This story is unbelievable.
Via the New York Post, House Republicans on the Ways and Means committee filed an amicus brief this morning in the current Hunter Biden case in which he got a sweetheart deal from the DOJ. Their amicus brief, sent to the judge overseeing the case, included testimony by two IRS whistleblowers who sat for transcribed interviews in the last two months, as well as the allegation that Hunter benefited from “political interference which calls into question the propriety of the investigation.”
After that brief was filed one of Hunter Biden’s attorneys contacted the court, posing as an attorney from the House Ways and Means committee, to ask the clerk to remove the amicus brief that had just been filed.
The court actually removed the brief, which got the attention of the attorney for the House Ways and Means Committee, Theodore Kittila, who contacted the court and asked why it was removed.
The clerk responded:
“Hi Ted, Following up on our recent telephone conversation, the woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,” confirmed court official Samantha Grimes. “… She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately or they could file a motion to seal. I do deeply apologize for all the confusion on our part.”
The spurred email exchanges between Kittila and the attorneys for Hunter Biden:
When Kittila confronted the first son’s legal team, Hunter’s attorneys tried to claim the filing contained confidential tax and identifying information, even though the whistleblower testimony has been public for more than a month.
The time stamps from the emails also indicated the request to take the document down was made after Kittila refused a request to file the testimony under seal.
“As far as I am aware, the managing attorney from Latham called the clerk’s office to note that personal tax information of the defendant had been filed in a non reacted [sic] manner and to inquire regarding having the information sealed, as we told you we would and as you said you understood,” Clark wrote. “As far as I am aware the clerk took the filing down on their own accord. Your attempts to publicly file my client’s personal financial information with no protection ls [sic] are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules … We will seek all appropriate sanctions in response to your actions.”
“You should probably take a step back from your statements,” Kittila warned. “The clerk’s office advised that it was represented to her that the request was being made by my firm. We will be advising Judge Noreika of this improper conduct.”
“I stand by all of my statements and I hope you have an affidavit from the clerk in support of yours,” Clark replied.
So where does this stand with the court? The judge has asked the Hunter Biden’s attorneys to justify why she should seal the testimony in the amicus brief, which has already been public for over a month:
In an evening order, Noreika gave Hunter’s attorneys until 9 p.m. to “show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the Court.” — while noting they had not formally filed any request to seal evidence in the matter.
However, she also ordered the filing sealed until close of business Wednesday.
“We filed what was already public (voted out by Congress) as something for the judge to be aware of,” Ways and Means Committee spokesperson JP Freire told The Post. “They then misrepresented themselves to get it taken down.”
What a clown show. I hope the judge smacks Hunter’s team down for such misrepresentations.