Imagine being told to remain silent on an investigation that you’ve been working on – that’s the peculiar scenario that unfolded recently when the FBI counsel instructed a former supervisory agent to refrain from responding to the House Oversight Committee’s queries about the joint FBI-IRS probe into Hunter Biden.
A confidential letter from FBI General Counsel Jason Jones surfaced, revealing that he advised the unnamed agent to withhold “non-public information likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege or other significant confidentiality interests.” Instead, any such queries should be redirected to the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, he suggested.
Jones’ letter repeatedly referenced an “ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution,” emphasizing that discussions surrounding a case should only take place once the case has reached its conclusion. With Hunter Biden due to appear in court on July 26 following a plea deal, it seems we’re left to speculate about the details of the probe.
The timing of this revelation is intriguing. According to the House Oversight Committee, the former FBI agent confirmed previous IRS whistleblower testimony alleging interference in their investigation. This meeting occurred just a day after the agent received the letter from Jones.
James Comer, the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, stated, “The night before the interview of Hunter Biden, both Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off about the planned interview.” Subsequently, federal agents were instructed to stand by, effectively preventing them from interviewing Hunter Biden.
Even more troubling was the revelation that the original investigation plan, scheduled for December 8, 2020, was leaked to the Secret Service and then-President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team. The unnamed former agent told the committee that this caused significant frustration amongst the agents, and was unprecedented based on his prior experience. This deviation from procedure only raises more questions and seems to blur the lines of transparency in our justice system.
However, the drama doesn’t stop there. The letter from the FBI General Counsel reminded the former agent that obligations to protect non-public information remain in place even after leaving the department. This information could potentially encompass law enforcement details, deliberative process records, attorney work products, attorney-client privileges, and privacy interests, in addition to protecting classified information, sources, methods, and grand jury information.
What this scenario brings to the forefront is the need for transparency and accountability in our justice system, no matter who the subject of investigation might be. As the public, we must continue to ask for transparency in the application of the law and strive for a justice system that remains unswayed by political influence or privilege. Only then can we truly say that justice is blind?
