This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden. Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.

Regarding JPMI’s claims that Hunter dropped off the laptop,

169. HUNTER knowingly left his laptop with Plaintiff on April 12, 2019.

170. Soon thereafter HUNTER returned to Plaintiff’s shop to leave an external hard drive to which Plaintiff could transfer the data from HUNTER’s laptop.

171. HUNTER never returned to Plaintiff’s shop pick up his laptop

Hunter denied sufficient knowledge to answer all of them.

169. Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 169.

170. Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 170.

171. Mr. Biden admits that, if he ever had visited before, he did not return to Plaintiff’s shop.

In response to JPMI’s claim that Hunter knew of the phone call his lawyer, George Mesires, made to JPMI in October 2020 and the email follow-up that in any case doesn’t substantiate what JPMI claimed about the phone call,

31. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff received a call from Mr. George Mesires,1 identifying himself as HUNTER’s attorney, asking if Plaintiff still had possession of his client’s laptop and following up thereafter with an email to the Plaintiff. Copy of email attached as EXHIBIT C.

[snip]

174. HUNTER’s attorney, George Mesires contacted Plaintiff on October 13, 2020 about the laptop.

Hunter admitted that Mesires was his attorney but denied knowing anything more.

31. Mr. Biden admits that Mr. George Mesires was his attorney. Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 31.

[snip]

174. Mr. Biden admits that Mr. Mesires was his attorney. Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 174.

In response to JPMI’s claim that Hunter Biden said something about the laptop without mentioning JPMI,

172. When asked about the laptop in a television interview broadcast around the world, HUNTER stated, “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the – that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. Or that there was a laptop stolen from me.” See https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/02/politics/hunterbiden-laptop/index.html.

173. HUNTER knew it was his laptop.

Hunter Biden admitted he made the comment that didn’t mention JPMI — a comment on which JPMI based a $1.5M defamation claim!! — but again denied knowing whether or not the laptop was his.

172. Admitted and Mr. Biden further answers that the statement makes no mention of or even a reference to Plaintiff.

173. Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 173.

Of some interest, in response to JPMI’s claim that the information that appeared in the NYPost came from Hunter, who voluntarily left his laptop with JPMI,

67. The information contained in the NY POST exposé came from HUNTER who voluntarily left his laptop with the Plaintiff and failed to return to retrieve it.

Hunter outright denied the claim.

67. Denied.

Hunter Biden claimed that Rudy hacked Hunter’s data

That last claim — the outright denial that the data in the NYPost story came from Hunter — is of particular interest given something Denver Riggleman recently said. He described that the Hunter Biden team now has the data that JPMI shared with others — apparently thanks to this countersuit — and they’ve used it to compare with the data distributed forward from there.

Also, we know now, since the Hunter Biden team has the John Paul Mac Isaac data that was given to Rudy Giuliani and given to CBS, we also know that that data had no forensic chain of custody and it was not a forensic copy of any type of laptop, or even multiple devices that we can see. It was just a copy-paste of files, more or less.

[snip]

We know that there’s different data sets in different portions of the Internet attributed to Hunter’s data — or, to Hunter’s laptop.

[nip]

Now that we do have forensic data — Hunter Biden team has more foensic data than anybody else out there — we can actually start to compare and contrast. And that’s why you see the aggressiveness from the Hunter Biden legal team.

The lawsuit against Rudy and Costello claims that at some point, Rudy and Costello did things that amount to accessing Hunter’s data unlawfully. Hacking.

23. Following these communications, Mac Isaac apparently sent via FedEx a copy of the data he claimed to have obtained from Plaintiff to Defendant Costello’s personal residence in New York on an “external drive.” Once the data was received by Defendants, Defendants repeatedly “booted up” the drive; they repeatedly accessed Plaintiff’s account to gain access to the drive; and they proceeded to tamper with, manipulate, alter, damage and create “bootable copies” of Plaintiff’s data over a period of many months, if not years. 2

24. Plaintiff has discovered (and is continuing to discover) facts concerning Defendants’ hacking activities and the damages being caused by those activities through Defendants’ public statements in 2022 and 2023. During one interview, which was published on or about September 12, 2022, Defendant Costello demonstrated for a reporter precisely how Defendants had gone about illegally accessing, tampering with, manipulating and altering Plaintiff’s data:

“Sitting at a desk in the living room of his home in Manhasset, [Defendant Costello], who was dressed for golf, booted up his computer. ‘How do I do this again?’ he asked himself, as a login window popped up with [Plaintiff’s] username . . .”3

By booting up and logging into an “external drive” containing Plaintiff’s data and using Plaintiff’s username to gain access Plaintiff’s data, Defendant Costello unlawfully accessed, tampered with and manipulated Plaintiff’s data in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants used similar means to unlawfully access Plaintiff’s data many times over many months and that their illegal hacking activities are continuing to this day.

[snip]

26. For example, Defendant Costello has stated publicly that, after initially accessing the data, he “scrolled through the laptop’s [i.e., hard drive’s] email inbox” containing Plaintiff’s data reflecting thousands of emails, bank statements and other financial documents. Defendant Costello also has admitted publicly that he accessed and reviewed Plaintiff’s data reflecting what he claimed to be “the laptop’s photo roll,” including personal photos that, according to Defendant Costello himself, “made [him] feel like a voyeur” when he accessed and reviewed them.

27. By way of further example, Defendant Costello has stated publicly that he intentionally tampered with, manipulated, and altered Plaintiff’s data by causing the data to be “cleaned up” from its original form (whatever this means) and by creating “a number of new [digital] folders, with titles like ‘Salacious Pics’ and ‘The Big Guy.’” Neither Mac Issac nor Defendants have ever claimed to use forensically sound methods for their hacking activities. Not surprisingly, forensic experts who have examined for themselves copies of data purportedly obtained from Plaintiff’s “laptop” (which data also appears to have been obtained at some point from Mac Isaac) have found that sloppy or intentional mishandling of the data damaged digital records, altered cryptographic featuresin the data, and reduced the forensic quality of data to “garbage.”

2 Plaintiff’s investigation indicates that the data Defendant Costello initially received from Mac Isaac was incomplete, was not forensically preserved, and that it had been altered and tampered with before Mac Issac delivered it to Defendant Costello; Defendant Costello then engaged in forensically unsound hacking activities of his own that caused further alterations and additional damage to the data he had received. Discovery is needed to determine exactly what data of Plaintiff Defendants received, when they received it, and the extent to which it was altered, manipulated and damaged both before and after receipt.

3 Andrew Rice & Olivia Nuzzi, The Sordid Saga of Hunter Biden’s Laptop, N.Y. MAG. (Sept. 12, 2022), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop- investigation.html.

I don’t think Hunter’s team would have compared the data Rudy shared with the NYPost before Hunter denied, outright, that “The information contained in the NY POST exposé came from HUNTER.” But based on what Riggleman claimed, they have since, and did compare it, before accusing Rudy and a prominent NY lawyer of hacking Hunter Biden’s data.

Hunter Biden’s team admits they don’t know the precise timing of this: “the precise timing and manner by which Defendants obtained Plaintiff’s data remains unknown to Plaintiff.” DDOSecrets points to several emails that suggest Rudy and Costello did more than simply review available data, however. For example, it points to this email created on September 2, 2020, just after the former President’s lawyer got the hard drive.

September 2, 2020: A variation of a Burisma email from 2016 is created and added to the cache. The email and file metadata both indicate it was created on September 2, 2020.

But the lawsuit, if proven, suggests the possibility that between the time JPMI shared the data with Rudy and the time Rudy shared it with NYPost, Rudy may have committed federal violations of the Computer Federal Fraud and Abuse Act — that is, Hunter alleges that between the time JPMI shared the data and the time NYPost published derivative data, Rudy may have hacked Hunter Biden’s data.

If he could prove that, it means the basis Twitter gave for throttling the NYPost story in October 2020 — they suspected the story included materials that violated Twitter’s then prohibition on publishing hacked data — would be entirely vindicated.

For example, on October 14th, 2020, the New York Post tweeted articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop with embedded images that look like they may have been obtained through hacking. In 2018, we had developed a policy intended to, to prevent Twitter from becoming a dumping ground for hacked materials. We applied this policy to the New York Post tweets and blocked links to the articles embedding those source materials. At no point did Twitter otherwise prevent tweeting, reporting, discussing or describing the contents of Mr. Biden’s laptop.

[snip]

My team and I exposed hundreds of thousands of these accounts from Russia, but also from Iran, China and beyond. It’s a concern with these foreign interference campaigns that informed Twitter’s approach to the Hunter Biden laptop story. In 2020, Twitter noticed activity related to the laptop that at first glance bore a lot of similarities to the 2016 Russian hack and leak operation targeting the dnc, and we had to decide what to do, and in that moment with limited information, Twitter made a mistake under the distribution of hacked material policy.

If Hunter can prove that — no matter what happened in the process of packaging up this data before it got to JPMI, whether it involved the compromise of Hunter’s digital identity before JPMI got the data, which itself would have been a hack that would also vindicate Twitter’s throttling of the story  — it would mean all the data that has been publicly released is downstream from hacking.

For Twitter, it wouldn’t matter whether the data was hacked by Russia or by Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, it would still violate the policy as it existed at the time.

Importantly, this remains a claim about data, not about a laptop. The lawsuit against Rudy and Costello repeats the claim made in the JPMI counterclaim: while JPMI had data, some of which belongs to Hunter, Hunter is not — contrary to Bret Baier’s false claim — admitting that, “Hunter Biden said it was his laptop.”

2. Defendants themselves admit that their purported possession of a “laptop” is in fact not a “laptop” at all. It is, according to their own public statements, an “external drive” that Defendants were told contained hundreds of gigabytes of Plaintiff’s personal data. At least some of the data that Defendants obtained, copied, and proceeded to hack into and tamper with belongs to Plaintiff.1

1 This is not an admission by Plaintiff that John Paul Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Plaintiff. Rather, Plaintiff simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Plaintiff.

In two lawsuits, Hunter Biden explicitly said that he was not admitting what Baier falsely claimed he had.

I know this is Fox News, but Baier just blithely interrupted a sober discussion about a terrorist attack to make a false claim about “the laptop.”

Hunter Biden claims that Garrett Ziegler hacked Hunter’s iPhone

Hunter Biden’s approach is different in the Garrett Ziegler lawsuit, in which he notes over and over that Ziegler bragged about accessing something he claimed to be Hunter Biden’s laptop, but which was really, “a hard drive that Defendants claim to be of Plaintiff’s ‘laptop’ computer.” By the time things got so far downstream to Ziegler, there was no pretense this was actually a laptop, no matter what Baier interrupted a discussion about terrorism to falsely claim.

But that paragraph explicitly denying admission about this being a laptop is not in the Ziegler suit.

There’s a likely reason for that. The core part of the claim against Ziegler is that Ziegler unlawfully accessed a real back-up of Hunter Biden’s iPhone, which was stored in encrypted form in iTunes — just as I laid out had to have happened months before that lawsuit.

28. Plaintiff further is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at least some of the data that Defendants have accessed, tampered with, manipulated, damaged and copied without Plaintiff’s authorization or consent originally was stored on Plaintiff’s iPhone and backed-up to Plaintiff’s iCloud storage. On information and belief, Defendants gained their unlawful access to Plaintiff’s iPhone data by circumventing technical or code-based barriers that were specifically designed and intended to prevent such access.

