Jordan demands Smith retain all records related to Trump prosecutions as special counsel’s office winds down

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is concerned that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors involved in the investigations of now President-elect Donald Trump will "purge" records to skirt oversight and is demanding they produce to Congress all documents related to the probes before the end of the month, Fox News Digital has learned. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., penned a letter to Smith on Friday, obtained by Fox News Digital. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been ‘gaming out legal options’ in the event that President Donald Trump won the election," they wrote. "With President Trump’s decisive victory this week, we are concerned that the Office of Special Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information." 

Jordan and Loudermilk warned that the Office of Special Counsel "is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions." 

"We reiterate our requests, which are itemized in the attached appendix and incorporated herein, and ask that you produce the entirety of the requested material as soon as possible but no later than November 22, 2024," they wrote. 

Jordan and Loudermilk are demanding Smith turn over information about the use of FBI personnel on his team — a request first made in June 2023 — and whether any of those FBI employees "previously worked on any other matters concerning President Trump." 

They also renewed their request from August 2023, demanding records relating to Smith and prosecutor Jay Bratt visiting the White House or Executive Office of the President; a request from September 2023 for records related to lawyer Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump aide Walt Nauta; a request from December 2023 for communications between Attorney General Merrick Garland and the special counsel’s team; and more. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds a long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

DOJ officials have cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Smith was leading an investigation into the alleged retention of classified records. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges stemming from that probe. 

The case was eventually tossed completely by a federal judge in Florida, who ruled that Smith was improperly and unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith also took over an investigation into alleged 2020 election interference. Trump also pleaded not guilty, but his attorneys took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue on the basis of presidential immunity. 

The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges as well. Trump attorneys are now seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., similarly alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully. 

House Judiciary sues Garland for Biden audio that Hur says shows him as ‘elderly man with a poor memory’

The House Judiciary Committee is suing Attorney General Merrick Garland to obtain recordings of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.

The committee, as part of the lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stressed the importance of the "verbal and nonverbal context" of Biden's answers that could be provided by the audio recordings – especially considering that Hur opted against charging Biden after the interview, in part, because he was viewed as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." 

DOJ WON'T PROSECUTE AG GARLAND FOR CONTEMPT FOR REFUSAL TO TURN OVER AUDIO FROM BIDEN, HUR INTERVIEW

The lawsuit comes amid chaos in the Democratic Party as leaders consider whether Biden should continue with his re-election campaign after the president’s widely panned debate performance last week.

The committee, in its lawsuit, says the president’s invocation of executive privilege over the materials "lacks any merit," and it asks the court to overrule that assertion of privilege. 

"This dispute is about a frivolous assertion of executive privilege," the lawsuit states. 

As part of the House impeachment inquiry against the president, the committee issued a subpoena to Garland to obtain records related to Hur’s investigation of Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified records. The committee sought materials related to Hur’s interviews with Biden and Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter of Biden’s 2017 memoir. 

The Justice Department has provided the committee with transcripts of those interviews, but Garland "has refused to produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer." 

"Instead, Attorney General Garland asked that President Biden assert executive privilege over those recordings, and President Biden complied with that request," the lawsuit states. 

The committee argues that audio recordings "are better evidence than transcripts of what happened during the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer." 

"For example, they contain verbal and nonverbal context that is missing from a cold transcript," the committee states. "That verbal and nonverbal context is quite important here because the Special Counsel relied on the way that President Biden presented himself during their interview – ‘as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’ – when ultimately recommending that President Biden should not be prosecuted for unlawfully retaining and disclosing classified information."

The committee argued that the audio recordings – not merely the transcripts of them – are "the best available evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview." 

SPECIAL COUNSEL CALLS BIDEN 'SYMPATHETIC, WELL-MEANING, ELDERLY MAN WITH A POOR MEMORY,' BRINGS NO CHARGES

"The Committee thus needs those recordings to assess the Special Counsel’s characterization of the President, which he and White House lawyers have forcefully disputed, and ultimate recommendation that President Biden should not be prosecuted," the suit states. 

The committee said Biden’s "self-serving attempt to shield the audio recording" of his interview from the public "represents an astonishing effort to expand the scope of executive privilege from a constitutional privilege safeguarding certain substantive communications to an amorphous privilege that can be molded to protect things like voice, inflection, tone and pace of speech." 

The committee also noted that the transcript of the interview was made public, which essentially "waived" executive privilege." 

