Republicans and Democrats sparred over the significance of the tax crimes investigation into Hunter Biden at a House Oversight Committee hearing that featured two IRS whistleblowers, with the GOP arguing the president's son was spared from true justice while Democrats argued he was thoroughly investigated by a team formed under the former president and led by a Trump-appointed attorney.

IRS special agent Joseph Ziegler and his supervisor Gary Shapley, who investigated Biden, expressed frustration over how U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss and other prosecutors handled the investigation, alleging authorities slow-walked the case and showed preferential treatment to the president’s son. 

The House Ways and Means Committee had first privately interviewed the two whistleblowers, releasing transcripts just days after prosecutors reached an agreement with Biden to plead guilty to two charges of willful failure to pay taxes.

The nearly six-hour hearing relayed little information not already covered in the nearly 400 pages of testimony from the two men, with the whistleblowers saying they could not answer questions outside the scope of that testimony.

But the hearing was revelatory about how both sides of the aisle could use that testimony.

Here are five takeaways from the hearing.

Democrats say testimony shows common disagreements

Democrats largely sought to cast the whistleblowers' complaints as common disagreements between investigative staff and prosecutors, who often have reservations about scoring convictions on evidence discovered by staff.

Ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the testimony showed a “traditional tug-of-war” between investigators and prosecutors, using as an example the recent indictment of former President Trump on charges of mishandling classified documents, with prosecutors focusing on a small number of alleged crimes although investigators said they found more violations.

Shapley, though, pushed back on that assertion, saying that assistant U.S. attorneys and attorneys in the Department of Justice (DOJ) tax division had agreed with a number of recommended charges, though not all were ultimately pursued.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) similarly argued that investigators and attorneys often view a case differently.

“I never met an agent who didn't want to charge every possible case. But what I noticed in five hours of testimony today is that neither one of you has ever mentioned a portion of the case that may not be so strong, or may be suspect or may have a defense,”Goldman said, referencing his work as a prosecutor.

“And that's because that's what the prosecutor has to think about before charging a case.”

Ziegler testified that Weiss offered a rationale for not pursuing charges for some tax years, worried that testimony about Biden’s personal life at that time could sour the changes of conviction.

Democrats also argued that, contrary to the whistleblowers’ assertion, it sounded like Biden’s tax history was subject to a rigorous review by investigators and prosecutors.

“It sounds like Hunter Biden's taxes were subject to a great deal of scrutiny and rigorous review by a large team of expert investigators who had experience working complex cases.…The time, personnel and all the resources devoted to this investigation make it abundantly clear that this investigation was taken seriously by both the IRS and DOJ,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).

“While our witnesses here today may disagree with the U.S. attorney's decisions, it is undeniable that Hunter Biden was subject to a thorough and rigorous investigation.” 

Jordan accuses Weiss of changing his story

Republicans' recent interest in impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland centers on a key detail from Shapley’s testimony: Weiss, he said, sought and was denied special counsel status as a way to bring charges outside Delaware afterU.S. attorneys in other jurisdictions allegedly opposed bringing charges on their turf.

Weiss has said he never asked for special counsel status, instead being assured he would be granted special attorney status, governed under another statute, if he wished to file charges outside his district.

Weiss has outlined in both a June 7 letter and a July 10 letter that he has “never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.” 

But House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who also sits on the Oversight Committee, mischaracterized the letters, arguing that Weiss “change[d] his story.”

“What happened in between those two events?” Jordan said of the letters. “Your testimony went public. He goes, ‘Oh, my goodness, I gotta change my story, because now the truth is coming out.’”

Weiss’s second letter includes more detail about his dealingswith DOJ leaders, saying he was assured he would be granted special attorney status if needed well in advance of the meeting where Shapley asserts he said otherwise.

“When you look at the letters he actually sent, he didn't change his tune at all. He said the exact same thing every time, and he even expanded the answer to be perfectly clear," Raskin said.

Whether Weiss had interest in either of the two statuses is largely of interest to Republicans as a way to forward a potential impeachment inquiry into Garland, as he assured lawmakers that Weiss had “full authority…to bring cases in other districts if he needs to do that.”

Shapley undercuts Garland impeachment effort

Shapley also undercut another key factor fueling the GOP’s interest in impeaching Garland, saying he has no evidence that Garland intentionally misled Congress about Weiss’s authority.

“Let me be clear, although these facts contradict the attorney general's testimony and raise serious questions for you to investigate, I have never claimed evidence that Attorney General Garland knowingly lied to Congress,” Shapley said Wednesday.

“This for others to investigate and determine whether those letters contain knowingly false statements….I don't claim to be privy to United States Attorney Weiss’s or Attorney General Garland’s communications.”