29. In an interview that occurred in or around December 2022, Defendant Ziegler bragged that Defendants had hacked their way into data purportedly stored on or originating from Plaintiff’s iPhone: “And we actually got into [Plaintiff’s] iPhone backup, we were the first group to do it in June of 2022, we cracked the encrypted code that was stored on his laptop.” After “cracking the encrypted code that was stored on [Plaintiff’s] laptop,” Defendants illegally accessed the data from the iPhone backup, and then uploaded Plaintiff’s encrypted iPhone data to their website, where it remains accessible to this day. It appears that data that Defendants have uploaded to their website from Plaintiff’s encrypted “iPhone backup,” like data that Defendants have uploaded from their copy of the hard drive of the “Biden laptop,” has been manipulated, tampered with, altered and/or damaged by Defendants. The precise nature and extent of Defendants’ manipulation, tampering, alteration, damage and copying of Plaintiff’s data, either from their copy of the hard drive of the claimed “Biden laptop” or from Plaintiff’s encrypted “iPhone backup” (or from some other source), is unknown to Plaintiff due to Defendants’ continuing refusal to return the data to Plaintiff so that it can be analyzed or inspected. [my emphasis]

Hunter Biden’s team has backup for this assertion, thanks to the notes Gary Shapley took in an October 22, 2022 meeting about what was an actual laptop JPMI handed over to the FBI. On that laptop — which the FBI had confirmed was associated with Hunter Biden’s iCloud account and which it tied to data that could all be falsifiable to someone in possession of the laptop, which had means to intercept and redirect emails and calls to Hunter’s real devices, but which the FBI still had not validated 10 months after obtaining it — the iPhone content was encrypted.

Laptop — iphone messages were on the hard drive but encrypted they didn’t get those messages until they looked at laptop and found a business card with the password on it so they were able to get into the iphone messages [my emphasis]

Even the FBI needed to find a password to access the iPhone content that Ziegler has bragged about accessing. (Note: there have been four known accesses to this data, and every single one of them claims to have used a different means to break the encryption, which in my mind raises real questions about the nature of the business card). But the FBI had a warrant. Ziegler did not.

There are still a great deal of questions one would have to answer before entirely ruling out that Russians were involved in the process of packaging up Hunter Biden’s digital identity; the possible role of a Russian escort service is only one of at least three possible ways Russia might be involved. Yet Bret Baier is unwilling to pursue those questions — starting with the unanswered questions about the role that Baier’s former Fox News colleague played.

But with all those unanswered questions, Baier was nevertheless willing to interrupt a discussion about terrorism to make false claims about what is known.

Update: I’ve taken out that this was specifically a Russian escort service. Some outlets claim Eva is Ukrainian. Dimitrelos does claim that Hunter searched for “Russian escort service,” though.

Update: Added the Bluewater Wellness Intramuscular Injection ad from October 2018.

Update: Added the observation about a newly created email from DDOSecrets.

Update: I was reminded of Bret Baier’s opinion in the same days when Leon Panetta was expressing his doubts about this story.

During a panel on his Thursday evening show, Baier addressed the Post‘s story and the decision by both Twitter and Facebook to limit sharing of the story on their respective platforms because of concerns about spreading misinformation. The move elicited fierce pushback from conservatives and sparked a vote on a Congressional subpoena of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

“The Biden campaign says the meeting never happened, it wasn’t on the schedules, they say,” Baier noted. “And the email itself says ‘set up’ for a meeting” instead of discussing an actual meeting.

Baier then played an audio clip from a SiriusXM radio interview of Giuliani, where he appeared to alter the original details of who dropped off the laptop from which the emails in question were purportedly obtained. The computer store owner who gave a copy of the laptop’s hard drive to Giuliani was also heard explaining how he is legally blind and couldn’t for certain identify just who delivered the computer to him.

” Let’s say, just not sugarcoat it. The whole thing is sketchy,” Baier acknowledged. “You couldn’t write this script in 19 days from an election, but we are digging into where this computer is and the emails and the authenticity of it.”

Featured image courtesy of Thomas Fine.

*As I have noted in the past, Dimitrelos prohibited me from republishing his reports unless I indemnify him for the privacy violations involved. I have chosen instead — and am still attempting — to get permission from Hunter Biden’s representatives to reproduce redacted parts of this report that strongly back Hunter’s claim of being hacked.

Yesterday, Judge Maryanne Noreika dismissed the gun-related Information against Hunter Biden, signed by Baltimore AUSA Leo Wise, that was filed on June 20, an Information tied to a diversion agreement that Leo Wise also signed.

At the arraignment on Hunter’s new charges — three charges replaced one — Magistrate Judge Christopher Burke reminded the Special Counsel’s team (Derek Hines had the speaking role at the arraignment, not Leo Wise) about the Information still on the docket.

Mr. Hines, one question on my end. The Indictment now obviously has been filed on the docket and that still has the prior felony information that was filed with regard to the prior gun charge back at the point where it was thought that there might be a plea. Did the Government intend to dismiss that charge?

MR. HINES: Yes, consistent with local practice, we intend to file a written motion within the next day.

THE COURT: Okay. And that will go to Judge Noreika and she will review that.

It took Leo Wise two tries — he forgot to sign the first motion to dismiss — but Weiss’ team did indeed move to dismiss the Information, and the docket identified the motion to dismiss that Noreika granted as the amended one, the one Leo Wise actually signed.

And so it was that on the last day off the fifth year after Hunter Biden purchased a gun, Judge Noreika dismissed one charge against him for doing so. Weiss’ team moved to dismiss the Information without prejudice to refiling it. But as of today, the statutes of limitation begin to expire on both that Information — charged under 18 USC 922(g)(3) and 18 USC 924(a)(2) — and the charges in the Indictment — which added charges under 18 USC 924(a)(1)(A) and 18 USC 922(a)(6) and 18 USC 924(a)(2), something Leo Wise noted at the failed plea hearing in July. Any charge tied to unlawful possession of that gun, as opposed to unlawful statements made during the purchase of the gun, will expire on October 23.

So, 9 days into the 30-day period during which Judge Burke gave Hunter’s team to file motions, things may begin to get interesting,

Since the failed plea, the two sides have been involved in a dance regarding whether the diversion agreement — which, as noted, Leo Wise signed on July 26 — remains binding on the government. Over and over, the government, with its evolving titles, has claimed it does not remain binding. Over and over, Hunter’s team preserves the record, insisting it does.

For example, when the government moved to vacate Judge Noreika’s briefing order with an August 11 filing — a motion signed by Leo Wise — claiming that, “there is no longer a plea agreement or diversion agreement,” Hunter’s lawyers responded two days later countering, “the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.” On August 15, DOJ filed a reply — signed by newly promoted Assistant Special Counsel Leo Wise — disputing Hunter’s claims, focusing not on whether Wise signed the diversion, but whether Judge Noreika approved the plea or Probation signed the diversion.

On September 6, in response to an order from Judge Noreika, DOJ filed a status update — once again signed by Leo Wise — stating (among other things) that the diversion had not been executed because, while it had been signed by Leo Wise, it had not been signed by Probation. Lowell responded — again, protecting the record — that the court had been provided an executed copy of the diversion agreement, the one signed by Leo Wise.

I don’t know who will win this dispute. I know that DOJ — in filings signed by Leo Wise — keeps saying that where the diversion agreement says “approval” in ¶¶ 1 and 2, it means approval by Probation, not the parties mentioned in ¶¶1 and 2. But from the moment DOJ first opened this docket — with a letter signed by Leo Wise — they referred to executed agreements that were signed that day.

I also know that DOJ keeps speaking of a plea agreement as it existed on July 26, not the agreement that DOJ entered into on some unspecified date in June before that, between which time and July 26, Leo Wise took over from Lesley Wolf and the scope of the immunity agreement started shrinking, one of two things that led the plea to fail on July 26.

At the arraignment last week, Lowell warned that several things were going to happen by or before November 3, when motions are due.

MR. LOWELL: Yes, a couple of things, Judge. First, I understand that Judge Noreika did advise the Government of their Brady obligations. I would want to talk to the Government about the overall discovery issues, especially with the thirty-day motions schedule. We would like to get discovery in the case obviously before we file the motions. We will talk to them. I don’t know that we’ll have any problems that we will need to bring for the Court’s attention, but we will see.

And second of all on those motions, I appreciate the date, I think we can conform to that based on the discovery perhaps, but I think there will be a number of motions which won’t be a surprise to Your Honor or to Judge Noreika, including motions to dismiss which we discussed during the last proceeding which would focus on our view that there was an agreement in effect which would prevent this charge from being filed as well as questioning the constitutionality of the statutes that have been cited and others depending on what happens. So that thirty days seems right, but we’ll talk to the Government.

[snip]

MR. LOWELL: The only other thing that would maybe not change the schedule but would add to the schedule, is that at least one of those motions, I think given what we all know about this case, we will be making a request for an evidentiary hearing. [my emphasis]

Lowell said he:

1. Wanted Brady and other discovery before he filed motions
2. Would make a request for an evidentiary hearing
3. Would file motions (plural) to dismiss, arguing:
   • The diversion agreement prohibits these charges
   • The gun charges are unconstitutional
   • “others depending on what happens”

As a threshold mattter, Lowell seems to believe he had not, by last Tuesday, received all the Brady discovery, even though Chris Clark agreed he had received it back in July. That is, Lowell believes the government has evidence that either exculpates Hunter (which is unlikely) or impeaches the investigation or prosecution that DOJ has not yet turned over.

It’s not a mystery what some of this is. In an August 13 appearance on CBS, Lowell described that if Weiss decided to file charges other than what got filed in June, something must have “infected” the process.

LOWELL: But you asked me whether or not that has been part of the investigation and after five years and what we know happened in the grand jury, of course that had to be part of what the prosecutor has already looked at, as well as every other false allegation made by the right wing media and others, whether it’s corruption or FARA, or money laundering. That was part of what this prosecutor’s office had to have been looking over for five years. I can assure you that five years concluded that the only two charges that made sense were two misdemeanors for failing to file like millions of Americans do, and a diverted gun charge for the 11 days that Hunter possessed a gun. Everything else had been thoroughly looked at. So is that possible that they’re going to revisit it? Let me answer it one way. If the now Special Counsel decides not to go by the deal, then it will mean that he or they decided that something other than the facts and the law are coming into play.

[snip]

LOWELL: –Because I know we were a little rushed. So to answer your question squarely. People should keep in mind that while Mr. Weiss’ title changed last week, he’s the same person he’s been for the last five years. He’s a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general, who had career prosecutors working this case for five years, looking at every transaction that Hunter was involved in. So whether it was tax or the gun, or possible any other charge, if anything changes from his conclusion, which was two tax misdemeanors, and a diverted gun charge. The question should be asked: what infected the process that was not the facts and the law?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Or new evidence? I mean, are you confident your client won’t face new criminal charges?

LOWELL: I’m confident that if this prosecutor does what has been done for the last five years, look at the facts, the evidence and the law, then the only conclusion can be what the conclusion was on July 26. It’s new evidence, there’s no new evidence to be found. Some of these transactions are years old. They’ve had people in the Grand Jury, they’ve had data that was provided to them. I don’t know the possibility exists after this kind of painstaking investigation for them to be “oh, my gosh, there’s a new piece of evidence which changes.” The only thing that will change is the scrutiny on some of the charges, for example, the gun charge.

More spectacularly, in a September 14 appearance on CNN, after the gun charges were filed, Lowell casually mentioned that prosecutors, “don’t share their emails with me, at least as of yet.”

LOWELL: And that the only thing that changed, Erin, was not the facts and not the law, which has only gotten worse for law enforcement but the application of politics. If it turns out that they continue to escalate the charges, then that is an issue that should be explored.

BURNETT: Okay. So but you are saying that they would be doing that because they are under political pressure from Republicans, MAGA Republicans as you referred to them, in Congress.

LOWELL: Well, they don’t talk to me about their motives.

BURNETT: Yeah.

LOWELL: They don’t share their emails with me, at least as of yet. All can I do, as you as a good reporter does, is make connections. So, if they thought after five years this was appropriate and then the political pressure came and now they think this is appropriate and if it’s no change in the facts and no change in the law, then let me ask you as a journalist would ask, what changed? And I’m telling you, the only thing that’s changed is the politics.

That is, Lowell insinuated that he would demand emails from the prosecution team to understand what led them to (to use the phrase used in the first Hunter filing signed by Lowell) renege on a plea deal.

I have said repeatedly when covering this case and I’ll repeat again, defense attorneys make the kinds of claims that Lowell is making — raising selective prosecution claims and insisting they haven’t gotten Brady discovery, for example — all the time. Such claims usually don’t work. Mind you, you would always need to take those claims more seriously when dealing with someone like Lowell; he’s a formidable lawyer. But even still, selective prosecution claims almost never reach the bar required to get an evidentiary hearing and DOJ has a great deal of flexibility in how they fulfill their discovery obligations. Lowell is making incredibly aggressive claims here, especially the casual suggestion he might get prosecutors’ emails.

