U.S. Attorney David Weiss has caused plenty of confusion when it comes to whether or not he has had full authority to charge Hunter Biden. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) had recently sent him a letter demanding clarification about a letter Weiss had sent to the Committee indicating he had full authority, in response to a letter that Jordan had sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan had given Weiss a deadline of July 6. Almost a full week before the deadline, though, Weiss sent a letter to Jordan on Friday night. It's not only a "Friday night news dump," it's one before the holiday weekend.
IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley had said that Weiss did not actually have the full authority to bring charges and that he told six witnesses he did not. Shapley has given interviews as well as gone before congressional committees. Last week, however, Attorney General Merrick Garland had indicated that Weiss did have such authority.
The crux of the letter is that Shapley was right, though it took some time for Weiss' letter to get there.
The Federalist's Margot Cleveland was among those sharing the letter on Twitter. "Apparently our Founders fought for the freedom of the Biden’s to be bribed without consequence as in celebration of the Independence Day, Weiss gives us this Friday news dump," she tweeted, taking note of the timing. Earlier this week, Cleveland reported on the June 22 letter Weiss had sent to Jordan which her outlet obtained.
2/2 and yes, I called it re Weiss’ framing of his authority. pic.twitter.com/W9nhpfCKbF
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 1, 2023
In the fourth paragraph--out of six in the entire letter--Weiss' June 30 letter makes reference to the June 7 letter, which he says he wrote "'I have been granted ultimate authority over the matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistency with federal law, the Principles of Federal Protection, and Departmental regulation.' I stand by what I wrote and wish to expand in what this means."
Recommended
"As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district," Weiss then went on to write in the next paragraph. That sentence right there, not until the penultimate paragraph of his letter, is what we need to know. "If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney's Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. If not, I may request Special Attorney status from the Attorney General," he writes with added emphasis, citing the relevant code. "Here, I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process," he would be granted that authority.
In another tweet, Cleveland also points out that Weiss didn't even answer all of the questions that Jordan asked of him, such as who in the Department of Justice (DOJ) really wrote the letter and had Weiss sign it. It almost makes the Friday night holiday news dump that much more frustrating.
Weiss' letter also begins early on by denying a request from Jordan. "At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the contents of the June 7 letter drafted by my office and reiterate that I am not at liberty to provide the materials you seek. The whistleblowers' allegations relate to a criminal investigation that is now being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware," he writes early on.
It will thus be interesting to see what, if anything, Jordan will do about that to compel that information.
Weiss closes his letter in part by pointing out "[a]t the appropriate time, I welcome the opportunity to discuss these topics with the Committee in more detail, and answer questions related to the whistleblowers' allegations consistent with the law and Department policy."
In addition to summing up the letter perfectly, Empower Oversight's Tristan Leavitt points out that Weiss can now answer for what he told the FBI and IRS last October, when it comes to that Special Counsel Authority.
Now he can answer to Congress regarding whether he lied to FBI and IRS agents on 10/7/22 about having asked for special counsel authority and been turned down, or whether he is playing semantics in this letter with *when* assurances were made to him about receiving it in future.
— Tristan Leavitt (@tristanleavitt) July 1, 2023
The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel has pointed out that Garland has obligations here. Although it's from June 29, the point still stands.
“If the team appointed to investigate Hunter wanted cases prosecuted in certain jurisdictions, and those cases failed to proceed on the say-so of Biden appointees, it destroys Mr. Garland’s claims that the case was insulated from politics.”
— Tristan Leavitt (@tristanleavitt) June 30, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member