"Additionally, the heart of the privilege claim – that Executive Branch employees will be less likely to cooperate with DOJ investigations if they know that audio recordings of their interviews may be released to Congress after DOJ has made transcripts of those same interviews publicly available – is at odds with common sense," the lawsuit states. 

"If the potential for disclosure would chill cooperation, it would be the disclosure of a transcript, which DOJ voluntarily disclosed here, not the disclosure of audio recordings after the transcripts are widely available," the lawsuit states. 

The committee argued that because of this, Biden’s invocation of executive privilege "lacks any merit." 

"The Committee therefore asks this court to overrule the assertion of executive privilege and order that Attorney General Garland produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer to the committee," the lawsuit states. 

The lawsuit comes just weeks after the House of Representatives voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, referring him for criminal charges over defying the congressional subpoenas for the audio recordings.

The Justice Department, though, said it would not prosecute Garland. 

"Consistent with this longstanding position and uniform practice, the Department has determined that the responses by Attorney General Garland to the subpoenas issued by the committees did not constitute a crime, and accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General," Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte told House Speaker Mike Johnson in a letter last month. 

Hur, who released his report to the public in February after months of investigation, did not recommend criminal charges against Biden for mishandling and retaining classified documents, and he stated that he would not bring charges against Biden even if he were not in the Oval Office. 

Those records included classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other countries, among other records related to national security and foreign policy, which Hur said implicated "sensitive intelligence sources and methods."

House GOP probes whether special counsel office helped retaliate against Hunter Biden whistleblowers

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are investigating whether the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has contributed to the alleged retaliation and "smear campaign" against IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, who brought claims of political influence in the Hunter Biden investigation to Congress. 

Fox News Digital has exclusively obtained a letter penned by House Speaker Mike Johnson; House Majority Leader Steve Scalise; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer; House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan; and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith to the Office of Special Counsel. 

The top Republican lawmakers are seeking a briefing to determine whether there has been improper influence surrounding the IRS whistleblowers’ claims pending before the OSC. 

"IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have been wholly consistent in their testimony about misconduct and politicization in the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation of Hunter Biden," the Republican leaders said in a joint-statement to Fox News Digital. "They did exactly what an honorable government employee should do: when they witnessed wrongdoing, they reported it responsibly and made legally protected disclosures." 

ADVOCATES FOR IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS ACCUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL WEISS OF RETALIATION, MISLEADING: ‘SMEAR CAMPAIGN’

The lawmakers said that "because of their bravery and integrity, we are finally beginning to see steps toward accountability." 

"But this has not come without great cost to them," they added. "Mr. Shapley and Ziegler have faced retaliation for doing the right thing." 

IRS WHISTLEBLOWER SHAPLEY SAID HE 'COULD NO LONGER PURSUE' HUNTER BIDEN SUGAR BROTHER KEVIN MORRIS DUE TO CIA

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is tasked with protecting whistleblowers, must conduct an impartial investigation of the claims of Mr. Shapley and Ziegler without improper influence from those seeking to smear these courageous individuals." 

Shapley, who led the IRS’ portion of the Hunter Biden probe, and Ziegler, a 13-year special agent within the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division, have alleged political influence surrounding prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden investigation, which began in 2018.

Shapley has said decisions "at every stage" of the probe "had the effect of benefiting the subject of the investigation."

And Ziegler has said that Hunter Biden "should have been charged with a tax felony, and not only the tax misdemeanor charge," and that communications and text messages reviewed by investigators "may be a contradiction to what President Biden was saying about not being involved in Hunter’s overseas business dealings."

Ziegler also alleged that federal investigators "did not follow the ordinary process, slow-walked the investigation, and put in place unnecessary approvals and roadblocks from effectively and efficiently investigating the case," including prosecutors blocking certain questioning and interviewing of Hunter Biden’s adult children.

IRS OFFICIAL SAYS HE WAS FRUSTRATED DOJ DID NOT BRING CHARGES AGAINST HUNTER BIDEN FOR 2014, 2015 TAX YEARS

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained the letter they wrote to OSC Acting Principal Deputy Special Counsel Karen Gorman, which notifies her that they are investigating whether the OSC "has contributed by action and/or inaction to retaliation" against Shapley and Ziegler. 

The House Republican leadership and committee chairmen requested a briefing to "better understand OSC’s conduct and to ensure that there has not been any improper influence on OSC’s investigation." 

Shapley and Ziegler both have whistleblower retaliation claims pending before the OSC.

"In particular, SSA Shapley made protected disclosures about the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the Hunter Biden investigation," they wrote, adding that Shapley alleges that then-U.S. Attorney, now-Special Counsel David Weiss "began retaliating against him in November 2022 upon learning of the disclosure of his Office’s wrongdoing." 

