An IRS Criminal Supervisory Agent seeking whistleblower protection claims the investigation into Hunter Biden is being mishandled by the Biden administration.

In a letter dated April 19, 2023, attorney Mark D. Lytle of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Nixon Peabody LLP tells members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that his client has been overseeing the ‘ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject since early 2020 and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.’

The story was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News has since confirmed the story through a source familiar with the investigation that the subject at issue is Hunter Biden.

In Wednesday’s letter, Lytle said his client has already made legally protected disclosures internally at the IRS.

The protected disclosures, Lytle notes, ‘contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee.’

Lytle also said his client has information that the investigator failed to mitigate ‘clear conflicts of interest,’ adding that the investigator allegedly allowed preferential treatment and politics to infect decisions and protocols normally followed by law enforcement professionals if the subject was not politically connected.

‘My goal is to ensure that my client can properly share his lawfully protected disclosures with congressional committees,’ Lytle said in the letter. ‘Thus, I respectfully request that your committees work with me to facilitate sharing this information with congress legally and with the fully informed advice of counsel.’

Representatives for the first son did not immediately respond to questions regarding the alleged mishandling of the investigation.

The president’s son has been under federal investigation since 2018, which is being led by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a prosecutor appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Fox News first reported in December 2020 that Hunter Biden was a subject/target of a grand jury investigation, which was prompted, in part, by Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regarding suspicious foreign transactions.

He has not been charged with any crimes.

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox that efforts by the Biden administration to block efforts to charge Hunter were ‘deeply concerning.’

‘The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has been following the Bidens’ tangled web of complex corporate and financial records. It’s clear from our investigation that Hunter and other members of the Biden family engaged in deceptive, shady business schemes to avoid scrutiny as they made millions from foreign adversaries like China,’ he said. ‘We’ve been wondering all along where the heck the DOJ and the IRS have been. Now it appears the Biden administration may have been working overtime to prevent the Bidens from facing consequences.’

After spending over a month in a hospital being treated for clinical depression this year, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., revealed his depression was ‘in full force’ during his first few weeks in the Senate.

Fetterman suffered a stroke in May 2022 while campaigning for the Pennsylvania Senate race, resulting in auditory processing issues and depression.

After being sworn into office, the Democrat checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in February to be treated for his depression, where he stayed until late March.

‘I always treated my depression like I did with losing my hair,’ Fetterman told People magazine of his mental health battle. ‘It’s just kind of like, ‘Oh yeah, that’s just part of my makeup.”

Fetterman described his one and only midterm debate against Dr. Mehmet Oz as like ‘trying to run a marathon with a broken ankle.’ During the debate, Fetterman was granted the use of a closed captioning system so that he would be able to read the questions being asked.

The Democrat also revealed that his depression after the midterms became so severe he stopped eating and drinking.

‘I literally stopped eating and drinking, and I wasn’t functional,’ Fetterman told the outlet.

‘After winning, he seemed to be at the lowest. That was, for me, the moment of concern,’ Gisele Fetterman said of her husband’s state of mind following his midterm win.

‘There wasn’t one person in my life that said, ‘Yeah, you really seem great. You sound fine here,’’ Fetterman said, revealing he was ‘firmly indifferent to living’ at the time.

‘The conversation I had with my team and my family is that I’ve got to do something or it could end in the most awful way,’ the senator said, detailing his decision to seek help. ‘I wasn’t thinking about self-harm, but I was firmly indifferent to living.’

Fetterman made his official return to the Senate Monday after his weeks-long hospital stay, telling reporters ‘it’s great to be back.’

House Democrats tried to have Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s, R-Ga., words stricken from the record during Wednesday’s Homeland Security Committee hearing after she mentioned allegations of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s, D-Calif., past relationship with a Chinese spy.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the Homeland Security Committee to defend the Biden administration’s budget proposal. During his questioning of Mayorkas, Swalwell slammed Greene for selling merchandise calling to ‘Defund the FBI’ and called on lawmakers to ‘elevate our rhetoric.’

Greene then brought up Swalwell’s former ties to suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang, also known as Fang Fang, which were first reported in 2020.

‘That was quite entertaining from someone that had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, and everyone knows it,’ Greene said. ‘But thanks for entertaining—’

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected, requesting that Greene’s comment be stricken from the record and that she be prevented from speaking any further.

