Monday turned out to be a very busy and potentially catastrophic day for the Biden family when it comes to the corruption involving not merely First Son Hunter Biden, but President Joe Biden as well. Miranda Devine's op-ed for the New York Post dropped on Monday morning revealing that then Vice President Joe Biden spoke to son Hunter Biden's business partners and associates "as many as two dozen times," The excitement didn't end there, though. There's righteous indignation when it comes to a plea deal for Hunter Biden that allows him to avoid jail time for gun and tax charges. The U.S. Attorney in question, David Weiss, has caused considerable drama and confusion about his authority, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) is finally released him to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.
In a letter sent to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriate explains that the DOJ is making Weiss available to testify before the Committee "shortly after Congress returns from the August district work period." Later, the letter specifically mentions options of September 27, September 28, October 18, and October 19.
New: DOJ writes to Rep. Jim Jordan saying they are concerned about GOP's misrepresentation of Hunter Biden probe and that US Attorney Weiss will be made available to testify publicly after August recess because “it is strongly in the public interest” to hear from him directly. pic.twitter.com/7WuMqExYA5
— Farnoush Amiri (@FarnoushAmiri) July 24, 2023
The letter in question references a July 21 letter that Jordan, along with House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. At the conclusion of the letter, the chairmen again requested that DOJ officials and FBI agents meet with them for transcribed interviews, threatening to use their subpoena power if need be, since they had asked previously, back in June.
These threats to use the power afforded to them by being in the majority didn't sit too well with the DOJ, with Uriate responding just around the deadline. His letter claimed that the DOJ "has repeatedly stated" that they "remain committed to working with you to address the Committee's expressed interests consistent with the Department's duties and policies," going on to lament they "are, therefore, deeply concerned by your notification today that the Committee has authorized deposition subpoenas for the individuals identified in your letter."
Recommended
Uriate's letter mentions concerns about an open investigation. "To be clear, the most appropriate time for any testimony on these subjects is after the matter is closed, especially under the circumstances where the matter is pending before a court and subject to judicial supervision, not to mention legal and ethical bars that limit what the Department can say while the matter is pending in court."
Tellingly, the letter also offers Weiss as "the appropriate person to speak to these issues, as he is both the senior Department official responsible for the investigation as well as the person with direct knowledge of the facts necessary to respond to the assertions in which you have expressed interest."
Earlier in his letter, Uriate claims, laughably, that "[a]cross administrations, the Department has long recognized its obligation to protect law enforcement work from even the perception of political interference, including from Congress." Their desperation is clearly showing. It's no wonder the Republican-controlled House is flexing its subpoena power.
At the heart of the matter is whether or not Weiss had the full authority to charge Hunter Biden. The July 21 letter in question sums it up pretty well, with original emphasis:
Subsequently, in his June 30 letter to the Judiciary Committee, Weiss claimed that his “charging authority is geographically limited to[his] home district” and that “[i]f 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 a fellow U.S. Attorney declined to “partner,” Weiss explained, he would have had to request “Special Attorney” status, which he claimed to “have been assured that, if necessary” he would receive. Finally, in a July 10 letter to Senator LindseyGraham, Weiss acknowledged that he had “discussions” with unnamed “Departmental officials”about seeking Special Attorney status and “was assured” the authority would be granted.
In other words, in his first letter, Weiss represented to the Judiciary Committee that he had been granted ultimate authority with respect to the filing of charges. But in his second letter, Weiss told the Committee that he had been assured by unnamed officials that he would be granted that authority in the future if necessary after going through a specified process, and he notably provided no explanation of who would make the determination of necessity. These are inconsistent representations, and it is not possible for both of them to be true.
The date in question indeed comes after the August recess. In addition to such a timeline, though, and the matter of open versus closed investigations, Garland will be testifying one week prior. As the Washington Examiner's Sarah Bedford pointed out, "Garland will not have to answer directly for any inconsistencies Weiss may bring up in a hearing."
While the letter offers Weiss as the appropriate person, Garland plays his own role in causing confusion.
According to IRS Whistleblower Gary Shapley, Weiss did not actually have the full authority to bring charges and that he told six witnesses he did not. Garland had indicated last month that Weiss did have such authority, however.
Garland has something of a habit giving confusing testimony, and not just to do with the matter of Weiss' authority. He's also raised further questions when it comes to the FBI's targeting of Catholics and the targeting of concerned parents at school board meetings.
Interestingly, the DOJ does not offer U.S. Attorney David Weiss for testimony to Congress until at least one week *after* AG Garland is slated to testify -- meaning Garland will not have to answer directly for any inconsistencies Weiss may bring up in a hearing. https://t.co/ww1PWq1HWH
— Sarah Bedford (@sarahcbedford) July 25, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member