We've been hearing an awful lot of talk about impeaching President Joe Biden and members of his Cabinet, only for it to be just talk. In a Sunday morning tweet, however, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) spoke to an "impeachment inquiry" into Attorney General Merrick Garland. While Garland's tenure in the position has been plagued with charges of weaponization from all levels, this specific inquiry applies to claims coming from an IRS whistleblower and charges brought against Hunter Biden.
"We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee," McCarthy tweeted, referring to the U.S. Attorney responsible for a plea deal that the First Son received for gun and taxes charges.
"If the whistleblowers' allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland's weaponization of DOJ," McCarthy continued.
We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee.
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) June 25, 2023
If the whistleblowers' allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into… https://t.co/Q3LLeJhW85
McCarthy's tweet was a retweet of the Washington Examiner's Byron York, who shared a June 23 letter regarding IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who spoke to the House Committee on Ways and Means and granted interviews to CBS News. According to Shapley, Weiss told multiple witnesses he did not have the authority to charge in those other districts and was requesting special counsel status.
That tweet is not the only instance where McCarthy has addressed the matter. He also spoke to Fox News on Monday, emphasizing, "None of it smells right, and none of it is right."
Recommended
The news from late last week, as Spencer covered and Guy also summarized, is that Weiss was supposedly prevented from bringing charges against Hunter Biden from Washington, D.C., and California. The attorney general, however, claimed that Weiss could actually bring those charges. While announcing other unrelated charges, Garland was asked about the Hunter Biden case, during which his remarks contradicted what Weiss had claimed, with Garland looking to claim that Weiss, in fact, did have authority.
Garland responds to the IRS whistleblower who said U.S. Attorney David Weiss was told not to bring charges against Hunter Biden:
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 23, 2023
"I don't know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution." pic.twitter.com/jz80vl9Id6
The story has gotten even more confusing since then, making it even more necessary to get clarity from Weiss.
Earlier on Monday, The Federalist shared that they obtained a June 7, 2023, letter from Weiss to the House Judiciary Committee in response to a May 25 letter sent from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) to Garland. In that June 7 letter, Weiss told the committee he had "been granted ultimate authority" and that he also had "full authority" to charge Hunter Biden.
"So either Weiss lied to his top investigators, or Weiss and Garland deceived Congress. There's no other way around it," Margot Cleveland writes in her article for The Federalist. Jordan echoed that sentiment when tweeting the article.
Either Weiss lied to his top investigators, or Weiss and Garland deceived Congress.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 26, 2023
Who’s telling the truth? https://t.co/s8LLvcUKsm
Included is an excerpt from the letter backing Garland's testimony. "I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations," Weiss wrote.
Here's more on the confusion involved:
In signing that letter and dispatching it to the House Judiciary Committee, Weiss has entangled himself in what appears to be Garland’s lie to Congress — that is, unless Weiss had instead deceived the senior-level officials responsible for the Hunter Biden investigation when he told them last Oct. 7 that he was not the “deciding person” on whether charges are filed.
But why would Weiss mislead the senior leadership responsible for the Hunter Biden investigation?
On this point, Shapley has “no insight,” his lawyers noted on Friday, adding: “That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated.” Then the whistleblower’s attorneys listed the names of three individuals who, in addition to Shapley and Weiss, had attended the meeting on Oct. 7, 2022: Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley and IRS Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon.
If these individuals confirm the whistleblower’s account — as seems likely given Waldon had previously said, “you covered it all,” in response to Shapley’s email summary of the meeting — Weiss will have some explaining to do. He’ll have to explain his statements during the meeting on Oct. 7, 2022, and the genesis of the June 7, 2023, letter Weiss sent the House Judiciary Committee.
Garland still could have pressured Weiss, though:
Sources familiar with the letter have suggested it reads as if drafted by someone connected to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs, telling The Federalist a U.S. attorney would be unlikely to know about the so-called Linder letter referenced in a footnote. That possibility raises the further question of whether the DOJ and Garland induced or pressured Weiss to sign the letter.
It is important to remember that Weiss dispatched the letter to the House Judiciary Committee before the Ways and Means Committee released the whistleblower’s testimony, meaning the DOJ and the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office would not have known Shapley had the Oct. 7, 2022, email to corroborate his oral testimony.
The House Judiciary Committee seems similarly concerned about the possibility the Department of Justice and/or Garland pushed Weiss to help mislead Congress, writing to the Delaware U.S. attorney last Thursday about the “unusual nature” of Weiss’s June 7 letter.
As the Washington Examiner also reported on Monday, Jordan sent a letter to Weiss on June 22 asking for a list of those who drafted and assisted in drafting the June 7 letter, who instructed him to sign and send the letter, when he first learned of the committee's May 25 letter to Garland, who at the DOJ forwarded him that May 25 letter, and whether there were any discussions with Garland or any other person at the DOJ about the May 25 letter.
Weiss has a deadline of July 6 to respond.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member