Shortly after the new Congress was seated, Congressman James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, wrote to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen with a records request. He wanted his committee to review any “suspicious activity reports” the Treasury might have related to Hunter Biden’s financial transactions over the years. This was meant to be part of the “Biden Incorporated” investigations that recently began. Yesterday, the Treasury’s Legislative Affairs chief, Jonathan Davidson, responded to Comer, telling him to basically go pound sand. His letter wasn’t quite that blunt, but he declined to provide any records, saying that the Treasury would need to know more details about why the committee would need such “highly sensitive” information. His justification for declining the request doesn’t appear to be very substantial, however. (Yahoo News)

The US Treasury Department refused Wednesday to provide House Republicans any suspicious activity reports it may have on foreign banking and other business transactions by Hunter Biden and other members of President Joe Biden’s family.

Jonathan Davidson, Treasury’s legislative affairs chief, told House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer in a letter that he needs more details about why the panel is seeking such “highly sensitive” information.

Comer wrote on Jan. 11 to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for any so-called suspicious activity reports — used by banks to flag what they deem dubiously large transactions — as part of his panel’s probes into overseas business and other dealings by the president’s son.

The response may have come from Jonathan Davidson, but you can rest assured that he wouldn’t make that sort of decision without Janet Yellen signing off on it. And it’s a safe bet that the President was flagged in advance as well.

It’s also fairly obvious that the Treasury was scrambling to come up with some sort of rationale to block the Oversight committee from conducting, well… oversight. The best they were able to come up with was a claim that the “improper disclosure” of those types of records might “undermine the executive branch’s conduct of law enforcement, intelligence, and national security activities.”

I’m sorry, but… what? What are they talking about? The records in question involve Hunter Biden. He holds no elected office and has no responsibilities involving law enforcement, the intelligence community, or anything to do with national security. (Aside from possibly having undermined national security with some of his shady deals.)

Or at least his records shouldn’t involve anything like that unless some of the transactions showed significant payments to his father. Is that what Yellen is sitting on? If any potential records include all of the data related to suspiciously large transactions, it might potentially involve that joint bank account that Hunter and Joe Biden shared, as testified to by one of Hunter’s business partners.

The very existence of that account should have been enough to raise questions. It’s not all that unusual for parents to open a joint account with a minor child, particularly if they’re trying to help them build up a college tuition fund. But how many grown men maintain and actively use a joint account with one of their parents after they have supposedly grown up and set out in the world on their own? A shared account is probably a useful way to obfuscate precisely who is depositing and withdrawing funds. (But why would Hunter Biden need to do that, right?)

This entire exchange stinks on ice. There has been a growing body of evidence, primarily from Hunter’s infamous laptop from hell, that he was involved in very questionable deals in both Ukraine and China. And “the Big Guy” very likely was getting a cut of the action. Hunter’s bank records could provide valuable insight into precisely what was going on. And the Oversight Committee should have all of those records that were requested.