David Weiss Responds to Whistleblower Allegations, Offers a Very Peculiar Hedge
David Weiss has sent a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan responding to a request for more information regarding the Hunter Biden investigation and how it was pursued (or not pursued). Weiss also somewhat addressed the whistleblower allegations that he was denied the ability to bring charges in other districts such as the Central District of California. Far from giving a clear explanation for the discrepancies, though, a very peculiar hedge was offered instead.
To begin the letter, Weiss denied further cooperation with Jordan’s committee, using the often-cited excuse of there being an ongoing investigation or proceeding prohibiting disclosure.
The whistleblowers’ allegations relate to a criminal investigation that is now being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. At this juncture, I am required to protect confidential law enforcement information and deliberative communications related to the case. Thus, I will not provide specific information related to the Hunter Biden investigation at this time.
I’ve always found it rather incredible that bureaucracies like the DOJ can simply slap an “ongoing investigation” or “national security risk” label on something and deny information to the very body that created them. Congress consists of elected individuals that hold the constitutional role of oversight over the bureaucratic state. But if the bureaucratic state can just say “no” to every valid request that risks exposing corruption, then what’s the point?
Moving into the second section of the letter, Weiss asserts that there was no retaliation against the IRS whistleblowers. Yet, as Gary Shapley (the publicly identified whistleblower) has testified, he and his IRS team were removed from the case shortly after he went to Congress with his information. That would seem to point toward retaliation, though, the fact that Shapley remains employed would likely be offered as a defense. Does sidelining someone but keeping them on the payroll qualify as retaliation? I don’t have the legal answer to that.
Then we get into the really weird part of Weiss’ letter. I say that because he appears to confirm parts of the whistleblower allegations while still denying them.
Weiss starts by repeating a statement from his June 7th letter, backdropped by AG Merrick Garland’s recently reiterated claim that Weiss holds total authority to charge in any district, in any way he sees fit.
Second, in my June 7 letter I 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 Department regulations. I stand by what I wrote and wish to expand on what this means.
But then the hedging begins. Namely, Weiss seems to give credence to what was allegedly said (and independently confirmed by The New York Times) to the whistleblowers about him being denied the ability to charge in other districts.
As a U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Department 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 Counsel status from the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515. Here, I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter.
To be frank, what he’s saying doesn’t make much sense, and it purposely avoids answering the key questions that are being posed, both by Congress and others. Did Weiss try to bring charges in those other districts and their Biden-appointed US attornies didn’t cooperate? And if that happened, did Weiss then request special counsel status? Was he denied that power despite being promised it? We don’t know because Weiss decided to restate the obvious while not answering any of the discrepancies that abound.
What is most noteworthy about the lawyerly language provided by Weiss, though, is that he is careful to not directly contradict the allegations of the whistleblowers. I would think that’s not a coincidence.
Weiss wraps his letter up by claiming that he’s willing to speak further with Jordan at the “appropriate time.” Who gets to decide the timeframe and scope? According to Weiss, it’s the DOJ, which again calls into question what the point of Congress even having oversight authority is.
To me, this letter seems like the kind of thing you’d get from a guy who knows he’s been caught, but doesn’t quite know how to explain his way out of it. Congressional Republicans should keep pushing this issue.
Post a Comment