The Hunter Biden case is different though. It’s different because Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have spent months making easily debunked claims about politicization in favor of Hunter Biden, even while disclosing the existence of evidence showing the opposite, improper political influence to investigate Hunter. And it’s different because James Comer and Jim Jordan and Jason Smith and the chief investigative counsel they all keep swapping between committees like a cheap date, Steve Castor, keep forcing one after another investigative witness to go on the record about this investigation.

Take just one example: the emails that Gary Shapley belatedly claimed he was a whistleblower to try to explain away because David Weiss’ team demanded them in discovery. Michael Batdorf — the Director of IRS-CI Field Operations who described that Shapley uniquely escalated things to him because he has, “a tendency to go to level like grade 7 five-alarm fire on everything,” also described that Shapley wasn’t a mere supervisor on this team, he was playing an investigative role.

He was taking investigative steps with the special agents. I mean, he was one of the team.

So it wasn’t just an agent involvement. It was the supervisor involvement. He was, again, taking those actions as if he was a working case agent. (97)

Batdorf provided this description to explain why it was reasonable to remove the entire IRS investigative team (which Batdorf also repeatedly said was not retaliation, undercutting yet more of Shapley’s claims). But it would also serve to explain why it was totally reasonable for Weiss to demand Shapley’s emails in discovery, first in March 2022 and then, after Shapley refused to turn them over, again in October 2022. Batdorf also revealed that Weiss had to and did go over his head to get Shapley’s emails. If it was reasonable to obtain Shapley’s emails for discovery — and Batdorf has explained why it was — then it would be reasonable for Hunter Biden to expect to get them.

Republicans’ frenzied dick pic sniffing has also provided clear evidence, both in the form of testimony about whether Shapley’s notes accurately reflect what happened on October 7, which multiple witnesses say they do not, and in notes that clearly conflict with what he typed up and sent in emails, to demand Shapley’s hand-written notes, in addition to his more formal memorializations.

Normally, evidence that Shapley has been biased or dishonest would only matter for any tax case Weiss attempts to charge down the road. Weiss has time yet under the statute of limitations for tax charges, allowing him to see how this gun charge will go down, and possibly allowing him to delay responding to precisely this kind of discovery request until after the gun charges are resolved.

Except that thanks to frothy Republicans, there is already evidence showing that Shapley’s media tour “infected” Weiss’ prosecutorial team before they made the decision to “renege” on a plea agreement and add additional felony gun charges against Hunter.

When asked by Steve Castor in an interview on September 7 how Shapley’s media tour was affecting the ongoing investigation (which Thomas Sobocinski continues to oversee), the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Baltimore office described that the media tour, “is affecting my employees,” so much so that the children of retired FBI agents “are being followed.”

Castor later asked a question I’m sure Abbe Lowell would love to know the answer to: Why Lesley Wolf was taken off court filings. Sobocinski balked at answering, even questioning whether Castor’s premise was “factually correct.” But Democratic staffers followed up to ask whether Wolf has faced threats. Sobocinski responded that “my office and the FBI have done things and initiated things to ensure that she remains safe.”

In other words, Shapley made himself relevant to not just the tax charges but also to all charges from David Weiss’ office by setting off a media frenzy that led to credible threats that — Hunter’s attorneys can and undoubtedly will argue — may have led prosecutors to ratchet up the charges against Hunter.

It turns out, though, that it wasn’t just the threats Shapley elicited that affected Lesley Wolf’s involvement in the case. Just five days after Sobocinski’s interview, Batdorf was willing to answer that question.

Q And looking at the individuals who were working on the case outside of IRS, so looking at the AUSA, for instance, to your knowledge, was there any change in the personnel of the AUSA from when it started in 2018 to now? Has there been a change, or has it been generally the same career people working the case the entire time?

A It’s my understanding that there had been a change in the AUSA, the prosecution team.

Q And when was the change made? Do you know?

A I believe that it was made in roughly — I think it was May or June of this year when we decided to move forward with the investigation. (99)

According to Politico, Wolf remained involved in the plea negotiations at least as late as June 7. According to Batdorf, Weiss did ultimately remove her.

The process by which Weiss removed his own AUSAs from the prosecution team appears to have taken two steps. First, between June 7 and June 20, Leo Wise started signing things, including things that Lesley Wolf negotiated. While Wolf was never on the Hunter Biden docket, Delaware AUSA Benjamin Wallace was on early filings (and has not withdrawn from it). According to reports from the day, a number of Weiss’ prosecutors attended the scotched plea deal as well.

But since Weiss was named Special Counsel, just Wise and Hines have appeared on filings, using their new title, Assistant Special Counsel. In other words, it seems that Weiss may have belatedly — very, very belatedly — tried to create a prosecutorial clean team that might sustain charges against the President’s son.

Along the way, Wise made preposterous claims — such as that he was not aware of any leaked grand jury information — that suggest that on top of removing Wolf from the process, Weiss is serially attempting to sheep-dip the prosecution, to create a team unaffected by the bullshit that has gone on for five years, so as to create the illusion of apolitical, neutral prosecutorial decisions.

On a July 31, 2023, call, Assistant United States Atiomey Wise stated he was “not aware” of any leak of grand jury information by the Government during the courseof the Government’s investigation of our client. Such a statement was surprising given that Mr. Biden’s counsel have discussed such leaks with the Government on multiple occasions over the past two years and addressed these leaks in at least four prior letters and countless telephone calls with your Office.1 We incorporate by reference counsels’ prior correspondence on these issues, enclosed herewith as Exhibits A – D.

Not only does that ignore the press blitz Republicans have created, to which both Wise and jurors would have been exposed.

But at least in June, Leo Wise signed things negotiated by Lesley Wolf. You can’t claim that Wise represents a team isolated from the original investigative team if he was signing documents negotiated by Wolf.

That transition, from Wolf to Wise, is a central factual issue that would determine whether DOJ reneged on the terms of the plea agreement, as Hunter’s team insists DOJ did. That transition, from Wolf to Wise, will significantly determine whether that diversion agreement really does remain binding — meaning the indictment already charged would need to be dismissed, with statutes of limitation expired even for an Information to backstop any diversion agreement that remained in place.

Again, normally defendants would never get access to such details. Normally defendants would never contemplate, as Lowell did publicly, getting prosecutors’ emails.

But Jim Jordan and James Comer and Steve Castor have been jumping through hoops providing Lowell cause to do just that.

And so, on the fifth anniversary of the day when Hunter Biden purchased a gun, things may start to get interesting.

Update: Hunter’s attorneys have filed a consent motion to extend deadlines, with Hunter’s initial motions deadline extended to December 11 (provided Judge Noreika approves).

The parties in the above-captioned case have conferred, and respectfully submit the following proposed modified briefing schedule for all pretrial motions: (a) the defendant’s pretrial motions to be filed by December 11, 2023; (b) the government’s oppositions/responses to be filed by January 16, 2024; and (c) the defendant’s replies to be filed by January 30, 2024. The parties will be prepared to argue the motions, if the Court so directs, following completion of all briefing. This proposed schedule excludes deadlines for motions regarding jury selection, discovery, and motions in limine (which can be scheduled at a later time once a trial date is determined).

Chuck Grassley continues,with the desperation and recklessness that may come from being the oldest member of Congress, to try to find something scandalous in the Hunter Biden investigation that won’t fizzle upon closer scrutiny.

I’m not sure precisely what the first complaint is about. Since Kenneth Polite resigned as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division in July, Nicole Argentieri has been Acting Assistant Attorney General at the Criminal Division. Before that she had been Polite’s Principal Deputy. Prior to returning to DOJ (she worked for a time as an AUSA in EDNY), she was a partner at O’Melveny & Myers in New York. I’m not sure if that’s what Grassley is complaining about. In any case, since David Weiss is Special Counsel, it wouldn’t matter, as AAG CRM would have little to no involvement.

Grassley’s other complaint is that Hampton Dellinger, current AAG for Legal Policy, just got nominated to be the other kind of Special Counsel, the guy in charge of Whistleblower Protection Act and Hatch Act violations. Almost a decade ago, both Dellinger and Hunter Biden had ties to Boies Schiller. Dellinger and Hunter attended the same dinner in March 2014.

The Office of Special Counsel would have even less role in overseeing Special Counsel David Weiss’ activities than Argentieri would. He would, however, have a role in deciding whether Gary Shapely was really a whistleblower or was, instead, a partisan leaker, leaking protected IRS and grand jury information. He would have a role in reviewing whatever it is that Shapley was hiding when he refused to turn over his emails in March 2022 and tried to hide in October 2022, as concerns about leaks accelerated. He would have a role in deciding whether those things undercut his claims, now, to be a whistleblower using the proper channels.

That is, Grassley isn’t worried about the prosecution of Hunter Biden with his latest complaint. He’s worried about any scrutiny of Gary Shapley (and Joseph Ziegler).

And that’s why I find the following details interesting.

In a September 3, 2020 email, Joseph Ziegler included the investigation into Hunter Biden — pursued by Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson — in his agenda for a meeting that day.

A memo that may have been written by Gary Shapley in December 2020 complains that investigators were not sharing details of the investigation with members of Congress.

The USAO and FBI received congressional inquiries concerning this investigation and have repeatedly ignored their requests, openly mocking the members of Congress who made the requests.

Chuck Grassley was one of those members of Congress. That December 2020 memo is also where the claim that a leak that month came from DOJ rather than investigators.

Another monthly memo Shapley submitted, this one from May 2021, again complained that investigators weren’t compromising the investigation so as to share details with members of Congress.

The USAO and FBI received congressional inquiries concerning this investigation and it’s believed they have ignored their requests.

Chuck Grassley was one of those members of Congress.

In April 2022, Bill Haggerty asked Merrick Garland about the Hunter Biden investigation, to which he responded that Weiss was supervising the investigation and “he is in charge of that investigation; there will not be interference of any political or improper kind.”

In September 2022, Chuck Grassley claimed to have whistleblower information that Tim Thibault shut down an investigative lead on the Hunter Biden investigation. Reports of Thibault’s own testimony, among other details, reveal that this pertained to using Peter Schweitzer as an FBI informant — a more problematic choice to be an FBI informant than using Christopher Steele (since Steele was not a known partisan propagandist), and therefore a wild backflip on Grassley’s earlier concerns about dodgy informants. And Thibault had actually approved keeping Schweitzer as a source, until an FBI agent closer to the case alerted him to problems with doing so. Thibault was retaliated against as a result, in significant part because of Grassley’s misrepresentation of what happened.

I’ll return to the way that Shapley ignored warnings going back months before October 2022 that David Weiss wouldn’t charge Hunter for 2014 and 2015. I’ll return to the way that Shapley ignored warnings that the case would not be charged until after November 2022, and possibly not even until 2023.

What we now know is that the key detail in his otherwise unreliable report from the October 7 meeting — that David Weiss said he “is not the deciding person” on whether to charge Hunter Biden — is not corroborated by any other witness who attended that meeting. Darren Waldon, his supervisor, described that what Weiss actually said pertained to a description of process, “the process in order to get the case indicted and subsequently prosecuted.”

Shapley made claims that were not backed even by his own handwritten notes.

And yet that is the core of his claim to be a whistleblower: That’s the basis of Gary Shapley’s first publicly claimed reason for coming to Congress — the October 7, 2022 meeting, which Shapley’s attorney Mark Lytle publicly released (in such a way that journalists all knew it pertained to Hunter Biden) in April: the claim that what David Weiss said on October 7 conflicted with what Merrick Garland had told Bill Haggerty in April 2022.

Shapley’s October 7 memorialization, which doesn’t match his own notes and hasn’t been corroborated by other witnesses, is the basis of Gary Shapley’s claim to be a whistleblower, a claim that might be reviewed by Office of Special Counsel.

We also know that Gary Shapley only claims — in a really weird memorialization, provided in lieu of original notes, that writes out “REDACTED” — to have formally become a whistleblower on January 4, 2023, the day Republicans took over the House.

