Skip to main content
Research

TOP TRUMP DEFENDER JIM JORDAN ATTACKS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT…AGAIN

By November 7, 2023No Comments

Today, the House Judiciary Committee is conducting a closed-door interview with Special Counsel David Weiss. Chair Jim Jordan will surely use the interview to peddle more baseless claims about a politicized Justice Department. Therefore, this guide will provide you with the facts and truth behind Jordan’s fevered conspiracy dreams.

  • Attorney General Merrick Garland and Weiss have both stated that Weiss had complete authority to pursue the investigation into Hunter Biden however Weiss saw fit. While testifying to the House Judiciary Committee in September, Garland repeatedly stated that he had kept his promise not to interfere in Weiss’ investigation.
  • In a letter to Jordan, Weiss said he had been granted the “ultimate authority” over the matter, including deciding where, when, and whether to file charges. He said he had the option to overrule prosecutors in other districts if he chose to do so. Just yesterday, Weiss’ spokesperson said Weiss was taking the “unprecedented step of testifying before the conclusion of his investigation to make clear that he’s had and continues to have full authority over his investigation and to bring charges in any jurisdiction.” Weiss also previously told Congress that he had not requested special counsel authority up to that point but had explored the possibility of becoming a “special attorney” under a different statute. Later, when Weiss requested special counsel status, he was granted it.
  • In testimony to Congress, multiple witnesses have disputed allegations made by IRS whistleblowers about the Hunter Biden investigation. During closed-door testimony to Congress, both U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves and U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada said they did not block Weiss from bringing charges in their districts, and that while they declined to formally partner with Weiss on the case, they offered him logistical support should he choose to bring charges in their districts. It was also reported that Weiss brought in “hard charging” federal prosecutors who were known for their anti-corruption work to help with his investigation.
  • Three other witnesses from the FBI and IRS told Congress they did not think the Hunter Biden investigation had been politicized. They also disputed an IRS whistleblower’s allegations that during an October 2022 meeting, Weiss said he was not the deciding person on whether to file charges in the case – all three said they did not remember Weiss saying that. They also said they did not recall Weiss bringing up any discussion of special counsel authority during the meeting.
  • Experts agreed that Hunter Biden’s initial plea deal was no “sweetheart deal,” but was harsher than what the average American would face. Multiple legal experts said the deal was the outcome of a half-decade of federal investigations. They also agreed that it was normal for investigators and prosecutors to disagree over what charges to file against a defendant.
  • President Biden has acted with integrity when it comes to the U.S. Justice Department. After assuming the presidency, Biden kept the two U.S. attorneys who were conducting investigations that could harm him politically: Weiss, who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate in a voice vote, who is leading the investigation into his son, and Special Counsel John Durham, who the Trump administration tapped to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
  • In contrast, former President Trump blatantly weaponized the U.S. Justice Department for his own political ends. In June of 2020, for example, Trump abruptly fired Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which turned into a chaotic series of events. Berman’s office had overseen investigations into a number of Trump allies, including Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, and Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani associates.

Americans see right through Jordan’s conspiracy theories because the facts always come first.

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Said He Has “Ultimate Authority” Over The Investigation Into Hunter Biden

ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND AFFIRMED THAT U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS HAD “COMPLETE AUTHORITY” TO MAKE WHATEVER DECISION HE NEEDED TO

HEADLINE: “Garland Denies Allegations Of Politics Impacting Hunter Biden Plea Deal” [Politico, 6/23/23]

  • Attorney General Merrick Garland Claimed, U.S. Attorney David Weiss Was “Permitted To Continue His Investigation And To Make A Decision To Prosecute Any Way In Which He Wanted To And In Any District In Which He Wanted To.” “Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday forcefully rejected allegations from congressional Republicans and an Internal Revenue Service whistleblower that political considerations impacted the federal investigation into Hunter Biden. ‘As I said at the outset, Mr. [David] Weiss, who was appointed by President [Donald] Trump as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and assigned this matter during a previous administration, would be permitted to continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to,’ Garland said during a press conference at Justice Department headquarters about a crackdown on fentanyl precursors.” [Politico, 6/23/23]
  • Attorney General Merrick Garland Said, “[Weiss] Was Given Complete Authority To Make All Decisions On His Own.” “‘I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution given that he has this authority,’ Garland added. ‘He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own.’” [Politico, 6/23/23]

