December 13, 2024 • 31 mins
In this episode, Gary Shapley, a whistleblower from the IRS, discusses his experiences exposing the alleged misconduct surrounding Hunter Biden's tax issues and the perceived bias within the Department of Justice. Shapley shares insights into the challenges faced by whistleblowers, the implications of political favoritism, and the need for transparency and accountability in government. The conversation highlights the dangers of a bureaucratic system that protects itself and the importance of addressing corruption within political structures. To learn more visit givesendgo.com/fightthelies
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I have Gary Shopley
with me today. He is a longtime IRS employee and
also a word that you probably have heard before. He's
a whistleblower. He came forward after watching the Biden DOJ
allow Hunter Biden to skate on his serious tax charges. Gary,
thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yeah, thank you for having me to appreciate.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
It absolutely so. I've read some of your op eds
that you've put out there, and I just want to
say we appreciate the fact that you were willing to
step forward because you should be protected. You should be
able to come out and say, hey, there is a
citizen who hasn't done what citizens are meant to do
and it needs to be reviewed. But you've been You've
been attacked over this, You've been sued over this. Tell
(00:45):
us a little bit about what it's like when the
DOJ doesn't have your back like they're supposed to.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Yeah, it's been you know, I wouldn't change the thing
to start everything. I start the whole conversation. You know,
when someone sees something wrong like this, you got to
step forward. And when people will say that the words
choose your battles. Every time someone says that kind of
tears away from the integrity a little bitter. So this
was a that I just I didn't know. It wasn't
a choice to choose. I just had to go forward
(01:12):
to do it and coming forward. And I think that
all the all the things that be so far with
the until Hunter byen off with with almost no uh
no charges and then the two missing the plea deal
and then all the way through a guilty verdict trial
and then a guilty plead in California, really proved that
that that Josie Learning were right coming forward and it's
(01:36):
been just just horrible the way that you see within
the they know that they were in the wrong. They
know that it wouldn't have been to the American people
if we hadn't come forward, and see his attempting to
protect itself and and that means destroying Josie MM.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Do you think that this was something that Hunter Biden
did because he felt that he was protected since his
father was vice President of the United States and now
President of the United States, was a privileged situation where
like I can do whatever I want or do you
buy into the story of you know, he had this
addiction and he just didn't realize what was happening.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, the story about addiction and stuff, it's really difficult
to talk about, right because people who are addicted to things,
I mean, it's really a big definitely is given to them.
That's the narrative that's given White House the legal team
basic for these charges in California, we're tax times ammitted
(02:42):
returns while so you know, he admitted himself in the
book that he was sober and once admitted that he's sober,
taking pre that he's been sober for a few years now.
But what they're the business issue was the language and
the from President Biden was just really just was completely
(03:03):
false and I was trying to build a name so
you know that wasn't guilty of these times which he
admitted himself he was.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
And I think that this goes to the honesty of
Joe Biden in a big way. And I think a
lot of people are forgiving it now because they go, oh,
you know, he's going to be out of office and
he's so old, and I think the bigger concern here
is he's set a new president and that's something that
we have to be overly aware of. When you are
(03:35):
a career politician. He's in the Senate for all those years.
He had connections in the Senate. He became vice president,
but then when he became president. I mean, and think
about it, when he was vice president. Right after he
was vice president, Donald Trump comes in and says, was
there anything sketchy that happened in Ukraine? And he gets impeached,
But Joe Biden never gets looked at it. He skates
(03:58):
and then have you guys step forward and people start
to say, there's no way to hide this situation with
Hunter Biden. He was getting a massive amount of money,
wasn't paying as taxes, You've got this laptop. This all
comes together and Joe Biden says, I'm not going to
pardon him. Now. Joe Biden is a notorious liar. He's
lied his entire career. He's like when you look up politician,
(04:21):
lying politician in the dictionary, Joe Biden's pictures there. Right,
he couldn't even run for president twice because they said
he was a plagiarizer and he was a liar. Right,
we know that this is his history, but there are
what people call little white lies, and then there are
very dangerous lies. And to me, this is a very
dangerous lie because he said he wasn't going to pardon him.
(04:44):
My son is so smart, He's only done these great
business dealings. I've never been involved in his business dealings.
But then he does this eleven year pardon that covers everything,
and you have to question whether or not this is
going to be a precedent set by future presidents who
will have their children make massive amounts of money off
(05:05):
of their father or their mother being the president of
the United States and being able to wipe all of
their sins clean.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Yeah. So sitting here doesn't really make me feel overally
comfortable to be able to say that the president, well,
this is not perspective which political ideology, someone was told
the truth, white little white lie or whatever. I mean.
When when you sit there and in the president of
States and tell everyone knew it wasn't true, but you're
(05:36):
not going to pardon your son, and then you go
ahead and partner your son, it should be paused for
every American citizen to just question everything within this bureaucracy
that was created under Biden's reign and going back to
Ukraine real quick. So I mean, yeah, President Trump was
impeached by the House for asking the Ukrainian officials who
(05:58):
investigate Biden and his activities in Ukraine. He was absolutely
right in doing so, and he knew that the Department
of Justice couldn't investigate that without bias. And we are
sitting right here. We know what We had the opportunity
to investigate what happened in Ukraine, and we know that
DJ didn't allow us to fully investigate it. If if
(06:20):
that was known, you know, and President Trump asked Ukraine
to investcating. Really he's asking a third party. It should
be unbiased or more more less biased than DOJ is
to investigate what happened in Ukraine. With the bidens, likely
would have found what happened because DJ had a crap.
They didn't let us do it. So it's really amazing.
(06:42):
Maybe DJ didn't let us investigate it fully because it
would have come back. Oh, so you just teached President
Trump for asking for a thorough investigation of we what
we just proved was was conduct that was inappropriate in Ukraine.
So it's quite an interesting dynamic.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Well, I think it's also interesting
because it was early on in his presidency obviously that
this happened, and they all accused him of wanting to
investigate his political opponent. And at that time, I don't
think anybody had had the contenders that would come out
(07:23):
for twenty twenty come out, and everybody knew that Joe
Biden had been pushed aside and told it's Hillary's turn,
is not your turn, You're not going to run. So
there is nobody on the Republican side or on Donald
Trump's side that would have said, oh, he's absolutely going
to be the nominee four years from now. However, for
(07:43):
some reason, Democrats seem to know that, and that to me,
I think there's a few things that are uncovered here.
