Following the bombshell disclosure of IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee regarding the mishandling of the investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax malfeasance, lawyers for the Bidens have gone on the offensive, attempting to undermine Shapley’s credibility.
On June 23rd, attorney Chris Clark issued a statement attempting to wave away Hunter’s words and actions (particularly those contained in the now infamous WhatsApp message to Chinese businessman Henry Zhao, indicating Joe Biden was in the room with him as he as threatened Zhao with destruction if he didn’t pay up immediately), the product of “horrible addiction” and characterizing Shapley as a “very biased individual.”
Then, on June 30th, attorney Abbe Lowell launched an all-out attack on Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, as well as Shapley. As we reported:
After Lowell pushes that narrative on the messages, though, he tries to do something even more outrageous. He comes after the IRS whistleblowers, too—while throwing shade on “the timing of the agents’ leaks”:
What he’s saying: Lowell suggests the IRS agents interviewed may be claiming the title of whistleblower “in an attempt to evade their own misconduct” and clams that the “timing of the agents’ leaks and your subsequent decision to release their statements do not seem innocent.”
Now, Shapley’s attorneys have responded to the mudslinging, and they’re calling the Biden lawyers’ bluff.
In a July 3rd letter to Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and Perry Stein, attorneys for Shapley lay out — in great detail — the chronology of the events surrounding their October 6, 2022, article revealing that “Federal agents see chargeable tax, gun purchase case against Hunter Biden,” Shapley’s subsequent decision to become a whistleblower, and his sworn testimony before the committee in May.
The crux of the three-page letter is the insistence that Shapley was not the source for the article and has, in fact, never had contact with either reporter, despite accusations and insinuations from Hunter Biden’s lawyers that Shapley illegally leaked the information to the Post. Shapley’s lawyers (Mark Lytle, Jason Foster, and Tristan Leavitt) essentially challenge the reporters to confirm Shapley was not their source and “clear his good name.”
From the letter:
As you know, SSA Shapley was not a source for you on that story, or any other story for that matter. SSA Shapley has never communicated with either of you, either on or off the record. If he had, and if you had ever given him any pledge of confidentiality, you are here by released from that pledge, so that you may contradict his denial, if it were inaccurate. Thus, you are now free to correct Mr. Biden‘s attorneys and clear SSA Shapley‘s good name of these falls and retaliatory charges.
The letter recounts how in April 2023, attorney Chris Clark released a statement “falsely claiming without evidence that our client committed a crime by merely expressing a desire, through counsel, to lawfully blow the whistle to Congress.”
Additionally, the letter notes, in June 2023, Clark issued a statement “falsely claiming without evidence that our client had ‘released publicly yesterday’ a document referenced in his protected whistleblower testimony to Congress as part of an alleged pattern of ‘illegal’ and ‘politically-motivated, selective leaks.’” As Shapley’s attorneys point out, however, Shapley released no documents to the public. Rather, he made legally protected disclosures to the Ways and Means Committee, which then voted to release documents containing those disclosures to the public.
The letter then confronts attorney Abbe Lowell’s June 30th attack, referring to it as a “10-page, error-riddled screed,” falsely claiming that the committee had not properly admonished Shapley of his obligation to be truthful — when the transcript of his publicly-released testimony clearly shows he was advised: “Witnesses that knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001,” and acknowledged same.