The Republicans said that in March of this year, Weiss filed a redacted document related to the whistleblowers with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS REFER HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES BIDEN FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

They noted that "the phrasing of and redactions to the filing have led to media speculation about whether the whistleblowers themselves are under investigation for wrongdoing," but said they have received information to prove that Shapley and Ziegler "are not under investigation." 

Last month, Shapley and Ziegler said they would seek an inspector general investigation into Weiss, alleging he "hid and twisted" information – prompting more angst on Capitol Hill amid inquiries into Biden family conduct and alleged politicization of the Justice Department.

Empower Oversight, the legal group representing Shapley and Ziegler, alleged that Weiss’ team – in a March 11 federal court filing – deliberately misled the public by suggesting an unnamed federal agency was investigating the two whistleblowers for misconduct. However, the vague reference to the "potential investigation(s)" is a reference to a probe the whistleblowers sought, alleging the Justice Department and IRS were retaliating against them for their disclosures.

"David Weiss has been retaliating against Gary Shapley ever since Shapley objected a year and a half ago to letting the statute of limitations lapse on 2014 felony tax charges against Hunter Biden," Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, told Fox News Digital last month. "Weiss then learned from internal IRS communications that Shapley had been telling his IRS chain of command about Weiss' office pulling punches in the Hunter Biden probe."

Empower Oversight at the time also asked the OSC to clarify for the record that the two agents are not under investigation.

Meanwhile, the House GOP leaders noted that President Biden’s nomination of now-Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger caused senators to express "deep concern" about his ability to "fairly" investigate the whistleblowers’ claims given his past work. 

Dellinger worked at Boise Schiller law firm "with Hunter Biden on various Burisma-related matters." 

Dellinger recused himself from the OSC’s investigation related to whistleblowers’ claims. 

OSC did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. 

Weiss indicted Hunter Biden on federal gun charges in Delaware. Hunter Biden was found guilty on all counts last week. Hunter Biden had pleaded not guilty. 

Weiss also charged the first son with federal tax crimes. That trial is set to begin on Sept. 5 with jury selection in California. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty. 

Biden’s ‘privilege’ claims sound like arguments Trump officials made before getting thrown in jail: attorney

President Biden's assertion of executive privilege to prevent recordings of his interviews with special counsel Robert Hur from being released shares some similarities with former President Trump's attempts to use privilege while in the White House, according to one legal expert.

Though transcripts of Biden's interview with Hur have already been released to a committee, the White House asserted executive privilege to block the audio recordings from becoming public while arguing in lockstep with Attorney General Merrick Garland that "law enforcement files like these need to be protected."

"The same arguments were made during the Trump years as are being made now. It's just that the roles are reversed," former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy told Fox News Digital

"For example, during the Mueller investigation, Trump made available Don McGahn, who was the White House counsel. They not only let Mueller interview McGahn at length, but McGahn took voluminous notes of his conversations with Trump, which they also turned over. And then Democrats wanted to subpoena McGahn to come to the House Judiciary Committee, and the Republicans fought it.

BIDEN'S PRIVILEGE CLAIM TO KEEP SPECIAL COUNSEL INTERVIEW UNDER WRAPS A 'CRUDE POLITICS' MOVE: EXPERTS

"What they said was giving information to an executive branch prosecutor doesn't waive the privilege as to Congress," he added. "The Democrats all said that this was an obstruction of justice, that it was outrageous, that he'd already waived the privilege by allowing McGhan to speak to the prosecutor."

Executive privilege has been around since the earliest days of the country and gives the executive branch the ability to withhold certain internal discussions and documents from scrutiny by the courts and the legislative branch. It allows the president some breathing room for his own deliberations with staff.

"The fact is that since the Republic started, presidents have been withholding information from Congress," McCarthy said.

Congress has a variety of tools it can use to pry information out of the executive branch, including by holding people in contempt. 

"Congress has a whole arsenal of stuff from the Constitution, powers that it can use to fight back and pry information out of the executive branch," McCarthy said. "You know, you can slash budgets or hold up appointments, and if it gets bad enough, you can start holding people in contempt. … The final option, obviously, is impeachment."

McCarthy warned, however, that if the president's party has enough influence in Congress, those efforts can be more challenging.

"If the president's party has enough sway in Congress that you can stop that arsenal from being used, then the whole thing is just a political calculation," he said. "Like for Biden here, it's how much worse would I be hurt by letting the tape come out or the recording come out than by stonewalling. It looks like the tape is so bad, he's decided that even though he's going to be damaged by stonewalling, that's better than letting the tape out."