Democrats suggested that the whistleblowers may have been confused over two statuses prosecutors can attain – appointment as a special counsel, versus the special attorney status Weiss was assured he could receive if desired.

Ziegler in his testimony asserted he still believes a more independent status is needed by those handling the investigation.

“I still think that a special counsel is necessary for this investigation,” he said.

Greene overshadows hearing with ‘parental discretion advised’ moment

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the hearing came when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) brought sexually explicit – but censored – posters of Hunter Biden in to make her point.

“Before we begin, I would like to let the committee and everyone watching at home that parental discretion is advised,” Greene said.

Greene’s questioning included her holding up small posters featuring graphic sexual photos from the laptop hard drive that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden, which were censored with black boxes.

The faces of other involved in the sexual acts were censored with black boxes, but Biden’s face is visible in the photos.

Her focus on the explicit and salacious history of Biden, who has been public about his struggles with addiction, stands in contrast to Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) indicating in the past that the focus of the committee’s investigation of the Biden family’s business dealings would not focus on his personal actions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said that Greene's move to show "pornographic images" marked "a new low" for the committee. 

"Frankly, I don't care who you are in this country, no one deserves that. It is abuse. It is abusive," she said.

Democrats argue GOP distracts from injustice for Black and brown individuals 

Several Black lawmakers directly challenged Republican claims that the Biden plea deal shows a two-tiered system of justice, saying the argument minimizes the experiences of Black and brown Americans disproportionately impacted by the justice system.

“I'd like to address the way my Republican colleagues are attempting to co-opt the phrase ‘two-tiered justice system’ to make it sound like Trump and his cronies are somehow the victims here,” Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) said.

“The reality is that the term two-tiered system of justice is meant to refer to the very real system that exists in the United States, and which affects black and brown folks, not powerful former presidents and their political allies.”

Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) listed off a number of statistics on disparities in the criminal justice system, including within IRS, asserting that Black taxpayers are audited at least three times more often than non-Black taxpayers.

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) also said Republicans were using the term improperly.

“Republicans and Trump complain about a two-tiered justice system, co-opting the language of the decades long civil rights movement for black lives and black freedom, a movement that they actually are actively looking to eliminate. There is a two-tiered justice system, but it's not about Democrats versus Republican,” he said, before listing off a number of recent and historical examples, including those killed by police.

“It's Black, brown and poor people versus everyone else. And I won't accept when Republican politicians look to appropriate the language of the movement for black lives and civil rights, to fit a political agenda to defend Donald Trump.” 

A new indictment of former President Trump in connection to his actions surrounding Jan. 6 could pose a real problem for his 2024 White House campaign as he faces potential criminal charges for the third time this year, some Republicans say.

Trump said Tuesday that he’s a target of a federal investigation, which generally signals an indictment is on the way.

His legal issues so far appear to have helped more than hurt him with GOP primary voters, but the piling up of legal cases could cause real problems in a general election, Republicans say. And that could lead to the reelection of President Biden, despite his troubles.

“It's hard to think this does anything to improve his numbers in a general election,” said Brian Seitchik, a Republican strategist and former Trump campaign staffer. 

Former President Donald Trump addresses the Faith and Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, June 24, 2023.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted nearly two years after the riots at the Capitol found more than 60 percent of Americans believed Trump bore a lot or some responsibility for the events on Jan. 6. That includes many independent and moderate voters who Trump will need to win over from Biden next November.

A growing body of evidence suggests GOP candidates are not punished and are more likely to be rewarded by primary voters for embracing Trump and his rhetoric surrounding the 2020 election and the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

But GOP candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races last year who did so often cost the party in the general election. 

“For us to be a forward-looking party that’s going to be able to win a general election and nationally, we cannot deny reality,” said Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump White House official who has become a prominent critic of her old boss.

More from The Hill

• Biden video mocking Marjorie Taylor Greene speech hit more than 30M views in 12 hours
• Gaetz says he’ll offer bill to defund Jack Smith investigations of Trump
• GOP senators rattled by radical conservative populism
• Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission

Trump's grip on the GOP primary is “ironclad,” as Seitchick described it.

A RealClearPolitics polling average showed Trump at roughly 54 percent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 20 percent, former Vice President Mike Pence at 6 percent and all other contenders at less than 5 percent — after Trump's two previous indictments. 

“I don't think this latest indictment will have much of an impact on the primary,” Seitchick said.

Republican strategists believe Trump’s devoted base will ultimately rally around the former president no matter what, as evidenced by his boost in support following his first two indictments this year.

