One trial down, one to go: Hunter Biden faces trial on federal tax charges next

Hunter Biden’s federal gun trial is complete, but the first son faces more criminal charges in California, with a trial set to begin in September

Hunter Biden was found guilty on all counts in Delaware after Special Counsel David Weiss charged him with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a licensed firearm dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. A date has not yet been set for sentencing for those charges.

HUNTER BIDEN TAX TRIAL POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER

With all counts combined, the total maximum prison time for the charges could be up to 25 years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000 and three years of supervised release. 

President Biden has vowed not to pardon his son. 

But Hunter Biden is set to return to court later this summer — this time, in California. 

That trial also stems from Weiss’ years-long investigation into the first son. 

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

He charged Hunter Biden with three felonies and six misdemeanors concerning $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. Weiss alleged 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. 

The trial was initially scheduled to begin on June 20, but United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Mark Scarsi, who is presiding over the case, granted Hunter Biden’s request to delay the trial. 

Hunter Biden’s tax trial is now set to begin on Sept. 5 with jury selection.

Johnson lays out strategy to crack down on DOJ ‘weaponization’ against Trump

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., revealed a "three-pronged" strategy for cracking down on the alleged weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday.

It comes as former President Trump faces criminal charges in two federal cases led by special counsel Jack Smith, as well as charges in Fulton County, Georgia, and a criminal conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan criminal court.

Three people, two GOP lawmakers and a source familiar with the plan, told Fox News Digital that Johnson’s strategy to rein in the "weaponization" of the DOJ is broadly focused on three pillars: oversight, appropriations and legislation.

Johnson updated Trump on the plan ahead of announcing it to his House GOP conference, Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL

Johnson confirmed his approach during a press conference just after the meeting.

"We’re going to do everything we can, everything within our scope of our responsibility in the Congress, to address it appropriately. And I announced this morning to our conference, we're working on a three-pronged approach," Johnson told reporters.

"We’re looking at various approaches to what can be done here through the appropriations process, through the legislative process, through bills that will be advancing through our committees and put on the floor for passage and through oversight. All those things will be happening vigorously."

WHAT’S NEXT FOR TRUMP LEGALLY? WHICH CASE MIGHT COME UP BEFORE ELECTION DAY?

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital that he understood Johnson’s timeline for his strategy to include both the next six months, while the House GOP still holds its razor-thin majority, and next year, assuming they keep the chamber from flipping to Democratic control.

Norman paraphrased Johnson’s message to Republicans, "It can’t just be words…It’s got to have some action to it, and that’s where legislation comes in. Meaningless resolutions…that’s words. You’ve got to go beyond that."

The South Carolina Republican said Johnson did not raise the issue of a President Biden impeachment, however, despite Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s threats to force a vote on the matter.

Jackson said Johnson also pointed out that the chairs of the relevant committees – like Oversight, Judiciary and Appropriations – were already exploring ways to crack down on the DOJ.

"It’s not going to happen instantaneously. This stuff has to be put together and vetted by the conference and then put on the floor, so on and so forth," Jackson said. "His point was, we’re doing everything we can."

He said Trump is "in the loop on what the plan for the House is."

NY V. TRUMP: HOUSE JUDICIARY INVESTIGATES BRAGG PROSECUTOR WHO HELD SENIOR ROLE IN BIDEN DOJ

Jackson suggested Johnson was looking at a shorter timeline but said the speaker did not give specifics on the matter. 

"I know there are people that are anxious, myself included, to see something happen. So it’ll be soon," Jackson said.

Johnson's comments come the same day that Attorney General Merrick Garland is on Capitol Hill testifying before the House GOP-led Judiciary Committee.

Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ for comment.              

IRS whistleblower Shapley said he ‘could no longer pursue’ Hunter Biden sugar brother Kevin Morris due to CIA

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley said he was told he "could no longer pursue" Hunter Biden "sugar brother" Kevin Morris as a witness due to information provided by the CIA, according to an affidavit released Wednesday. 

Fox News Digital first reported earlier this year that a whistleblower claimedthe CIA "stonewalled" an IRS interview with Morris, who provided millions of dollars to pay the first son’s tax debts. Those whistleblowers said the CIA "intervened to stop the interview" with Morris in August 2021. 

The CIA told Fox News Digital those allegations were false. 