McCarthy also highlighted how the media has reacted to Biden's assertion of executive privilege, saying they'll report on the matter in an attempt to preserve their integrity and then move on from it to "help Biden bury it."

"The usual problem that you always have here is that when Republican administrations stonewall, the media gets all whipped up about it, and when Democratic administrations stonewall, they feel like they have to cover it for a day or two so that they can say they covered it but then move on to another subject and help Biden bury it, or at least they'll try," he said.

Garland on Thursday defended Biden's decision to assert executive privilege, saying the subpoena for audio recordings "is one that would harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations."

"There have been a series of unprecedented, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department. This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just the most recent effort to threaten, defund our investigations, and the way in which there are contributions to an atmosphere that puts our agents and our prosecutors at risk," he added.

"It is the longstanding position of the executive branch held by administrations of both parties that an official who asserts the President’s claim of executive privilege cannot be prosecuted for criminal contempt of Congress," Associate Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote in a letter Thursday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and James Comer, chairmen of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Oversight and Accountability, respectively.

That "longstanding position," however, was challenged following Trump's term in the White House and the Capitol protests Jan. 6, 2021. 

Two individuals who served in the Trump administration and raised executive privilege claims — former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and former Trump adviser Peter Navarro – have been convicted of contempt of Congress and sentenced to serve jail time for their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Capitol protests.

TRUMP ALLY STEVE BANNON LOSES APPEAL ON CONTEMPT CONVICTION AS HE FIGHTS TO STAY OUT OF PRISON

Bannon, 70, was sentenced to four months in prison in October 2022 and a $6,500 fine for ignoring a congressional subpoena.

Bannon's appeal was denied last week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released a 20-page opinion that said granting Bannon's appeal would "hamstring Congress’s investigatory authority."

Bannon claimed he acted on the advice of his legal team and did not intend to break the law. Judge Bradley Garcia wrote the acting on "advice of counsel" defense is "no defense at all."

The ruling will be appealed, Bannon's attorney, David Schoen, told Fox News Digital last week.

Schoen noted that Bannon's attorney at the time he received the subpoena, Robert Costello, advised his client that he was not permitted, as a matter of law, in any way to respond to the notice, saying executive privilege had been raised and that it was not his privilege to waive it. Costello wrote the committee to inform it that Bannon would comply if the panel worked out any privilege issues with former President Trump or if a court ordered him to comply, Schoen said.

Similarly, Navarro, who reported to prison in Miami in March following an order from the U.S. Supreme Court, was charged and convicted with contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony and documents relating to the events of Jan. 6.

Though Navarro is attempting to appeal his contempt of Congress conviction, the court refused to postpone his imprisonment until after the appeal is concluded.

Navarro claimed he could not cooperate with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack because Trump had invoked executive privilege, an argument that lower courts have rejected.

The lower courts found that Navarro could not actually prove Trump had invoked executive privilege.

Biden's decision to assert the privilege, according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, came at the request of Garland. Jean-Pierre said it was Garland's suggestion that "law enforcement files like these need to be protected."

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a resolution to hold Garland in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department’s failure to produce the subpoenaed audio recording of Biden’s interview with Hur. The vote advances the measure for a full floor vote.

Hur led the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents after his departure as vice president under the Obama administration. Hur announced in February that he would not recommend criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials after his vice presidency, saying Biden is "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hur wrote in the report that "it would be difficult" to convince a jury to convict Biden of any willful crime, citing his advanced age. 

The findings sparked widespread outrage that Biden was effectively deemed too cognitively impaired to be charged with a crime but could serve as president. Trump has meanwhile slammed the disparity in charges as a reflection of a "sick and corrupt, two-tiered system of justice in our country."

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo, Elizabeth Elkind, Louis Casiano and Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for defying subpoenas after prosecuting Trump advisor

A President Biden-appointed judge slammed the Justice Department’s apparent hypocrisy on Friday for allowing attorneys involved in the Biden family investigation to defy subpoenas — even though former Trump advisor Peter Navarro is sitting in prison for doing the same thing.

District Judge Ana Reyes ripped the DOJ at a status conference for not letting DOJ lawyers Mark Daly and Jack Morgan provide testimony as part of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into the Biden family and the impeachment inquiry into the president. 

"There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena," Reyes said during a hearing on the Judiciary Committee’s lawsuit, according to Politico, seemingly referring to Navarro. 