In that memorialization, Shapley clearly states that his lawyer has already “participated in calls and/or meetings” with “the Congressional Judiciary committees.”

In the memorialization (again, provided in lieu of Shapley’s notes, which have shown discrepancies in the past), Shapley predicted that,

there may be allegations against him, that he believes will be nefarious, from DOJ/USAO and that he hoped the agency would support him during that. [Michael Batdorf] stated that he had not heard of an any allegations made against Shapley.

We also know that on January 25, Shapley asked to take leave so he could — among other things — meet with congressional committees and Inspectors General, a request Michael Batdorf said should not come out of his paid leave. By the time of Shapley’s first (known) testimony in May, he had not yet personally met with any Inspectors General investigators; rather, his attorneys had made disclosures to them. And, as noted, the first formal outreach to Congress was on April 19.

In that letter on April 19, Mark Lytle made absolutely not mention of earlier outreach to the Judiciary Committees.

Despite serious risks of retaliation, my client is offering to provide you with information necessary to exercise your constitutional oversight function and wishes to make the disclosures in a non-partisan manner to the leadership of the relevant committees on both sides of the political aisle.

My client has already made legally protected disclosures at the IRS, through counsel to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and to the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General.

That is, the claims that Lytle made in that April 19 letter seem to conflict with what Shapely wrote on January 6.

In any case, what was Shapley doing in the two months he was taking leave when he was not yet known to have formally reached out to Congress?

In July, immediately after testimony from Ziegler — who was attending to Congress’ interest in this investigation in 2020 — and Shapley — who was furious that investigators weren’t compromising the investigation to meet the interests of Congress that same year, Chuck Grassley burned what Republicans all claim had been a credible FBI informant in order to feed the conspiracy theories.

Chuck Grassley is worried that a guy who had dinner with Hunter Biden nine years ago might become Special Counsel. He’s worried about that, but not that one of his former staffers went from OSC to the Merit System Protection Board to serving as Gary Shapley’s PR person months after (per Shapley’s own memorialization) he was already reachng out to Congress.

Leavitt began his investigative career working on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), where he helped whistleblowers expose schemes like Operation Fast and Furious, the gunwalking scandal that armed the murderers of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. He also served as Senator Grassley’s chief whistleblower policy advisor, leading the introduction of the first Senate resolutions recognizing National Whistleblower Appreciation Day and the establishment of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus.

In 2015 Leavitt joined the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff of Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). There he worked with dozens of whistleblowers from the U.S. Secret Service to break news of high-profile misconduct and security breaches. He also investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State, the FBI’s failure to hold her accountable, and politicization at the FBI. He negotiated the passage of the FBI Whistleblower Protection Act of 2016.

In 2017 Leavitt was appointed as Principal Deputy Special Counsel at the Office of Special Counsel, where he helped reform OSC’s whistleblower disclosure program and directed a reorganization of OSC’s intake and investigative process. He also served as Acting Special Counsel. In late 2018 Leavitt was appointed as the General Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and for three years served as the acting head of that agency. In 2022 the U.S. Senate confirmed him with bipartisan support as the Republican Member of the Board, a position he held for one year.

Chuck Grassley seems to be panicked that a very carefully orchestrated effort to retroactively pitch Shapley as a whistleblower using formal channels might face real scrutiny.

Given that both Zeigler and Shapley seemed to have more concern about Congress’ efforts than the formal investigation starting before Joe Biden became President, that’s not all that surprising.

Self-imagined IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, continue to engage in an information campaign that not only hasn’t provided real evidence for impeachment, but also must be creating real difficulties for David Weiss as he attempts to charge the tax case against Hunter Biden.

The House Ways and Means Committee released a slew of documents provided by the IRS Agents the other day in advance of Thursday’s Impeachment Clown Show. Below, I’ve laid out just the documents pertaining to the investigation (that is, the purported topic of their whistleblower complaint), along with explanations of what the documents show. There are a bunch of other investigative documents (Shapley appears to have let Ziegler assume most of the legal risk of releasing the bulk of the new IRS and grand jury documents), some of which reflect a real sloppiness about parts of the investigation, which would pose still more problems charging this case.

I also plan to write a follow-up post laying out Gary Shapley’s actions in advance of the October 7, 2022 meeting. They show that the items he claimed presented a new “red line” for him in that meeting had instead been raised with him months earlier. He came into the meeting with an agenda — notably, that David Weiss should ask to be appointed Special Counsel (as opposed to Special Attorney) — and raised non-sequiturs given the posture of the case at the time.

As to some other key claims the IRS Agents have made, especially against Lesley Wolf, the record provides countervailing evidence on those too.

As noted, for example, the decision not to take overt steps in 2020 came directly from Donald Trump’s Deputy Attorney General’s office, from someone — Richard Donoghue — who knew first-hand about Russian efforts to tamper in the election by focusing on Hunter Biden. The IRS Agents and Republican Members of Congress have blamed Wolf for that.

One key complaint is that Gary Shapley wasn’t permitted to surprise Hunter Biden during the day of action on December 8, 2020. But as Wolf represented it in a call Ziegler memorialized on December 11, the norm would have been to work through Hunter’s lawyers for an interview. Her support of going with only a heads up to the Secret Service was a deviation from that norm, she claimed. There’s no support in these documents for Shapley’s claim (and Ziegler’s hearsay claim) that the Transition Team got a heads up from DOJ, so if Shapley had a credible source for it, it wasn’t documented notice.

Another complaint — one Republicans in Congress can’t let go — was that Wolf used a subpoena to get the contents of a storage facility Hunter had rather than a search warrant. But a month earlier than that, the plan wasn’t to get a warrant, it was to do a consent search. When Ziegler pitched her on a search warrant after the Rob Walker interview, he wanted to do the search immediately, within a week, in spite of what she represented would be the onerous approval process to get a warrant. According to what Ziegler records Wolf saying, all the lawyers involved in this decision agreed with her (not surprisingly, given that a taint review after going overt would involve the same level of defense attorney involvement as a subpoena would). When the IRS escalated this issue on December 14, they still didn’t know how a taint review would work in the Fourth Circuit, meaning they had not yet tested Wolf’s claims.

Importantly, the reason Ziegler thought it so important to do a search of the storage facility rather than serve a subpoena is that he wanted to find proof of foreign bank accounts, something for which Wolf claims there was no evidence.

Ziegler brought up the potential for foreign accounts and the records that he had seen thus far that indicate there are foreign accounts involved in this case. Wolf said that there is no indication what‐so‐ever that the Subject has foreign accounts and that any records related to that would be turned over [pursuant to subpoena].

Even in the most recent Republican documents, reflecting what Ziegler and Shapley turned over, I’m aware of no such evidence. The foreign payments Republicans claim are so suspect went right through corporations established in Delaware. Many of the payments appear to have gone through the same Wells Fargo accounts on which Ziegler predicated this investigation five years ago. And the IRS appears to have checked (one, two) with the most likely havens — Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands — about whether there were foreign accounts. I haven’t read all the investigative documents or the tax returns and investigators may find something else, but if this is correct, then it’s one hell of a money laundering claim these guys are chasing, consisting of payments through corporations headquartered right in Delaware and payments through Hunter’s main bank account.

It was already clear from Ziegler’s testimony that his complaints about delays in interviews in 2021 didn’t account for Wolf’s efforts to prioritize more important investigative steps, such as getting approval for a subpoena for Hunter’s attorney, George Mesires, rather than focusing on interviews with sex workers. The interview with Mesires took another year to schedule. But one set of emails from the time show it was Ziegler’s IRS supervisor, and not Lesley Wolf, that pushed back on his plans for interviews; the supervisor suggested he bring in “collaterals” to do some of the investigative work rather than do it all himself.

The IRS Agents and Republican Members of Congress similarly keep complaining that David Weiss let the statute of limitations expire on the 2014 and 2015 charges most closely focused on Burisma. There was already evidence (most especially in the hand-written notes that Shapley only belatedly shared) that it wasn’t so much that Weiss “let” SOLs expire, but that he made a prosecutorial decision — one Shapley refused to abide by — not to charge those years. Lesley Wolf first started raising questions about the sufficiency of the evidence in May 2021. This new trove of documents show that Shapley had been informed that DE USAO was disinclined to charge those years more than two months before October 2022, and again in August 2022. There is a good deal of evidence that Shapley’s manufactured panic about “letting” SOLs expire instead is an expression of disagreement with a prosecutorial decision.

Perhaps worst of all, the depiction the IRS Agents have made of Lesley Wolf does not reflect what appears in these documents, which show her to be more supportive of them than they claimed. On September 21, 2020, Wolf followed up immediately when the FBI showed reluctance to pursue parts of the investigation. In October 2020, she was supportive of the IRS’ wishes to do the Day of Action interviews sooner rather than later. In December 2021, she made a point of commending all the work Ziegler had done on the case. In June 2022, David Weiss recognized Ziegler’s work. In August 2022, Wolf noted that Ziegler was  busy dealing with a family issue and empathized, “know I am thinking of you and sending good thoughts.”

The one thing Wolf absolutely did push back on was the IRS Agents’ efforts to conduct a campaign finance investigation of the funds Kevin Morris provided to Hunter to pay off his taxes. At one point, her request that they prioritize the 2014 tax case first (which she said hadn’t been proven yet) was depicted as obstruction. At another — in Shapley notes that again appear to conflict with what he was writing in the official record — she provided several good legal reasons not to pursue the case, including that any “donation” from Morris to Joe Biden via Hunter was even more attenuated than the John Edwards case that failed. By recording and publicly releasing Wolf noting that the law was not clear on this issue, Shapley will make it almost impossible to charge, because anyone charged would simply point out that even DOJ agreed it wasn’t a clear campaign finance donation. And what the IRS Agents otherwise portray as Wolf’s disinterest in involving Public Integrity (PIN) because they would take authority away from her was (here and elsewhere) instead described as PIN requiring another layer of approvals, precisely the thing that IRS Agents were complaining about elsewhere.

The IRS Agents’ recriminations of Lesley Wolf have gotten her targeted with serious threats. And yet, their own record doesn’t substantiate the claims they have made against her.

Update: Corrected which countries IRS reached out to: the Caymans and Hong Kong, not Cyprus.

Timeline

September 21, 2018: Suspicious Activity Report from Wells Fargo.

October 31, 2018: Primary investigation initiated into other entity.

November 1-2, 2018: Request of support for SAR, only other agency investigating was DA office.

December 10, 2018: Primary investigation initiated into Hunter Biden.

January 18, 2019: Update from Wells Fargo on SAR.

Around February 2019: SSA informs Ziegler that DE USAO looking into SAR.

March 28-29, 2019 Exhibit 400: April 26, 2019, FBI FD 302, re: March 28, 2019, Interview with Gal Luft. It appears likely there were two 302s of these interviews (possibly three) because Luft’s alleged lies don’t appear in unredacted form in this one.

April 12, 2019: Package submitted to DOJ-Tax

April 15, 2019 Exhibit 206: April 15, 2019, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Jessica Moran, Subject: Approx. Timeline. This shows the above timeline, about which Ziegler was not clear in his testimony.

April 29, 2019 Exhibit 207: April 29, 2019, Email from Matthew Kutz to Kelly Jackson, cc’ing Joseph Ziegler and Christopher Wajda, Subject: Robert Doe – FYI Venue issue. Kutz is the person to whom Ziegler attributed his understanding that Barr had assigned this to DE USAO himself, before backing off that claim. Kutz is also the person who was documenting 6A and inappropriate influence on the investigation. Ziegler provides none of that.

August 5-7, 2020 Exhibit 202: August 5-7, 2020, Emails Between Joshua Wilson, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, cc’ing Susan Roepcke, Michelle Hoffman, Joseph Ziegler, and Joseph Gordon, Subject: BS SW Draft. This was a warrant for BlueStar emails. AUSA Wolf objected not just to the mention of Joe Biden in the warrant (which is the only thing Ziegler leaves unredacted), but also to a great deal of stuff that was outside scope of the warrant. The SDNY FARA investigation was active in this period, which may be why other stuff was included, but in short order, even the IRS seemed to concede the SDNY FARA investigation into CEFC (the one that would rely on Gal Luft’s interview) was not viable.