During A September 2023 House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Attorney General Merrick Garland Repeatedly Said He Kept His Promise That He Would Not Interfere In U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ Investigation

HEADLINE: “Attorney General Garland Tells Congress He Doesn’t Take Orders From White House” [USA Today, 9/20/23]

During A House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Attorney General Merrick Garland Cited His Promise That He Would Not Interfere In U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ Investigation. “On Wednesday, they homed in on one of the biggest unexplained questions: why Mr. Weiss requested to be appointed special counsel in August. Mr. Garland told a Senate committee this year that as the U.S. attorney in Delaware, Mr. Weiss had all the authority he required — and had never asked for a change in status.  ‘Did you ask him what had changed, that made him now need to be made a special counsel?’ asked Representative Dan Bishop, Republican of North Carolina.  In response, Mr. Garland cited a promise he had made to senators during his confirmation in 2021 — that he would not interfere with the work of Mr. Weiss to avoid any appearance that he was influencing an investigation into his boss’s son.  ‘The way to not interfere is to not investigate an investigation,’ he said.” [New York Times, 9/20/23]

  • Attorney General Merrick Garland: “No One That I Know Of Has Spoken To The White House About The Hunter Biden Case.” “Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the Justice Department’s independence Wednesday during a lengthy House Judiciary Committee hearing that touched on the investigations into Hunter Biden and former President Trump. Driving the news: ‘I am not the president’s lawyer. I will add I am not Congress’ prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people,’ Garland told the committee, which is led by chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).  ‘No one that I know of has spoken to the White House about the Hunter Biden case,’ Garland said.” [Axios, 9/20/23]
  • Attorney General Merrick Garland: “I Am Not The President’s Lawyer.” “Republicans see Mr. Garland as a critical link, even though he has taken steps to insulate himself from the case, including by reappointing Mr. Weiss, who was installed under the Trump administration. Similarly, officials say, Mr. Garland has virtually cut off communications with the White House since the department began investigating Mr. Trump. ‘As the president himself has said, and I reaffirm here today: I am not the president’s lawyer,’ he said in his opening statement.” [New York Times, 9/20/23]
  • Attorney General Merrick Garland: “Our Job Is Not To Do What Is Politically Convenient. Our Job Is Not To Take Orders From The President, From Congress, Or From Anyone Else, About Who Or What To Criminally Investigate.” “Garland repeatedly pushed back against Jordan, and turned the tables on Republicans who have used their majority in the House to demand DOJ documents about the Hunter Biden and Trump cases. ‘Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress, or from anyone else, about who or what to criminally investigate,’ the attorney general said.” [CNBC, 9/20/23]

New York Times Reported That Claims and Insinuations By House Republicans That Attorney General Merrick Garland Was Protecting President Biden “Were Not Supported By Fact”

New York Times: ‘Many Of The Claims And Insinuations [House Republicans] Leveled Against Mr. Garland — That He Is Part Of A Coordinated Democratic Effort To Shield The Bidens And Persecute Mr. Trump — Were Not Supported By Fact.” “House Republicans view Mr. Garland as a linchpin as they seek to bolster an impeachment inquiry into President Biden that is grounded, thus far, in inconclusive evidence that he profited from the business dealings of his son, Hunter. They have suggested Mr. Garland also might face impeachment, or contempt charges, for not fully answering their questions or providing access to documents and witnesses they have demanded.  Many of the claims and insinuations they leveled against Mr. Garland — that he is part of a coordinated Democratic effort to shield the Bidens and persecute Mr. Trump — were not supported by fact. And much of the specific evidence presented, particularly the testimony of an investigator who questioned key decisions in the Hunter Biden investigation, was given without context or acknowledgment of contradictory information.” [New York Times, 9/20/23]

