Hunter Biden’s Smear Strategy

Hunter Biden has adopted a legal strategy of threats and character assassination. It was on display in his legal team’s recent letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. The 10-page screed was a broad condemnation of the committee’s decision to release the interviews of two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers who worked the Hunter investigation and claim irregularities in the process that produced Hunter’s recent plea deal. Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell complained the release violated the “spirit” of “tax laws” that protect “private” taxpayer information. That letter should have come from Donald Trump’s lawyers to House Democrats, who in December set a precedent by voting to release Mr. Trump’s returns.

The real targets of Mr. Lowell’s polemic were the whistleblowers themselves, and the letter is filled with inaccuracy and innuendo. Just one example: Mr. Lowell insinuates the whistleblowers might have lied, since he claims the committee “purposely” didn’t issue them the standard warning about falsehoods. This is flatly refuted by the transcripts, which show both men were told upfront that “false testimony” would subject them to “criminal prosecution.”

The letter deploys the standard impugning of motives—suggesting the IRS men are “biased” and “aggrieved” agents turned “self-styled” whistleblowers. It also slings suggestions of illegal behavior. It intimates whistleblower Gary Shapley might have broken a law prohibiting the disclosure of grand-jury material—even though the transcript shows Mr. Shapley explaining that he couldn’t talk about or provide to the committee covered material.

The letter also suggests the whistleblowers might have illegally leaked information about the investigation to the press. It provides one example: An Oct. 6, 2022, Washington Post story said prosecutors thought they had “sufficient evidence” to charge Hunter with tax and gun crimes. Yet the anonymous whistleblower says in his testimony (under penalty of perjury) that he didn’t leak. Mr. Shapley’s lawyers noted it was their client who referred that leak to two inspectors general. If that isn’t enough, Mr. Shapley filed an affidavit to the committee declaring he isn’t the leaker and releasing the Post from any obligation to maintain his confidentiality if he is.

These smears are in keeping with what the media reported in February was an “aggressive” new Hunter plan to attack critics. That included a flurry of letters—also from Mr. Lowell—to state and federal prosecutors and the IRS demanding investigations of those involved in disseminating the contents of Hunter’s laptop. Yet the attack on the whistleblowers is in a different category, and more reprehensible. The entire point of whistleblower statutes is to protect those who report government malfeasance from retribution.

It’s bad enough the Hunter team made the letter public, putting a target on the backs of both men. The past letters also raise the possibility that Hunter’s team has similarly sent these accusations of whistleblower criminality to the Justice Department with a demand for action. It would be truly outrageous if the president’s son is urging his father’s Justice Department to harass government workers who blew the whistle on potential political favoritism in his plea deal.

Few mere mortals would get away with such behavior, but it’s good to be a Biden. And don’t think confidence in the name isn’t a central tenet of Hunter’s legal strategy. One of Hunter’s lawyers told prosecutors that charging Hunter would be “career suicide,” according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony. And anyway, who is going to call it out? The press cheered the smear, with Axios gloating: “Hunter Biden’s lawyer roasts IRS whistleblowers.” The New York Times, days earlier, buried its confirmation of one of Mr. Shapley’s key claims: that a Joe Biden-appointed California prosecutor had refused to bring charges against Hunter.

Then there’s the Washington Post, which in its own story on the Lowell letter quoted a line claiming Mr. Shapley engaged in “leaks.” It somehow failed to tell its readers that the one concrete leak Mr. Lowell cites appeared in its own newspaper—which means the Post knows the actual source, and therefore presumably knows that it isn’t Mr. Shapley and that the letter’s accusations are untrue. Especially as the same reporter worked on both stories. Instead, the paper aids the Hunter narrative. As someone once said, democracy dies in darkness.

Hunter’s problem is that the evidence the two whistleblowers provided is detailed, consistent and potentially damning. So his team is going to the old James Carville playbook against Bill Clinton’s accusers and impugning the source. And betting the Biden name lets them get away with it.

Write to [email protected].