Exhibit 203: Draft of B[lue]S[star email] Warrant.

September 3-4, 2020 Attachment 2: September 3-4, 2023, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, Mark Daly, Joshua Wilson, Susan Roepcke, Alyssa Ruisard, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Christine Puglisi, Stefania Roca, Michael Dzielak, Gary Shapley, and Joseph Gordon, Subject: Today’s Agenda. This is an incredibly helpful list of where key legal process stood:

• 4 iCloud backups (Ziegler asked whether location data was necessary, which he and Shapley suggested was mandatory before)
• Relevancy review of iPhone Backup (which tells you they were still scoping the phone when they got the iCloud warrants)
• Search warrant for BlueStar (about which investigators disagreed in August)
• Supplemental email search warrant (unclear on which account)
• DropBox search warrant (which wouldn’t be served for some time, but which seems to have been an attempt to get emails they knew of but didn’t have)
• Discussion of 2703-D orders (metadata) for two accounts belonging to Vadym Pozharskyi and one to Devon Archer; elsewhere Ziegler relies on the “laptop” for emails involving the two

The agenda also notes investigative developments involving SDNY (the FARA investigation), Pittsburgh (the FD-1023), and Comerica.

September 3-4, 2020: Memo of Meeting. At this meeting, there was a discussion of keeping Hunter Biden’s name off overt requests, to which Ziegler objected (as if he wanted it to be discovered). There’s a discussion of whether the investigation would continue or not after the election, which Wolf said it would. Wolf attributed sensitivities to Richard Donoghue. Note: Shapley doesn’t say who was involved in the follow-up call on September 4.

September 21, 2020 Attachment 3: September 21, 2020, IRS CI Memorandum of Conversation Between Gary Shapley and Mark Daly, Authored by Gary Shapley. This memorializes a meeting earlier that day in which Joe Gordon expressed uncertainty among FBI management about how many interviews they would participate in after the election. Lesley Wolf pushed back hard on this. This memo reflects double hearsay (Wolf to Mark Daly to Shapley) blaming Special Agent Josh Wilson for the reluctance on investigating Hunter, because he had just moved back to Wilmington with his family. Shapley also memorializes a call to his ASAC about the details. This is another instance where Wolf was pushing the investigation hard.

October 19, 2020 Attachment 5: October 19, 2020, Email from Gary Shapley to Lesley Wolf, Subject: Computer. This is an email Shapley read, in part, in his testimony, regarding IRS’ need to know what was going on with the laptop. Ironically, he notes that there may be specific disclosure limitations tied to the IRS warrant, a concern with which he has since dispensed.

October 21, 2020 Attachment 4: October 2, 2020, Emails Between Lesley Wolf, Joseph Ziegler, Gary Shapley, and George Murphy, Subject: Dates. This reflects ongoing discussion about when to do the day of action, in an attempt to avoid interviewing Hunter in Delaware, as opposed to LA. Lesley Wolf was again supportive of Shapley’s goals to do the interviews sooner rather than later.

October 21, 2020 Exhibit 210: October 21, 2020, Emails Between Jack Morgan, Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Mark Daly and Carly Hudson, Subject: Mann Act. Jack Morgan emails Lesley Wolf regarding nine communications, two with traffickers, that he says may support Mann Act exposure. In only two cases was the travel confirmed. There are no dates in this list. Three instances include travel to Massachusetts (and so might coincide with the apparent hijacking of Hunter’s digital identity while he was in Ketamine treatment).

October 22, 2020: Notes on laptop. As noted, Shapley wildly misrepresented what the notes on the laptop actually say. They show that 10 months after accessing the laptop, the FBI still hadn’t done basic things to validate the content on the laptop had not been tampered.

October 22, 2020 Attachment 6: October 22, 2020, IRS CI Memorandum of Conversation between Prosecution Team, Authored by Gary Shapley. Shapley records Wolf as saying that there would not be a warrant on the DE residence. He does not record why. He also records the briefing on the Pittsburgh lead, ordered up by PDAG (Donoghue). This meeting happened an hour after the laptop meeting, but Shapley treats it as a separate meeting (and doesn’t say who attended).

October 23, 2020 Exhibit 400A: Tony Bobulinksi FBI FD-302 Interview Memorandum. This interview happened on October 23, 2020; Bobulinski went straight from the White House to self-report at the FBI. He repeatedly refused to let the FBI image his phones. It certainly doesn’t help Bobulinski’s credibility as a witness.

October 23, 2020 Exhibit 400B: Attachment Tony Bobulinksi FBI FD-302 Interview Memorandum.

November 2-9, 2020 Attachment 7: November 8-9, 2020, Emails Between James Robnett and Kelly Jackson, cc’ing Michael DePalma, George Murphy, and Gary Shapley, Subject: 1 page brief needed. The day after networks called the election for Joe Biden, the Deputy Chief of IRS-CI ordered the team to put together a one-page summary of the Hunter Biden investigation, to be delivered to him by Tuesday, November 10.

November 9, 2020 Attachment 8: November 9, 2020, Email from Kelly Jackson to Gary Shapley, cc’ing George Murphy, Subject: Recipient of the 1 pager. Effectively, the IRS team checked how far this would circulate before drafting.

~November 9, 2020 Attachment 9: Sportsman Investigation, IRS CI One-Pager. This appears to be a draft, not the final, as there are inline questions and answers. This provides a good summary of where the investigation was, notes that the FARA investigation pertained to CEFC (and that investigators planned no overt steps). It also says that the plan was to do a consent search of the storage facility (and a residence, though it’s not clear which one), which puts the later dispute in context.

December 8, 2020 Exhibit 401: December 8, 2020, Transcribed Interview of John Robinson Walker.

December 8-9, 2020 Exhibit 204: December 8-9, 2020, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Mark Daly, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, cc’ing Christine Puglisi and Gary Shapley, Subject: Storage Location Warrant. The discussion returns to a warrant for the storage facility outside of DC (in VA). Ziegler says he wants to execute it the following week. Wolf tries to explain that there will be too many approvals required and heavy filter requirements because the facility is in the Fourth Circuit.

December 10, 2020 Attachment 10: IRS CI Monthly Significant Case Report, Subject Name: Robert Hunter Biden, December 2020. This periodic report (Shapley only provided two, raising questions about whether there were others) includes the most substantive description of how the investigation was predicated off sex workers. Shapley bitches about Wolf forgoing the approvals and instead applying the subpoena to the storage facility (without noting that the initial plan was to do a consent search). He says that the only viable charges at that point were tax charges (meaning the SDNY FARA charges didn’t flesh out). This report also notes the election meddling allegations. Shapley also bitches that prosecutors aren’t responding to Congressional inquiries, a totally inappropriate stance, one he would repeat in a later report. He blames the December 2020 leak on DOJ, with no explanation. Unclear whether this really is dated December 10, before the December 11 call with Wolf.

December 11, 2020 Exhibit 205: Joseph Ziegler’s Notes re: Phone Call with Lesley Wolf About the Storage Unit Warrant. The notes of this call actually debunks several things Ziegler has claimed. Wolf notes that the normal way to interview Hunter would be to call his lawyers, but she worked hard to go through just Secret Service. She also notes that all lawyers involved agreed subpoenaing for the documents was the appropriate thing to do.

December 14, 2020 Attachment 11: December 14, 2020, Emails Between Kelly Jackson, George Murphy, and Gary Shapley, Subject: SM – call with DFO today. This escalated matters on the facility to Deputy Commissioner. At that point, one of the IRS people didn’t even knew how a taint would work after a search.

December 15, 2020 Attachment 12: December 15, 2020, FBI Electronic Communication, Title: Attempted Interview: Hunter Biden 12/08/2020. The 302 reflecting the non-interview of Hunter. Slightly over two hours later, Hunter’s lawyers contacted the FBI.

January 26, 2021 Exhibit 315A: January 26, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Stefania [redacted], and Carly Hudson, Subject: Can you send me the filter terms that have been used for Relativity? For some reason, Ziegler included these filter terms, which will be very helpful to Hunter’s lawyers. Notably, there were two sets of filters: tax and FARA, which may explain the source of Ziegler’s frustration that they didn’t get all results. At that point FARA was exclusively focused on Ukraine.

Exhibit 315B: Appendix A, Filter Keywords for Google Email.

Exhibit 315C: Appendix A – Laptop, Filter Keywords for Laptop Filter.

Exhibit 315D: Appendix A, Filter Keywords for Laptop FARA Filter.

February 5, 2021 Attachment 13: February 5, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Joshua Wilson, Susan Roepcke, Michelle Hoffman, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Christine Puglisi, Stefania Roca, Michael Dzielak, Matthew McKenzie, cc’ing Joseph Gordon and Gary Shapley, Subject: Agenda 2/5 Meeting @ 12:30PM. This reflects Wolf and other lawyers briefing seemingly more than one AAG (unclear whether this is Acting, or Assistant, since no one was confirmed yet). Shapley was put out that NSD asked to be briefed on the tax side of the case.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1E: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Hunter Biden Representation Letter and Discussion of Hunter Biden 2014 Tax Return. A fragment of an interview with Hunter’s accountant regarding a representation letter signed 3 months after the initial representation. Gelfound really didn’t seem as worked up about it as the IRS.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1F: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Alleged Gulnora Deduction. The part of the Gelfound interview regarding how the sex worker came to be deducted.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1J: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Hunter Biden’s Tax Payments. Gelfound suggested that the payments with a lien would be paid by Kevin Morris first, possibly because of publicity.

May 2021 Attachment 14: IRS CI Monthly Significant Case Report, Subject Name: Robert Hunter Biden, Month/Year of Report: May 2021. This notes the 2021 expiration of the 2014 tax year. It states that FBI is not sold on charging decision. It says FBI is actively involving FARA. And it claims there are campaign finance violations (pertaining to Kevin Morris paying off Hunter’s taxes), which Wolf wanted nothing to dø with, in part to avoid PIN involvement. She stated that 2014 could not yet be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what she wanted them to focus on.

June 14, 2021 Exhibit 1G: Interview excerpt of Gulnora. This is the interview with the sex worker payments to whom Hunter deducted. She appears to have ties to the overseas escort service, so these payments could be the ones that triggered the entire investigation. Marjorie Taylor Greene misrepresented this interview in her campaign to turn Hunter into a sex trafficker.

September 9, 2021 Exhibit 208: September 9, 2021, Email Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Stefania Roca, cc’ing Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, Mark Daly, Christine Puglisi, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, and Joshua J. Wilson, re: Frustrations with Interview Delays. Ziegler complains that some interviews with sex workers have to be put off because DOJ Tax is still approving, among other things, a subpoena for Hunter’s lawyer George Mesires.

September 10-24, 2021 Attachment 15: September 10-24, 2021, Emails Between Gary Shapley and Jason Poole, Subject: Quick Call. Shapley’s own supervisor was blowing him off too, but he did follow-up twice to complain about approvals.

September 20, 2021 Exhibit 209: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Mark Daly and Joseph Ziegler, Subject: Re: email sent to mgmt with list of 10 [redacted]. Mark Daly gets involved and seems to move these forward.

September 20, 2021 Attachment 2: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Darrell Waldon, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Here Ziegler lashes out at his own supervisor, who suggests he send a “collateral” to do interviews in LA, rather than doing them himself. Contrary to wanting to go overt in the past, he claims he is trying to keep things quiet. Ziegler writes that this is “a case I’ve worked with very little problems and only support from my management, you’re making it hard for me to do my job” (though he may have only been referencing the IRS side).

September 20, 2021 Attachment 3: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Michael Batdorf, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Ziegler escalates to Mike Batdorf. He notes, “I don’t want to put some details in this email” and also says he’s only cc’ing Shapley “because I’ve briefed him on what has happened and because he’s been my management since day 1,” which is of course false.

