FIRST ON FOX: The former assistant U.S. attorney who allegedly worked to ‘limit’ questions about Joe Biden denied that politics played a role in the Hunter Biden investigation during her interview at the House Judiciary Committee, according to a transcript reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, though, testified that she would ‘not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me’ due to the ongoing nature of the federal criminal investigation into the first son. 

Wolf, who recently left the Justice Department—a decision that ‘long predated’ allegations against her, was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to appear for a deposition. 

Wolf appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last week for a voluntary transcribed interview after the Justice Department negotiated terms with the panel. 

Fox News Digital reviewed a transcript of her interview Thursday night. 

After her interview, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wolf ‘refused to answer most of our questions.’ 

‘She refused to answer based on instructions she was given from the Justice Department,’ Jordan said.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley, who led the IRS’ portion of the Hunter Biden probe, and Joseph Ziegler, a special agent within the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division, alleged political influence surrounding prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden investigation, which began in 2018.

Shapley alleged that Wolf sought to block investigators from asking questions related to President Biden throughout the years-long federal investigation into his son, Hunter Biden.

But during her interview, Wolf testified that ‘at no time did politics play a role in or in any way impact my work as a federal prosecutor.’ 

Wolf also said that prosecutorial decisions were ‘never made in a vacuum and were always guided by principles of justice and fairness.’ 

‘My voluntary appearance here today is not without an overwhelming feeling of frustration and disappointment because as much as I would invite the opportunity to explain the decisions made and accurately describe the actions taken, I will not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me,’ Wolf said. ‘It should come as no surprise to the committee that as a former DOJ employee, I am significantly constrained by and must strictly adhere to the authorization provided by the Department of Justice, as well as those obligations independently imposed by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, including rule 6e, and the relevant laws governing disclosure of tax information.’ 

Wolf explained that, ‘in light of the ongoing nature of the investigation,’ she was ‘legally obligated at this time to largely remain silent as to those allegations, beyond stating the truth, which is, at all times while serving as an AUSA, I acted consistently with the Justice Manual, DOJ policy directives, and my statutory legal and ethical obligations.’ 

‘I followed the facts where they led and made decisions in the best interests of the investigation,’ Wolf said. ‘This includes, but is by no means limited to, policies and rules governing politically sensitive investigations, election year sensitivities, attorney search warrants, search warrant filter requirements, and professional conduct rules barring contact with represented parties.’ 

But when faced with specific questions by investigators, Wolf repeatedly said she could not answer or speak to ‘particulars or details about anything’ relating to the ongoing Hunter Biden probe, led by now-Special Counsel David Weiss, and repeatedly said she was ‘not authorized’ to discuss the matter. 

Shapley alleged earlier this year that Wolf worked to ‘limit’ questioning related to President Biden and apparent references to Biden as ‘dad’ or ‘the big guy.’

But according to a Fox News Digital review of the transcript, investigators did not ask her about that specific allegation. 

Shapley and Ziegler also alleged that in October 2020, Wolf reviewed an affidavit for a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s residence and ‘agreed that probable cause had been achieved.’ However, Shapley said Wolf ultimately would not allow a physical search warrant on the president’s son.

Shapley said Wolf determined there was ‘enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze.’

Wolf allegedly said that ‘optics were a driving factor in the decision on whether to execute a search warrant,’ Shapley said, adding that Wolf agreed that ‘a lot of evidence in our investigation would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden, but said there is no way we will get that approved.’

Wolf also allegedly tipped off Hunter Biden’s legal team ahead of a planned search of his storage unit.

During her interview, Wolf did acknowledge that ‘Political Figure 1’–a term used in several communications between Hunter Biden investigators–was, in fact, a reference to then-Vice President Joe Biden. 

Wolf was asked about an email exchange with FBI Special Agent Joshua Wilson, in which she stated: ‘There should be nothing about political figure 1 in here.’ 

Wolf said ‘Political Figure 1’ is ‘described as former Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., now President Biden,’ but would not specifically elaborate on why she gave that directive. 

Wolf was asked: ‘To the extent you didn’t–you asked the agents to take out political figure 1, there was no political motivation in requesting that?’ 

‘I refer you back to my opening statement where I said at no time there was politics playing a role in those decisions.’ 

Wolf’s testimony came as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden, which was formalized last week. 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., are leading the investigation as the House gathers evidence and considers whether to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden.

The committees are investigating the alleged politicization of the federal probe into Hunter Biden. They are also investigating the Biden family’s foreign business dealings and whether the president was involved or benefited directly from those ventures.

President Biden has repeatedly denied having any involvement in his son’s business dealings.

Hunter Biden was subpoenaed as part of the inquiry as well but defied his subpoena to appear for a deposition at the House Oversight Committee last week. Instead, he made a public statement on Capitol Hill, blasting the Republican impeachment inquiry and saying his father was ‘not financially involved’ in his business dealings.

Comer and Jordan have threatened to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress.

Hunter Biden’s public statement Wednesday came just days after he was charged out of Special Counsel David Weiss’ investigation.

Weiss alleged Hunter Biden was engaged in a ‘four-year scheme’ when the president’s son did not pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020 while also filing false tax reports. Weiss filed the charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Weiss also indicted Hunter Biden on federal gun charges in Delaware. The president’s son pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys are working to dismiss the charges altogether. 

President Biden’s 2024 Democrat primary challenger is going after him for his opposition to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., released a new campaign ad that targets Biden for supporting a bid to hold the Democrats’ first primary election in South Carolina.

‘For over a century, New Hampshire has held the first-in-the-nation primary, and Granite Staters have faithfully carried out that grave responsibility, propelling the candidacies of some and ending the candidacies of others,’ a voiceover says in the one-minute video. ‘Now, Joe Biden has ordered New Hampshire to step aside.’

