Multiple House committee chairmen have joined together to open an inquiry into U.S. Attorney David Weiss for the plea deal offered to Hunter Biden that would have involved not just no jail time for tax and gun charges, but immunity for other charges as well. Although U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected the deal at last Wednesday's hearing, questions still remain. On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY), and House Ways and Means Committee Jason Smith (R-MO) issued a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland about the matter.
As the letter begins by mentioning in part, Judge Noreika regarded the deal as "not standard" and "different from what I normally see." The letter later goes on to recap the judge's concerns at length, which included how she wasn't even sure about the authority and constitutionality of the deal. This came after she inquired multiple times about any precedence for such a deal.
"I asked if there is any precedent for this, I was told no. I was asked if there is any authority for this, I was told no," Noreika is quoted in the letter as saying, according to a transcript of the court record.
🚨 #BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan, @RepJamesComer, @RepJasonSmith Launch Inquiry into Sweetheart Hunter Biden Plea Deal.
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) July 31, 2023
Full letter: https://t.co/VRvS037afx pic.twitter.com/5HQ2waifFP
The letter also went on to summarize the grave impact that such an unusual plea deal has, including and especially how it limits Noreika:
Taken individually, each of the provisions discussed above raises serious concerns about how the Department has handled this matter. But when considered together, the provisions appear to be even more troubling. Judge Noriega explained the problem: “What’s funny to me is you put me right smack in the middle of the Diversion Agreement that I should have no role in, you plop [me] right in there and then on the thing that I would normally have the ability to sign off on or look at in the context of a Plea Agreement, you just take it out and you say Your Honor, don’t pay any attention to that provision not to prosecute because we put it in an agreement that’s beyond your ability.”
In short, the Department shifted a broad immunity provision, which benefits Mr. Biden,from the plea agreement to the pretrial diversion agreement apparently to prevent the District Court from being able to scrutinize and reject that immunity provision. And then, the Department has benefitted Mr. Biden by giving up its unilateral ability to bring charges against him if it concludes that he has breached the pretrial diversion agreement. Instead, it has placed upon itself the burden of getting the District Court’s permission to bring charges even though the District Court normally has no role in policing a pretrial diversion agreement in that manner.So,the District Court is apparently removed from the equation when it helps Mr. Biden and inserted into the equation when it helps Mr. Biden.
Recommended
There's also concerns that such a plea deal could have affected bringing charges against Hunter Biden to do with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). While the letter mentions that the DOJ did not agree with such a framing, the chairmen make clear they're not buying it. "While the Department did not agree with that position, it is difficult to understand how the parties would not have a meeting of the minds regarding a clause of the agreement as fundamental as the scope of the immunity provision, and it raises questions about what discussions have taken place between the Department and Mr. Biden’s counsel regarding the status of those investigations," the letter reads.
Because of "series concerns" raised that the DOJ is giving Hunter Biden "preferential treatment," the chairmen are looking for answers to the following questions by August 14:
1. A list of similar pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years concerning the same charge of felony possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
2. All documents and communications referring or relating to each similar pretrial diversion agreement entered into by the Department in the last ten yearsconcerning the same charge of felony possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
3. A list of pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years that include a provision similar to paragraph 14 of the agreement with Hunter Biden;
4. A list of pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years in which the Department agrees not to prosecute crimes that are unrelated to the charges being diverted;
5. A generalized description of the nature of the Department’s ongoing investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden; and
6. An explanation of why the Department originally agreed to a plea agreement if otherinvestigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden are ongoing
The letter in closing also reminds Garland of the powers that the committees have to investigate. When it comes to the Oversight Committee, that includes how the Committee may investigate "any matter" at any time.
The plea deal, including and especially when it comes to how much authority Weiss had, has caused much confusion, even before last week's plea deal hearing. 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.
This update comes the same day as Devon Archer, the former business associate of Hunter Biden, provided closed door testimony to the Oversight Committee. A transcript is coming, but it is looking increasingly likely that President Joe Biden was involved in his son's business dealings, despite he and the White House claiming otherwise. Even Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who was present for the testimony, confirmed that then Vice President Joe Biden spoke to Hunter's business associates, though he tried to minimize such conversations.
Dem Rep's Attempted Spin on Former Hunter Biden Associate's Testimony Just Makes Things Worse https://t.co/mVlw166huf
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 31, 2023
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has also spoken at length in recent weeks about opening an impeachment inquiry into the president, and has also been following along with updates on the testimony shared over Twitter.
Joe Biden lied about his involvement in his family’s corrupt business deals.
— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) July 31, 2023
The big question is—what else is he trying to hide?
House investigators are getting to the truth about Biden Inc. https://t.co/Y9AQfy1sR5
A week prior, the Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ), as we covered, informed Chairman Jordan that they were looking to make U.S. Attorney David Weiss available for testimony sometime after the August recess, specifically September 27, September 28, October 18, or October 19.
It Looks Like U.S. Attorney David Weiss Is Going Before the Judiciary Committee https://t.co/Mzo6PiAswU
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 25, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member