IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s notes from an October 2022 meeting corroborate his testimony about Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss not having final charging authority on the Hunter Biden case.
Shapley’s handwritten, partially unredacted notes from an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting are included in a Wednesday letter his attorneys sent to the House Judiciary Committee after an FBI agent disputed Shapley’s account of the meeting, according to an interview transcript reviewed by the Daily Caller. (RELATED: FBI Agent Who Disputes Parts Of IRS Whistleblower Testimony Agrees Prosecutor Moved Hunter Biden Case Too Slowly)
READ SHAPLEY’S NOTES:
“In addition to the September 11 protected disclosure of nine new documents to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance pursuant to § 6103(f)(5), we are today providing those committees an unredacted version of SSA Shapley’s contemporaneous handwritten notes,” Shapley’s attorneys at whistleblower protection group Empower Oversight wrote in a letter obtained by the Daily Caller.
Shapley wrote down Weiss’ alleged statement that he did not have final charging authority and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) denied Weiss special counsel authority after Biden-appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves allegedly blocked him from charging Hunter Biden for tax offenses in 2014 and 2015.
“Weiss stated – He is not the deciding person,” Shapley wrote. “Not going to charge 14/15,” he noted in a separate bullet point below.
“Weiss requested special counsel status in D.C. + main DOJ said ‘no’ – follow the process,” Shapley added.
Shapley’s notes also contain Weiss’ alleged plan for next steps if the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California decides not to charge Hunter Biden for alleged tax crimes. Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney E. Martin Estrada declined to charge Hunter Biden in the Central District of California, Shapley testified, a statement The New York Times has independently confirmed.
“If CA USA says no – Weiss will request approval to proceed in CA,” Shapley wrote. (RELATED: DOJ Official Reportedly Approached IRS Whistleblower About Hunter Biden Accusations Before He Testified)
Shapley’s attorneys released an email in July that Shapley wrote documenting the Oct, 7, 2022 meeting after Weiss wrote a letter to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham denying Shapley’s accusations. Attorney General Garland has also denied Shapley’s allegations of political interference.
“Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed,” Shapley said in the email. “Weiss requested Special counsel authority.”
“Main DOJ denied his request and told him to follow the process,” he continued.
Shapley testified to the House Ways and Means Committee in May about alleged special treatment Hunter Biden received from DOJ investigators. The transcript of Shapley’s testimony was released in late June, and Shapley testified publicly in July alongside IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler. The House Ways and Means, Judiciary and Oversight Committees continue to investigate Shapley’s allegations in tandem with House Oversight’s investigation of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday the committees will be leading the House’s impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden.
Garland appointed Weiss special counsel in August following the collapse of Hunter Biden’s plea deal for two tax misdemeanors. In a July court appearance, Delaware U.S. Judge Maryellen Noreika questioned an immunity provision in Biden’s pretrial diversion agreement for his felony gun charge. The younger Biden pleaded not guilty to the tax charges as a result of a dispute between his defense counsel and DOJ special attorney Leo Wise because of Noreika’s line of questioning.
Weiss withdrew Biden’s two tax misdemeanors to potentially charge him in either Washington, D.C., or the Central District of California. He is also seeking an indictment in Delaware for Biden’s felony gun charge by the end of September. Hunter Biden’s attorneys believe the diversion agreement is legally binding despite the DOJ’s assertions it is not valid.
Henry Rodgers contributed to this report.