Shapley’s affidavit, released Wednesday, shed further light the CIA's alleged interference in the attempted interview with Morris.

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

"In and around August 2021, discussions were ongoing within the prosecution team on the Hunter Biden investigation concerning witnesses who needed to be interviewed in furtherance of the investigation," Shapley said in his affidavit. 

Shapley said that Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf told the team that she and DOJ Tax Attorney Jack Morgan "had recently returned from the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they had been summoned to discuss Kevin Morris." 

Shapley said "Wolf stated that they were provided a classified briefing in relation to Mr. Morris and as a result we could no longer pursue him as a witness." 

"Investigators probed AUSA Wolf, but since her briefing was classified and she was apparently sanitizing it to an unclassified form to share over an open phone line, she did not elaborate with more information," Shapley said, adding that Wolf "reiterated more than once that they were summoned to the CIA in Langley concerning Mr. Morris, and that because of the information provided there, he could not be a witness for the investigation." 

Shapley recalled that Wolf "proudly referenced a CIA mug and stated that she purchased some CIA ‘swag’ at the gift shop while she was there." 

"It is unclear how the CIA became aware that Mr. Morris was a potential witness in the Hunter Biden investigation and why agents were not told about the meeting in advance or invited to participate," Shapley said. "It is a deviation of normal investigative processes for prosecutors to exclude investigators from substantive meetings such as this." 

The CIA told Fox News Digital last month that allegations it stonewalled the interview with Morris were "false." 

"Without confirming or denying the existence of any associations or communications, CIA did not prevent or seek to prevent IRS or DOJ from conducting any such interview," James Catella, the CIA’s director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Jordan and Comer. "The allegation is false." 

The CIA said that, as a general matter and "without specific reference to the issue about which you have inquired, CIA facilitates the Department of Justice's access to national security information in the context of investigations and prosecutions in a variety of circumstances." 

CIA DENIES WHISTLEBLOWER ALLEGATION THAT AGENCY 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER'

"For example, CIA engages with DOJ to enable prosecutors to understand national security information that may arise in the course of an investigation and to assess their discovery obligations," Catella wrote. 

"CIA cooperates with law enforcement partners and does not obstruct U.S. law enforcement investigations or prosecutions," he continued. "To the extent your letter seeks information about any ongoing federal law enforcement investigation or prosecution, the Department of Justice is the responsible agency." 

Morris loaned Hunter Biden approximately $6.5 million — over $1 million more than initially estimated. 

Morris, who was subpoenaed to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, said that he loaned Hunter Biden at least $5 million and began paying his tax liability. Morris and his attorney were estimating during the interview, a source told Fox News, and promised to follow-up with exact figures loaned to the first son. The attorney followed up to note an additional $1.6 million Morris had given Hunter Biden. 

Morris, on Oct. 13, 2021, gave Hunter Biden a loan for approximately $1.4 million. According to the letter, Hunter Biden was to repay the loan, with $500,000 paid by Oct. 1, 2026 and the remaining $417,634 by Oct. 1, 2027, plus interest.

A few days later, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $2.6 million, with directions to repay the loan by Oct. 1, 2029. That loan, according to Morris’ lawyer, "was used to pay, among other debts, Mr. Biden’s tax debt to the IRS."

On Oct. 17, 2022, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $640,355 to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027. In December 2022, Morris loaned Hunter $685,813.99, to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027.

A year later, Dec. 29, 2023, Morris loaned Hunter approximately $1.2 million to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2028, with all interest paid by October 2029.

Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden with nine federal tax charges, which break down to three felonies and six misdemeanors for $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. 

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

Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The tax trial for the first son is set for Sept. 5. 

House GOP claims Hunter Biden lied under oath multiple times during congressional deposition

House Republicans have obtained information they say proves "indisputably" that Hunter Biden lied under oath multiple times during his congressional deposition earlier this year. 

The House Ways & Means Committee on Wednesday held a mark-up session to discuss documents protected under IRS code 6103 — a portion of the tax code that keeps certain information confidential. Discussing that material without it being properly released by the House Ways & Means Committee is considered a felony. 

The panel voted on Wednesday to release that information. 

"Hunter Biden has shown once again he believes there are two systems of justice in this country – one for his family, and one for everyone else. Not only did Hunter Biden refuse to comply with his initial subpoena until threatened with criminal contempt, but he then came before Congress and lied," House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith told Fox News Digital on Wednesday. "The Ways and Means Committee’s investigation, and the documents released today, are not part of a personal vendetta against Hunter Biden, but are meant to ensure the equal application of the law." 