They have already chosen, and if you look at it,
if you look at what's happened politically, there is not
I mean, Bernie Sanders gets kicked to the side, or
Joe Biden gets kicked to the side, they kind of
choose who they're going to have. And then when Joe
(08:05):
Biden was running, everybody else just kind of bowed out
gracefully and came up with the story of like, oh, yeah,
I've decided I'm going to step out of the race,
but it was pretty clear that that was already decided.
They already knew they had chosen Joe Biden, but they also,
I believe, knew at that time that something had gone
on with Joe Biden and they were covering. Now, why
(08:28):
is everybody so afraid of an investigation into the family
member of a politician? Because if a family member, I
think that's where we feel like we have the most vulnerability.
And that's why we're always very careful with our politicians
and where they are and who they're with, and we
have so many rules around disclosure and finding out what
(08:50):
their financials are, and you hear all about stocks and
all of this all the time because we're trying to
make sure that nobody is using their political influence for
personal gain. Do you think that there is a way
to bring this DOJ back to an unbiased bureaucracy that
actually is functioning as an investigative wing of the government.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, well, I'm very optimistic hearing with what the DOGE
is is planning to do talking about the BERRAXY, Right,
the bureaucracy's biggest enemy is transparency and accountability, Right, That's
why they don't let some of these career DOJ officials
testify in front of Congress because they're protecting that bureaucracy, so,
(09:33):
you know, moving dealing with DOJ and seeing the decisions
that they make every day. On a case that they
had the opportunity to show that they weren't biased and
that they could do a thorough, you know, investigation of
someone that happens to be connected politically, would have been
a perfect, perfect opportunity for them to prove that they're
not biased or it's not this political bias and not
(09:55):
the weaponization, it's not law for lawfare. And they completely
he failed, They completely failed. Merrick Garland went in front
of the American people, the Attorney General of the United States,
and he told him that David Weiss had full authority.
It was completely false. David Weiss's own testimony in front
of the Congress admitted that he had to go through
(10:17):
to Biden appointed US attorneys in d C in California.
And then if David Weiss had full authority to make
all the decisions, why did he need to make him
special counsel? Right, these are the building blocks in what
actually happened. In my opinion that DJ is weaponized against
the Republican Party, and if you know, the new administration
(10:42):
comes in and really looks at it and dissects it
from people who know people who aren't products of the bureaucracy. Right.
I think that we have a chance to turning it around,
but it's going to take for a lot of work.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You said you always believed that he would pardon his son,
but were you expecting the wide ranging pardon of eleven years,
sparing him from sentencing in court cases where he's already
found guilty All of this, I mean, it goes back
to his taxes, but it covers everything, and it honestly
covers the rest of Joe Biden's family too, I believe,
(11:17):
because if you can't investigate Hunter, you can't make the
connection to the others.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
It's not surprising to me, knowing what I know what
happened since January first, twenty fourteen, and the Biden family,
it does not surprise me that he premptively pardoned him
for all of that.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
What do you mean when you say knowing what you know?
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Well, with the information we brought forward pertaining to Ukraine,
Romano and China of going back to Barisma, Whenisma. You know,
even in DJ finds they even admitted that that was
attempting to affect the US policy. Yet in the investigation
(12:02):
of you know, Pharah, we just weren't allowed to go
there whenever it got close to Joe or you know,
close to to proving some of these things. And you know,
we got the we got the hand up, and they
didn't allow us to take those investigative steps. But you know,
it's hard to put all the pieces together as an investigator.
You know, we have all this evidence, and it's just
a mountain of evidence, right, and we expect to put
(12:25):
it out there and not come up, not provide conclusions,
but just provide the facts. But there's just so much
information out there to put the backs together. But to
conclude anything other than than than you know, these governments
were paying Hunter Biden for access to administration would be
completely false. That's what it was. That's what it was.
(12:47):
That's what it was for. And and everyone really knows
it now if they look at the documents, even d
J file.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
So you said yourself that it's not something that you
go out and you you say, I want to go
fight this battle. I'm not out there just looking for
hills to die on. But in this case, you see
something wrong and it's your duty. I mean, this is
your job to come out and say, hey, this is
there's something fishy going on. This is not acceptable. It
(13:14):
needs to be reviewed. You are viciously attacked. Where does
that stand today?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah? Still I'm still retaliated against by my agency and
the Office Special Council is the federal agency, the skates retaliation,
and we have several complaints in with them, and it's
taken you know, almost two years now for them to
not even come up with conclusions. Yet, you know, the
retaliation is affected, right, Like my whole career has been affected.
(13:42):
The way the agency knows what are prohibitive personnel practices,
which is what has to be proved to prove there's retaliation.
They know what they are. They're like decreased the evaluation scores.
You know, it didn't get a promotion, got moved to
some you know, Deluth, Minnesota, you know where it's nice
(14:02):
and warm these times a year. But like they know
what these these prohibitive personnel practices are. So they're doing
everything they can outside of it, right to try to
to try to you know, say that they're not retaliating.
I've applied for multiple jobs that I've already attained that
level previously competitively, and I applied for these jobs and
(14:24):
they say I'm not eligible or they or don't for
them all because they know that my tenure is coming up.
And so you know, I have a tenure of seven years,
so that tenures coming up, and they know that they
kneel on the football and deny me any promotion potential
that I'm going to be demoted, and you know, they
sent out the tenure letter that said either choose to
(14:46):
be demoted or resign. It's unbelievable that professional individuals in
any capacity would send out a letter to a great
employee who's attained a leader ship levels and above, they
send out a letter that literally says, would you like
(15:07):
to resign? Wow?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
And you've said, you've said you've even had senior leaders
who don't speak to you over this. I mean, what
is that We think of this as like, oh gosh,
this is so immature, but it goes so much deeper
than that, because this means that, like I said, I
just have to lay this out again. If you are
the president of the United States and you use your
(15:31):
government to silence people, to shut people up when they
speak against you. And you have used your son, and
I think that you have to say Joe Biden was
a willing participant in this scheme of selling access because
his son was getting a massive amount of money, His brother,
(15:52):
his grandchildren, everyone in the family was profiting off of this.