NOVEMBER 6, 2023: WEISS SPOKESPERSON SAID WEISS WAS TESTIFYING TO MAKE CLEAR “HE’S HAD AND CONTINUES TO HAVE FULL AUTHORITY OVER HIS INVESTIGATION”

Special Counsel Weiss Spokesperson: “Mr. Weiss Is Prepared To Take This Unprecedented Step Of Testifying Before The Conclusion Of His Investigation To Make Clear That He’s Had And Continues To Have Full Authority Over His Investigation And To Bring Charges In Any Jurisdiction.” “Weiss has written multiple letters to Congress rejecting those claims and is expected to be very specific about his level of authority in his testimony on Tuesday.  ‘Special Counsel Weiss is appearing voluntarily to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the scope of his authority,’ special counsel spokesperson Wyn Hornbuckle said in a statement to NBC News. ‘Mr. Weiss is prepared to take this unprecedented step of testifying before the conclusion of his investigation to make clear that he’s had and continues to have full authority over his investigation and to bring charges in any jurisdiction.’” [NBC News, 11/6/23]

  • Special Counsel Weiss Spokesperson: “At The Close Of This Matter, Special Counsel Weiss Will Prepare A Report, Which The Attorney General Has Committed To Making Public To The Greatest Extent Possible, Consistent With The Law, Department Policy And The Public Interest.” “While House Republicans are interested in learning more about the DOJ’s probe into Hunter Biden, and specifically if it extends to the president himself, Weiss plans to only clear up any discrepancies about his authority to bring charges and not divulge details about the probe itself, according to Hornbuckle. ‘Consistent with department policy and the law, he will be unable to address the specifics of his investigation,’ Hornbuckle said. ‘At the close of this matter, Special Counsel Weiss will prepare a report, which the Attorney General has committed to making public to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law, department policy and the public interest.’” [NBC News, 11/6/23]

JUNE 7, 2023: U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS TOLD CONGRESS HE HAD BEEN “GRANTED ULTIMATE AUTHORITY” IN THE HUNTER BIDEN CASE

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Sent A Letter On June 7th 2023 Which Claimed He Had Been, “Granted Ultimate Authority Over This Matter, Including Responsibility For Deciding Where, When And Whether To File Charges.” “Mr. Weiss said in the letter, dated June 7, that he had been ‘granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.’” [New York Times, 6/27/23]

  • S. Attorney David Weiss Had Sent A Letter To House Republicans On July 1st, 2023 To Defend The Integrity Of His Investigation Into Hunter Biden. “David C. Weiss, an appointee of former President Donald J. Trump held over by the Biden administration, defended the integrity of his investigation in a two-page letter sent to House Republicans late Friday” [New York Times, 7/1/23]

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Told Congress That He Had The Option To Overrule Other U.S. Attorneys To Be Able To Charge In Their Districts If He Chose To Do So

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Did Not Deny That Offices Turned Down His Request To Bring Charges, But Backed Up Attorney General Merrick Garland Who Said Weiss Had The Option To Overrule Other Prosecutors If He Chose To Reach Out. “While Mr. Weiss did not deny that [California and D.C.] offices had turned down his request to bring the more serious charges, he backed up Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s public statement that he had been given full authority in the case, and that he had the option of overruling prosecutors by simply reaching out to Mr. Garland or his top aides. As the U.S. attorney in Delaware, ‘my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district,’ wrote Mr. Weiss. ‘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,’ he added. ‘If not, I may request special attorney status.’” [New York Times, 7/1/23]

