Maybe the special counsel will require its own special-counsel probe. While Merrick Garland made the strange choice to elevate David Weiss to that status after attempting a sweetheart plea deal to bury Hunter Biden’s criminal actions, the FBI apparently helped out in its own way. A new whistleblower has testified to the House Oversight Committee that FBI brass tipped Hunter Biden about a planned attempt to get him to answer questions.

The now-retired Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) told his superiors on December 7, 2020 that FBI and IRS investigators would contact Hunter the next day. The notice was necessary, the SSA told the committee, for “de-confliction” arrangements with the Secret Service. That was supposed to happen at the time agents arrived, but instead, the FBI field office tipped off the Secret Service and the Bidens immediately.

Needless to say, that ended any chance of direct cooperation:

FBI SSA: So the initial plan was to make approaches of multiple witnesses, to include subject Hunter Biden, on December 8th. At the time, we had learned in the days preceding, probably even before December 3rd, that he had received Secret Service protection, as this is ‐‐ I guess the President was President‐elect at the time. …

At least for the purpose of this, Hunter Biden had armed Secret Service protection providing protection at the direction of whomever. And we knew that we could not just, you know, go to the door, or I certainly believed that we just could not go to the door, so that there would be ‐‐ have to be some notification to Secret Service so they would be aware that we were coming. The initial plan was to have the local field office of the Secret Service be notified the morning of to diminish opportunities for anybody else to be notified. I was working with my management on that, as well as headquarter ‐‐ our FBI headquarters.

Majority Counsel: Can I stop you there? When you say management, you don’t have to say their name, but can you provide the level of supervisory position that would be?

FBI SSA: Sure. So my ‐‐ again, it was an assistant special agent in charge who I reported to, who also ‐‐ I personally was in contact and ‐‐ or at least as part of a greater call with the special agent in charge of Baltimore Division. And I know that they were in contact with FBI headquarters personnel, which would be inside the Criminal Investigative Division, at least at the deputy assistant director or section chief level.

Thanks to that, and to the Bidens’ status after the election, the Secret Service refused to allow investigators to come into the residence where Hunter was staying. Instead, the Secret Service told the FBI that they had to wait a block away for Hunter to decide whether he wanted to talk with the investigators:

FBI SSA: So, obviously, we were on the West Coast. There were additional interviews across the country, to include the East Coast, which was 3 hours ahead. So we were up early. I was partnered with supervisor number two of the IRS. And as we got together or while we got together on that morning, I was notified by my assistant special agent in charge that we would not even be allowed to approach the house; that the plan, as told to us, was that my information would be given to the Secret Service, to whom I don’t know exactly, and, you know, my name, my contact, you know, my cell phone, for example, with the notification that we would like to talk to Hunter Biden; and that I was not to go near the house and to stand by.

Majority Counsel: In your career of 20 years, have you ever been told that you could ‐‐ that you had to wait outside of a target’s home until they contacted you?

FBI SSA: Not that I recall. I mean, there have been times where we waited for maybe something else operationally to happen, but, no, not from the point of view of the target, the subject of the investigation. …

FBI SSA: We waited a period of time. You know, I will add, it was frustrating, and I know supervisor number two was very frustrated, and I understood that frustration, but I also ‐‐ we had other ‐‐ another interview to conduct. So after a certain period of time, and I don’t exactly recall how long, we transitioned to make an attempt to interview another ‐‐ or a witness as part of the investigation.

And what did Hunter decide? Come on, man:

Majority Counsel: And were you able to interview Hunter Biden ‐‐

FBI SSA: I was not.

Majority Counsel: ‐‐ as part of your investigation?

FBI SSA: No.

Let’s stipulate that Hunter Biden probably would have refused the interview even if agents had been able to make contact that morning. That would certainly be within his rights, and in fact a smart strategy. The Fifth Amendment protects us from self-incrimination, but it also serves as good advice, even if you’re innocent — and maybe especially if so. Get your attorney first and let them do the talking.

With that said, however, law enforcement still would attempt to get statements anyway. Since when do law-enforcement agencies protect the targets/subjects of investigations from its own investigators? And while the Secret Service mission is to protect its assigned persons, that’s for physical protection. Their agents had no authority to obstruct legitimate law-enforcement authorities from engaging with the target/subject of an investigation. Tipping off the target/subject and then preventing entry of authorized and identified federal investigators are obstructions of justice — and corrupt as hell.

This may present the clearest example of a two-tiered system of justice applied to the Bidens. Who else has FBI executives and the Secret Service running interference for targets or subjects of federal tax, firearms, and influence-peddling investigations? That didn’t just happen as a coincidence, either. We need to know who ordered this obstruction and on whose orders they did so.

Addendum: On another note, an astute reader wonders about Garland’s violation of the special counsel statute by appointing someone inside the DoJ. Could Hunter use that to have charges or convictions tossed out later on appeal — is Garland “poisoning the well, so to speak”? I suspect that wouldn’t work, but it’s worth a thought or two, anyway.