Today, a former FBI informant accused of lying about a bribery scheme involving the Bidens is set to appear before a federal judge in Los Angeles. Hunter Biden's attorney claims that the case against the first son has been tainted due to the informant's involvement. The informant, labeled as a 14-year informant who was highly compensated in the past, is under scrutiny for potentially affecting the case against Hunter Biden.
However, the attorney for the IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who testified against Hunter Biden, stated that the informant's testimony does not impact the evidence presented by their clients. Shapley and another whistleblower testified about significant delays and impediments in bringing charges against Hunter Biden, unrelated to the informant's allegations.
Furthermore, evidence has been presented regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings in China, Ukraine, and Romania, with claims of millions of dollars being transferred to the Biden family. Witnesses have testified about Joe Biden's involvement in supporting his son's business ventures, suggesting that he took steps to help Hunter gain influence with foreign entities.
Despite the potential implications of the informant's testimony, the case against Hunter Biden in Delaware remains unaffected. The House of Representatives has been investigating the matter and has uncovered substantial evidence of financial transactions benefiting the Biden family.
Regarding the whistleblowers who came forward with evidence, there have been reports of subtle retaliation impacting their careers. However, they continue to work at the IRS and are committed to sharing their story. A legal fund has been set up to support these whistleblowers and others in law enforcement.
In conclusion, the ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden's business dealings and the alleged involvement of Joe Biden continue to raise questions about potential conflicts of interest and foreign influence. The legal proceedings and testimonies provided by whistleblowers shed light on the complexities of the case and the need for transparency in addressing these issues.