  • S. Attorney David Weiss Clarified To Jim Jordan: “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.” “Mr. Weiss did not address those issues explicitly in the letter he sent to Mr. Jordan on Friday. But he said that if he wanted to bring charges against Mr. Biden in California or Washington, he would do so without concern about being blocked by the department’s leadership. ‘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,” he wrote, referring to the section of federal law that defines the role of a special attorney.’” [New York Times, 7/1/23]

U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS TOLD CONGRESS HE HAD NOT REQUESTED SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUS AND HAD NOT BEEN DENIED AUTHORITY TO BRING CHARGES ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES

July 2023: U.S. Attorney David Weiss Told Senator Lindsey Graham That He Had Not Asked To Be Named As Special Counsel And Was Never Refused Any Authority To Bring Charges Anywhere In The U.S. “US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing the Hunter Biden criminal probe, says in a letter obtained by CNN that he did not ask to be named as a special counsel and was never refused authority to bring charges anywhere in the country, refuting two key allegations from IRS whistleblowers.  Weiss’ comments, in a letter sent Monday to GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, go against claims from IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley and one of his deputies, who said they witnessed political interference in investigation of President Joe Biden’s son.” [CNN, 7/10/23]

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Told Congress He Never Requested Special Counsel Status But Explored The Possibility Of Becoming A “Special Attorney” Under A Different Statute. “Since, Shapley’s allegation came to light in June, Weiss has told Congress that he had never requested special counsel status, but rather explored becoming a ‘special attorney’ under a different statute.” [CNN, 9/19/23]

WHEN U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS LATER REQUESTED SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUS, HE WAS GRANTED IT

When U.S. Attorney David Weiss Later Requested Special Counsel Status, He Was Granted It. “After Hunter Biden’s plea deal fell apart, Weiss did request and was granted special counsel status. Weiss has offered to testify to Congress, but securing that testimony is more difficult now that he is a special counsel overseeing the ongoing criminal probe.” [CNN, 9/19/23]

Multiple Witnesses Have Contradicted IRS Whistleblower Allegations About U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ Investigation

TWO U.S. ATTORNEYS SAID THEY DID NOT BLOCK DAVID WEISS FROM BRINGING CHARGES IN THEIR DISTRICTS AND EVEN OFFERED HIM LOGISTICAL SUPPORT IF WEISS CHOSE TO BRING CHARGES

U.S. Attorney For DC Matthew Graves Said He Did Not Block David Weiss From Pursuing A Case Against Hunter Biden In His District And That While He Declined To Formally Partner On The Case He Offered Weiss Logistical Support. “In recent closed-door testimony to Congress, the top-ranking Justice Department prosecutor in Washington, DC, refuted claims from two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers that he blocked federal investigators from charging Hunter Biden with tax crimes in DC, according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by CNN. Matthew Graves, the US attorney in Washington, said in his private deposition last week that even though his office declined to formally partner up on the case, that he did offer logistical support to David Weiss, the federal prosecutor leading the Hunter Biden probe. Graves affirmed in his testimony that he never did anything to stop Weiss from pursuing charges in DC on his own.” [CNN, 10/13/23]

U.S. Attorney For The Central District Of California, Martin Estrada, Said He “Did Not And Could Not” Block David Weiss From Pursuing Charges Against Hunter Biden In His District And That He Offered Weiss Logistical Support If He Chose To Do So. “A second U.S. Attorney has testified to Congress that the prosecutor overseeing the Hunter Biden investigation had full authority over filing charges, rebutting whistleblower claims that Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss didn’t have the final say on the case against the president’s son. […] Martin Estrada, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, said he told the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors Tuesday that he understood that Weiss had full authority to bring charges and offered him logistical support. ‘I did not and could not ‘block’ Mr. Weiss since he did not need my approval to bring charges in my district,’ he said in a statement.” [Associated Press, 10/25/23]

TESTIMONY FROM MULTIPLE WITNESSES TO CONGRESS DISPUTED ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN THE HUNTER BIDEN CASE

HEADLINE: “Witness Testimony Disputes IRS Whistleblower Allegations In Hunter Biden Probe As Republicans Begin Impeachment Inquiry” [CNN, 9/19/23]

