Either the attorney general of the United States or the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware is lying about the investigation into Hunter Biden's alleged tax crimes.  Jonathan Turley laid the situation out three days ago:

"I'm not the deciding official."

Those five words, allegedly from Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, shocked IRS and FBI investigators in a meeting on October 22, 2022. This is because, in refusing to appoint a special counsel, Attorney Garland Merrick Garland had repeatedly assured the public and Congress that Weiss had total authority over his investigation.

IRS supervisory agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. told Congress he was so dismayed by Weiss's statement and other admissions that he memorialized them in a communication to other team members.

In fact, it later came to light that Shapley was so dismayed that he told at least six witnesses of his dismay, as the New York Post reported Monday:

The federal prosecutor tasked with investigating Hunter Biden told at least six witnesses last year that he lacked authority to charge the first son outside Delaware and was denied special counsel status, according to an IRS whistleblower — and now the House Judiciary Committee wants to talk to them.

Delaware US Attorney David Weiss made the shocking disclosure at an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting with top IRS and FBI officials — contradicting sworn testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland, IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley told the House Ways and Means Committee last month.

"He surprised us by telling us on the charges, 'I'm not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,'" Shapley recounted in his May 26 testimony, which the committee released Thursday.

"He then shocked us with the earth-shattering news that the Biden-appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves would not allow him to charge in his district," added Shapley, who said Graves' refusal to prosecute meant that Hunter, now 53, would not face tax charges related to "foreign income from Burisma [Holdings] and a scheme to evade his income taxes through a partnership with a convicted felon" in 2014 and 2015.

"The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts," Shapley went on.

On June 23, Garland denied Weiss's charges in a press conference:

As a friend emailed me:

How about lie detector tests for whistleblower Shapley and all those he named as witnesses as well as Weiss and Garland?  The tests may not be admissible in criminal trial, but how about in impeachment?

I am no expert, but I believe that Congress gets to make its own rules for evidence.  One could expect Senate Democrats to object to lie detector evidence as unreliable, but they would have to convince the public that it is not worth seeing, that less information is better than more information.

Impeachment is most definitely on the agenda:

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans will launch an impeachment inquiry into Garland if Shapley's account is corroborated. The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), is expected to call forward each of the alleged witnesses as it manages the fallout of the perjury allegation against Garland — including possible impeachment. 

An impeachment trial for Garland in the Senate would offer the opportunity to introduce lie detector reports on Garland, Shapley, and the six witnesses.  I am not at all clear whether or not Garland could be compelled to sit for a polygraph session, but his refusal to do so, combined with the presumed willingness of Shapley and his witnesses, would be a powerful lesson for the public.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab.