Fact Check: Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney David Weiss Sets Record Straight on Expected Oversight Committee IRS Whistleblower Testimony

Washington, D.C. - During today’s Oversight Committee hearing, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigators that have been called to testify are expected to make claims that are directly and publicly contradicted by the Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, in charge of prosecuting the case. Republicans are attacking Trump appointees, often over decisions made during the Trump administration, many of which aligned with the policies of Trump’s Department of Justice.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley alleges that that there was “political interference” in the investigation of Hunter Biden.

FACTS:  Weiss—a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney—wrote on June 7th that he had ultimate authority and was never influenced by political considerations:

“I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations.”

[…]

“Throughout my tenure as U.S. Attorney my decisions have been made--and with respect to the matter must be made--without reference to political considerations."

Shapley alleges that “U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main DOJ at that time and was denied that authority.”

FACTS:  Shapley does not understand the difference between a special counsel and special attorney.  Weiss wrote on July 10th that he never sought special counsel status:

“I have not requested Special Counsel designation pursuant to 28 CFR § 600 et seq.  Rather, I had discussions with Departmental officials regarding potential appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 515, which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local U.S. Attorney.  I was assured that I would be granted this authority if it proved necessary.”

Two different Attorneys General under the Trump Administration, William Barr and Jeffrey Rosen, had the opportunity to appoint Mr. Weiss—or another prosecutor of their choosing—as special counsel to oversee this investigation.  Neither one elected to do so.

U.S. Attorney Weiss has remained in place and Attorney General Garland gave him authority to “continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to.”  Attorney General Garland, in fact, provided Mr. Weiss with even “more authority” than a special counsel.

Shapley alleges that Weiss said in an October 7th, 2022 meeting that “I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed” and that Weiss stated he “asked forspecial counsel authority from Main DOJ at that time and was denied” after being told D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves would “not allow” Weiss to bring charges in D.C.

FACTS: Weiss wrote on June 30th that if necessary, he had the authority to bring charges in any district:

“I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter.”

U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’ office reaffirmed Weiss’ ability to bring charges in any appropriate jurisdiction:

“As the Attorney General has said, U.S. Attorney Weiss was given full authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction he deemed appropriate. He did not need approval from this office or the U.S. Attorney to bring charges in the District of Columbia.”

In response to Attorney General Garland’s testimony that Weiss “had been advised that he has full authority to make those referrals you're talking about or to bring cases in other districts if he needs to do that. He has been advised that he should get anything he needs. I have not heard anything from that office that suggests they are not able to do anything that the U.S. Attorney wants them to do”—Shapley accused Garland of lying yet contradicted himself when he said: “I don't have any firsthand information into why Garland said that, but to all of us who have been in the October 7th meeting with Weiss, this was clearly false testimony.”

FACTS:  But Weiss himself wrote that he had “ultimate authority” in the case:

“I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution.”

Shapley alleges that “some of the decisions seem to be influenced by politics” and that “at every stage decisions were made that had the effect of benefiting the subject of the investigation” including “slow-walking investigative steps” and “not allowing enforcement actions to be executed.”

For example, Shapley complains that prosecutors, in the weeks before the 2020 election, “wanted to remove Hunter Biden’s name from electronic search warrants, 27039(d) orders, and document requests,” (Sept. 3rd, 2020) “would not allow a physical search warrant” on Hunter Biden’s residence (Oct. 22nd, 2020), and said there was “no way” that a search warrant of Joe Biden’s Delaware guest house would be approved (Sept. 3rd, 2020).  Shapley explained these decisions were because prosecutors’ “primary goal was to keep this investigation secret.”

FACTS:  The case began in November 2018 under the Trump Administration and the prosecutors, investigators, and key employees largely have remained the same.  Many of the allegations regarding delay and slow-walking occurred under the Trump Administration and under Trump-appointed IRS Commissioner and align with the widely reported, and explicitly outlined, priorities of then-Attorney General Bill Barr.

In 2020, when asked about the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, then-Attorney General Bill Barr made clear he saw no reason to, stating, “I think it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently within the department, and to this point I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel, and I have no plan to do so before I leave... If I thought a special counsel at this stage was the right tool and was appropriate, I would name one, but I haven't and I'm not going to.”

In fact, while Republicans allege that Hunter Biden received a “sweetheart deal” because of “political interference,” the exact opposite is true. Cases similar to Hunter Biden’s are often not charged, and rarely pursued to the extent that Mr. Biden’s has been.

In fiscal year 2022, there were approximately 10 million taxpayers who, like Mr. Biden, filed a return but failed to pay their taxes in full. However, there were fewer than 700 criminal sentencings that year across all federal tax crimes, not merely failure to pay.

Just last summer, Roger Stone and his wife agreed to an approximately $2 million settlement with the federal government after allegedly skipping out on their taxes for about a decade. Accused of attempting to “defraud the United States” as part of a scheme to buy a Florida residence with separate entities to fool the IRS, allegations against the Stones were comparable, if not far more serious than those against Hunter Biden.

###