September 2023: During Congressional Testimony Three Witnesses From The FBI And IRS Disputed Allegations Of Political Interference In The Federal Government’s Hunter Biden Case. “In testimony this month, three witnesses from the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. have contradicted key assertions made by a whistle-blower who claimed there was political interference in the Justice Department’s tax case against Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, according to hundreds of pages of transcripts obtained by The New York Times.” [New York Times, 9/15/23]

Witnesses Told Congress They Did Not Think The Hunter Biden Investigation Had Been Politicized

HEADLINE: “Former FBI Agent Says He Was Not Aware Of Interference In Hunter Biden Probe” [Reuters, 8/14/23]

IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent In Charge Told Congress “No,” When Asked If He Thought The Investigation Into Hunter Biden Had Been Politicized. “Mr. Shapley’s former boss, Darrell Waldon, the special agent in charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigation division, also told lawmakers on the Ways and Means Committee that he did not witness any political interference. Asked if the case had been politicized, Mr. Waldon said flatly: ‘No.’” [New York Times, 9/15/23]

FBI Assistant Special Agent In Charge Told Congress She Did Not Think Anyone Involved In The Hunter Biden Investigation Was Politicizing It. ” Investigators also asked Ryeshia Holley, assistant special agent in charge with the F.B.I., whether Mr. Weiss had stated that he was not the person who would decide whether charges were filed in the Hunter Biden case. […] The witnesses also testified that while they agreed with Mr. Shapley’s concerns that the investigation into Hunter Biden moved too slowly, they did not believe it was because of political interference.  ‘I did not think anyone involved in the ongoing matter was politicizing it,’ Ms. Holley said.” [New York Times, 9/15/23]

An FBI Agent Managing The Team On The Justice Department’s Case Against Hunter Biden Testified To Congress That U.S. Attorney David Weiss Had Ultimate Authority Over The Case. “The FBI agent managing the team on the Hunter Biden criminal case testified to the House Judiciary Committee that US Attorney David Weiss had ultimate authority over the case, contesting testimony brought forward by whistleblowers. Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, told committee investigators in a closed-door interview last week that from his perspective, Weiss had the authority to bring forward whatever charges he wanted in whatever venue he preferred.” [CNN, 9/13/23]

  • HEADLINE: “F.B.I. Agent Undercuts Claims Of Political Interference In Hunter Biden Inquiry” [New York Times, 9/12/23]

A High-Ranking FBI Agent Said He Had No Reason To Believe President Biden Interfered In Any Way In The Federal Government’s Investigation Into Hunter Biden

A High-Ranking FBI Agent Said He Had No Reason To Believe That President Biden Interfered In Any Way In The Federal Government’s Investigation Into Hunter Biden. According to a New York Times article about a high-ranking FBI agent that disputed allegations made by IRS whistleblowers about the federal government’s investigation into Hunter Biden: “During the interview, Mr. Sobocinski also pushed back against other claims of political interference. He was asked, ‘Do you have any reason to believe President Biden interfered in this investigation in any way?’  ‘No,’ he replied.” [New York Times, 9/12/23]

Witnesses Disputed Allegations That U.S. Attorney David Weiss Told Investigators He Was Not The Deciding Person On Whether To File Charges Against Hunter Biden

FBI Assistant Special Agent In Charge Told Congress She Did Not Remember U.S. Attorney David Weiss Saying He Was Not The Person Who Would Decide Whether Or Not To File Charges In The Hunter Biden Case, As IRS Whistleblowers Alleged. “Investigators also asked Ryeshia Holley, assistant special agent in charge with the F.B.I., whether Mr. Weiss had stated that he was not the person who would decide whether charges were filed in the Hunter Biden case.  ‘I don’t remember him saying that,’ she testified.” [New York Times, 9/15/23]