When you have such control, when one part already has
such control over the unelected bureaucracy of Washington, d C.
That they can actually go under go after an employee
who is doing the right thing. Someone who says I
saw something wrong and I'm going to blow the whistle
(16:14):
on it and try to intimidate you until you leave.
What does that say? Can Donald Trump actually root this
out and get this out of the system.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Like I said, I'm optimistic, I'm I'm hoping to be
a part of it. We went into the Department of
treasurer in Djal. These places experience and you need to
be able to know the exact fault lines and where
to go and where to use a style pold that
comput these career bureau parents and you know, I call
(16:47):
them their products of the bureaucracy. There are people that
would not be where they are if it wasn't for
a bureaucracy promoting just yes men and yes women and
people that are willing to just use one voice in
a way where they just provide the echo chamber for
their leadership. And you know, going to the whistleblower label,
(17:07):
you know, we have to protect whistleblowers, all whistleblowers. But
the problem is is that when a whistleblower comes forward,
and I didn't come forward in a partisan manner like
this was just what was in front of me. This
is what I was in charge of, and it wasn't
right what happened. So I came forward and I knew
I was going to be politically attacked. It seems as
though the whistleblowers that come forward that whether partisan or not,
(17:31):
that provide information that helps for hurts, you know, a
political party. When it's good for the Democrats, you know,
it's those whistleblowers are protected, held up on high and
but now when it comes to Joe Ziegler and we're
being destroyed, the Office of Special Council in charge of
(17:52):
deciding whether there was retaliation, President Biden put a law
partner from Boyce Schiller, former partner of Hunter Biden in
charge of that agency. How is Hunter a former partner
in a law firm when Hunter Biden is in charge
of the Office of Special Council and he's recused himself,
(18:14):
you know, in terms of this because he knows the
conflict that exists. But in a bureaucracy, that recusal is not.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
No one's right. No one's recusing themselves in that situation.
So were you in d C when you came out
and said this is what you'd seen?
Speaker 2 (18:31):
What do you mean like my post of duty?
Speaker 1 (18:33):
I'm saying, yes, yeah, was that where you were located?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah? So I'm the supervisor of International Test Group and
agency all across the country, but in the d C
field office and a local in the DC summer.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
And you still are there. They haven't moved you out
of there or they did.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Well, no, I'm still here. But they're trying to, you know,
limit promotion potential so that they can tenure me out
and I get to reside or have they step demotive.
So it's really it's really difficult to swallow. They know
what they're doing. They're smothering, smothering Josie Gler. I just
(19:13):
hope that this, you know, within you know, maybe I
can help the new administration with this. See within mass Treasury,
with FBI and DOJ.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Stay tuned for more with IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley. But first,
let me tell you about my partners at Saber. Protecting
our families and homes is essential, but you have to
ask yourself, are you truly prepared? Did you know that
break ins happen every twenty five seconds? And even with
a security system, can you really keep intruders out? Well,
you can, but you've got to layer your defenses and
(19:47):
helps you to buy yourself time when you do that.
So you start with the Saber driveway Alert so you
know when someone's approaching, and then you pair that with
floodlights to deter them. Sabers door security bars reinforce front
and back doors and they stop up to six hundred
and fifty pounds of force. That secure your entry points,
and that happens even when you're not home. And if
you are home. I know this is scary, but many
(20:08):
of these invasions happen at night. Sabers Home Defense Launcher
is the ultimate choice to protect yourself and your family.
Saber projectiles they hit hard, they cause intense pain, and
they can still be effective even if you miss, because
your intruder will end up in a six foot pepper
cloud and they will experience sensory irritation. Plus, Sabers Home
(20:29):
Defense Launcher is the only sixty eight caliber launcher with
a seven projectile capacity and they offer up to forty
percent more shots than others. So stay secure day or
night with Saber solutions. Visit saberradio dot com, that Saber
Sabre radio dot com, or you can call eight four
four eight two four Safe Today to protect what matters most. Now,
(20:53):
stay tuned. We've got more coming up after this. Do
you think that some of this is built up over
years of creating new government and almost hidden within those
layers of government the corruption that goes on, because I
mean I even see this in this on the state level.
You have a governor who comes in and now suddenly
(21:14):
we have an extra Department of ed where all of
this money is going through this Department of ED. And
then it's like the department where it takes the governor
to other countries and she's going out and in recruiting
new business. And I use air quotes because no new
business ever comes. But suddenly the state of Michigan has
their own office in Taiwan, and it's like, who is
(21:36):
paying for all this and where? What is how does
all of this happen? Do you believe that over time,
creating bigger and bigger government has caused this problem? Because honestly,
that's what we see Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami going
in and saying, we're going to cut back on these
layers of government. And I believe that once you cut
back on the layers of government, you're going to expose
(21:56):
a lot of dirty stuff that's hidden there. But once
it's built, but it's very hard to cut back.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yeah, a bureaucracy is a living sentient being protects itself
just just instinctually. And you see all the time when
you know, someone will come in with a report that
the federal government did something wrong, this agency did something wrong.
What's the response, More money, more people, more training, every
single time, every single time. So it bloats that bureaucracy,
(22:25):
and there's never a check to that to say, you know,
when when someone when an agency says, like you know,
someone says you did something wrong here, they just say, yes,
we did something wrong. You never hear, Okay, we're going
to remove this level, or we're going to we're going
to going to be more concise in our hiring. I mean,
our agency IRS Criminal Investigation publicly says that thirty percent
(22:47):
of the people do seventy percent of the week work.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
That's crazy, I mean, but I think that's true in
most cases. But still when you look at what does
that say about supervision, what does I'd say about I
believe that these folks. I mean, it's like the Fauci situation,
where you get a certain amount of funding and you're
not going to cut anything because you want to be
(23:11):
able to continue to get that funding. You're not going
to expose anything because if you expose something, you might
not get the funding. I think funding creates a lot
of this problem too. I mean, you know that we
had scientists who weren't willing to come out and speak
against him because they were afraid that the funding would stop.