September 22, 2021 Exhibit 506: September 22, 2021, Emails Between Justin Cole, James Lee, James Robnett, Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Joseph Ziegler, Subject: Sensitive Case Heads Up. CNN reached out to IRS and said they had a recent witness saying the case was almost wrapped up, claiming to having a Hunter email saying that all this would go away when his dad became President, claiming there was a plea deal. Batdorf gets the question, sends it to Ziegler, he asks if he can share with the lawyers. Batdorf asks not to share the CNN side, even though they regularly share media reports. Ziegler reports back that Wolf said no plea had been offered.

September 20-23, 2021 Exhibit 507: September 20-23, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Michael Batdorf, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Batdorf follows up again and Ziegler says “It seems to have been a miscommunication from my senior management. … I had a significant amount of trust in my prior management, and for some reason, that has gone away.”

November 16, 2021 Exhibit 1H: IRS CI Memorandum of Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound on November 16, 2021.J

November 23, 2021 Exhibit 402: John Robinson Walker FBI FD-302.

December 20, 2021 Exhibit 200: December 20, 2021, Email from Lesley Wolf to Mark Daly, Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, Matthew McKenzie, Joseph Ziegler, Christine Puglisi, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Susan Roepcke, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Michael Dzielak, Stefania Roca, Joseph Gordon, and Joshua Wilson, Subject: Thank you! Wolf gives extra credit to Ziegler for all his work.

January 12, 2022 Attachment 16: Notes from January 12, 2022, Sportsman Call. Wolf gives good legal reasons not to pursue the campaign finance investigation, notably that the law is uncertain and the facts are even more attenuated here than they were for John Edwards. She doesn’t want to involve PIN because it would add another level of approval.

Janaury 27, 2022: Prosecution Memo. As described in Shapley’s testimony, this document is what goes through a series of approval processes.

February 15, 2022 Attachment 17: February 15, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Darrell Waldon, cc’ing Lola Watson, Subject: For Review/Approval: Sensitive T26 Prosecution Recommendation – SPORTSMAN – SA Ziegler. This was Shapley’s rebuttal to CT’s non-concur on prosecution, based on Hunter’s addictions. Though Shapley (and especially Ziegler) has elsewhere stated clearly that Hunter was totally incapacitated in this period, Shapley now claims, “the universe of his conduct clearly indicated he was lucid during his periods of insobriety and therefore a blanket lack of willfulness defense to the pattern of conduct is not reasonable nor logical.”

May 13, 2022 Attachment 18: May 13, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf and Darrell Waldon, which Gary Shapley Forwarded to Joseph Ziegler and Christine Puglisi, Subject: Sportsman – 3rd DOJ Tax – Taxpayer Conference Delayed. Because of a delay in the tax conference at which the prosecution recommendation would be presented, Shapely pitches briefing Jason Poole and David Weiss on it in advance.

June 14-15, 2022 Exhibit 314: IRS CI Presentation re: Sportsman Investigation “Robert Doe,” Tax Summit, June 14-15, 2022. This is the slide deck presenting the case. Most of it — three pages — describe spin-off investigations. It shows the main remaining steps were to establish venue somewhere besides Delaware and get discovery production; at this moment, Shapley was refusing to turn over discovery production to DOJ.

June 30, 2022 Exhibit 1K: June 30, 2022, Email from Matthew Salerno to Mark Daly, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, cc’ing Chris Clark, Brian McManus, and Timothy McCarten, re: 2018 Tax Defenses Proffered, wh ich Mark Daly Forwarded to Joseph Ziegler, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Christine Puglisi, and Michael Dzielak. This is Mark Daly forwarding Hunter’s lawyers’ rebuttal on some of the 2018 deductions, explaining while none of Hunter’s efforts to develop businesses worked, he was attempting. Ziegler has claimed there’s contrary evidence (from James Biden) in the record, but none of that is definitive and James Biden testified his memory wasn’t great on the matter.

June 21-28, 2022 Exhibit 201: June 21-28, 2022, Emails Between David Weiss, Joseph Ziegler, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, and Mark Daly, Subject: Sportsman Request. After thanking Ziegler for all his work, Weiss asks IRS to have a revenue agent rerun all the loss numbers for 2014 and 2015. He asks for that, first, because that’s what is normally done, and second, because, “at trial we are going to need a testifier on this issue and that testifier can’t be Joe.” While Ziegler ultimately complied with Weiss’ request, Ziegler first appears to have redone the analysis himself. This email will give Hunter’s attorney cause to question the revenue analyst about Ziegler’s role in these numbers, if this ever gets charged.

July 29, 2022 Attachment 19: Notes from July 29, 2022, Sportsman Call. This includes details of the state of the investigation, including mentions of approval for a new prong of FARA investigation, with references to SDNY (CEFC) and Romania. The outstanding witnesses include George Mesires and family members, including James Biden (and possibly Hallie Biden, though that’s redacted), though an August 18 email lists Mervyn Yan among those left to be interviewed. Wolf clearly tells the team that if they don’t indict by September, it’ll be after November. She clearly says that prosecution decision will be collaborative with DOJ Tax. She clearly says she’s not inclined to toll the 2014 and 2015 tax years ago. In short, she clearly communicates, in July, all the things that the IRS agents claim were surprises in October.

August 5-8, 2022 Exhibit 503: August 5-8, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Meeting with David. Wolf sets up an August 16 meeting that it appears Ziegler requested, at which only Weiss will be present from DOJ. She requests he run numbers on an early undetermined issue. Ziegler says he’s working with revenue agent — the one Weiss asked to involve in June — on that. Wolf is again warm with Ziegler.

August 11, 2022 Exhibit 501: August 11, 2022, Emails Between Mark Daly, Joseph Ziegler, Christine Puglisi, Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, cc’ing Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Meeting. An internal IRS meeting about charging decisions that would precede the meeting with Weiss.

August 12, 2022 Exhibit 502: Calendar Invitation, Subject: Sportsman – Call re Charging, Organized by Mark Daly, Required Attendees: Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, Joseph Ziegler, and Christine Puglisi, Scheduled for August 12, 2022. The tax meeting on charging decisions.

August 15-18, 2022 Attachment 4: August 15-18, 2022, Email Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Update. Shapley telling his supervisors that Weiss was still not inclined to charge 2014 and 2015. One of his complaints is that if 2104 and 2015 weren’t charged, it would take the Burisma stuff off the table, which doesn’t sound like a tax decision. He’s still worried about not collecting that revenue, though the revenue is not that much (even if you believe him about what was owed). He claimed that Weiss mocked CT’s non-concurrence, but DOJ Tax does seem to side with not charging some of this. Shapley also claimed that the reason he was only learning venue on CA was through lack of transparency, except that’s totally consistent with what Wolf had said earlier: You decide charges first, then venue.

August 15-18, 2022 Attachment 20: August 15-18, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Update. This appears to be a dupe.

August 18, 2022 Exhibit 211: August 18, 2022, Email from Mark Daly to Joseph Ziegler, Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Christine Puglisi, Lesley Wolf, and Carly Hudson, cc’ing: Jack Morgan, Jason Poole, and John Kane, Subject: Going forward. At this point, the three remaining interviews were Mesires, Merv[y]n Yan, and James Biden.

August 25, 2022 Attachment 21: August 25, 2022, Emails Between Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Joseph Ziegler and Mark Daly, Subject: Case Coordination. The FBI SSA (who may have replaced Joe Gordon) complains they’re not communicating enough between meetings and asks to start an email chain. Wolf asks him to stand down until they can meet — clearly an effort to avoid creating discoverable information. Shapley turns it into a Memo for his files.

September 20 – November 8, 2022 Attachment 29: September 20, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, David Weiss, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: SM Meeting – Management. On September 20, Shapley asks for a quick call. Weiss responds that he would set up a meeting/call for updates in near term (what would end up being the October 7 meeting). Then on November 8, after the prosecution meeting is canceled, Shapley attempts to set up a meeting in December. Shapley then writes back on November 8 saying the FBI can’t make it on December 2, so asks Weiss to confirm that December 5 would work.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 22: Notes from September 22, 2022, 2:30PM, Conversation, at which Lesley Wolf and Mark Daly are Present. Shapley notes that Wolf and Daly both joined late but doesn’t say how late. He describes that the US Attorney (whom he refers to as “her” but has to be a reference to Martin Estrada, who was just confirmed on September 19) has only been sworn in and will need time to get up to speed. DOJ Tax also wanted to defer the charges until after the election. And DE’s finance guy had a number of remaining questions.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 23: September 22, 2022; 3:33PM ff, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf, Subject: Conversation with Batdorf Michael T. Shapley texts Batdorf, then emails the texts, complaining about the decision to wait until after the election.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 5: September 22, 2022, 5:28 PM Email from Gary Shapley to Darrell Waldon, Lola Watson, and Michael Batdorf, Subject: SM Update. Shapley tells his supervisors that Wolf said they wouldn’t charge until after the election. Shapley complains that, “the statement is inappropriate let alone the actual action of delaying as a result of the election.” He claims ther are other items (which he doesn’t lay out) “that are equally inappropriate,” probably that they weren’t going to charge the gun charge in October. Shapley was told months ago about this, but is wailing now.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 24: September 22, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Lola Watson, Subject: SM Update. This appears to be a dupe, with the news he had a doctor’s appointment redacted.

September 21-October 6, 2022 Attachment 25: September 21-October 6, 2022, Emails Between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Call on Charging Timeline. This is a thread between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley (whose name the FBI tried hard to keep obscure), Gary Shapley, about setting up the meeting he wanted. Because he was in the Netherlands the last week of September they instead waited until he returned. Shapley sent out his list of agenda items, showing clearly that he came into the October 7 meeting with an agenda — listing “1. Special counsel 2. election deferral comment – continued delays 3. venue issue”. — and a wildly mistaken understanding of how Special Attorney status works. At 4:34PM, two hours after the WaPo story posted, she says the meeting will include, “Anything further that develops by tomorrow.”

September 21 – October 6, 2022 Attachment 1: September 21-October 6, 2021, Emails Between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley, Gary Shapley, cc’ing Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Call on 2 Timeline. This shows the last two emails to the earlier thread.

September 28-29, 2022 Exhibit 504: September 29, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Darrell Waldon, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Lola Watson and Michael Batdorf, Subject: Sportsman. Darrel Waldon writes to note he requested a meeting with the US Attorney’s office. Ziegler notes he’s awaiting information about CDCA’s decision on charging 2017-2019. Hours later, Waldon asks him to call his cell. Seemingly after that call, Ziegler responds that, “we also need to request the presentation of 2014 and 2015 to the criminal chief / US attorney in DC.” This seems to be inconsistent with past claims about when and how closely DC USAO reviewed this case.

September 29, 2022 Exhibit 401: IRS CI Memorandum of Interview with James Biden on September 29, 2022. Ziegler has pointed to this interview — “James B was not sending RHB any deals while he was out in California.  … conversations were about getting RHB well at this point and not about business” — as proof that Hunter’s lawyers were lying about his attempts to do business in 2018; yet Hunter’s uncle made clear that he kept trying to engage him and also noted that his memory was not all that clear. The interview also raises questions about Tony Bobulinski’s motives and credibility (as Rob Walker already had). The interview timing is as important as anything else — Shapley went on a tear about the timing of charging before this key interview was even done.

October 6, 2022 Attachment 26: October 6, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman. After responding to Holley, Shapley alerts his supervisors of the Devlin Barrett story that he would later claim he didn’t know where it was published, noting that it is likely to come up at the meeting the next day. He identifies that the leak was “purportedly from the ‘agent’ level, reveals he spoke with the IRS press person about it, and stated, “I have no additional insight that is anything but a rumor.” This marks the third or fourth inconsistent representation of Shapley’s knowledge of the leak.

October 6, 2022 Exhibit 505: October 6, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler and Carly Hudson, Subject: Sportsman Uncle question. One of the AUSAs tells Ziegler that Weiss asked about something Ziegler raised, and he states that DOJ-Tax didn’t expect the case to be indicted until 2023, as they were still working on approvals. Hudson sends the email at 10:07AM; Ziegler responds at 6:51PM. I find it exceedingly unlikely Shapley did not also know that the case would not be indicted until 2023.

