David Weiss Resorts to Calculated Lawyerly Evasiveness When Asked About Whistleblower Allegations That He Was Blocked from Pursuing Charges Against Hunter Biden

When his answer will support Merrick Garland, he's very clear in his response.

But when his answer will cast doubt on Merrick Garland, suddenly he's as elusive as a fawn in the morning mist.

In a Monday letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., obtained by The Federalist, Weiss was still not clear about whether he sought certain authority under a federal statute to adequately prosecute Hunter Biden...

Weiss's letter also came one day after Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent an inquiry to the Delaware U.S. attorney's office to probe whistleblower allegations made against one of Weiss's deputies. Whistleblowers from the IRS claimed Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf repeatedly obstructed the federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

"As you are aware, IRS whistleblowers have affirmed that AUSA Wolf prevented investigators from seeking information about Joe Biden's involvement in Hunter Biden's criminal business arrangements," Grassley wrote, adding that Wolf "frustrated investigative efforts."

According to IRS whistleblowers, Delaware federal prosecutors concealed the FD-1023 form housed by the FBI, which alleged a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme between the president and foreign businessmen, from the federal tax agency. Former Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that his Justice Department had referred the document to the Delaware U.S. attorney's office.

"On October 23, 2020, Justice Department and FBI Special Agents from the Pittsburgh Field Office briefed Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, one of your top prosecutors, and FBI Special Agents from the Baltimore Field Office with respect to the contents of the FBI-generated FD-1023," Grassley wrote to Weiss. "The meeting did not include any IRS agents."

Grassley specifically asked whether Weiss had ever sought federal authority under U.S. Code Section 515 to independently bring charges against Hunter Biden outside his own Delaware district.

"When were you assured that you would be granted s. 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in the Hunter Biden manner?" Grassley asked. "Have you requested that specific authority yet? If not, why not? If so, when, where and was the request satisfied?"

In a letter to Graham on Monday, however, Weiss was ambiguous.

"To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation pursuant to 28 CFR s. 600 et seq," says the letter obtained by The Federalist. "Rather, I had discussions with Departmental officials regarding potential appointment under 28 U.S.C. s. 515, which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local U.S. Attorney. I was assured that I would be granted this authority if it proved necessary."

Instead of "avoiding future confusion," he deliberately sows it.

There are two special authorities he might have sought: full special counsel appointment under section 600, or the ability to bring prosecutions in any jurisdiction under section 515. That's not a full special counsel authorization, but it would give him the power to issue subpeonas and bring charges outside of Delaware.

He says he never sought the former, but then refuses to say if he sought the latter, and was turned down by Merrick Garland.

But who decided whether it was necessary? Weiss didn't say. Nor did Weiss answer whether he actually requested 515 authority. If that was up to someone else, such as Attorney General Merrick Garland, for example, that would contradict the Biden DOJ's claim that the Hunter Biden probe is an independent investigation.

He also refused to say whether he did in fact tell investigators that he did not have final authority on charging decisions, or whether he asked the Biden-appointed US Attorneys in California, NY, and DC to issue subpeonas for him, and was refused.

Weiss also did not address whether he told supervisors in the case that he was not the final decision maker, as the whistleblowers alleged. Weiss also left answered whether he sought assistance from U.S. attorneys in California or New York. The fact that Weiss still has not denied making statements attributed to him by the whistleblowers speaks volumes and suggests he is wordsmithing his answers.

More at The Federalist from Tristan Justice.

posted by Lamont the Big Dummy at 02:45 PM

| Access Comments