HUNTER BIDEN CLAIMED HE DIDN'T 'STAND TO GAIN ANYTHING' IN CONTROVERSIAL BURISMA ROLE DESPITE MAKING MILLIONS

Navarro was sent to prison in March for four months, charged and convicted with contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony and documents relating to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro said he could not cooperate with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack because Trump had invoked executive privilege, an argument that lower courts have rejected.

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon also received a four-month sentence for similar contempt of Congress charges but was allowed to stay free pending appeal.

"I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up," but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, Reyes blasted. "You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant."

"And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. . . . And you don’t have to show up?" Reyes continued. 

She said that the DOJ’s position would delight defense attorneys up and down the country.

"I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys . . . who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up," Reyes said. 

HUNTER BIDEN ATTORNEY SLAMS 'ABNORMAL WAY' SPECIAL COUNSEL WEISS HANDLED CASE AFTER JUDGE DENIES DISMISSAL

Daly and Morgan, two attorneys with the Justice Department’s tax division, were subpoenaed for their "firsthand knowledge of the irregularities in DOJ’s investigation that appear to have benefited Hunter Biden," according to Courthouse News Service. 

The committee says the pair were members of a team that recommended what charges to bring against Hunter Biden for suspected tax crimes in 2014 and 2015 when he served on the board of Ukrainian company Burisma. 

That team initially agreed Hunter Biden should be charged but then reversed course and suggested he should not be charged.

Following the reversal, the Justice Department allowed the statute of limitations for those charges to lapse. The committee argues looking into this timeline is crucial to its investigation.  

Justice Department attorney James Gilligan tried to argue that the decision to defy the subpoena came after lengthy deliberations "at a high level."

He also argued that Daly and Morgan are current government employees, whereas Navarro and Bannon were no longer part of the government when their testimony was demanded, but Reyes seemed unimpressed by that reasoning. 

But her criticism wasn’t all directed at Biden’s DOJ.

Reyes scoffed at a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present.

She was also astonished that Gilligan wouldn't commit to instructing Daly and Morgan to testify if the committee were to drop its insistence that government counsel not be in the room for their depositions.

"I cannot answer that now," he said. To which Reyes responded, "Are you kidding me?"

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.  

House Judiciary Committee suing DOJ officials for testimony on Hunter Biden tax case

The House Judiciary Committee is suing Justice Department officials Mark Daly and Jack Morgan to enforce subpoenas for their testimony related to the Hunter Biden tax investigation as part of the broader House impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

Daly and Morgan were both involved in the Hunter Biden tax investigation and in early decisions not to prosecute, Republicans have alleged. 

According to the lawsuit, "The Committee intends to ask Daly and Morgan about these decisions, including why they initially agreed with bringing charges for the 2014 and 2015 tax years, why they then reversed their opinion just a few months later, what additional (if any) information they received that changed their minds, and whether they were in any way pressured to change their views by other people inside or outside of DOJ, and if so, by whom."

IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS: HUNTER BIDEN INDICTMENT IS A 'COMPLETE VINDICATION' OF INVESTIGATION, ALLEGATIONS

The committee subpoenaed Daly and Morgan in September 2023 and February 2024, according to the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit says Daly and Morgan did not comply "because their employer, DOJ, directed them not to appear." 

The suit names both men in their official capacity as DOJ employees. 

The Justice Department told Fox News that it is "committed to working with Congress in good faith." 

"We took the extraordinary step of making six supervisory employees available to testify on appropriate topics last year," a DOJ spokesperson told Fox News. "It is unfortunate that despite this extraordinary cooperation from senior DOJ officials, the Committee has decided, after waiting for months, to continue seeking to depose line prosecutors about sensitive information from ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions." 

HUNTER BIDEN PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO TAX CHARGES BROUGHT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL DAVID WEISS

The DOJ spokesperson added, "We will continue to protect our line personnel and the integrity of their work." 

The Justice Department said it will review the committee's filings "and respond in court." 

House Republicans have been investigating whether politics played a role in prosecutorial decisions in the Hunter Biden investigation. 

Special counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden in December, alleging a "four-year scheme" when the president's son did not pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020 while also filing false tax reports.

Weiss filed the charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

The charges break down to three felonies and six misdemeanors concerning $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid.

Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

In the indictment, Weiss alleged that Hunter Biden "engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019, from in or about January 2017 through in or about October 15, 2020, and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns in or about February 2020."