FBI Special Agent In Charge Of The Baltimore Field Office Said He Did Not Remember U.S. Attorney David Weiss Saying He Was Not The Deciding Person On Whether To Bring Charges In The Hunter Biden Case, And If Weiss Had Said That He Would Have Remembered It. “In their recent testimony, the other FBI and IRS officials in the October 2022 meeting have supported Weiss’s version of events on several key points of contention, particularly his allegation that Weiss said he was ‘not the deciding person’ on whether to bring charges.  ‘I do not remember – I don’t – he didn’t say that. In my recollection, if he would have said that, I would have remembered it,’ Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, told the committee.” [CNN, 9/19/23]

IRS Special Agent In Charge Of The Washington, DC Field Office Said He Did Not Recall U.S. Attorney David Weiss Ever Saying That He Was Not The Deciding Person On Whether To File Charges In The Hunter Biden Case. “In their recent testimony, the other FBI and IRS officials in the October 2022 meeting have supported Weiss’s version of events on several key points of contention, particularly his allegation that Weiss said he was ‘not the deciding person’ on whether to bring charges. […]  ‘I do not recall that ever being said,’ said Darrell Waldon, who was previously Shapley’s boss as the IRS special agent in charge of the Washington, DC, field office overseeing criminal investigations.” [CNN, 9/19/23]

Witnesses Said They Did Not Remember U.S. Attorney David Weiss Bringing Up Any Discussion Of Special Counsel Authority During An October 2022 Meeting About The Hunter Biden Case

Three Witnesses Said They Did Not Remember U.S. Attorney David Weiss Bringing Up Any Discussion Of Special Counsel Authority During An October 2022 Meeting About The Hunter Biden Case. “When emailing his supervisor about the October 2022 meeting later the same day, Shapley claimed that Weiss stated he requested special counsel authority, and that the Justice Department ‘denied his request and told him to follow the process.’  Waldon responded to the 2022 email at the time by saying, ‘thanks, Gary. You covered it all.’  But when pressed by committee investigators earlier about it this month, Waldon said, ‘I agreed that he covered it all, but, in terms of the word ‘special counsel’ being requested, I don’t recall those words being used.’  Both Holley and Sobocinski also said they did not remember Weiss bringing up any discussion of special counsel authority during the meeting.” [CNN, 9/19/23]

  • An FBI Agent Managing The Team On The Justice Department’s Case Against Hunter Biden Disputed Allegations That U.S. Attorney David Weiss Was Previously Denied Special Counsel Status And Venues To Bring Forward Charges. “Sobocinski also disputed Shapley’s claim that Weiss said in the October 2022 meeting he was denied special counsel status and denied venues to bring forward charges. Sobocinski told the House Judiciary panel he was informed of Weiss’ special counsel status the day Attorney General Merrick Garland announced it last month, and that Weiss was not previously denied special counsel status as Shapley has claimed. ‘I don’t have a recollection with him saying that there or at any point in my communication with Mr. Weiss,’ Sobocinski said. ‘That would have been a total 180 from all our previous conversations about authorities.’” [CNN, 9/13/23]

U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS DENIED ALLEGATIONS OF RETALIATION AGAINST IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS

HEADLINE: “U.S. Attorney In Hunter Biden Case Defends Investigation To House Republicans” [New York Times, 7/1/23]

  • S. Attorney David Weiss Denied Retaliating Against An IRS Official Who Disclosed Details Of The Hunter Biden Investigation. “The U.S. attorney in Delaware denied retaliating against an I.R.S. official who had disclosed details of the Hunter Biden investigation, and denied being blocked from pursuing serious charges against Mr. Biden, the president’s son, in Los Angeles and Washington.” [New York Times, 7/1/23]
  • S. Attorney David Weiss Wrote To House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan That The Department Of Justice “Did Not Retaliate” Against Gary Shapley, The IRS Whistleblower. “The Department of Justice ‘did not retaliate’ against Gary Shapley, who claims Mr. Weiss helped block a promotion he had sought after reaching out to congressional investigators, Mr. Weiss wrote in the letter to Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.” [New York Times, 7/1/23]