HUNTER DEMANDED $10M FROM CHINESE ENERGY FIRM BECAUSE 'BIDENS ARE THE BEST,' HAVE 'CONNECTIONS'

Smith said the documents the committee obtained reveal that Hunter Biden lied at least three times during his deposition. 

After publication, Hunter Biden's attorney Abbe Lowell in a statement denied that any of the three examples were lies. 

"Here they go again, grasping at straws and twisting Hunter’s testimony to try to revive an impeachment inquiry that was a complete and utter failure," Lowell said. 

Smith noted that "lying during sworn testimony is a felony offense that the Department of Justice has prosecuted numerous individuals for in recent years, and the American people expect the same accountability for the son of the President of the United States." 

"Hunter Biden’s lies under oath, and obstruction of a congressional investigation into his family’s potential corruption, calls into question other pieces of his testimony," Smith said. "The newly released evidence affirms, once again, the only witnesses who can be trusted to tell the truth in this investigation are the IRS whistleblowers."

The committee claims Hunter Biden mischaracterized his role working for his firm, Rosemont Seneca, and actually controlled bank accounts he claimed in his deposition he did not. 

HUNTER BIDEN REQUESTED KEYS FOR NEW 'OFFICE MATES' JOE BIDEN, CHINESE 'EMISSARY' TO CEFC CHAIRMAN, EMAILS SHOW

The committee also said Hunter Biden claimed he did not help a foreign national obtain a visa, but the committee says emails between himself and his former associate Devon Archer show that the first son helped a man named Miguel Aleman with visa documents. 

The committee also pointed to Hunter Biden's claim that he sent a text to the wrong "Zhao," due to being under the influence, but WhatsApp records show Hunter Biden only spoke with one Zhao — Henry Zhao of Chinese energy firm CEFC. 

Hunter Biden in the WhatsApp message allegedly told a Chinese business associate from Chinese energy company CEFC that he and his father would ensure "you will regret not following my direction."

Hunter Biden requested the $10 million wire for his joint-venture with CEFC called SinoHawk Holdings. 

"I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled," Hunter Biden told Henry Zhao, the director of Chinese asset management firm Harvest Fund Management. "And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction."

Zhao responded, in part, "CEFC is willing to cooperate with the family."

Hunter Biden has been charged in two separate jurisdictions stemming from Special Counsel David Weiss’ yearslong investigation into him. 

The first son pleaded not guilty to federal gun charges in U.S. District Court for Delaware. He was charged with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a licensed firearm dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.  

The first son also pleaded not guilty to federal tax charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — specifically, three felonies and six misdemeanors concerning $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. 

Weiss alleged 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. 

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 and Ziegler 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 D.C.

FLASHBACK: HUNTER BIDEN IN 2017 SENT 'BEST WISHES' FROM 'ENTIRE BIDEN FAMILY' TO CHINA FIRM CHAIRMAN, REQUESTED $10M WIRE

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. 

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL ENTERS DAY 2

On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.

EXCUSED JUROR REVEALS SELECTION PROCESS FOR TRUMP'S HUSH MONEY TRIAL: 'NOT A FAN'

There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

Trial for ex-FBI informant accused of fabricating Biden bribery story delayed until after 2024 election

The trial for Alexander Smirnov, the ex-FBI informant who has been charged with making false statements related to Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's business ties in Ukraine, has been delayed until early December, just weeks after the 2024 presidential election.

Smirnov's trial had been scheduled to begin in Los Angeles April 23, but special counsel David Weiss and Smirnov's defense attorneys filed a joint stipulation motion last week requesting additional time to prepare for the trial. 

Smirnov's attorneys said a failure to grant the time would "deny them reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence." 

The motion also pointed to additional time necessary to bring classified material into discovery, noting they would have to go through the Classified Procedures Act.

FBI INFORMANT CHARGED WITH GIVING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN IN 2020

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright, who is presiding over the trial, granted the request. 

Smirnov's trial is now scheduled to begin Dec. 3 at 9:30 a.m. 

Weiss charged Smirnov, 43, in February after he alleged Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were paid millions in exchange for their help in firing a Ukrainian prosecutor who was at the time investigating the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden sat on the board of that company when Shokin was removed from his post. 

JUDGE RULES NO BAIL RELEASE FOR FBI INFORMANT ACCUSED OF LYING ABOUT BIDEN BUSINESS TIES

Prosecutors have accused Smirnov of peddling lies "that could impact U.S. elections," highlighting his alleged lies about a supposed multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving the Bidens and Burisma Holdings. 

Prosecutors say Smirnov falsely told his handler that Burisma executives paid Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter $5 million each around 2015. 

Smirnov pleaded not guilty to making a false statement. He is being held without bail after a judge denied his request for release.

Wright ordered that Smirnov remain in detention ahead of his trial in April, concurring with prosecutors who argued he presented a high flight risk. It is unclear whether Smirnov will remain in detention until December. 

Smirnov, a now-ex-FBI informant, had been described by the FBI as a "highly credible" confidential human source and worked for the bureau for years, dating back to the Obama administration. Smirnov, through his work for the FBI, had been paid "six figures," the FBI told lawmakers. 

The FBI also told lawmakers that information Smirnov brought to the bureau was "used in criminal investigations and prosecutions." 

Top DOJ officials also testified that Smirnov "was vetted against sources of Russian disinformation" and they found that information regarding the Bidens was "not sourced from Russian disinformation." 

SENATORS DEMAND FBI AGENTS TESTIFY ABOUT 'HIGHLY CREDIBLE' SOURCE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE UP BIDEN BRIBERY SCHEME

But according to the indictment, Smirnov gave "false derogatory information" to the FBI despite "repeated admonishments that he must provide truthful information and that he must not fabricate evidence." 

The indictment says Smirnov told an FBI agent in March 2017 that he had a phone call with Burisma’s owner concerning the firm potentially acquiring a U.S. company and making an initial public offering (IPO) on a U.S-based stock exchange. 

In reporting this conversation to the FBI agent, Smirnov said Hunter Biden was a board member of Burisma, though this was publicly known. 

Smirnov is accused of having told the FBI for the first time In June 2020 about two meetings he had four to five years earlier, where executives associated with Burisma supposedly admitted they hired Hunter Biden to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems." 

During this meeting, the indictment alleges, Smirnov said the executives paid $5 million to each of the Bidens while Joe Biden was still in office. The indictment alleges Smirnov falsely claimed the Bidens were paid so that Hunter Biden, with his dad’s help, could take care of a criminal investigation being conducted by then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin into Burisma. 

BIDENS ALLEGEDLY 'COERCED' BURISMA CEO TO PAY THEM MILLIONS TO HELP GET UKRAINE PROSECUTOR FIRED: FBI FORM

The indictment alleges this information given by Smirnov in June 2020 was a fabrication. Prosecutors say Smirnov did have contact with Burisma executives in 2017, but when Joe Biden was out of public office and had no ability to influence U.S. policy and after the Ukrainian Prosecutor General had been fired in February 2016. 

The indictment alleges Smirnov transformed his "routine and unextraordinary" business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later bribery allegations against Joe Biden after expressing bias against him and his presidential candidacy. 

Smirnov is accused of repeating some of his false claims during an interview with FBI agents in September 2023, while changing other bits of information and promoting a new false narrative after claiming to have met with Russian officials. 

If convicted, Smirnov faces a maximum of 25 years in prison.   

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley were approached by a whistleblower last summer who alleged the FBI was in possession of a document — an FD-1023 form, dated June 30, 2020 — which explicitly detailed information provided by a confidential source alleging Biden, while serving as vice president, was involved in a multimillion-dollar scheme with a foreign national in exchange for influence over policy decisions.

The source told Fox News Digital the confidential source was used by the FBI for "at least several years," dating back to the Obama administration, before the FD-1023 form, and was "found to be highly credible" by the FBI. 

House Republicans demanded the FBI turn over the document, but FBI Director Christopher Wray refused a request from Comer and Grassley last summer for the public release of the form because the bureau "claimed it would jeopardize the safety of a confidential human source who they claimed was invaluable to the FBI." 

Wray was at risk of being held in contempt of Congress and eventually brought the FD-1023 form to Capitol Hill for House lawmakers to review in a secure location. 

Fox News Digital first reported on the contents of the document. 

