Fmr Whitewater counsel claims ‘devastating’ Hunter indictment is a vindication of whistleblowers

Former Whitewater deputy counsel Sol Wisenberg believes the “devastating” indictment against Hunter Biden is a “vindication” of the much-maligned IRS whistleblowers.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” this Friday morning, he reacted to the previous day’s news that Hunter had been indicted.

“This indictment, which is a devastating speaking indictment, really is a complete vindication of the whistleblowers. There’s no reason this indictment couldn’t have been brought a year ago or two years ago. Remember, the whistleblowers had to fight to get this investigation continued and ultimately lost. And if it hadn’t been for [Judge Maryellen Noreika] in that federal Delaware courtroom, that hinky plea deal would have gone down,” he said.

“She did her job and stopped this from happening. And it’s really, from a criminal defense perspective, from a white-collar crime perspective, I would really say the defense attorneys for Hunter Biden got too greedy in what they wanted from that plea deal. And that’s why it blew up. It was a big mistake in how they handled this case,” he added.


As previously reported, Hunter had been about to accept a sweetheart plea deal in July “that would have allowed him to avoid prosecution if he met certain conditions over a 24 month period,” according to CNN, when the deal suddenly fell apart because of Noreika, a Trump appointee, crying foul over several aspects of the deal.

She “raised concerns about the parties linking Hunter Biden’s tax plea agreement to the deal on the gun charge and over whether or not a provision in the deal would grant Hunter Biden blanket immunity — meaning that the government would not prosecute more broadly going forward,” ABC News reported at the time.

As a result, the plea deal fell apart, prompting anger from the left. Hunter’s supporters pointed to U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the prosecuting attorney, as proof that everything about his case was on the up and up.

The argument was that because Weiss was appointed by former President Donald Trump, a Republican, the sweetheart plea agreement he’d granted President Joe Biden’s youngest son surely couldn’t be corrupt in any way, shape, or form.

Well, there was a problem with this narrative …

The narrative was based on the assumption that the decision on whether or not to charge Hunter was in the hands of Weiss. But what if it wasn’t? What if there was proof that his hands had been tied by higher-ups within the Department of Justice?

It turns out there was indeed proof. The proof could be found in IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s testimony to Congress:

“In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status,” reads what appears to be a summary of his testimony.

“Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10,” the summary continues.

“Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress,” the summary concludes.

Attorney General Merrick Garland for his part called bull, claiming during a press conference that there was no legitimacy to these allegations.

“As I said at the outset, Mr. Weiss, who was appointed by President Trump as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and who was assigned this matter in the previous administration, would be permitted 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,” he said.

“I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution given that he ever has this authority,” he added.

Legal scholar Johnathan Turley noted in a column at the time that if Shapley was telling the truth, “that means that Garland was not just hearing from experts and members of Congress calling for an appointment, but that Weiss himself also saw the need for such an appointment.”

“Moreover, the report indicates that others in the investigation believed that there was a need to create such separation from the Justice Department in light of what they viewed as the special treatment given the president’s son,” the column, published in The Hill, continued.

Notably, Turley also noted that, if true, it’d explain so much.

“These accounts could explain why the Justice Department took five years to secure a guilty plea to two misdemeanors that could have been established in the first month of the investigation,” he wrote.

“It would explain why there is no evidence of serious investigation into the influence peddling or a charge under FARA. It would explain why Hunter’s lawyer cannot recall ever being asked about the laptop. It would explain why the problem is not the Justice Department’s motto, but the man who is tasked with fulfilling it,” he added.

It’d in effect explain everything, which was likely why it appeared so many Americans wholeheartedly believed that Garland — not the whistleblowers —  were lying.

Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles