An IRS whistleblower has come forward raising serious questions about the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and whether he is receiving special and politically motivated treatment by prosecutors and investigators. What is just as troubling is that Attorney General Merrick Garland flatly denied such allegations in March while testifying before the United States Senate. In fact, information provided by the whistleblower—a career employee of the IRS, with no apparent political ties—and the sworn testimony of the very political Attorney General of the United States are in direct conflict.
Lying to Congress is, of course, a federal offense. The whistleblowers allegations are serious, and it is imperative that a special counsel be appointed to investigate. It is simply not acceptable for the Attorney General of the United States to lie to Congress or to obstruct its work in any way. Neither Garland nor his underlings at the DOJ can be trusted to fairly investigate whether he committed a crime when he testified. The inescapable conclusion is the necessity of a special counsel.
The appointment would allow an independent attorney to launch a fulsome investigation into whether the Attorney General violated the law, without the threat to investigators of political interference by DOJ officials loyal to Joe Biden and his family. The special counsel would have the power to subpoena witnesses, gather evidence and pursue charges if necessary.
But even more important than the appointment of a special counsel is the choice of who is to be appointed. The appointment would likely be made by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monoco. She will be tempted to appoint a Republican with long ties to the Department of Justice, but who supports the permanent D.C. bureaucracy. These generally support Garland, whether openly or tacitly, given the current AG spent decades as a well-known federal appellate judge. The sad fact is that even many Republicans with DOJ ties are more loyal to the bureaucracy than they are to the constitutional government created by America’s founders.
Tucker Carlson recently pointed out that America is “starting to look very much like a one-party state.” And he’s right. Establishment DOJ bureaucrats cannot be trusted to conduct a fair investigation into one of their own. Instead, the appointment must go to an outsider who will not be influenced overtly by politicians or subtly influenced by his or her standing on the D.C. cocktail circuit. In fact, the special counsel’s office should be located outside of the D.C. Beltway entirely and staffed by outsiders.
Critics of the special counsel approach argue that it is unnecessary because the Department of Justice is capable of investigating the matter on its own. But the fact is that there is a credible allegation that the attorney general broke the law. Just as no man can be a judge in his own case; no prosecutor can preside over an investigation into his own conduct. The stakes in this case are high, so it is important to have an independent investigator who can pursue the matter without any potential conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, the appointment of a special counsel would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability. It would show that the United States takes allegations of wrongdoing seriously and is willing to investigate them thoroughly, even if it involves high-ranking officials.
America is at a crossroads. There are serious concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department. Public trust in the institution must be restored if we are to avoid the fate of too many banana republics. The appointment of an outside special counsel would help demonstrate that the Justice Department is committed to upholding the rule of law regardless of political considerations.
If Garland wants to avoid further questions about DOJ’s politicization and credibility, he should welcome the appointment of a special counsel. This is not about politics or partisan agendas; it is about upholding the rule of law and restoring public trust in the Justice Department.
A special counsel investigation would not be the only query into Garland’s conduct. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives should also hold hearings to determine whether Garland’s impeachment is warranted. Such a congressional investigation would be severely hamstrung without the appointment of a special counsel, however. The reason is simple: while Congress can subpoena witnesses, it cannot prosecute those who fail to comply. That is why the scope of the special counsel’s appointment should also include any prosecutorial decisions about whether to charge witnesses who are found to be in contempt of a congressional subpoena.
Based on the IRS whistleblower’s allegations, the scope of the special counsel may need to be expanded even further. It is likely that he will need to determine if government officials loyal to the Biden family—whether they are in the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, or the White House— have been obstructing the Hunter Biden investigation.
The Department of Justice was merciless in pursuing special counsel investigations and process crimes (such as obstruction of justice) against Trump Administration and campaign officials and filing superfluous criminal charges against abortion protestors and Jan. 6 defendants. Now it can show that those laws apply to Democrats as well. If the DOJ refuses such an appointment, it will further prove we live in a two-tiered justice system, wherein Biden loyalists are above the law. If a special counsel is rejected, then we will know that the federal law enforcement apparatus has been fully weaponized against conservatives and in favor of the D.C. bureaucratic establishment.
Jesse Binnall is a constitutional law and white-collar crime attorney and managing partner at Binnall Law Group.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.