October 7, 2022: Handwritten notes. As noted these notes show that Shapley misrepresented what David Weiss said and introduced the DC USAO review that would be mooted by the decision not to charge 2014 and 2015, something Shapley had been alerted to months earlier.

October 7-11, 2022: Shapley to Darrell Waldon. The original email Shapley shared, which makes it clear the meeting was dominated by the leak.

October 7-11, 2022 Attachment 6: October 7-11, 2022, Email Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Meeting Update. This adds Mike Batdorf’s response to both Shapley and Waldon, 3 hours after Waldon said he’d handle the referral to TIGTA.

November 7, 2022 Attachment 27: November 7, 2022, Notes, Subject: Telephone Call from FBI Special Agent Mike Dzielak and IRS-CI Case Agent Joe Ziegler. A 10-minute call in which an FBI Special Agent discusses with Shapley and Ziegler that DE USAO was asking for management level emails. Dzielak suggests that the FBI was balking, in the same way that Shapley still was. Shapley offered up that this was proof that DE USAO had no intention of charging, which is utterly debunked by the fact that they had made this request once before (he says in April-May here, but in his House Ways and Means testimony he said it was in March). There’s no mention of the leak.

November 8-10, 2022 Attachment 28: November 8-10, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley and Ryeshia Holley, Subject: Next Meeting in Delaware. This reflects Shapley’s immediate effort to schedule a December meeting after the November prosecution meeting was canceled. One reason he did so was because of the request for his own emails.

December 13, 2022: Shapley email to Michael Batdorf. This is the email where Shapley asked Batdorf to ask him if he had any questions about the emails that got turned over.

December 13-16, 2022 Attachment 30: December 13-16, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Meeting at Del USAO Today. Shapley emails Batdorf and Waldon to tell them that prosecutors and the FBI had an all-day meeting in Wilmington. Waldon asks if anyone from Tax participated.

January 6, 2023 Attachment 7: January 6, 2023, Notes, re: Call between Gary Shapley and Michael Batdorf on Whistleblowing. Shapley memorializes an either 8- or 13-minute call with Mike Batdorf, alerting him that on January 4, he lawyered up with “whistleblower” counsel. He gave a weird pitch (including that he would criticize the IRS, but that the IRS could boast that it was an IRS agent who “came forward.” Shapley claimed he would attend to 6103 and 6e matters he has not — including getting approval before sharing. He specifically left out the Senate Finance Committee. And he admitted that he expected DOJ to make “nefarious” allegations against him but hoped the IRS would support him. Batdorf said he hadn’t heard of any allegations.

January 20, 2023 Attachment 8: January 20, 2023, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Lola Watson, Subject: Discussion – Sportsman. In the guise of finding out what was expected of him, Shapley claimed that FBI investigators had been brought back on the Hunter Biden case (which he learned via Ziegler).  He also noted that a third FBI Agent on the team retired before mandatory retirement. Waldon corrects Shapley that the FBI agents met with DE USAO on other issues, but only inquired about Hunter Biden.

January 25-February 10, 2023 Attachment 9: January 25-February 10, 2023, Email Between Gary Shapley and Michael Batdorf, Subject: For Review/Approval: Administrative Leave Request for Protected Whistleblower Activities – Shapley. Shapley asks Batdorf for paid leave for meetings, including with Congress, months before any overt meetings with Congress happened (suggesting he may have met with Grassley). Batdorf not only gives him leave but offers to pick up his work to enable it. Shapley offers to document with whom he was meeting (which given that this request preceded most overt outreach by months, would have been really helpful), but Batdorf says that’s not necessary.

April 13, 2023 Exhibit 212: April 13, 2023, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Lola Watson, cc’ing Gary Shapley, Subject: Sportsman. Ziegler updates Lola Watson (but not Kareem Carter), about meetings Hunter’s lawyers are having, including with Brad Weinsheimer (which leaked). He claims, without evidence, that Weiss was responding to the Merrick Garland testimony. And he addresses two investigations (which involves someone whose taxes would have implications for Hunter Biden — possibly Kevin Morris, would be consistent with Ziegler’s testimony) from which his team has been excluded.

Attachment 31: May 15, 2023, Notes from Conference Call with Kareem Carter, Lola Watson, Gary Shapley, and Joe Ziegler, Re: Sportsman. Memorialization of 17-minute call on which Kareem Carter took the International Tax team off the Hunter Biden case. Some of Shapley’s claims (such as that he documented complaints going back ot June 2020) are not substantiated in the emails released. And he was downright insubordinate on the call. Importantly, his memorialization does not reveal that Ziegler was not invited on the call, and in fact falsely suggests that Ziegler received an invitation to the call.

May 18, 2023 Exhibit 213: May 18, 2023, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Douglas O’Donnell, Daniel Werfel, James Lee, Guy Ficco, Michael Batdorf, Kareem Carter, and Lola Watson, Subject: Sportsman Investigation-Removal of Case Agent. Joseph Ziegler’s email in which he acknowledges breaking chain of command to complain about his removal.

There was a really depressing House Judiciary Committee Hearing with Merrick Garland yesterday. Here’s my live thread.

There was a reprieve several hours in when Ken Buck noted that Republicans were going to be dissatisfied no matter what Garland did with the Hunter Biden investigation.

Buck: Do you know what people would have said if you had asked for US Attorney Weiss’ resignation when you became Attorney General, I’m sorry, US Attorney, yes, US Attorney Weiss’ resignation? They would have said you were obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation. That you were firing a Republican appointee, so that you could appoint a Democrat to slow-walk this investigation, and lose the leadership of that investigation. If you had made the same decision a year later because you were frustrated that the prosecution wasn’t moving fast enough, they would have again said you were interfering with the prosecution. If you, when US Attorney Weiss asked to become Special Counsel, if you had made the decision then to appoint someone else as Special Counsel, people would have criticized you because you would have been taking someone out of the investigation that knew the facts, that could lead the investigation, and put someone in who would have had to come up to speed on the investigation and wouldn’t have allowed major decisions to be made until they came up to speed. So in three different opportunities where you could have acted, you would have been criticized either way, whether you had acted or did not act in that situation. Far from slow-walking, really once the Trump Administration decided that that was the person leading the investigation, your hands were tied. You didn’t have the opportunity to make a decision on the leadership of that investigation.

But before and after that, Republicans relentlessly claimed that Hunter Biden was getting special treatment because the US Attorney investigating him, who wanted more leverage to force a plea deal, had been granted Special Counsel status — which should prove, instead, that DOJ was deploying extraordinary prosecutorial resources against a private citizen. Republicans relentlessly complained that Garland hadn’t interfered in Weiss’ investigation — at all! — to make him charge Hunter Biden more quickly or more aggressively when the entire point was he had agreed in his confirmation hearing not to interfere.

Republicans also repeated, over and over, two claims that Gary Shapley — the so-called whistleblower all these Republicans claim to trust implicitly — had already addressed in his notes. Those two claims are that David Weiss “let” statutes of limitation on the two Burisma years Republicans believe include the most corruption expire, and that he couldn’t get authority to charge Hunter in the venue — Los Angeles — where more recent tax years had venue.

Gary Shapley’s materials had always debunked the first claim: that Weiss “let” statutes of limitation expire. The email he sent his supervisors on October 7, 2022 clearly describes having been told that Weiss had decided not to charge 2014 and 2015.

The hand-written notes Shapley belatedly released provide even more details on this decision. They also make it clear that this discussion was a more extensive part of the October 7 meeting than Shapley reflected in his email and it occurred before any discussion of venue in DC, which would largely be mooted by a prosecutorial decision on 2014 and 2015.

Sure, Shapley stonewalled the committee on these notes for months, but he has now provided Jim Jordan’s committee even more proof that, before David Weiss “let” the statutes of limitation expire on these years, he made at least a preliminary prosecutorial decision not to charge them.

While other witnesses suggest this discussion remained ongoing — it wasn’t final — Weiss had laid out reason by that meeting why he wouldn’t charge.

That decision may well have been influenced by what DC US Attorney Matthew Graves told David Weiss about why he wouldn’t partner on the charges. As Garland explained in the hearing, the reason DOJ requires this consultation before granting Special Attorney status is so prosecutors understand how charges would hold up under local precedent and in front of local judges.

But that clearly wasn’t Weiss’ only reason. For one year, Weiss credited Hunter’s neglect to the grief of his brother’s death. For the others, he found that Devon Archer’s actions mitigated the charges (after Archer testified to Congress, he suggested they had missed the bulk of the things he had been asked in the grand jury). Two reasons remain entirely redacted — from us, but not committee members.

Once you establish that Weiss had made at least a preliminary prosecutorial decision and conveyed it to Shapley, you’ve got a disagreement, not neglect. You’ve got the kind of disagreement investigators have with prosecutors all the time. But you have none of the things that Republicans spent hours yesterday wailing about. Rather, you have an experienced prosecutor’s decision about why such charges weren’t sustainable or merited, just like charges against Don Jr weren’t viable for accepting Russian campaign help, even though he had probably committed a crime, or that it didn’t make sense to charge Don Jr for the crime DOJ could prove, the misdemeanor hacking.

And in Shapley’s latest notes, members of Congress even have the kind of details that will presumably show up in Weiss’ eventual report, some explanation why he didn’t charge those years. There was a reason Weiss didn’t charge those two years, but rather than accepting that the charges weren’t as cut-and-dry as Fox News has led members of Congress to believe, they’ve instead simply pretended no decision was made.

Using Shapley’s notes to establish that Shapley simply misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented Weiss’ comments about his authority take more work: though thus far, every witness — Weiss himself, Merrick Garland, two FBI witnesses, and even Shapley’s supervisor — has refuted Shapley’s claims about what he understood from that meeting (if he wasn’t simply establishing a false paper trail for himself on account of the leak investigation).

Importantly, Shapley’s supervisor said he kept Shapley out of discussions for the deliberative period that followed.

Waldon told the panel that he recommended to Batdorf that Shapley be removed from the case. Waldon said that Weiss told him after the October 2022 meeting that he would “not be talking with Mr. Shapley henceforth, as they were going through their deliberative process.”

“Before I left the special agent in charge position, in February, I recommended to Mr. Batdorf that Gary Shapley be removed as the [supervisory special agent] from the Hunter Biden investigation, primarily due to what I perceived to be unsubstantiated allegations about motive, intent, bias” Waldon said.

So in the same way that Joseph Ziegler’s comments about the October 7 meeting at which he was not present are all hearsay, any other impressions Shapley would have about what followed would also be hearsay.

But the way in which Shapley rewrote what David Weiss said even on October 7 shows that he transformed Weiss’ statement about intent — he “will” charge in CA if the US Attorney there declined to partner on it — into he “would have to ask for permission” — shows that he misunderstood and misrepresented what Weiss said.

In that meeting, Weiss clearly indicated that if CA declined to partner, he still would charge. There’s no way he would say that unless he had the understanding that he would be able to. And Shapley simply rewrote that statement, reflecting confidence he would be able to do that, into one matching Shapley’s misunderstanding of how the Special Attorney process worked, into one where it might be in question. Therein lies evidence, at least, that Shapley misunderstood the Special Attorney process and out of that misunderstanding created the opposite: paranoid claims that Weiss would not be able to charge.

Both of these details suggest that the prosecutorial decision simply wasn’t as cut-and-dry as the two IRS agents have claimed. Both of these details should have — had Garland been free to comment, had Democrats chosen a different strategy (rather than pursuing their own oversight questions) to rebut these claims — simply debunked much of the Republican squalling itself.

But it shouldn’t fall just to Garland (who, reporters know, cannot respond) or to Democrats to debunk these claims. It is the job of journalists to call out Republicans for making claims that have been debunked, debunked by their own cherished witness. And while some outlets have acknowledged that, deep into stories, those journalists who’ve championed Gary Shapley — see this report on which Devlin Barrett has the top byline, for example — are simply silent about the way that Shapley’s own notes undermine these GOP complaints.

Garland did not answer many of the specific questions about the Biden case, including issues raised by two IRS agent whistleblowers who have claimed Justice Department officials stymied and dragged the investigation. Repeatedly, the attorney general said lawmakers would have to ask Weiss — while also suggesting those answers may have to wait until the investigation is complete and Weiss issues a final report on it.