‘Completely inappropriate,’ Goldman said. 

‘A motion has been made,’ Mark Green, R-Tenn., the committee’s chairman, said. ‘The committee will suspend, and the gentleman will state the words that he wishes taken down. ‘ 

‘Everything that the gentle lady from Georgia has said,’ Goldman responded.

‘No, you need to be more specific,’ Green replied.

‘Accusations of an affair with a Chinese spy,’ Goldman said. ‘Those are engaging in personalities, and those words should be taken down, and the gentle lady should not be able to speak anymore in this hearing.’

‘The latter part of that is not an appropriate motion,’ Green responded, ‘but we will evaluate the striking of those words. Give me just a second.’

After giving Greene a chance to retract her comments and her saying, ‘No, I will not,’ Green ruled that the comments would not be stricken from the record.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., appealed the ruling, saying he was ‘appalled’ and ’embarrassed’ by Greene’s words.

The motion was eventually tabled, and Greene was permitted to continue her questioning of Mayorkas.

Swalwell’s ties to Fang were first reported by Axios in 2020 and prompted House Republicans to draft a resolution to remove Swalwell from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but the resolution was tabled by the Democrats. 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy later blocked Swalwell from a spot on the committee after Republicans regained power in January.

Axios had reported that Fang targeted up-and-coming politicians, including Swalwell, and that federal investigators alerted Swalwell of Fang’s behavior in 2015. Swalwell then cut off all ties with Fang and has not been accused of any wrongdoing, the report said.

Swalwell said on ‘The View’ in January that he handled the situation properly.

‘First and foremost, and you don’t have to take my word for it, take the FBI’s word for it… when they told me who she… I did everything that I hoped everyone would do, which was to cooperate and help the FBI, and she was removed,’ Swalwell said of Fang.

‘And Donald Trump, who would later find out about this when he was president, with the greatest access to classified information of anyone who walks the earth, if he could’ve embarrassed me by showing any wrongdoing, after all the names he’s called me, he would’ve,’ he added.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that House Judiciary Committee Republicans can question a former Manhattan prosecutor about the criminal case against former President Trump, saying Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does not have a legal basis to block the congressional subpoena.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected Bragg’s request for a temporary restraining order and injunction after Chairman Jim Jordan issued a subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz last week. 

Bragg almost immediately appealed the ruling and sought a stay of the decision.

Bragg had filed a federal lawsuit against Jordan, alleging that the Republican lawmaker is trying to wage a campaign of intimidation over his prosecution of former President Donald Trump. 

But the judge on Wednesday ruled that the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose.

‘In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights,’ Vyskocil’s filing states. ‘Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena. Bragg is presumptively acting in good faith.’

‘That said, he is an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination,’ the judge stated.

‘Jordan, in turn, has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election,’ the filing states. 

‘The Court does not endorse either side’s agenda,’ the filing continues. ‘The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose.’

The judge added: ‘He does not.’

The judge urged the parties to ‘speak with one another to reach a mutually agreeable compromise regarding how the deposition of Mr. Pomerantz will proceed.’ 

Reacting to the ruling Wednesday evening, House Judiciary Committee spokesman Russell Dye said: 

‘Today’s decision shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomeranz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee.’ 

The ruling comes after Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz after the unprecedented indictment of former President Trump. 

‘We respectfully disagree with the District Court’s decision,’ Bragg’s office said.

Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in criminal court in Lower Manhattan earlier this month. The charges are related to alleged hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Bragg, when he took over as district attorney in January 2022, stopped pursuing charges against Trump and suspended the investigation ‘indefinitely,’ according to a letter written last year by Pomerantz.

Pomerantz and Dunne, who had been leading the investigation under Bragg’s predecessor – former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance – submitted their resignations in February 2022 after Bragg began raising doubts about pursuing a case against Trump.

After Pomerantz resigned, he wrote a tell-all book based on the investigation, which was still ongoing. The book seemingly made the case to charge Trump. 

Before joining the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, Pomerantz was of counsel at New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s brother, Robert Schumer, is a partner at the firm. Pomerantz donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Earlier this month, Trump was charged in a New York Supreme Court indictment with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Bragg alleged that Trump ‘repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.’

Trump has slammed the DA’s investigation and the charges as ‘Political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.’

The ruling comes after Jordan held a field hearing in New York City Monday to highlight the rising crime under Bragg’s tenure. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

A proposal by Republicans in Ohio’s Statehouse that would raise the vote threshold required to amend the state constitution has advanced through both House and Senate committees.The plan coincides with a proposed abortion rights amendment, likely aimed at thwarting any potential it has to pass.While Democrats accuse the Ohio GOP of ‘legislative whiplash,’ Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone noted that her party is not ‘reinventing the wheel,’ and is simply amending an existing process.

A contingent of Statehouse Republicans in Ohio pressed forward Wednesday with their plan to make it harder to amend the state’s constitution, an effort aimed most immediately at thwarting an abortion rights amendment in the works for this fall.

After months of consternation over the issue, identical resolutions cleared both Senate and House committees within hours of each other — each calling for raising the 50%-plus-one threshold in place for passing Ohio constitutional amendments since 1912 to 60%. When the committee vote was called in the House, shouts of ‘Shame!’ reverberated in the halls, where dozens of opponents still had been lined up to testify.

About 59% of Ohio voters believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of over 90,000 midterm voters across the U.S. Only 7% said abortion should be illegal in all cases.

The Senate version of the 60% proposal went straight to a floor vote, where it passed 26-7 along party lines. The chamber also passed separate legislation setting an Aug. 8 special election to take up the question and allotting $20 million to pay for it.

A floor vote in the politically fractured Ohio House was not immediately scheduled on its version of the plan.

Republican Speaker Jason Stephens expressed earlier concerns about the rush, stymying backers’ efforts to get the measure on the ballot in May. He then called it bad form to resurrect August special elections only months after passing a bill to mostly eliminate them.

His critics have accused Stephens of intentionally stalling as part of a deal they say he cut with Democrats to secure the speakership; both he and Democratic Leader Allison Russo have denied that there was any deal.

The star witness on behalf of eliminating most August special elections was Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who blasted them as low-turnout drains on election board budgets that are bad for the state and for democracy. But LaRose now says he favors this particular August election, which he calls an exceptional circumstance.

Democratic state Sen. Kent Smith used LaRose’s own testimony against him during Wednesday’s floor debate, accusing him and fellow Republicans of putting Ohioans through ‘legislative whiplash’ in pursuit of their own interests.

‘This is an assault on democracy designed to harm citizens by limiting their right to self-governance,’ Smith said.

GOP state Sen. Theresa Gavarone said Republicans ‘are not reinventing the wheel,’ but simply adding one more exception to the types of items that Ohioans can vote on in August.

Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine will have the ultimate say on whether an August election is called, if the legislation eventually clears the House. His office said Wednesday that he is still reviewing the bill and could not comment on whether he might veto it.

But the governor plays no part in placing the 60% resolution on the ballot. Legislators do that directly.

More than 250 groups are lined up to fight the measure if it materializes, including many who testified against it Wednesday. They include the League of Women Voters, the NAACP and an array of labor, faith, civil rights, good government and community organizations.

Three Tennessee lawmakers who faced expulsion votes after participating in protests over last month’s school shooting in Nashville will visit the White House to meet with President Joe Biden on Monday.

Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced the visit on Wednesday. She said Biden was ‘proud’ and ‘appreciative’ to see the three state representatives calling for stronger gun restrictions, particularly a ban on so-called assault weapons.

The president spoke with the lawmakers to thank them ‘for speaking out and for standing their ground, and being very clear about what’s needed to protect their communities,’ Jean-Pierre said.

The expulsion votes added a level of political drama and controversy to the violence at The Covenant School, where three children and three adults were killed.

Two of the lawmakers — Rep. Justin Pearson and Rep. Justin Jones, both Black — were expelled by the Republican-controlled legislature. The third, Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is white, was not.

Pearson and Jones have since been reinstated by local officials, returning them to their positions on an interim basis.

The state has set Aug. 3 as the special election date for the seats filled by Jones and Pearson, preceded by a June 15 primary election. Both lawmakers have said they intend to run.

Julia Bruck, the Tennessee secretary of state office’s spokesperson, said local officials believe the Nashville special election will cost about $120,000 to administer, while the Memphis one will cost between $375,000 and $500,000.

Vice President Kamala Harris visited Nashville earlier this month to support the ‘Tennessee Three’ and their calls for greater gun control.

‘Let’s not fall for the false choice — either you’re in favor of the Second Amendment or you want reasonable gun safety laws,’ Harris said. ‘We can and should do both.’

Former U.S. Rep. Bud Shuster, an influential Republican lawmaker who strongly backed transportation projects but ran afoul of ethics guidelines, has died. He was 91.

Shuster died peacefully at his farm Wednesday in Everett, Pennsylvania, surrounded by his family, including his son, Bill Shuster, who succeeded his father in the southern Pennsylvania congressional seat, Rebekah Sungala, a close family friend said.

Shuster died two weeks after fracturing his hip, which led to complications, she said.

Republican U.S. Rep. John Joyce, who now represents the area, called Shuster a ‘true legend in the halls of Congress.’

Shuster surprised his colleagues by announcing his resignation in 2001, a day after he was sworn in for his 15th term. He said it was due to losing his committee chairmanship.

Three months earlier, the House ethics committee had cited him for ‘serious official misconduct’ for accepting improper gifts, favoring a lobbyist and misusing congressional staff for political work.

But Shuster’s biggest legacy was in the ribbons of highway and the smooth runways he backed in his three terms as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and his 28 years in Congress.

He was dubbed the ‘king of asphalt,’ in part for bringing his constituents the Bud Shuster Highway, which connected State College, Altoona and the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Shuster once said he wanted to be remembered for helping average citizens.

‘Other people have told me I’ll be remembered for building America,’ he once told The Associated Press. ‘But the real psychic income comes when an elderly constituent said that, because of my rural development efforts, she can turn on a spigot for the first time ever and not get brown water.’

Early in his congressional career, Shuster got a seat on the committee, then known as Public Works, and pledged to help his district’s ailing fortunes by improving its roads.

Shuster used earmarks — a tactic that was rare in the 1970s, but became common while he was in office — to bring money to his district, which covered a large, rural and hilly section of southern Pennsylvania around the city of Altoona.

The first significant one, technically a demonstration project, was worth $25 million and paid for the construction of a 4.6-mile bypass around Everett.

In 1982, he got an earmark that was the down payment on what would become Interstate 99 — known as the Bud Shuster Highway.

His ability to deliver money to the district annoyed some fellow lawmakers. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., complained in 1991 that ‘the state of Altoona’ had received the most funds in a highway bill.

Shuster was unapologetic, saying the improvements made his Appalachian district more competitive, spurred the building of industrial parks and led to more jobs.

Once his position was solidified, Shuster was rarely opposed in elections. His last notable challenge came in 1984, the year he soundly beat Democrat Nancy Kulp, the actress who played Jane Hathaway on ‘The Beverly Hillbillies.’

In October 2000, the House ethics committee rebuked Shuster for accepting improper gifts and favoring a lobbyist, Ann M. Eppard, who was also his former chief of staff.

The committee found Shuster improperly allowed Eppard to appear before him in his official capacity in the year after her resignation from his staff. This ‘created the appearance that his official decisions might have been improperly affected,’ the committee found.

Shuster said he ‘complied with the law and with his understanding of what was right.’

He ran unopposed in the following month’s election. But House Republican rules limited committee chairs to three, two-year terms and Shuster didn’t want to accept a diminished role.

‘After being the quarterback of a Super Bowl championship team, I have no desire to play backup,’ Shuster told the AP the day he resigned. He also cited his and his wife’s health.

With Shuster’s backing, his son Bill Shuster replaced him in Congress.

E.G. ‘Bud’ Shuster was born in January 1932 in Glassport, an industrial town just south of Pittsburgh. His father was a railroad engineer.

He later recalled an encounter he had as an 11-year-old, when he saw people surround his congressman in search of help. He decided it was something he wanted to be some day.

Shuster put himself through school, earning a bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1954. He spent two years in the Army and went back to school, earning an MBA from Duquesne University in 1960 and, eventually, a Ph.D. in business and economics from American University.

He started a career in the computer business in the mid-1960s, rising to become a vice president with RCA in Washington. In the late 1960s, he engineered a turnaround at Datel, a computer terminal company.

When he decided to run for Congress in 1972, opponents and critics labeled him an outsider, even though he and his wife had bought a farm in Everett eight years earlier.

Shuster narrowly beat a state representative in the GOP primary and rode President Richard Nixon’s landslide re-election into the Capitol.

Kansas’ governor vetoed legislation Wednesday that would require clinics to tell patients that a medication abortion can be stopped using an unproven drug regimen.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s action pushed back state GOP efforts to restrict abortion despite a decisive statewide vote affirming abortion rights in August 2022. It was the second time within a week that she vetoed an anti-abortion bill approved by the Legislature, which has Republican supermajorities and conservative leaders.

‘Kansans made clear that they believe personal healthcare decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor, not politicians in Topeka,’ Kelly said in a short statement announcing Wednesday’s action.

Last week, she rejected a measure that could subject doctors to criminal charges and lawsuits if they are accused of not providing enough care for infants delivered alive during certain abortion procedures, even if they are expected to die within seconds outside the womb because of a severe medical issue.

Kelly also vetoed an abortion medication ‘reversal’ measure in 2019. The governor said Wednesday that this year’s bill would interfere in decisions made by women and their doctors and could harm people’s health, ‘given the uncertain science behind it.’

Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential anti-abortion group, called last week’s veto of the bill dealing with medical care for infants born during abortion procedures ‘heartless.’ After Kelly’s veto of the abortion medication measure, spokesperson Danielle Underwood said the governor sided with the ‘extremist abortion industry.’

Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, said: ‘With this veto, Governor Kelly has shown that she does not believe vulnerable women have the right to know all of their options.’

The vetoes mean that abortion access and providers in Kansas remain for now far less restricted compared to other states with GOP-controlled legislatures that have banned or severely restricted abortion procedures over the past year.

GOP lawmakers are expected to try to override both vetoes after they reconvene next week to finish their business for the year.

Abortion opponents had the two-thirds majorities that will be necessary to override the veto of the bill on medical treatment for infants delivered alive during abortion procedures.

Republican lawmakers also may be able to override the bill vetoed Wednesday, though the vote is likely to be close in the House.

If they do, patients asking for a medical abortion would get a state-mandated, written notice that they can interrupt their abortion, even though the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says there is no scientific evidence that the ‘reversal’ approach promoted by abortion opponents is safe or effective.

Abortion rights supporters contend both measures break faith with voters. Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Dinah Sykes said Wednesday that those voters had ‘rejected giving politicians power over their personal, private decisions.’

‘This bill attempts to undermine Kansans’ right to bodily autonomy by willfully forcing blatant misinformation into a healthcare environment,’ said Sykes, who is from the Kansas City area, where the abortion-rights vote was especially strong. ‘This is an attempt to sway a woman away from making the decision that the people of Kansas resoundingly said she has a right to make on her own.’

Even if Kansas lawmakers override Kelly’s vetoes, providers could ask state courts to block the new laws. Lawsuits have prevented Kansas from enforcing a 2015 ban on a common second-trimester abortion procedure and a 2011 law from imposing extra health and safety rules on abortion providers.

At least a dozen states enacted abortion ‘reversal’ bans before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 allowing states to prohibit abortion, though legal challenges put four states’ laws on hold.

But in Kansas, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that access to abortion is a matter of bodily autonomy and a ‘fundamental’ right under the state constitution. The vote last year rejected stripping out that protection.

Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups contend the vote last year doesn’t preclude ‘reasonable’ abortion restrictions or rules for providers like the ‘reversal’ bill.

A majority of U.S. patients terminating their pregnancies do so with abortion medications. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year, abortion opponents have sought to undercut access to the pills. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legal status of mifepristone, the first of two medications in the most common and most effective method.

The abortion ‘reversal’ approach promoted by Kansas lawmakers involves giving women doses of the hormone progesterone after mifepristone is taken but before the second medication, misoprostol, is taken. Doctors use progesterone to try to prevent miscarriages.

Experts question the findings of the two anti-abortion doctors who began using the off-label ‘reversal’ approach more than 15 years ago and see a 2018 study vouching for its effectiveness as seriously flawed. Republican lawmakers in Kansas have brushed aside the criticism.

‘Medical knowledge is passed within our profession very much like political knowledge is passed here, peer to peer,’ Republican state Rep. Bill Clifford, a southwestern Kansas eye doctor, told his colleagues during one recent debate. ‘It isn’t always about studies, and you have to trust your colleagues.’