HOUSE COMMITTEES FORMALLY RECOMMEND TO HOLD HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

Weiss said in "furtherance of that scheme," the younger Biden "subverted the payroll and tax withholding process of his own company, Owasco, PC by withdrawing millions" from the company "outside of the payroll and tax withholding process that it was designed to perform."

The special counsel alleged that Hunter Biden "spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills," and that in 2018, he "stopped paying his outstanding and overdue taxes for tax year 2015."

Weiss alleged that Hunter Biden "willfully failed to pay his 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxes on time, despite having access to funds to pay some or all of these taxes," and that he "willfully failed to file his 2017 and 2018 tax returns on time."

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler said the tax charges against Hunter Biden were a "complete vindication" of their yearslong investigation into the president’s son.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler approached Congress earlier this year, alleging that prosecutorial decisions made throughout the federal investigation into the president’s son were impacted by politics.

Shapley, Ziegler and other IRS officials who testified before Congress, including Michael Batdorf, have said they were frustrated that the Justice Department did not charge Hunter Biden for failing to pay federal income tax for 2014 and 2015. They alleged that Weiss had allowed the statute of limitations to expire for tax charges against Hunter Biden from 2014 and 2015 in Washington, D.C.

Shapley, who led the IRS portion of the probe, said that Hunter Biden should have been charged with tax evasion for 2014, and for filing false tax returns for 2018 and 2019. With regard to the 2014 tax returns, Shapley said that Hunter Biden did not report income from Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. 

Fox News Digital first reported in December 2020 that Hunter Biden did not report "approximately $400,000" in income he collected from his position on the board of Burisma Holdings when he joined in 2014. 

House Republicans move to strengthen protections for DOJ whistleblowers

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are eyeing stronger protections for whistleblowers who come out publicly against the Department of Justice (DOJ).

A new bill led by Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., and backed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is aimed at trying to ensure an expedient and impartial process for DOJ whistleblowers.

"Unfortunately, the FBI and DOJ have a long history of quieting whistleblowers by pulling security clearances, delaying investigations and ending their careers. The Protect Whistleblowers from Retaliation Act will ensure those who come forward to do the right thing are able to do so without fearing for their future," Langworthy told Fox News Digital.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEMAND TRANSCRIPT OF BIDEN’S INTERVIEW WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL AS PART OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Jordan told Fox News Digital "dozens" of DOJ whistleblowers have approached his committee "with allegations of political bias and misconduct."

"These whistleblowers risked their careers and their livelihoods to speak out to shine a light on the problem and to restore public trust in the FBI. Regrettably, loopholes in existing whistleblower protection laws have allowed FBI senior leadership to retaliate against many of these whistleblowers," Jordan said.

DOJ DEFENDS SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT ON BIDEN'S MEMORY: 'CONSISTENT WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENT,' NOT 'GRATUITOUS'

The bill would affirm the DOJ Inspector General’s office as the sole investigator for whistleblower retaliation investigations and would require those investigations be completed within 240 days.

It would also block the DOJ from implementing personnel practices involving the removal of security clearances.

Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a 90-day pilot program to encourage whistleblowers to come forward with new and important information.

BIDEN, NOT SPECIAL COUNSEL HUR, BROUGHT UP SON'S DEATH IN QUESTIONING

The House Judiciary Committee has been investigating allegations of whistleblower retaliation within the FBI, in particular, since Republicans took the majority in January 2023. Its select subcommittee on weaponization of the federal government held a hearing in May of last year about alleged whistleblower retaliation within the bureau.

Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ for comment on Langworthy and Jordan’s accusations.  

Special Counsel Robert Hur to testify publicly on findings from Biden classified records probe

Special Counsel Robert Hur is expected to testify on Capitol Hill on his findings following months of investigating President Biden's mishandling of classified records.

Hur will testify publicly at the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at 10 a.m. 

Hur, who released his report to the public in February, did not recommend criminal charges against Biden for mishandling and retaining classified documents and stated that he wouldn't bring charges against Biden even if he were not in the Oval Office.

Those records included classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other countries, among other records related to national security and foreign policy, which Hur said implicated "sensitive intelligence sources and methods."

BIDEN RETAINED RECORDS RELATED TO UKRAINE, CHINA; COMER DEMANDS 'UNFETTERED ACCESS' AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Hur did not recommend any charges against the president but did describe him as a "sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory" – a description that has raised significant concerns for Biden's 2024 re-election campaign.

Biden has blasted Hur since the release of his report, saying his "memory is fine" and that he is the "most qualified person in this country to be president."

Biden also fired back at Hur for suggesting he did not remember when his son Beau died.

