Newsflash, suckers: didja' know U. of Delaware is fighting savagely to keep concealed creepy Joe's Senate papers?--gee, what could they be hiding?

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

University Of Delaware Continues Fight To Shield Biden Documents From Public Review​

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JUL 12, 2022 - 10:20 AM
Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political...es-fight-shield-biden-documents-public-review

After a setback before the Delaware Supreme Court, the University of Delaware is continuing its dogged effort to prevent the public from seeing the senatorial papers of President Joe Biden. The continued litigation, at public cost, has been criticized as an effort to shield President Biden from potentially embarrassing material from being accessed by the media or public interest groups.
For a research institution, it is a curious role to prevent access to documents but clearly a role supported by President Biden and his family.

What is particularly troubling is the reason being claimed by the university.
We have previously discussed these documents and their potential significance to inquiries ranging from sexual harassment complaints to foreign dealings. The university insists that, so long as it does not use public funds for the maintenance of the Biden documents, it is immune from the Freedom of Information Act. By using private funds, it is arguing that it can keep the material locked away from public review.
A Superior Court decision held that the papers were not subject to FOIA based on dismissive and clearly inadequate filings by the university. The Delaware Supreme Court has now sent the matter back to the lower court for additional review. It has held that the university must still show that it is immune from public disclosure laws and must potentially conduct searches of its records requested by Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Supreme Court specifically found the earlier representations of Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq., University FOIA Coordinator to be insufficient to carry the burden under the law. It also noted that it was not made under oath. Accordingly, Delaware Superior Court Judge Mary Johnston ordered the university to submit evidence that archives Biden gave the school in 2012 are not subject to a public records request and consequently public access.
Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act states that “’Public body,’ ‘public record’ and ‘meeting’ shall not include activities of the University of Delaware and Delaware State University, except that the Board of Trustees of both universities shall be ‘public bodies,’ university documents relating to the expenditure of public funds shall be “public records.”
A review of Becnel-Guzzo statement shows why the Supreme Court was concerned about the lower court just accepting the vague statement on its face. It included such representations as:
  1. In recent years, I have responded to numerous FOIA requests having to do with the University’s relationship to Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Thus, on several occasions I have inquired of University personnel, including the University’s budget office and the University’s library, whether State funds have been spent on a variety of matters or undertakings related to Mr. Biden. In no case have I found that State funds were spent by the University on any such matter or undertaking…
  1. Finally, I inquired whether state funds have been spent on the University’s email system over which email communications between University personnel and any representative of Mr. Biden might have been exchanged. They were not.
That seems fairly remarkable. Not a single archivist or staffer supported by state funds has ever worked on these papers? That makes the University of Delaware sound like little more than a secure location to lock away documents.
Likewise, the university email system is not supported by state funds? It is hard to believe that no emails were sent to the Biden family or staff on the matter, but it is not clear whether the university is claiming that its email system is entirely independent of any staffer or resource supported by state funds.
The Supreme Court ruling stated:
“Unless it is clear on the face of the request that the demanded records are not subject to FOIA, the public body must search for responsive records. A description of the search and the outcome of the search must be reflected through statements made under oath, such as statements in an affidavit, in order for the public body to satisfy its burden of proof…On remand, the University bears the burden to create a record from which the Superior Court can determine whether the University performed an adequate search for responsive documents.”
President Biden has pushed against efforts for the review of his papers from his time as a U.S. senator, including transparently narrow searches of material that specifically excluded what he packed off to the University of Delaware. The question is why. There is also a question of whether it is appropriate for the University of Delaware to be used for such a purpose. It is not clear when such documents would be made available for public review under these conditions.
The University has this posting on the archived records:
President Biden donated his Senatorial papers to the University of Delaware pursuant to an agreement that prohibits the University from providing public access to those papers until they have been properly processed and archived. The University is bound by, and will comply with, the agreement. Until the archival process is complete and the collection is opened to the public, access is only available with President Biden’s express consent.
President Biden and his designees have access, under supervision of Special Collections, to the materials during the process. No Biden designee has visited the collection since November, 2019. No documents have been added or removed by any Biden designees during any visits.
The University states that “More than 1,850 boxes of archival records from the President’s Senate career arrived at the Library on June 6, 2012.” It has been ten years.
It would seem that a decade would be sufficient to “properly process[] and archive[]” these boxes of documents.
The impression is that the university is being used — and is actively maintaining its function — as a lock box to block researchers, public interest groups, and the public at large from gaining access to the material.
 
Is it still really credible that creepy Joe "didn't know" about all the corruption and influence-peddling by corrupt son, Hunter, and family members?