An FD-1023 form is used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting from confidential human sources. The form is used to document information as told to an FBI agent, but recording that information does not validate or weigh it against other information known by the FBI. 

Comer said the FBI's FD-1023 form is not being used in the impeachment inquiry against the president. 

Supreme Court to debate ‘sleeper’ case that could affect Trump federal prosecution

It is the "sleeper" case that could upend the most closely watched criminal prosecution in the nation. And how the U.S. Supreme Court decides the fate of an obscure Capitol riot defendant will have immediate legal and political implications for the former and perhaps future president.    

The justices on Tuesday will hold oral arguments in the appeal of Joseph Fischer, one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection in Washington.

That charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Donald Trump.

Special counsel Jack Smith has also brought an obstruction charge against Trump, which is among four counts the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee faces. His trial in that case was slated to begin March 4, but the Supreme Court's decision to hear this case and a separate dispute over Trump's claim of presidential immunity has delayed proceedings indefinitely.

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO MAYORKAS' IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

A federal judge earlier dismissed the obstruction offense against three Jan. 6 criminal defendants, ruling it did not cover their conduct on the Capitol grounds. Those defendants are onetime police patrolman Fischer, Garret Miller of the Dallas area and Edward Jacob Lang of New York’s Hudson Valley.

Fischer's appeal was the one the high court accepted for final review.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a 2019 Trump bench appointee, determined prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases, ruling a defendant must have taken "some action with respect to a document, record or other object" to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

He concluded the statute in question focused on tampering with evidence and did not apply to those allegedly engaged in "assaultive conduct" like participating in a riot.

The Justice Department challenged that ruling, and a federal appeals court in Washington agreed with prosecutors that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

"The vast majority of courts interpreting the statute have adopted the natural, broad reading" of the provision, the three-judge appellate panel wrote, "applying the statute to all forms of obstructive conduct that are not covered" specifically under that provision. 

Other defendants, including Trump, are separately challenging the use of the charge, but not as part of the current Supreme Court appeal.

The relevant statute — 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2) — of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, states: "Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Congress passed the law in 2002 after the Enron financial and accounting scandal. Executives at the Texas-based energy company were charged with fraud, and the company eventually went bankrupt.

Judge Nichols in his ruling in the Miller case cited then-Sen. Biden, who referred to the new provision at the time as "making it a crime for document shredding."  

Both the government and Fischer, who was a North Cornwall Township Police officer in Pennsylvania at the time, offer contrasting accounts of his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

His lawyers in their high court appeal say Fischer "was not part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop; he arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress recessed."

And while he admits entering the Capitol building and pushing his way through the crowd, Fischer claims he also helpfully returned a pair of lost handcuffs to a U.S. Capitol Police officer. After being pepper-sprayed by law enforcement, the defendant then says he left the complex just four minutes after entering.

But the Justice Department says Fischer "can be heard on the video yelling 'Charge!' before pushing through the crowd and entering the building. Once inside, petitioner ran toward a line of police officers with another rioter while yelling" a profanity.

And the government points to text messages he sent just before attending the "Stop the Steal" rally where President Trump spoke and the subsequent march to the Capitol.

"Take democratic congress to the gallows," he said in one post, and, "Can't vote if they can't breathe.. lol."

Fischer has pleaded not guilty to several charges, including disorderly and disruptive conduct; assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers; civil disorder; and the obstruction count. His trial is pending.

His legal team argues hindering or affecting an official proceeding is too ambiguous, as applied to Fischer's conduct on the Capitol grounds.

"That definition encompasses lobbying, advocacy, and protest, the very mechanisms that citizens employ to influence government. These are all forms of political speech that the First Amendment protects." 

But the government says Congress in enacting the statute meant it to be applied widely, to include "corruptly engaging in conduct to obstruct court, agency, and congressional proceedings."

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE'S RED LINE ON SPEAKER JOHNSON

"The proof in this case would show that on January 6, 2021, petitioner and other rioters corruptly sought to prevent Congress from counting the certified votes of the Electoral College in the joint session," said government lawyers.

Some legal scholars say the conservative high court may be wary of giving the government too much leeway.

"Prosecutors love obstruction statutes, and they love conspiracy statutes, because those statutes are so broad and can be applied in a variety of circumstances to encompass all sorts of conduct," said Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and former top Bush Justice Department official. 

"The Supreme Court is going to look at what was Congress trying to do when it criminalized these things? Did Congress really intend these laws to sweep so far? And can you take a statute that was enacted to address, for example, corporate crimes and apply it to what happened on Jan. 6?"

How a Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer case would affect Trump's separate prosecution for alleged election interference is unclear. If Fischer prevails, the former president could then ask the federal courts to formally dismiss his own obstruction charge.

That could prompt a new round of separate legal appeals that might go back to the Supreme Court for final review.  

Nine days after oral arguments in the Fischer case, the justices will hold a public session to debate whether Trump enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for conduct in office when allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and certification.

That has paused Trump's criminal conspiracy and obstruction trial indefinitely.

The separate challenge over the obstruction charge would also likely push the schedule well into next year.

The pending high court case is Fischer v. U.S. (23-5572). A ruling is expected by early summer.

CIA denies whistleblower allegation that agency ‘stonewalled’ IRS interview with Hunter Biden ‘sugar brother’

The Central Intelligence Agency is denying whistleblower claims that it "stonewalled" an IRS interview with Hunter Biden’s "sugar brother" Kevin Morris, saying the agency "did not prevent or seek to prevent IRS or DOJ from conducting any such interview." 

A whistleblower approached House Republicans last month claiming that the CIA blocked an interview with Morris conducted by the IRS as part of the federal investigation into Hunter Biden. 

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

According to the whistleblower, in August 2021, when IRS investigators on the Hunter Biden federal investigation were preparing to interview Morris, the CIA "intervened to stop the interview." 

The whistleblower alleged that the CIA summoned two Justice Department officials to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a briefing regarding Morris. 

The whistleblower claimed that Morris "could not be a witness in the investigation." 

The allegations were laid out in a letter sent to CIA Director Bill Burns last month by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

But the CIA this week said the allegation is "false." 

"Without confirming or denying the existence of any associations or communications, CIA did not prevent or seek to prevent IRS or DOJ from conducting any such interview," James Catella, the CIA’s director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Jordan and Comer. "The allegation is false." 

The CIA said that, as a general matter, and "without specific reference to the issue about which you have inquired, CIA facilitates the Department of Justice's access to national security information in the context of investigations and prosecutions in a variety of circumstances." 

'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS LOANED HUNTER BIDEN $6.5M FOR DEBTS AND BACK TAXES, MORE THAN PREVIOUS ESTIMATE

"For example, CIA engages with DOJ to enable prosecutors to understand national security information that may arise in the course of an investigation and to assess their discovery obligations," Catella wrote. 

"CIA cooperates with law enforcement partners and does not obstruct U.S. law enforcement investigations or prosecutions," he continued. "To the extent your letter seeks information about any ongoing federal law enforcement investigation or prosecution, the Department of Justice is the responsible agency." 

Morris loaned Hunter Biden approximately $6.5 million — over $1 million more than originally estimated and discussed — his attorney revealed in a letter earlier this year. 

Morris, who was subpoenaed to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, testified that he loaned Hunter Biden at least $5 million and began paying his tax liability. Morris and his attorney were estimating during the interview, a source told Fox News, and promised to follow-up with exact figures loaned to the first son. The attorney followed up to note Morris had given an additional $1.6 million to Hunter Biden. 

KEVIN MORRIS GAVE 'MASSIVE' FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO HUNTER BIDEN, RAISING CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONCERNS: COMER

Morris, on Oct. 13, 2021, gave Hunter Biden a loan for approximately $1.4 million. According to the letter, Hunter Biden was to repay the loan, with $500,000 paid by Oct. 1, 2026 and the remaining $417,634 by Oct. 1, 2027, plus interest.

A few days later, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $2.6 million, with directions to repay the loan by Oct. 1, 2029. That loan, according to Morris’ lawyer, "was used to pay, among other debts, Mr. Biden’s tax debt to the IRS."

On Oct. 17, 2022, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $640,355 to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027. In December 2022, Morris loaned Hunter $685,813.99, to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027.

A year later, Dec. 29, 2023, Morris loaned Hunter approximately $1.2 million to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2028, with all interest paid by October 2029.

Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden with nine federal tax charges, which break down to three felonies and six misdemeanors for $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. 

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

Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Weiss also indicted the first son on federal gun charges in Delaware last year. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to those charges as well. His attorneys are attempting to have that case dismissed.