"How dare he raise that?" Biden said at the time. "Frankly, when I was asked a question, I thought to myself, what's that any of your d--- business?"

SPECIAL COUNSEL CALLS BIDEN 'SYMPATHETIC, WELL-MEANING, ELDERLY MAN WITH A POOR MEMORY,' BRINGS NO CHARGES

"Let me tell you something... I swear, since the day he died, every single day... I wear the rosary he got from Our Lady –" Biden stopped, seemingly forgetting where the rosary was from.

In his report, Hur wrote: "He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died."

But two sources familiar with the investigation said it was Biden who brought up Beau's death in the interview – not the special counsel. 

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.; and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., have demanded the Justice Department turn over the transcript and any recordings of Biden’s interview. 

The three committee leaders are leading the impeachment inquiry against Biden. They subpoenaed the materials last month. 

The Justice Department has not turned over transcripts or audio recordings of Hur’s interview with the president despite the subpoena compelling their production by March 7, a House Judiciary spokesman said.

"We received a small production from DOJ, but not the transcripts or audio that we need and requested," a House Judiciary spokesman told Fox News on Friday. "Our staff has all necessary clearances to review the contents of the President’s interview, which dealt with materials found in unsecured areas like garages, closets and commercial office space. We are evaluating next steps."   

A spokesperson from the Justice Department said, "The Department has been in touch with the Committees and anticipated responding to their subpoenas today." 

In a response obtained and viewed by Fox News, the DOJ added: 

"We urge the Committee to join us in seeking to avoid conflict when there is, in fact, cooperation." 

"Given this record, we are disappointed that the Committee chose to serve a subpoena less than three weeks after Mr. Hur’s report was transmitted to Congress and only seven business days after the Department made clear it was working expeditiously to respond in good faith to congressional requests on this matter. This compressed time frame is not reasonable given the standard interagency review process the Department explained to the Committee." 

"Your subpoena is premature and unnecessary given the amount of information the Committee has already received and the Department’s proactive efforts to prepare for responding to congressional requests on this matter."

Comer told Fox News Digital after the report was released that he wants "unfettered access to these documents to determine if President Biden’s retention of sensitive materials were used to help the Bidens’ influence peddling."

Jordan, Comer and Smith are concerned that "Biden may have retained sensitive documents related to specific countries involving his family’s foreign business dealings."

House GOP gunning for testimony from Biden Special Counsel Robert Hur, sources say

The House Judiciary Committee is in talks to have Special Counsel Robert Hur potentially testify on Capitol Hill after releasing his report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, Fox News Digital has learned.

Two sources told Fox News Digital that House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s committee is looking at late February or early March for possible dates for Hur to testify.

House Republicans appear poised for a lengthy probe into Hur’s findings after he released a 388-page report clearing President Biden of wrongdoing despite having "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials."

SPECIAL COUNSEL CALLS BIDEN 'SYMPATHETIC, WELL-MEANING, ELDERLY MAN WITH A POOR MEMORY,' BRINGS NO CHARGES

Hur said Biden came off "as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" and that "it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

Republican lawmakers have argued that Hur’s decision not to recommend charges against Biden is an example of the two-tiered justice system in the U.S. It’s also spurred speculation over whether the 81-year-old president is unfit for office.

Jordan, R-Ohio, along with House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Ways & Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Monday calling for him to release the transcripts and recordings of Biden’s interview with the special counsel’s office.

BIDEN RETAINED RECORDS RELATED TO UKRAINE, CHINA; COMER DEMANDS 'UNFETTERED ACCESS' AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

In the letter, they accused Biden of lying at a press conference after the report’s release when he said, "I did not share classified information. I did not share it" when asked whether he disclosed the sensitive information to his ghostwriter. 

"As explained to Mr. Hur in October, there is concern that President Biden may have retained sensitive documents related to specific countries involving his family’s foreign business dealings," they wrote.

"Further, we seek to understand whether the White House or President Biden’s personal attorneys placed any limitations or scoping restrictions during the interview that would have precluded a line of inquiry regarding evidence (emails, text messages, or witness statements) directly linking the President to troublesome foreign payments."

COMER DEMANDS ANSWERS ON WHETHER BIDEN CLASSIFIED RECORDS MENTION COUNTRIES RELATED TO FAMILY BUSINESS DEALS

The Judiciary Committee’s discussion with Hur is likely to come within days of Hunter Biden’s closed-door deposition in front of Jordan and Comer’s panels, the sources said.

The president’s son is sitting down with impeachment inquiry investigators on Feb. 28.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and DOJ for comment on Hur’s potential testimony.

