We’ve all believed that something was rotten in Denmark, or in this case DC, but this story cements our suspicions as spot on.
Recently, the ongoing inquiry into Hunter Biden’s tax matters and international business dealings has drawn more attention, finding unsettling linkages that pose important concerns about conflicts of interest.
According to a Fox News article, a careful analysis of Delaware’s Chief Deputy Attorney General Alexander Snyder-Mackler, his ties with the Biden family, and the inquiry into Hunter Biden reveals a troubling network of connections that calls for closer examination.
It is impossible to ignore Mackler’s long-standing relationships with the Bidens, as he worked as Joe Biden’s vice presidential legal advisor and press secretary from 2007 to 2008.
The coincidence of Mackler’s employment as an assistant US attorney in the Delaware US Attorney’s office with the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial issues may be even more significant.
Although Mackler’s involvement in the investigation is still unclear, his important position in the office looking into the president’s son raises valid questions about his objectivity.
It’s interesting to note that emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop and confirmed by Fox News show a tight friendship between Mackler and Hunter Biden. Mackler even ended one email with the phrase “Love you brother.”
While Mackler claimed he was uninformed of the inquiry while serving as a federal prosecutor, the timing and style of their correspondence after the investigation had begun would be cause for concern.
Despite the ambiguity surrounding Mackler’s direct involvement in the probe, concerns about potential conflicts of interest arise naturally given his present work as Delaware’s deputy attorney general and his many trips to the White House while the Biden administration was in office. Notably, private discussions with President Biden and other senior government figures further compound the difficulty of the position.
Recent developments in Hunter Biden’s case, like his abrupt plea of not guilty after initially promising to plead guilty, fuel accusations of graft and political scheming.
The public, which is looking for truth and openness in this well-publicized probe, has taken note of this change. The IRS whistleblowers’ denials of their allegations of meddling in the Hunter Biden inquiry only serve to raise doubts about the case.
The combined inquiry by the House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Ways and Means Committee highlights the seriousness of the situation and demonstrates that there are concerns that cut across party lines.
Merrick Garland, the U.S. AG, claimed that investigators had complete autonomy in prosecutorial judgments; yet, the residual impression of prejudice necessitates a comprehensive and open investigation.
Republicans in the House have requested testimony from government authorities, underscoring how urgent it is to address these issues.
It is crucial to maintain the investigation’s credibility by making sure it is free from political influence and abides by the rules of justice and fairness.
The integrity of the procedure is called into question by the presence of obvious conflicts of interest, which are best shown by Mackler’s close ties to the Biden family and the continuing inquiry.
Earlier this month Professor of law at Georgetown Jonathan Turley raised a number of problems with the assertion made by federal prosecutor David Weiss that the Justice Department did not impede his inquiry into Hunter’s criminal conduct in any manner.
Hunter’s federal inquiry was overseen by Weiss, and on June 20 the president’s son accepted a plea agreement as a result. Gary Shapley, an Internal Revenue Service whistleblower, first made charges that Weiss did not have complete authority over the inquiry before then, though.
In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Weiss refuted the charge. Shapley also claimed that Danny Werfel, the IRS commissioner, and Garland lied to Congress about the Hunter investigation.
“So, I just want to remind viewers from a week ago, Weiss, the prosecutor out of Delaware, sent a letter to Jim Jordan, and he seemed to outline his defense in four different parts. You have seen that letter. Do you have questions about the letter or do they satisfy you? And then I’ll ask you specifically about it, too,” Fox New’s Bill Hemmer asked Turley.
“No, there is nothing to be satisfied with because there’s no answers in the letter. That is, what Weiss is saying is, ‘I was given this authority,’ but doesn’t deal with the specific allegations of these whistleblowers,” Turley answered.
“We have numerous witnesses, and other witnesses who are named in these accounts, who were present at a meeting where Weiss allegedly said that he was not the final decision maker, that he had tried to become a special counsel and was denied, and they were also told that the charges were attempted in California and D.C., but rebuffed by those U.S. Attorneys,” he continued.
“That’s in direct and irreconcilable conflict with what has been said by Attorney General Garland. What Weiss is saying is, ‘I was given this authority,’ and so he’s got to answer to these discrepancies. But the problem that Weiss has is that the case itself is just a glaring mountain of contradiction,” he asserted.
“I mean, the Justice Department seemed to let the statute of limitations run. Some of us wrote columns before that date and said, ‘Why are you doing this? The statute’s about to run.’ These whistleblowers are saying that it did appear to be intentional, that there was an agreement that more serious charges could be brought against Hunter and those were scuttled,” Turley railed.
Source: Fox News