Whistleblower claims CIA ‘stonewalled’ IRS interview with Hunter Biden ‘Sugar brother’ Kevin Morris: House GOP

A whistleblower claimed that the CIA "stonewalled" an IRS interview with Hunter Biden’s business associate Kevin Morris, the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees revealed. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a Thursday letter to CIA Director William Burns that their panels would investigate the allegations as part of the impeachment inquiry against President Biden. 

According to the whistleblower, in August 2021, when IRS investigators on the Hunter Biden federal investigation were preparing to interview Morris, the CIA "intervened to stop the interview." 

'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS LOANED HUNTER BIDEN $6.5M FOR DEBTS AND BACK TAXES, MORE THAN PREVIOUS ESTIMATE

The whistleblower alleged that the CIA summoned two Justice Department officials to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a briefing regarding Morris. 

The whistleblower claimed that Morris "could not be a witness in the investigation," according to the House Republicans. 

Morris loaned Hunter Biden approximately $6.5 million — over $1 million more than originally estimated and discussed — his attorney revealed in a letter earlier this year. 

Morris, who was subpoenaed to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, testified that he loaned Hunter Biden at least $5 million and began paying his tax liability. Morris and his attorney were estimating during the interview, a source told Fox News, and promised to follow-up with exact figures loaned to the first son. The attorney followed up to note an additional $1.6 million Morris had given Hunter Biden. 

KEVIN MORRIS GAVE 'MASSIVE' FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO HUNTER BIDEN, RAISING CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONCERNS: COMER

"As part of the impeachment inquiry, the Committees are investigating, among other things, whether President Biden 'abuse[d] his power as President to impede, obstruct, or otherwise hinder investigations or the prosecution of Hunter Biden.' As background, for years, the IRS and DOJ had been investigating Hunter Biden for tax crimes," Jordan and Comer wrote. "The Committees have documented how the DOJ deviated from its standard processes to afford preferential treatment to Hunter Biden." 

Jordan and Comer were referring to whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler — investigators who served on the IRS team probing Hunter Biden. They testified that DOJ officials "deviated" from the normal process and provided preferential treatment to Hunter Biden.

"Among other deviations, DOJ officials restricted what investigative steps the investigators could pursue, tipped off Hunter Biden's attorneys about investigative steps, and even prevented investigators from conducting witness interviews," the House Republicans wrote. "The whistleblowers' testimony about the preferential treatment provided to Hunter Biden has been corroborated by testimony from other witnesses and documents the Committees have received." 

Jordan and Comer said the new whistleblower claims "seem to corroborate our concerns about DOJ's deviations from standard process to provide Hunter Biden with preferential treatment." 

"It is unknown why or on what basis the CIA allegedly intervened to prevent investigators from interviewing Mr. Morris," they wrote. "However, these allegations track with other evidence showing how the DOJ deviated from its standard investigative practices during the investigation of Hunter Biden." 

Jordan and Comer are now demanding the CIA provide all documents and communications referring or relating to the DOJ and IRS’ investigation of Hunter Biden, and all records relating to Kevin Morris — "including but not limited to efforts to interview Mr. Morris as part of the investigation of Robert Hunter Biden."

HUNTER BIDEN LAWYER TESTIFIES THAT 1ST TRUMP IMPEACHMENT CREATED 'EMERGENCY' TO FILE UNPAID TAXES

Morris, on Oct. 13, 2021, gave Hunter Biden a loan for approximately $1.4 million. According to the letter, Hunter Biden was to repay the loan, with $500,000 paid by Oct. 1, 2026 and the remaining $417,634 by Oct. 1, 2027, plus interest.

A few days later, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $2.6 million, with directions to repay the loan by Oct. 1, 2029. That loan, according to Morris’ lawyer, "was used to pay, among other debts, Mr. Biden’s tax debt to the IRS."

On Oct. 17, 2022, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $640,355 to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027. In December 2022, Morris loaned Hunter $685,813.99, to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027.

A year later, Dec. 29, 2023, Morris loaned Hunter approximately $1.2 million to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2028, with all interest paid by October 2029.

Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden with nine federal tax charges, which break down to three felonies and six misdemeanors for $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. 

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

Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Weiss also indicted the first son on federal gun charges in Delaware last year. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to those charges as well. His attorneys are attempting to have that case dismissed.

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.