It took 21 paragraphs to reveal the most explosive fact in its story, but while the fact is buried, the New York Times did publish that it had confirmed one of the most explosive revelations by the IRS whistleblowers who are challenging the Narrative in the Hunter Biden investigation.

NYT buries in the 21st paragraph that it has an independent source who confirms the two IRS whistleblowers' claim that David Weiss said he was blocked from bringing charges against Hunter Biden in California. https://t.co/nH55AVQAJq pic.twitter.com/wSPKT4aiMG

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) June 27, 2023

At issue is the claim that US Attorney David Weiss had free rein to charge Hunter Biden for any criminal acts uncovered in the investigation he was conducting. Both Attorney General Merrick Garland and US Attorney Weiss have testified or claimed that there was no political interference in the investigation, and the IRS whistleblowers have alleged that there was quite a bit.

We do know that the IRS investigators were shown the door after making it clear that they felt the case was being improperly run–I wrote about that fact a while back, and that stinks to high heaven.

But these latest allegations are far more serious: they include perjury on the part of the Attorney General, and lying to Congress on the part of Weiss. If true, both men are theoretically in legal jeopardy, and any fig leaf that the case wasn’t rigged–we all know it was, but couldn’t prove it–flies off into the winds of a hurricane.

Well, according to the NYT, they have confirmed at least one of the allegations made by the whistleblower: that Weiss enquired about charging Biden in California on charges related to crimes he committed there (even federal crimes are charged in the jurisdiction in which they took place) and he was denied permission to do so.

This directly contradicts the claims that Weiss had complete charging authority; if he did, he could not have been denied permission. This is also supported by the fact that the charges to which Biden pleaded guilty were filed in DC, which is not the appropriate jurisdiction, suggesting that Weiss (who does not represent the government in DC) did not make the final decision. This is, at the very least, unusual.

But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony.

A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.

While Mr. Weiss had the authority to pursue leads that led to jurisdictions other than his own in Delaware, the department’s practices dictated that he secure the approval and cooperation of the U.S. attorneys in those districts before proceeding.

Prior to this little tidbit the Times went to great pains to question the veracity of Shapley’s allegations (Shapley is one of the whistleblowers), but by dropping the bombshell that the Times confirmed one of his most explosive allegations, it’s pretty clear that his credibility should be higher than the people we now definitively know misled everybody.

We now have 3 independent sources–the two whistleblowers and the Time’s third, confirming source–all stating that Merrick Garland lied to Congress. The Times seems pretty sure that this is the case–they have “confirmed” this.

That is a pretty big bombshell to drop in the 21st paragraph of a story.