You know who already answered the questions Shapley raised? Shapley’s own notes!! Garland shouldn’t need to explain why Weiss “let” statutes of limitation expire when Shapley’s own notes record him having come to at least a preliminary decision not to charge those years before the statutes lapsed. A competent journalist should be able to do that.

Of course, Devlin Barrett has already provided abundant proof that Devlin Barrett prefers to parrot what Shapley and his handers say than to read what his notes actually record and report on the many ways those notes (and his decision to withhold more accurate hand-written notes for months) discredit Shapley as a source.

If Gary Shapley’s transcriptionists had reported this story rather than simply writing down what Shapley said, it would be far harder for Republicans to stage the kind of cynical attack on democracy they did yesterday. Instead they choose to be complicit in an effort to make the extraordinary targeting of a private citizen into its opposite, a sweetheart deal.

Democracy dies in that kind of complicity.

David Weiss and Abbe Lowell are already having fights that suggest Weiss wants to give the GOP a bread and circus proxy fight with Trump’s perceived enemies.

Weiss is demanding that Hunter Biden appear in person for his initial appearance; Hunter believes that’s unnecessary, in significant part because he already did the things — like getting a mug shot and getting processed through probation — in this docket, before Judge Marylin Noreika, that he would otherwise do at an initial appearance for the gun charge.

Republicans will complain that one reason he cited — the Secret Service expenses — weren’t a consideration for Trump’s two federal arraignments.

Mr. Biden also seeks this procedure to minimize an unnecessary burden on government resources and the disruption to the courthouse and downtown areas when a person protected by the Secret Service flies across the country and then must be transported to and from a downtown location. Without getting into specifics, numerous agents and vehicles are required for what would have to be a two-day event (for a proceeding that may be very short in duration). This includes agents and vehicles in California and in Delaware, as well as agents who must travel with him on the plane. In addition, as the Court is aware of from the last appearance, security also requires shutting down local roadways in downtown Wilmington, advance coordination with local law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service, and several other logistical challenges.

As Hunter’s filing notes, though, the DE Court has already waived personal appearances this year.

arraignments by video when it is more efficient to do so.2 In this regard, the request by Mr. Biden is not out of the ordinary arraignments by video when it is more efficient to do so.2 In this regard, the request by Mr. Biden is not out of the ordinary.

[snip]

The government’s opposition to this common-sense request is puzzling because Mr. Biden is not asking for special treatment with this request, as individuals without the additional considerations described herein regularly make such appearances by video.

Note, these appearances would have taken place before Hunter’s father ended the federal COVID emergency — but it is true that people are still permitted to make initial appearances remotely.

It sounds like Weiss (and Leo Wise, who has insisted on public humiliation as part of this procedure), wants to argue for a change in release conditions, and do so while Hunter is there in public.

Since that proceeding, Mr. Biden has scrupulously complied with his conditions since returning home to California (D.E. 15), and it is his expectation that those conditions will remain in place until the Court orders otherwise. Moreover, should there be any discussion of revising Mr. Biden’s existing conditions of release, there is no reason why these discussions cannot take place with the Court and the government present by video conference.

That will be an interesting discussion, given that these charges were charged 59 months after the alleged crime, for something that Weiss already agreed merited a diversion. Perhaps Weiss will use his larded on charges and the felony punishment to make an argument that Hunter would be more likely to flee — but again, Weiss already agreed this merited diversion.

This may also be a tactical fight, in advance of the challenge Lowell has already promised about whether Weiss can indict Hunter for charges he already agreed to divert. As Hunter noted, it got put in the same docket, with the prior initial appearance noted, affirming that it is the same proceeding.

Things are going to get testy. They’re going to get testy in a way that will provide yet more evidence that Republicans are demanding — and Weiss is acceding — to treat this as a proxy prosecution for Trump’s opponent, even though it is, instead, the prosecution of a private citizen. They’re going to get testy in a way that will justify a stunt that was premature when Hunter’s attorneys threatened it last year — to put the President on the stand to lay out how this is a proxy fight designed to get to him.

Judge Noreika ordered Weiss to respond by tomorrow.

Ever since I read the email Gary Shapley sent to his IRS supervisors, Darrell Waldon and Mike Batdorf, on October 7, 2022 purportedly documenting David Weiss saying he was not the deciding authority on charing Hunter Biden, I have wondered whether Waldon was largely brushing off Shapley’s claims about the meeting when he said, “you have covered it all.”

In any case, unlike Shapley, Waldon’s focus was on the leak, not what Weiss said. As I’ve noted, Waldon’s primary response was to tell Shapley that he would take care of the leak referral, but in congressional testimony Shapley claimed to have been the one who did.

And testimony Waldon gave to House Ways and Means Committee might be consistent with such a brush-off: Waldon described that around this time, he recommended Shapley be removed from the case, apparently because Waldon believed the claims of bias Shapley was making — in things like this email — were unsubstantiated.

Waldon told the panel that he recommended to Batdorf that Shapley be removed from the case. Waldon said that Weiss told him after the October 2022 meeting that he would “not be talking with Mr. Shapley henceforth, as they were going through their deliberative process.”

“Before I left the special agent in charge position, in February, I recommended to Mr. Batdorf that Gary Shapley be removed as the [supervisory special agent] from the Hunter Biden investigation, primarily due to what I perceived to be unsubstantiated allegations about motive, intent, bias” Waldon said.

Waldon is also the person who, in December 2022, reviewed the emails that Shapley had turned over after eight months of stalling. Indeed, on December 13, 2022, as Waldon was reviewing the emails, Shapley emailed Waldon plaintitively asking for something he adamantly refused to give Hunter Biden: Advance notice of investigative concerns.

If you have questions about any emails I would ask you share it in advance so I can look at them and be prepared to put them into context. The USAO was so eager to got my emails (which they already had 95% of) … then surprise … they “might” have a problem with a few of them that memorialized their conduct. If the content of what I documented, in report or email is the cause of their consternation I would direct them to consider their actions instead of who documented them.

I have done nothing wrong. Instead of constant battles with the USAO/DOJ Tax, I chose to be politically savvy. I documented issues, that I would have normally addressed as they occurred, because of the USAO and DOJ Tax’s continued visceral reactions to any dissenting opinions or ideas. Every single day was a battle to do our job. I continually reported these issues up to IRS-CI leadership beginning in the summer of 2020. Now, because they realized I documented their conduct they separate me out, cease all communication and are not attempting to salvage their own conduct by attacking mind. This is an attempt by the USAO to tarnish my good standing and position within IRS-CI … and I expect IRS-CI leadership to understand that. As recent as the October 7 meeting, the Delaware USAO had nothing but good things to say about me/us. Then they finally read “discovery” items (provided 6 months previous — that are not discoverable) and they are beginning to defend their own unethical actions.

Consider the below:

1. I am not a witness — therefor Jencks/impeachment is not an issue.
2. I am not the receiver of original evidence nor engaged i any negative exculpatory language against the subject … My documentation only shows the USAO/DOJ Tax’s preferential treatment of this subject. [bold underline original, italics mine]

Waldon’s impression that Shapley was making unsubstantiated claims of bias, which Shapley presumably knew, makes these two documents even sketchier, because they were written at a time when his claims of bias were already suspect.

For example, in May, Shapley turned over his email making claims of bias, but not the presumably more accurate handwritten notes he wrote in the October 7 meeting itself. Those notes show that Shapley misrepresented what Weiss said about charging in CA; those notes that show Shapley recorded a detail — what outlet published the October 7 leak — about which he claimed to be ignorant in his Ways and Means deposition.

In other words, those notes show Shapely making unsupported claims of bias. And they show that when his own emails were reviewed, he panicked.

Thus far, the evidence support Waldon’s conclusion, not Shapley. Shapley was literally inventing conspiracy theories about the process required before David Weiss could seek Special Attorney status to charge in CA.

Which may explain why, in his original testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, he dramatically claimed, “My life’s on the line here.”

Meanwhile, the documents and testimony elicited as a result of Shapley’s effort to ruin Hunter Biden’s life to save his own (job or reputation, I guess), only give Abbe Lowell more ammunition to show that his charges are selective prosecution pushed by someone identified as a problem a year ago.

Update: This post has been edited for clarity.

I can’t help but wonder whether the lawsuits Abbe Lowell is filing on behalf of Hunter Biden are preparation for an assault on the criminal charges against the President’s son.

Last week, for example, Lowell alleged that Garrett Ziegler had criminally hacked an iPhone encrypted on “the laptop” and had altered information on it. Whatever else the lawsuit will do, it will establish that DOJ chose to charge a non-violent recovering addict for owning a gun for 11 days in 2018, but has yet to do anything about the people who’ve serially compromised the digital life of the President’s son.

Lowell already has a bunch of other information to substantiate a selective prosecution case. But if he can demonstrate that DOJ ignored more serious felonies while still pursuing Hunter, it would only add to the evidence.

Today, Lowell sued the IRS for the media tour that Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have conducted since April, enumerated as follows (note, this only includes live appearances; Tristan Leavitt has made obviously problematic claims to print journalists as well):

Attorney A’s public statements in a letter to the Committee on Ways and Means on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Baier of Fox News on April 20, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on May 24, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Baier of Fox News on June 28, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on June 28, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on June 29, 2023.

Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to Jake Tapper of CNN on July 20, 2023.

Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to Megyn Kelly of the Megyn Kelly Show on July 20, 2023.

Attorney B’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on July 21, 2023.

Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to John Solomon of John Solomon Reports on July 24, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Martha MacCallum of Fox News on July 26, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements on Fox News on July 31, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Kaitlan Collins of CNN on August 11, 2023.

While statute permits and Hunter Biden did ask for punitive damages, ultimately he only asked for attorneys fees and $1,000 per disclosure — just $15,000 for this listed disclosures, as well as a program to ensure that IRS uphold the Privacy Act.

He’s not going to get rich with this lawsuit.

But Lowell also asked for all information in the IRS’ possession relating to these disclosures.

Ordering Defendant to produce to Mr. Biden all documents in its possession, custody, or control regarding the inspection, transmittal, and/or disclosure of Mr. Biden’s confidential tax return information;

If successful, this request would generate a good deal of information about the IRS tracking of these leaks (and any earlier ones). It might provide proof, in the form of metadata, showing when the IRS agents accessed this information and under what circumstances, including Ziegler’s overt promise to go back and find more data in response to demands from members of Congress. It might obtain information on the IRS’ own investigation of this leaking.

If DOJ is going to charge Hunter with tax charges, they’re going to need to present the investigation as conducted by Shapley and Ziegler — a point Abbe Lowell made in a letter to David Weiss last month.

Among other ways, these agents, sill employed by the Government, would likely be witnesses should any tax charge you file ever be tried. It is unprecedented for Government officials who are the investigators or prosecutors in the case and would be witnesses and rial counsel to conduct themselves in this manner which seks to try the issues in the court of public opinion rather than properly in a court of law. That conduct itself (in addition to the various other infirmities with the Government attempting to bring charges against Mr. Biden26) would support dismissal of any charges you have fled or would try to so file in the future.27

26 To be clear, we do not believe the Government could validly bring charges against our client concerning these issues given the express language of he agreed-upon Diversion Agreement.

27 Courts recognize that the crime of leaking or disclosing such information by Government agents sworn to uphold the law is often more egregious than the crimes those agents are charged with investigating. See, e.g., United States v. Walters, No. 17. 2373 (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2018) Jacobs, J. concurring) ([Tlhe leak of grand jury tesimony in some respects more egregious than anything [Defendant] did (insider wading) — the FB supervisor took an oath to uphold the law and was acting in a supervisory capacity to discharge an important public function.” (emphasis ddd).

Again, on top of all the other things Lowell could point to to substantiate a claim that Hunter was being selectively prosecuted, Lowell might ask why Hunter is being prosecuted but not Shapley and Ziegler.

For five years, the government has (apparently) chosen to relentlessly pursue pickayune charges against Hunter Biden while ignoring the crimes committed to try to set up those charges.

And Abbe Lowell may be preparing to make that case in the case of any trial.