 

Hunter Biden case takes stark twist with allegation of retaliation against IRS whistleblower​

Lawyers for whistleblower disclose to lawmakers sudden move, raise concerns of obstruction of congressional probe.

Link: https://justthenews.com/accountabil...lower-team-removed-hunter-biden-case-possible

[see vid at site link, above]

By John Solomon
Updated: May 16, 2023 - 7:49am
The Justice Department removed an IRS whistleblower and his entire team from the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden’s taxes in what his lawyers described to Congress on Monday as an act of retaliation and possible obstruction of congressional inquiries, according to correspondence to lawmakers obtained by Just the News.
The IRS whistleblower, whose name has not been released, is a decorated supervisory criminal investigative agent who led the team probing the presidential son’s tax affairs.
He received whistleblower protection a few weeks ago from Congress and the Justice Department inspector general to disclose evidence he says shows there was political interference in the Hunter Biden probe.
"Today the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Supervisory Special Agent we represent was informed that he and his entire investigative team are being removed from the ongoing and sensitive investigation of the high-profile, controversial subject about which our client sought to make whistleblower disclosures to Congress,” the whistleblower’s lawyers, Mark Lytle and Tristan Leavitt, wrote in a letter to multiple House and Senate committees. "He was informed the change was at the request of the Department of Justice."
You can read the letter here:
File
IRS-WB-Letter-5-15-23.pdf
The move stunned lawmakers in Congress, who had just taken action to accept the IRS agent as a whistleblower and were making plans to conduct a transcribed interview with him in coming days, and who had just received assurances from IRS chief Daniel Werfel that there would be no reprisals against the whistleblower.
“This most recent communication concerning allegations of retaliatory actions against a whistleblower, appears to contradict the sworn testimony by Commissioner Werfel who pledged that whistleblower protections would be upheld,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith told Just the News on Tuesday morning.
”Congress’s duty to hold government agencies accountable relies on the availability and willingness of individuals to speak out about wrongdoing,” he added. “Not only does retaliation like this discourage whistleblowers, it can also rise to the level of an illegal violation of statutory protections for whistleblowers. I call on Commissioner Werfel to abide by his pledge, quickly provide information to Congress in response to these allegations, and ensure that no action is taken to discourage those who attempt to shine a light on government misconduct.”
Lytle, a former DOJ lawyer, and Leavitt, a former congressional investigator who serves as president of the Empower Oversight whistleblower center, wrote lawmakers that they were concerned that the removal of their client and his entire team was a form of reprisal for his coming forward to Congress, something the IRS chief just vowed would not happen.
"On April 27, 2023, IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel appeared before the House Committee on Ways and Means," they noted. "He testified: 'I can say without any hesitation there will be no retaliation for anyone making an allegation or a call to a whistleblower hotline.' However, this move is clearly retaliatory and may also constitute obstruction of a congressional inquiry."
The lawyers noted that federal law prohibits a whistleblower from any reprisals, including "receiving a 'significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions' (which this clearly is) because of his disclosures to Congress."
Lytle and Leavitt asked lawmakers in the House and Senate to begin probing what happened to their client.
"Removing the experienced investigators who have worked this case for years and are now the subject-matter experts is exactly the sort of issue our client intended to blow the whistle on to begin with,” they added.
The letter was addressed to the GOP chairman and top Democrats on the Judicial and House Ways and Means committees as well as the Democrat chairmen and top Republicans on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees.
In late April, Just the News reported that an IRS whistleblower was alleging that federal prosecutors had engaged in "preferential treatment and politics" to prevent tax charges from being filed against the president's son.
The whistleblower's allegations appear to contradict sworn testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland that Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who has been heading up the investigation, had full authority to pursue the case without fear of political interference.
Speaking on the "Just the News, No Noise" television show on Friday, Leavitt revealed that congressional leaders had received the allegations with interest and would likely to hold hearings to air his client's claims.
He also said Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith has identified that House Ways and Means is committed to thoroughly hearing these allegations, "so we look forward to a process. ... We are engaged with both sides of the aisle, and we anticipate that ultimately, our client, a very, very courageous and well-respected whistleblower, will be able to share his allegations with Congress."

RELATED ARTICLES​

Kentucky Rep. James Comer, Feb. 1
Comer says fresh evidence warrants investigation of Joe Biden 'for public corruption’
Joe Biden January 2023 Press Conference
Several of 51 ex-intel officials who signed Biden laptop letter donated to Biden, Democrats
Joe Biden with his son Hunter
House probe unveils fresh evidence contradicting Joe Biden claims about family’s foreign deals
 
Back
Top