The Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office whistleblowers are not the subject of an investigation, but they are those who reportedly retaliated against the reporters. Following court filings by Delaware U.S. Attorney-cum-Secretary of State David Weiss, which stated that a possible research would be conducted into the whistleblowers'” do”
The IRS’s Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility were in fact the targets of the investigation when IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler wrote a letter to the Department of Justice on Tuesday requesting that Special Counsel Weiss ‘ office be investigated for “falsely suggesting ] to the public that some unnamed agency was investigating the conduct of the whistleblowers.”  ,
Accompanying the recommendation to the DOJ IG and Office of Professional Responsibility, was a five- page text that detailed the framework of Weiss’s reported fraud. That five- site email was sent by Shapley and Ziegler’s lawyers to the object investigating the whistleblowers ‘ claims of retribution, especially the U. S. Office of Special Counsel, or” OSC” — a separate department charged with investigating retribution claims, not to be confused with Weiss ‘ Office of Special Counsel.  ,
In response to a motion filed by Hunter Biden in his pending felony tax scam case, Special Counsel Weiss wrote that” IRS agents, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler,… have made unsupported claims that prosecutors ‘ decision-making in this research was infected by elections,” according to the letter to the OSC. The response filed by the Special Counsel’s office in the Biden criminal case continued:” ]A ] s described in the attached declaration, Exhibit 2 ( filed under seal ), the IRS has taken responsible steps to address Shapley’s and Ziegler’s conduct“. ( Emphasis added. )
The public filing also contained” a partially redacted paragraph that refers to a potential ongoing investigation ( s ),” according to the accompanying motion to seal Exhibit 2 and two other exhibits.
” Three exhibits ( Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 ) reference a potential ongoing investigation ( s )”, Special Counsel Weiss further explained, adding:
The Office of IRS Chief Counsel informed the government that the investigating entity that was mentioned in each of Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 agreed that the documents could be cited in a court filing, with the exception of requests to seal these exhibits and specific references to them in order to safeguard the integrity of any potential ongoing investigation( s ).
The potential investigation( s ) may involve allegations of wrongdoing, according to Special Counsel Weiss ‘ legal team, and it may be frustrated or not served if the general public were given access to these materials while the potential investigation( s ) were being investigated. The defendants next emphasized that, to be clear, any research the U.S. Department of Justice may be conducting are not made references to the plaintiff.
Given that Special Counsel Weiss argued” the attached declaration, Exhibit 2 ( filed under seal )”, established” the IRS has taken responsible steps to address Shapley’s and Ziegler’s conduct”, the clear implication was that Shapely and Ziegler were the target of a potential investigation. However, according to the whistleblowers ‘ attorneys, OSC was the “investigating agency” that” specifically requested that the government request that the court seal the exhibits” in order to safeguard the integrity of the potential ongoing investigation ( s ) on Monday.
In other words, and as the whistleblowers ‘ Strengthen Management legal group stressed in its letter to OSC — calling the information” surprising” — that means the IRS and Special Counsel Weiss’s office “hid and twisted” the fact that the OSC’s was investigating” the whistleblowers ‘ personal allegations” of retaliation, to make the false impression that the whistleblowers were under investigation for possible wrongdoing.
Empower Oversight requested that the OSC correct the information and make it clear that the investigation was focused on whistleblowers ‘ claims of retaliation rather than on any alleged misconduct. The Empower Oversight legal team also suggested that Special Counsel Weiss’s efforts” to generate a false public relations narrative” i. e., that Shapley and Ziegler were under investigation, was “further reprisal” for their protected whistleblower disclosures.
The false impression the special counsel’s office created that Shapley and Ziegler were under investigation did n’t merely affect the whistleblowers, however. Rather, with the misleading court filings, the special counsel’s office potentially impacted the criminal case against Hunter Biden.
Weiss ‘ entire argument against Hunter Biden’s claim that the government had not taken any action in response to whistleblowers ‘ alleged misconduct was to refute Hunter Biden’s claim. By pointing out that Shapley and Ziegler had only engaged in whistleblower-protected activities, Weiss should have refuted Hunter Biden’s allegations on the merits. But Weiss apparently could n’t bring himself to do that, leaving the special counsel’s office to instead suggest the duo were under investigation.
Hunter Biden remains to find out whether he knew about Weiss ‘ plot or whether he was unaware of the recent revelations that Special Counsel Weiss ‘ inquiry focused on those who allegedly retaliated against Shapley and Ziegler. If the latter is true, Hunter Biden’s legal team could launch a new legal challenge to Weiss ‘ team based on prosecutorial misconduct, but they would be correct this time, even though the indictment’s dismissal would still be inappropriate.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She then worked for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a permanent law clerk for nearly 25 years. Former full-time university professor, Cleveland teaches adjunct occasionally. The New Civil Liberties Alliance also has Cleveland as its attorney. You can follow Cleveland on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland to learn more about her most cherished accomplishments, including her husband and son. Cleveland’s opinions are those of her personal life in this article.