House GOP probing if Biden was involved in Hunter’s ‘scheme’ to defy subpoena, potential ‘impeachable offense’

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are investigating whether President Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden’s "scheme" to defy his subpoena for deposition earlier this month — conduct, they say, "could constitute an impeachable offense." 

The House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Ways & Means Committee are investigating "whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden for consideration by the full House." The House formalized the inquiry earlier this month. 

JORDAN SAYS HUNTER BIDEN MADE A 'HUGE CHANGE' BY SAYING HIS FATHER WAS 'NOT FINANCIALLY INVOLVED' IN BUSINESS

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday penned a letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, to White House Counsel Edward Siskel, notifying him of the additional area of their investigation. 

"In light of an official statement from the White House that President Biden was aware in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, would knowingly defy two congressional subpoenas, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress," Comer and Jordan wrote to Siskel. 

The subpoenas were both for Hunter Biden's deposition — one from Comer and one from Jordan. The two chairmen planned to hold the deposition in the same room, at the same time. 

The president’s son was subpoenaed to appear for a deposition before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees earlier this month. Hunter Biden defied that subpoena, and instead, appeared on Capitol Hill and delivered a public statement before the press.

"On December 13, Mr. Biden did not appear for the deposition as required by the Committees’ subpoenas. Instead, Mr. Biden appeared on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol with his attorney and Representative Eric Swalwell," they wrote. "Mr. Biden gave a lengthy public statement to an assembly of reporters in which he made several statements that are relevant to the House’s impeachment inquiry, including representations about his business activities, assertions about President Biden’s awareness and ‘financial’ involvement in these activities, and attacks on the Committees’ inquiry." 

Hunter Biden "indicated that he would only testify in a public forum, a demand for special treatment that the Committees had previously rejected." 

HUNTER BIDEN WILL NOT SIT FOR DEPOSITION BY GOP, SAYS FATHER NOT 'FINANCIALLY' INVOLVED IN HIS BUSINESS

"Although Mr. Biden professed an interest in answering questions about his actions, he departed the Capitol grounds without taking any questions. The committees subsequently recorded Mr. Biden’s non-appearance at his deposition," they wrote. 

But later that day, Comer and Jordan pointed to a statement made by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She was asked whether the president had watched his son’s public statement. 

"White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden was ‘certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,’" they wrote. "Ms. Jean-Pierre declined, however, to provide any further details about the President’s actions on whether the president approved of his son defying congressional subpoenas." 

They added, though, that Jean-Pierre’s statement "suggests the President had some amount of advanced knowledge that Mr. Biden would choose to defy two congressional subpoenas." 

The chairmen pointed to the criminal code, citing the section which it states that it is unlawful to "corruptly…endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any investigation or inquiry is being had by…any committee of either House or any joint committee of Congress." 

"Likewise, any person who ‘aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures’ the commission of a crime is punishable as a principal of the crime," they wrote. 

"In light of Ms. Jean-Pierre’s statement, we are compelled to examine the involvement of the President in his son’s scheme to defy the Committees’ subpoenas," they wrote. "The Committees have accumulated substantial evidence that Hunter Biden’s business endeavors have improperly included his father, and the President has made false claims about his knowledge and involvement in these schemes." 

WHITE HOUSE, HUNTER BIDEN’S TEAM KEEP SHIFTING GOALPOSTS IN DENYING DAD’S INVOLVEMENT WITH BUSINESSES

Comer and Jordan also said that just days before Hunter Biden was scheduled to appear for his deposition, the president "claimed he had not interacted with any of his son’s business partners." 

"This is false," they wrote. "The President has met with, spoken to, and received money sourced from his son’s foreign business partners." 

Comer and Jordan said that in light of the evidence they have collected, "the fact that the President had advanced awareness" that his son would defy the subpoenas "raises a troubling new question that we must examine: whether the President corruptly sought to influence or obstruct the Committee’s proceeding by preventing, discouraging, or dissuading his son from complying with the Committee’s subpoenas." 

"Such conduct could constitute an impeachable offense," they wrote.

The chairmen demanded all documents and communications sent or received by the White House regarding Hunter Biden’s deposition, including communications with Hunter Biden, law firm Winston & Strawn LLP, and Kevin Morris. 

They also demanded all documents and communications sent or received by employees of the White House Executive Office regarding the president’s statement about his family’s business associates on Dec. 6, 2023. 

Comer and Jordan gave Siskel until Jan. 10, 2024 to produce the information.