I think it's similar in these other agencies where it's like, well,
if we pair back or if we try to be
(23:33):
more efficient, we won't get the funding, so it's easier
to make it less efficient to make more and then
we have this cushion and that becomes I believe the
place where these these craters and these hidden corners are
where corruption occurs.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Yeah, and that's really all people become so because they're
coming off through the ranks and then see things like that,
see things like, well, if we don't spend this punt
of money going to be gone next year and then
they won't give it back, you know, So we're going
to spend it. We're going to spend it, you know.
And then when you get in the echo chambers within
the senior leadership of these agencies, they're just telling each
(24:11):
other how great they are, the title that they that
they're deserving, when the reality is is that a vast
majority of the senior leadership in my agency is not
make some performs you know, who's who's willing to be mobile,
who's you know, who fits some demographic And it's just
it's really come to the tipping point to where we
(24:33):
spend a vast percentage of our time kind of administrative
Europe items. H It's very little mission focused. And that's
where I tend to want to spend all my time
on the mission. I mean, we joke it, we say
ABC anything but cases the agency. So all these goods,
(24:53):
all these administrative people, all these people. Ah, they're always
interested in doing all these projects that don't actually end
up materially positively affecting our mission. And then there's people
like me. I don't want to do any of that stuff, right, Like,
I just want to work on cases and moving the
cases forward. And that's what the American people, you know,
expect of us. So I'm optimistic. I'm incredibly optimistic of
(25:18):
the Department of Government efficiency, the administration's emphasis on reducing
the bureaucracy, and I just hope to be a tool
to help it happen, because I've been fighting this bureaucracy
from inside for fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Well, obviously now nothing can happen with the Hunter Biden stuff.
He's got this cloud of protection over him. He's under
the veils. He can't be investigated. If that weren't the case,
if Joe Biden hadn't pardoned him, if there was the
availability of going in and figuring this out, what should
the American public know about Hunter Biden? How dangerous this
(25:54):
is of a precedent to set for presidents and their family.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Well, ultimately, if hunter Biden was sentenced, the judge in
those cases would have used the sentence and guide lines
and they would have come up with an acceptable sentence
for him. That's not for me to say. But the
danger here and why this is still important is because
of what you know, the boys and the weaponization of
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the IRS. That's
(26:19):
why we need to we need to shift focus and
hold these people accountable. Because when you say, like, well,
how are we going to attack the bureaucracy, that's how
you attack it. First, you'd be transparent. That's what we did,
following the laws bringing it to Congress, it became public.
If the information on Hunter Biden case didn't didn't go
to Congress and they didn't vote to release it and
(26:41):
they got out in the public. The Department of Justice
they even did try to take these steps, they would
have not charged him. They would have gotten rid of
it with a two misdemeanor plead deal. The American public
would have never seen what happened. I mean, a jury
of his peers in Delaware convicted him of the gun
gun violations. Yet the President the United States said in
(27:01):
a statement that no reasonable people would agree that this
wasn't lawfair. He said that when he knew it of
the jury of their peers listened to all the evidence.
I found this sound guilty, basically saying that the jurors
weren't reasonable or the justice system is not reasonable. Look,
when it fits their narrative, you know they're going to
push it. Unfortunately this administration. So I think that we
(27:25):
were optimistic moving forward.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So do you think this is actually shocked maybe shocked
the American people after they saw what happened with Donald
Trump and all the cases against him, and the cases
in New York, the cases in George, or the cases
in DC, and people kept saying, what this stuff is blogoney,
this is lawfair, This is going after your political opponent.
But then the contrast of Hunter Biden having really done
(27:50):
stuff and the Democrats saying, oh, look the other way,
Joe Biden comes out and pardons him. But it's not
just that Joe Biden comes out and pardons him. I
have to say, it's the leftist media who was, oh,
Donald Trump's so dangerous, so scary. There's no one above
the law. How many times did we hear that statement
there is no one above the law. But now it's
swept under the rug. Do you think that the next
(28:13):
because I feel like for so many years now, we
as Republicans have felt like anybody who runs is going
to have all this baloney made up about them, They're
going to have to go through court cases. Do you
think this has scared the American people enough to say,
we won't buy into this. We're not going to be
manipulated by this story that you have to prosecute every
political opponent you have.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
Well, I hope it did. Then the risk and during
all Josie Glar during It's All Worth shine light on
what happened. We needed a transparency to this bureaucracy. And
when you look at the weaponization right, like, it seems
clear that it was law fair. It was a web
position of dj and to go after you know, you know,
(28:57):
President Trump and some other Republican and you know, but
what we have here, like can people say, oh, well,
that's my opinion one way or the other. Right, what
you have here is you have the Department of Justice,
clearly by their own actions initially and then in the
middle and then at the end brus that they were
(29:18):
trying to cover up the Hunter Biden case, they were
trying to not charge him. I mean there are memos
on May fifteen, twenty twenty three, offering to for prosecution agreement,
which mean he would have been charged at all. And
then if you look at the timing in May twenty
twenty three, I'm coming forward to testify and all of
a sudden, David Weiss and Delaware says, oh, we have
(29:38):
to have him a too misdemeanor plea deal. If that
plea deal had gone through, then dj would be sitting
here right now being like like some of the Democrats
on the Hill did, where it's just your opinion he
should have been charged. You know, David Weiss is following
the facts in the law. Well, David Weiss told Congress
he's following the facts in the law. That's why the
two misdemeanor plea deal. So what happened when that plea
(30:00):
deal fell through and now they indict on the gun
charge and on the tech. Did the facts or the
law change? No, they didn't. The only thing that change
is that is that transparency was added to this process
so they couldn't tie it anymore. And it is absolutely
unequivocal proof the Department of Justice was weaponized against one
(30:23):
political party.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Well, I just want to say thank you, because we
wouldn't know most of this had you not stepped forward.
And I know how hard that is. I know how
hard it is to go into this arena and try
to fight. I mean, we've watched it on so many
different levels. Now, we've watched your case, we've watched Donald Trump,
we've watched Daniel Penny, we've watched all of these people
go after innocence, innocens that have done the right thing
(30:49):
for the country. So Gary Shapley, thank you so much
for doing what you've done and standing up for all
of us.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Thank you so much. Good for great.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
The thanks, and thank you all for joining us on
the Tutor Dixon Podcasts. For this episode and others. Go
to Tutor Diison podcast dot com or the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts and join
us next time. Have a blessing.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I have Gary Shopley
with me today. He is a longtime IRS employee and
also a word that you probably have heard before. He's
a whistleblower. He came forward after watching the Biden DOJ
allow Hunter Biden to skate on his serious tax charges. Gary,
thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yeah, thank you for having me to appreciate.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
It absolutely so. I've read some of your op eds
that you've put out there, and I just want to
say we appreciate the fact that you were willing to
step forward because you should be protected. You should be
able to come out and say, hey, there is a
citizen who hasn't done what citizens are meant to do
and it needs to be reviewed. But you've been You've
been attacked over this, You've been sued over this. Tell
(00:45):
us a little bit about what it's like when the
DOJ doesn't have your back like they're supposed to.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Yeah, it's been you know, I wouldn't change the thing
to start everything. I start the whole conversation. You know,
when someone sees something wrong like this, you got to
step forward. And when people will say that the words
choose your battles. Every time someone says that kind of
tears away from the integrity a little bitter. So this
was a that I just I didn't know. It wasn't
a choice to choose. I just had to go forward
(01:12):
to do it and coming forward. And I think that
all the all the things that be so far with
the until Hunter byen off with with almost no uh
no charges and then the two missing the plea deal
and then all the way through a guilty verdict trial
and then a guilty plead in California, really proved that
that that Josie Learning were right coming forward and it's
(01:36):
been just just horrible the way that you see within
the they know that they were in the wrong. They
know that it wouldn't have been to the American people
if we hadn't come forward, and see his attempting to
protect itself and and that means destroying Josie MM.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Do you think that this was something that Hunter Biden
did because he felt that he was protected since his
father was vice President of the United States and now
President of the United States, was a privileged situation where
like I can do whatever I want or do you
buy into the story of you know, he had this
addiction and he just didn't realize what was happening.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, the story about addiction and stuff, it's really difficult
to talk about, right because people who are addicted to things,
I mean, it's really a big definitely is given to them.
That's the narrative that's given White House the legal team
basic for these charges in California, we're tax times ammitted
(02:42):
returns while so you know, he admitted himself in the
book that he was sober and once admitted that he's sober,
taking pre that he's been sober for a few years now.
But what they're the business issue was the language and
the from President Biden was just really just was completely
(03:03):
false and I was trying to build a name so
you know that wasn't guilty of these times which he
admitted himself he was.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
And I think that this goes to the honesty of
Joe Biden in a big way. And I think a
lot of people are forgiving it now because they go, oh,
you know, he's going to be out of office and
he's so old, and I think the bigger concern here
is he's set a new president and that's something that
we have to be overly aware of. When you are
(03:35):
a career politician. He's in the Senate for all those years.
He had connections in the Senate. He became vice president,
but then when he became president. I mean, and think
about it, when he was vice president. Right after he
was vice president, Donald Trump comes in and says, was
there anything sketchy that happened in Ukraine? And he gets impeached,
But Joe Biden never gets looked at it. He skates
(03:58):
and then have you guys step forward and people start
to say, there's no way to hide this situation with
Hunter Biden. He was getting a massive amount of money,
wasn't paying as taxes, You've got this laptop. This all
comes together and Joe Biden says, I'm not going to
pardon him. Now. Joe Biden is a notorious liar. He's
lied his entire career. He's like when you look up politician,
(04:21):
lying politician in the dictionary, Joe Biden's pictures there. Right,
he couldn't even run for president twice because they said
he was a plagiarizer and he was a liar. Right,
we know that this is his history, but there are
what people call little white lies, and then there are
very dangerous lies. And to me, this is a very
dangerous lie because he said he wasn't going to pardon him.
(04:44):
My son is so smart, He's only done these great
business dealings. I've never been involved in his business dealings.
But then he does this eleven year pardon that covers everything,
and you have to question whether or not this is
going to be a precedent set by future presidents who
will have their children make massive amounts of money off
(05:05):
of their father or their mother being the president of
the United States and being able to wipe all of
their sins clean.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Yeah. So sitting here doesn't really make me feel overally
comfortable to be able to say that the president, well,
this is not perspective which political ideology, someone was told
the truth, white little white lie or whatever. I mean.
When when you sit there and in the president of
States and tell everyone knew it wasn't true, but you're
(05:36):
not going to pardon your son, and then you go
ahead and partner your son, it should be paused for
every American citizen to just question everything within this bureaucracy
that was created under Biden's reign and going back to
Ukraine real quick. So I mean, yeah, President Trump was
impeached by the House for asking the Ukrainian officials who
(05:58):
investigate Biden and his activities in Ukraine. He was absolutely
right in doing so, and he knew that the Department
of Justice couldn't investigate that without bias. And we are
sitting right here. We know what We had the opportunity
to investigate what happened in Ukraine, and we know that
DJ didn't allow us to fully investigate it. If if
(06:20):
that was known, you know, and President Trump asked Ukraine
to investcating. Really he's asking a third party. It should
be unbiased or more more less biased than DOJ is
to investigate what happened in Ukraine. With the bidens, likely
would have found what happened because DJ had a crap.
They didn't let us do it. So it's really amazing.
(06:42):
Maybe DJ didn't let us investigate it fully because it
would have come back. Oh, so you just teached President
Trump for asking for a thorough investigation of we what
we just proved was was conduct that was inappropriate in Ukraine.
So it's quite an interesting dynamic.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Well, I think it's also interesting
because it was early on in his presidency obviously that
this happened, and they all accused him of wanting to
investigate his political opponent. And at that time, I don't
think anybody had had the contenders that would come out
(07:23):
for twenty twenty come out, and everybody knew that Joe
Biden had been pushed aside and told it's Hillary's turn,
is not your turn, You're not going to run. So
there is nobody on the Republican side or on Donald
Trump's side that would have said, oh, he's absolutely going
to be the nominee four years from now. However, for
(07:43):
some reason, Democrats seem to know that, and that to me,
I think there's a few things that are uncovered here.
They have already chosen, and if you look at it,
if you look at what's happened politically, there is not
I mean, Bernie Sanders gets kicked to the side, or
Joe Biden gets kicked to the side, they kind of
choose who they're going to have. And then when Joe
(08:05):
Biden was running, everybody else just kind of bowed out
gracefully and came up with the story of like, oh, yeah,
I've decided I'm going to step out of the race,
but it was pretty clear that that was already decided.
They already knew they had chosen Joe Biden, but they also,
I believe, knew at that time that something had gone
on with Joe Biden and they were covering. Now, why
(08:28):
is everybody so afraid of an investigation into the family
member of a politician? Because if a family member, I
think that's where we feel like we have the most vulnerability.
And that's why we're always very careful with our politicians
and where they are and who they're with, and we
have so many rules around disclosure and finding out what
(08:50):
their financials are, and you hear all about stocks and
all of this all the time because we're trying to
make sure that nobody is using their political influence for
personal gain. Do you think that there is a way
to bring this DOJ back to an unbiased bureaucracy that
actually is functioning as an investigative wing of the government.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, well, I'm very optimistic hearing with what the DOGE
is is planning to do talking about the BERRAXY, Right,
the bureaucracy's biggest enemy is transparency and accountability, Right, That's
why they don't let some of these career DOJ officials
testify in front of Congress because they're protecting that bureaucracy, so,
(09:33):
you know, moving dealing with DOJ and seeing the decisions
that they make every day. On a case that they
had the opportunity to show that they weren't biased and
that they could do a thorough, you know, investigation of
someone that happens to be connected politically, would have been
a perfect, perfect opportunity for them to prove that they're
not biased or it's not this political bias and not
(09:55):
the weaponization, it's not law for lawfare. And they completely
he failed, They completely failed. Merrick Garland went in front
of the American people, the Attorney General of the United States,
and he told him that David Weiss had full authority.
It was completely false. David Weiss's own testimony in front
of the Congress admitted that he had to go through
(10:17):
to Biden appointed US attorneys in d C in California.
And then if David Weiss had full authority to make
all the decisions, why did he need to make him
special counsel? Right, these are the building blocks in what
actually happened. In my opinion that DJ is weaponized against
the Republican Party, and if you know, the new administration
(10:42):
comes in and really looks at it and dissects it
from people who know people who aren't products of the bureaucracy. Right.
I think that we have a chance to turning it around,
but it's going to take for a lot of work.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You said you always believed that he would pardon his son,
but were you expecting the wide ranging pardon of eleven years,
sparing him from sentencing in court cases where he's already
found guilty All of this, I mean, it goes back
to his taxes, but it covers everything, and it honestly
covers the rest of Joe Biden's family too, I believe,
(11:17):
because if you can't investigate Hunter, you can't make the
connection to the others.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
It's not surprising to me, knowing what I know what
happened since January first, twenty fourteen, and the Biden family,
it does not surprise me that he premptively pardoned him
for all of that.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
What do you mean when you say knowing what you know?
Speaker 2 (11:38):
Well, with the information we brought forward pertaining to Ukraine,
Romano and China of going back to Barisma, Whenisma. You know,
even in DJ finds they even admitted that that was
attempting to affect the US policy. Yet in the investigation
(12:02):
of you know, Pharah, we just weren't allowed to go
there whenever it got close to Joe or you know,
close to to proving some of these things. And you know,
we got the we got the hand up, and they
didn't allow us to take those investigative steps. But you know,
it's hard to put all the pieces together as an investigator.
You know, we have all this evidence, and it's just
a mountain of evidence, right, and we expect to put
(12:25):
it out there and not come up, not provide conclusions,
but just provide the facts. But there's just so much
information out there to put the backs together. But to
conclude anything other than than than you know, these governments
were paying Hunter Biden for access to administration would be
completely false. That's what it was. That's what it was.
(12:47):
That's what it was for. And and everyone really knows
it now if they look at the documents, even d
J file.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
So you said yourself that it's not something that you
go out and you you say, I want to go
fight this battle. I'm not out there just looking for
hills to die on. But in this case, you see
something wrong and it's your duty. I mean, this is
your job to come out and say, hey, this is
there's something fishy going on. This is not acceptable. It
(13:14):
needs to be reviewed. You are viciously attacked. Where does
that stand today?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Yeah? Still I'm still retaliated against by my agency and
the Office Special Council is the federal agency, the skates retaliation,
and we have several complaints in with them, and it's
taken you know, almost two years now for them to
not even come up with conclusions. Yet, you know, the
retaliation is affected, right, Like my whole career has been affected.
(13:42):
The way the agency knows what are prohibitive personnel practices,
which is what has to be proved to prove there's retaliation.
They know what they are. They're like decreased the evaluation scores.
You know, it didn't get a promotion, got moved to
some you know, Deluth, Minnesota, you know where it's nice
(14:02):
and warm these times a year. But like they know
what these these prohibitive personnel practices are. So they're doing
everything they can outside of it, right to try to
to try to you know, say that they're not retaliating.
I've applied for multiple jobs that I've already attained that
level previously competitively, and I applied for these jobs and
(14:24):
they say I'm not eligible or they or don't for
them all because they know that my tenure is coming up.
And so you know, I have a tenure of seven years,
so that tenures coming up, and they know that they
kneel on the football and deny me any promotion potential
that I'm going to be demoted, and you know, they
sent out the tenure letter that said either choose to
(14:46):
be demoted or resign. It's unbelievable that professional individuals in
any capacity would send out a letter to a great
employee who's attained a leader ship levels and above, they
send out a letter that literally says, would you like
(15:07):
to resign? Wow?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
And you've said, you've said you've even had senior leaders
who don't speak to you over this. I mean, what
is that We think of this as like, oh gosh,
this is so immature, but it goes so much deeper
than that, because this means that, like I said, I
just have to lay this out again. If you are
the president of the United States and you use your
(15:31):
government to silence people, to shut people up when they
speak against you. And you have used your son, and
I think that you have to say Joe Biden was
a willing participant in this scheme of selling access because
his son was getting a massive amount of money, His brother,
(15:52):
his grandchildren, everyone in the family was profiting off of this.
When you have such control, when one part already has
such control over the unelected bureaucracy of Washington, d C.
That they can actually go under go after an employee
who is doing the right thing. Someone who says I
saw something wrong and I'm going to blow the whistle
(16:14):
on it and try to intimidate you until you leave.
What does that say? Can Donald Trump actually root this
out and get this out of the system.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Like I said, I'm optimistic, I'm I'm hoping to be
a part of it. We went into the Department of
treasurer in Djal. These places experience and you need to
be able to know the exact fault lines and where
to go and where to use a style pold that
comput these career bureau parents and you know, I call
(16:47):
them their products of the bureaucracy. There are people that
would not be where they are if it wasn't for
a bureaucracy promoting just yes men and yes women and
people that are willing to just use one voice in
a way where they just provide the echo chamber for
their leadership. And you know, going to the whistleblower label,
(17:07):
you know, we have to protect whistleblowers, all whistleblowers. But
the problem is is that when a whistleblower comes forward,
and I didn't come forward in a partisan manner like
this was just what was in front of me. This
is what I was in charge of, and it wasn't
right what happened. So I came forward and I knew
I was going to be politically attacked. It seems as
though the whistleblowers that come forward that whether partisan or not,
(17:31):
that provide information that helps for hurts, you know, a
political party. When it's good for the Democrats, you know,
it's those whistleblowers are protected, held up on high and
but now when it comes to Joe Ziegler and we're
being destroyed, the Office of Special Council in charge of
(17:52):
deciding whether there was retaliation, President Biden put a law
partner from Boyce Schiller, former partner of Hunter Biden in
charge of that agency. How is Hunter a former partner
in a law firm when Hunter Biden is in charge
of the Office of Special Council and he's recused himself,
(18:14):
you know, in terms of this because he knows the
conflict that exists. But in a bureaucracy, that recusal is not.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
No one's right. No one's recusing themselves in that situation.
So were you in d C when you came out
and said this is what you'd seen?
Speaker 2 (18:31):
What do you mean like my post of duty?
Speaker 1 (18:33):
I'm saying, yes, yeah, was that where you were located?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah? So I'm the supervisor of International Test Group and
agency all across the country, but in the d C
field office and a local in the DC summer.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
And you still are there. They haven't moved you out
of there or they did.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Well, no, I'm still here. But they're trying to, you know,
limit promotion potential so that they can tenure me out
and I get to reside or have they step demotive.
So it's really it's really difficult to swallow. They know
what they're doing. They're smothering, smothering Josie Gler. I just
(19:13):
hope that this, you know, within you know, maybe I
can help the new administration with this. See within mass Treasury,
with FBI and DOJ.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Stay tuned for more with IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley. But first,
let me tell you about my partners at Saber. Protecting
our families and homes is essential, but you have to
ask yourself, are you truly prepared? Did you know that
break ins happen every twenty five seconds? And even with
a security system, can you really keep intruders out? Well,
you can, but you've got to layer your defenses and
(19:47):
helps you to buy yourself time when you do that.
So you start with the Saber driveway Alert so you
know when someone's approaching, and then you pair that with
floodlights to deter them. Sabers door security bars reinforce front
and back doors and they stop up to six hundred
and fifty pounds of force. That secure your entry points,
and that happens even when you're not home. And if
you are home. I know this is scary, but many
(20:08):
of these invasions happen at night. Sabers Home Defense Launcher
is the ultimate choice to protect yourself and your family.
Saber projectiles they hit hard, they cause intense pain, and
they can still be effective even if you miss, because
your intruder will end up in a six foot pepper
cloud and they will experience sensory irritation. Plus, Sabers Home
(20:29):
Defense Launcher is the only sixty eight caliber launcher with
a seven projectile capacity and they offer up to forty
percent more shots than others. So stay secure day or
night with Saber solutions. Visit saberradio dot com, that Saber
Sabre radio dot com, or you can call eight four
four eight two four Safe Today to protect what matters most. Now,
(20:53):
stay tuned. We've got more coming up after this. Do
you think that some of this is built up over
years of creating new government and almost hidden within those
layers of government the corruption that goes on, because I
mean I even see this in this on the state level.
You have a governor who comes in and now suddenly
(21:14):
we have an extra Department of ed where all of
this money is going through this Department of ED. And
then it's like the department where it takes the governor
to other countries and she's going out and in recruiting
new business. And I use air quotes because no new
business ever comes. But suddenly the state of Michigan has
their own office in Taiwan, and it's like, who is
(21:36):
paying for all this and where? What is how does
all of this happen? Do you believe that over time,
creating bigger and bigger government has caused this problem? Because honestly,
that's what we see Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswami going
in and saying, we're going to cut back on these
layers of government. And I believe that once you cut
back on the layers of government, you're going to expose
(21:56):
a lot of dirty stuff that's hidden there. But once
it's built, but it's very hard to cut back.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yeah, a bureaucracy is a living sentient being protects itself
just just instinctually. And you see all the time when
you know, someone will come in with a report that
the federal government did something wrong, this agency did something wrong.
What's the response, More money, more people, more training, every
single time, every single time. So it bloats that bureaucracy,
(22:25):
and there's never a check to that to say, you know,
when when someone when an agency says, like you know,
someone says you did something wrong here, they just say, yes,
we did something wrong. You never hear, Okay, we're going
to remove this level, or we're going to we're going
to going to be more concise in our hiring. I mean,
our agency IRS Criminal Investigation publicly says that thirty percent
(22:47):
of the people do seventy percent of the week work.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
That's crazy, I mean, but I think that's true in
most cases. But still when you look at what does
that say about supervision, what does I'd say about I
believe that these folks. I mean, it's like the Fauci situation,
where you get a certain amount of funding and you're
not going to cut anything because you want to be
(23:11):
able to continue to get that funding. You're not going
to expose anything because if you expose something, you might
not get the funding. I think funding creates a lot
of this problem too. I mean, you know that we
had scientists who weren't willing to come out and speak
against him because they were afraid that the funding would stop.
I think it's similar in these other agencies where it's like, well,
if we pair back or if we try to be
(23:33):
more efficient, we won't get the funding, so it's easier
to make it less efficient to make more and then
we have this cushion and that becomes I believe the
place where these these craters and these hidden corners are
where corruption occurs.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Yeah, and that's really all people become so because they're
coming off through the ranks and then see things like that,
see things like, well, if we don't spend this punt
of money going to be gone next year and then
they won't give it back, you know, So we're going
to spend it. We're going to spend it, you know.