“We've seen Trump indicted earlier this year and seen his numbers go up unless one of the rival candidates chooses to make electability an argument,” Seitchick added. “If they continue to sort of stand in opposition to the FBI and Department of Justice, it's hard to think it would have a negative impact.”

Some Republicans say Trump’s legal problems could yet hurt him in a primary — especially if there’s a conviction.

“I think there is the potential for an awakening within the base and within the party leadership writ broadly that, you know, ‘Do we have to deal with all this drama all the time and how are we going to win an election when we're constantly litigating all of his legal battles,’” said Jason Cabel Roe, a Republican strategist who worked on Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Fla.) 2016 presidential campaign.

It is early in the GOP primary — there hasn’t even been a debate in the contest yet. That suggests there still could be changes in how Trump is seen by primary voters.

“I think Republican voters have kind of checked out on this whole thing — they're not really paying too close attention. I think you've got to have actual charges filed and you've got to have some trial dates set, and that's when I think things start to feel a lot more real,” said Republican strategist Keith Naughton.

Yet Trump’s rivals in the GOP primary on Tuesday largely focused on concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, generally seen as Trump’s toughest GOP opponent, said in South Carolina that Trump should have stepped in more forcefully during the riots that day, but in a CNN interview later in the day said Trump should not be charged over Jan. 6. The DeSantis war room also did not amplify his initial comments from South Carolina.

DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) pointed to broader concerns that Trump’s fixation on the 2020 election, and the legal problems that have followed, will ultimately make him less electable.

“That’s why I am running,” Haley said on Fox News. “It’s because we need a new generational leader. We can’t keep dealing with this drama. We can’t keep dealing with the negativity. We can’t keep dealing with all of this.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) leaned in on some of the more salacious issues concerning Hunter Biden in her questioning of IRS whistleblowers who investigated Biden at a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday — and brought sexually explicit posters to make her point.

“Before we begin, I would like to let the committee and everyone watching at home know that parental discretion is advised,” Greene said.

Greene’s questioning included her holding up small posters featuring graphic sexual photos from the laptop hard drive that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden, which were censored with black boxes.

The faces of others involved in the sexual acts were censored with black boxes, but Biden’s face is visible in the photos.

Staffers react as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., holds up sexually explicit images that she says are of Hunter Biden during her questioning of IRS whistleblowers during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing with IRS whistleblowers, Wednesday, July 19, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

“Should we be displaying this, Mr. Chairman?” ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) asked Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) near the end of Greene’s testimony.

Photos of Greene holding up the graphic images promptly filled up social media feeds.

Greene alleged that Hunter Biden had improperly used his company to write off payments to prostitutes, which IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler would not confirm. 

He did say that there were deductions for what he believed to be escorts, and that a payment reported to be for a golf club membership was actually for a “sex club.”

More from The Hill

• Biden video mocking Marjorie Taylor Greene speech hit more than 30M views in 12 hours
• Gaetz says he’ll offer bill to defund Jack Smith investigations of Trump
• GOP senators rattled by radical conservative populism
• Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission

Greene also asked questions about the Mann Act, which criminalizes transportation of women across state lines for the purposes of prostitution. Ziegler said that he could not speak specifically about the Mann Act, but could turn over the information he was compiling on Mann Act violations to the House Ways and Means Committee, which Greene could then request.

Ziegler and another IRS whistleblower at the hearing, Gary Shapley, had testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that they were displeased with how prosecutors handled the tax crimes case against Hunter Biden, accusing them of slow-walking the investigation.

Greene's focus on explicit and salacious history of Hunter Biden, who has been public about his struggles with addiction, stands in contrast to Comer indicating in the past that the focus of the committee's investigations of the Biden family's business dealings would not focus on his personal actions.

Rep. Robert Garcia later in the hearing used Greene’s move to take a jab at the House GOP majority.

“Today’s hearing is like most of the majority’s investigations and hearings: A lot of allegations, zero proof, no receipts – but apparently, some dick pics,” Garcia said.

This story was updated at 4:57 p.m.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is defending former President Trump for his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, saying Trump had encouraged a peaceful protest that day — but did nothing to merit the criminal charges the Justice Department (DOJ) is said to be weighing. 

“I don’t see how he could be found criminally responsible,” McCarthy told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. “What criminal activity did he do? He told people to be peaceful.”

The Speaker’s comments came a day after Trump revealed he is a target of the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol rampage, which was conducted by supporters of the former president who were attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The so-called target letter is typically an indication that a formal indictment is forthcoming. 

McCarthy’s defense of Trump marks a contrast to remarks he made shortly after the Capitol attack, when he took to the House floor to declare that Trump “bears responsibility” for the actions of the “mob rioters.” 

