According to a new report, a recent meeting between Hunter Biden’s attorneys and a federal prosecutor may signify the conclusion of the lengthy Hunter Biden investigation.

Hunter Biden’s attorneys and U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware met last week at the Justice Department’s headquarters, according to The Washington Post, which cited “people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation.”

The Post reported that the meeting could be significant because it is common for prosecutors and defense counsel to confer at the conclusion of an investigation.

CNN previously reported that the meeting was requested by Hunter Biden’s attorneys.

CNN, citing unnamed sources, reported that prosecutors are considering misdemeanor charges for failure to file taxes, one count of felony tax evasion for overreporting of expenses, and a false statement regarding a firearm purchase.

The Post reports that federal agents believe they have sufficient evidence to file charges against Hunter Biden.

According to the New York Post, the attorney for a man who claims to have worked at the IRS said his client wanted to come forward as a whistleblower to denounce preferential treatment given to Hunter Biden during the investigation.

The Washington Post reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked at an unrelated news conference on Tuesday if he still insisted the investigation into President Joe Biden’s son was untainted by politics.

“Yes, it’s still the case,” Garland said.

Garland stated, “I stand by my testimony, and I refer you to the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware, who is in charge of this case and capable of making any decisions that he feels are appropriate.”

Attorney Mark Lytle, who represents the IRS whistleblower, sought authorization for the man to disclose information that can only be divulged with the sanction of key congressional leaders.

More on this story via The Western Journal:

“The protected disclosures: (1) contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee, (2) involve failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the case, and (3) detail examples of preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject were not politically connected,” Lytle wrote in a letter to congressional committee leaders. CONTINUE READING…