‘Congressman Dean Phillips is meeting with New Hampshire voters in diners, on street corners and at taverns, the way it’s always been done.’

New Hampshire officials announced last month that they would not heed the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) request to cede its first-state privilege to South Carolina.

The president’s reelection campaign also has not filed to be on the New Hampshire ballot, which could further complicate things for him there.

‘In today’s society, it seems that we’re quick to eliminate traditions and ignore them,’ New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan said at press conference in November. 

South Carolina had set its primary for Feb. 3 after the DNC approved a proposal for it to hold the first 2024 Democrat race. But New Hampshire set its primary for Jan. 23, with officials citing state law mandating that the Granite State be first.

Biden wrote to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee last year to support the calendar overhaul.

‘For decades, Black votes in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process,’ he wrote, referencing the state’s sizable Black population.

Notably, Biden’s commanding victory in the 2020 South Carolina primary was widely credited for turning his then-flailing presidential campaign around.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s 2024 campaign about the advertisement but did not immediately hear back.

A group of House Democrats introduced a resolution this week that condemns antisemitism in addition to Islamophobia and ‘anti-Palestinian discrimination.’ 

It comes as the war between Israel and Hamas continues to fracture the Democratic Party, with hardline leftists labeling Israel the aggressor and calling on it to stop its retaliation on Gaza, while more establishment liberals maintain Israel is a critical ally that must be supported.

The bill, led by progressive Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., introduced the resolution to memorialize 6-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi, a Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death by his parents’ landlord in an alleged hate crime.

LIVE UPDATES: ISRAEL AT WAR WITH HAMAS 

In addition to honoring him, the resolution text also included a provision saying the U.S. ‘has zero tolerance for hate crimes, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab discrimination.’

And in what appears to be a veiled jab at leftists’ pro-Israel colleagues, the resolution also stated that ‘it is the duty of elected officials and media to tell the truth without dehumanizing rhetoric when informing the public of factual information.’

LATIN PATRIARCH SAYS PHOTOS SHOW BOMBED GAZA CONVENT AS WHITE HOUSE RAISES ‘CONCERNS’ WITH IDF 

Israel has waged a ground invasion and air assault on Gaza after Hamas militants invaded the country on Oct. 7 and slaughtered over 1,200 people – mostly civilians in their homes – and took hundreds hostage.

Ramirez blamed the child’s death on ‘rhetoric’ espoused against Palestinians in the wake of the attack.

‘Hateful anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian rhetoric has real consequences. Just 30 minutes away from my district, Wadee Alfayoumi, a 6-year-old Palestinian-American child full of dreams, became victim to the rising Islamophobia and hateful rhetoric spewed about carelessly and recklessly since October 7,’ she said in a statement.

‘The rise of hate crimes, anti-Palestinian racism, Islamophobia, and antisemitism puts all of us in grave danger,’ she added.

The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., and Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.

All four Democrats voted against a bipartisan resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses and calling for university presidents to be fired earlier this month. That vote divided the left, with 84 Democrats voting in favor and 125 voting against.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, reintroduced a bill that would require all pornography websites to adopt age verification technology to ensure children aren’t being exposed to explicit content online. 

‘Every day, we’re learning more about the negative psychological effects pornography has on minors. Given the alarming rate of teenage exposure to pornography, I believe the government must act quickly to enact protections that have a real chance of surviving First Amendment scrutiny,’ Lee said in a statement. ‘We require age verification at brick-and-mortar shops. Why shouldn’t we require it online?’

The bill, called the Shielding Children’s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act, directs the FCC to create a rule ensuring these websites adopt such technology, establishing a ‘more likely than not’ standard for verification. 

It allows sites to choose their verification method, provided it meets FCC standards and prevents minors from accessing such content. Additionally, the bill instructs that the FCC must oversee compliance, allowing third-party verification providers and ensuring no identifiable user data is shared with the government. 

Should the bill be approved, it would grant the FCC authority to enforce the rule by imposing penalties and providing injunctive relief. Prior to such enforcement, warnings would be issued, offering a chance to rectify violations. However, specific enforcement measures would be withheld until a website persists in non-compliance for a period of 30 days.

According to the bill’s analysis, Congress has passed several bills over the past three decades aimed at restricting children’s access to online pornography. However, all the bills, except for one, were invalidated by the Supreme Court due to their failure to meet First Amendment standards. 

In these cases, while the court acknowledged Congress’s valid interest in protecting children from explicit content, it found Congress hadn’t employed the least intrusive methods to fulfill this objective. The court even indicated personal ‘blocking and filtering software’ might serve as a more lenient alternative.

According to the lawmaker’s analysis, pornography has ‘unique psychological effects’ on minors, ‘including anxiety, addiction, low self-esteem, body-image disorders, an increase in problematic sexual activity at younger ages, and an increased desire among minors to engage in risky sexual behavior.’

‘Technology has vastly improved in the last 20 years and Sen. Lee believes that age verification technology is now the least restrictive means for Congress to fully achieve its compelling government interest of shielding children from online pornographic content,’ the text states.

However, getting the bill passed is likely to face a wave of opposition. 

In September, a federal judge struck down a Texas law requiring age verification and health warnings to view pornographic websites and blocked the state attorney general’s office from enforcing it.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra agreed that House Bill 1181, signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in June, violates free speech rights and is overbroad and vague.

The Texas law is one of several similar age verification laws passed in other states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Louisiana.

The Texas law carried fines of up to $10,000 per violation that could be raised to up to $250,000 per violation by a minor.

The Utah law was upheld by a federal judge who rejected a lawsuit challenging it in August.

Arkansas’ law, which would have required parental consent for children to create new social media accounts, was struck down by a federal judge in September, and a lawsuit challenging the Louisiana law is pending.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.