McCarthy said he spoke to Trump Tuesday after the former president placed a call to him, and that the conversation “wasn’t anything different than the time before.” He noted that they “talk on a regular basis” but also suggested Trump was frustrated with the arrival of the target letter. 

“Wouldn’t you feel frustrated?” McCarthy said.

McCarthy disputed reports that the call was a “strategy session” designed to unite Republicans behind a response to potential indictments, instead accusing the Biden administration of conducting such sessions for the purpose of targeting the president’s political adversaries.

“I think the strategy sessions happen in the Democrats’ Department of Justice, where they go after anybody who’s running against the president,” McCarthy said. “It seems as though — and if you go up in the polls you’re more likely to get indicted.”

House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), one of Trump’s fiercest supporters on Capitol Hill, also said she spoke to the former president Tuesday following news of the target letter, before tearing into the development as “yet another example of the illegal weaponization of the Department of Justice to go after Joe Biden’s top political opponent.”

The comments came on the same day that House Republicans staged a high-profile hearing with a pair of IRS whistleblowers who accused DOJ prosecutors of slow-walking an investigation into Hunter Biden. Both McCarthy and Stefanik said the real criminal conspiracy lies there, not with anything Trump did surrounding Jan. 6.  

“I would move to an impeachment inquiry if I found that the attorney general has not only lied to the Congress and the Senate, but to America,” McCarthy said, referring to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

McCarthy’s full-throated defense sets up a stark contrast with his GOP counterpart in the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who declined to comment on the Trump news when asked about it at a press conference Wednesday, citing the former president’s reelection campaign.

“I’ve said every week out here that I’m not going to comment on the various candidates for the presidency,” McConnell told reporters. “How I felt about that I expressed at the time, but I’m not going to start getting into sort of critiquing the various candidates for president.”

After the Senate concluded its impeachment trial into Trump following the Jan. 6 riot, McConnell tore into the former president in remarks on the floor, declaring, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.”

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” he added.

Since then, McConnell has remained relatively silent when it comes to matters involving Trump, picking and choosing when to weigh in on politically charged matters linked to the former president.

A judge Wednesday rejected former President Trump’s bid to move his hush money criminal case to federal court, ruling that the allegations are not connected to Trump’s role as president.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, granted the request of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) office to keep the case in New York state court in a major blow to the former president.

Trump had argued the case must be moved to federal court because he was being prosecuted for an act under the color of his office as president and that Bragg’s prosecution was politically motivated. Granting the request would’ve also broadened the jury pool beyond deep-blue Manhattan to surrounding areas in New York.

Manhattan prosecutors charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, accusing him of making a series of false entries as he reimbursed his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, in part to conceal a $130,000 hush payment that Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump pleaded not guilty.

A trial in the case is currently set for March 2024. Trump’s lawyers have a deadline late next month to file any motions in state court to dismiss the charges ahead of trial.

They argued that Trump hired Cohen to handle his personal affairs “solely because he was President of the United States” and that the reimbursements were truthful legal expenses made while Trump was serving in the White House.

“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties,” Hellerstein wrote.

The Hill has reached out to Trump’s legal team for comment.

“We are very pleased with the federal court’s decision and look forward to proceeding in New York State Supreme Court,” a Bragg spokesperson said in a statement.

Hellerstein’s 25-page ruling went on to reject the former president’s assertion of two federal defenses: that he was immune and that federal election laws preempted the charges.

Trump had argued the Constitution gave him immunity from the indictment because the allegations in question were pursued solely because he was president.

“Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty,” Hellerstein wrote, using Daniels’s legal name.

“Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty,” Hellerstein continued. “Trump is not immune from the People's prosecution in New York Supreme Court. His argument of immunity is not a colorable defense.”

Bragg’s office elevated the falsifying business records charges from a misdemeanor to a felony by connecting them to another crime. Prosecutors in part have cited state campaign finance law violations, and Trump’s attorneys have argued they are preempted by a federal law that governs campaign finance.

Hellerstein wrote the indictment “does not intrude” on the law’s domain.

“The mere fact that Trump is alleged to have engaged in fraudulent conduct with respect to a federal election is not a basis for preemption," the judge wrote. "There is no colorable basis to support a federal preemption defense."

Trump had also claimed Bragg’s prosecution was politically motivated because of Trump’s actions as president, citing it as another reason to move the case to federal court.

“But there is no reason to believe that the New York judicial system would not be fair and give Trump equal justice under the law,” Hellerstein wrote.

The former president also faces another indictment for his alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. That case was brought in federal court by the Justice Department.

The Justice Department is also investigating Trump for his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Trump said he received a target letter on Sunday, a signal he could soon face charges.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is investigating Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

—Updated at 3:38 p.m.