And then when you get in the echo chambers within
the senior leadership of these agencies, they're just telling each
(24:11):
other how great they are, the title that they that
they're deserving, when the reality is is that a vast
majority of the senior leadership in my agency is not
make some performs you know, who's who's willing to be mobile,
who's you know, who fits some demographic And it's just
it's really come to the tipping point to where we
(24:33):
spend a vast percentage of our time kind of administrative
Europe items. H It's very little mission focused. And that's
where I tend to want to spend all my time
on the mission. I mean, we joke it, we say
ABC anything but cases the agency. So all these goods,
(24:53):
all these administrative people, all these people. Ah, they're always
interested in doing all these projects that don't actually end
up materially positively affecting our mission. And then there's people
like me. I don't want to do any of that stuff, right, Like,
I just want to work on cases and moving the
cases forward. And that's what the American people, you know,
expect of us. So I'm optimistic. I'm incredibly optimistic of
(25:18):
the Department of Government efficiency, the administration's emphasis on reducing
the bureaucracy, and I just hope to be a tool
to help it happen, because I've been fighting this bureaucracy
from inside for fifteen years.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Well, obviously now nothing can happen with the Hunter Biden stuff.
He's got this cloud of protection over him. He's under
the veils. He can't be investigated. If that weren't the case,
if Joe Biden hadn't pardoned him, if there was the
availability of going in and figuring this out, what should
the American public know about Hunter Biden? How dangerous this
(25:54):
is of a precedent to set for presidents and their family.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Well, ultimately, if hunter Biden was sentenced, the judge in
those cases would have used the sentence and guide lines
and they would have come up with an acceptable sentence
for him. That's not for me to say. But the
danger here and why this is still important is because
of what you know, the boys and the weaponization of
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the IRS. That's
(26:19):
why we need to we need to shift focus and
hold these people accountable. Because when you say, like, well,
how are we going to attack the bureaucracy, that's how
you attack it. First, you'd be transparent. That's what we did,
following the laws bringing it to Congress, it became public.
If the information on Hunter Biden case didn't didn't go
to Congress and they didn't vote to release it and
(26:41):
they got out in the public. The Department of Justice
they even did try to take these steps, they would
have not charged him. They would have gotten rid of
it with a two misdemeanor plead deal. The American public
would have never seen what happened. I mean, a jury
of his peers in Delaware convicted him of the gun
gun violations. Yet the President the United States said in
(27:01):
a statement that no reasonable people would agree that this
wasn't lawfair. He said that when he knew it of
the jury of their peers listened to all the evidence.
I found this sound guilty, basically saying that the jurors
weren't reasonable or the justice system is not reasonable. Look,
when it fits their narrative, you know they're going to
push it. Unfortunately this administration. So I think that we
(27:25):
were optimistic moving forward.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So do you think this is actually shocked maybe shocked
the American people after they saw what happened with Donald
Trump and all the cases against him, and the cases
in New York, the cases in George, or the cases
in DC, and people kept saying, what this stuff is blogoney,
this is lawfair, This is going after your political opponent.
But then the contrast of Hunter Biden having really done
(27:50):
stuff and the Democrats saying, oh, look the other way,
Joe Biden comes out and pardons him. But it's not
just that Joe Biden comes out and pardons him. I
have to say, it's the leftist media who was, oh,
Donald Trump's so dangerous, so scary. There's no one above
the law. How many times did we hear that statement
there is no one above the law. But now it's
swept under the rug. Do you think that the next
(28:13):
because I feel like for so many years now, we
as Republicans have felt like anybody who runs is going
to have all this baloney made up about them, They're
going to have to go through court cases. Do you
think this has scared the American people enough to say,
we won't buy into this. We're not going to be
manipulated by this story that you have to prosecute every
political opponent you have.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
Well, I hope it did. Then the risk and during
all Josie Glar during It's All Worth shine light on
what happened. We needed a transparency to this bureaucracy. And
when you look at the weaponization right, like, it seems
clear that it was law fair. It was a web
position of dj and to go after you know, you know,
(28:57):
President Trump and some other Republican and you know, but
what we have here, like can people say, oh, well,
that's my opinion one way or the other. Right, what
you have here is you have the Department of Justice,
clearly by their own actions initially and then in the
middle and then at the end brus that they were
(29:18):
trying to cover up the Hunter Biden case, they were
trying to not charge him. I mean there are memos
on May fifteen, twenty twenty three, offering to for prosecution agreement,
which mean he would have been charged at all. And
then if you look at the timing in May twenty
twenty three, I'm coming forward to testify and all of
a sudden, David Weiss and Delaware says, oh, we have
(29:38):
to have him a too misdemeanor plea deal. If that
plea deal had gone through, then dj would be sitting
here right now being like like some of the Democrats
on the Hill did, where it's just your opinion he
should have been charged. You know, David Weiss is following
the facts in the law. Well, David Weiss told Congress
he's following the facts in the law. That's why the
two misdemeanor plea deal. So what happened when that plea
(30:00):
deal fell through and now they indict on the gun
charge and on the tech. Did the facts or the
law change? No, they didn't. The only thing that change
is that is that transparency was added to this process
so they couldn't tie it anymore. And it is absolutely
unequivocal proof the Department of Justice was weaponized against one
(30:23):
political party.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Well, I just want to say thank you, because we
wouldn't know most of this had you not stepped forward.
And I know how hard that is. I know how
hard it is to go into this arena and try
to fight. I mean, we've watched it on so many
different levels. Now, we've watched your case, we've watched Donald Trump,
we've watched Daniel Penny, we've watched all of these people
go after innocence, innocens that have done the right thing
(30:49):
for the country. So Gary Shapley, thank you so much
for doing what you've done and standing up for all
of us.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Thank you so much. Good for great.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
The thanks, and thank you all for joining us on
the Tutor Dixon Podcasts. For this episode and others. Go
to Tutor Diison podcast dot com or the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts and join
us next time. Have a blessing.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.