Experts Agreed That Hunter Biden’s Initial Plea Deal Was No “Sweetheart Deal,” But More Than What An Average American Would Face

U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WEISS BROUGHT IN “HARD-CHARGING” FEDERAL PROSECUTORS KNOWN FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION WORK TO HELP WITH THE HUNTER BIDEN CASE

U.S. Attorney David Weiss Brought In Leo Wise And Derek Hines To Lead The Prosecution Of Hunter Biden. “While Weiss has stayed on overseeing both the Hunter Biden probes and other federal cases in Delaware, the court filings Tuesday show he brought in a pair of hard-charging federal prosecutors from out of state to deal with the potential prosecution of the president’s son: Leo Wise and Derek Hines. Wise and Hines are best known for prosecuting flagrant corruption in a Baltimore Police Department Gun Trace Task Force.  Eight police officers went to prison in connection with the probe, which charged cops with racketeering for robbing residents of money and drugs.” [Politico, 6/20/23]

  • Leo Wise And Derek Hines Were Known For Prosecuting Flagrant Corruption In The Baltimore Police Department, Which Resulted In Eight Police Officers Going To Prison. “While Weiss has stayed on overseeing both the Hunter Biden probes and other federal cases in Delaware, the court filings Tuesday show he brought in a pair of hard-charging federal prosecutors from out of state to deal with the potential prosecution of the president’s son: Leo Wise and Derek Hines. Wise and Hines are best known for prosecuting flagrant corruption in a Baltimore Police Department Gun Trace Task Force. Eight police officers went to prison in connection with the probe, which charged cops with racketeering for robbing residents of money and drugs.” [Politico, 6/20/23]
  • Leo Wise Led The Prosecution Of General James “Hoss” Cartwright For Lying To Investigators Looking Into Leaks About Top Secret U.S. Efforts To Disrupt Iran’s Nuclear Program. “Wise, whose book on the investigation was published in April, also led the prosecution of Gen. James ‘Hoss’ Cartwright for lying to investigators probing leaks about top-secret U.S. efforts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. Cartwright pleaded guilty to a false statements charge, but President Barack Obama pardoned the retired 4-star Marine Corps general, who had served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” [Politico, 6/20/23]

MULTIPLE LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE WEIGHED IN AND CONCLUDED HUNTER BIDEN’S PLEA DEAL WAS NO “SWEETHEART DEAL” – IT WAS THE OUTCOME OF HALF A DECADE OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS

HEADLINE: “Did Hunter Biden Get Off Easy? Republicans Think So—Here’s What Legal Experts Say” [Forbes, 6/20/23]

  • Former Federal Prosecutor And New York University Professor Andrew Weissman Described Hunter Biden’s Penalties In Both The Tax And Gun Case As “If Anything Harsh, Not Lenient.” “NYU Law professor and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann also described Biden’s penalties in both cases as ‘if anything harsh, not lenient,’ noting prosecutions for first-time tax offenses and false applications for a gun purchase seldom lead to jail time or even prosecutions.” [Forbes, 6/20/23]
  • Ohio State Law Professor, Douglas Berman, Argued Prosecutors Brought Forward Charges Because Hunter Is The President’s Son, And To Prevent Claims Of A Two-Tiered Justice System.” “Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman suggested that prosecutors may have brought the charges because Biden is the president’s son, telling The New York Times that in most instances, the charges he faces are typically attached to more serious offenses, but in this case, ‘failure to bring some charges when there is no factual dispute . . . could create the impression of a two-tiered system of justice.’” [Forbes, 6/20/23]
  • Michael Weinstein, Former Federal Prosecutor, Predicted Hunter Biden Was “Not Going To Prison” For The Tax Charges Given His Status As A First-Time Offender. “Michael Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor and chair of the White Collar Criminal Defense & Government Investigations Practice at Cole Schotz, predicted Biden is also ‘not going to prison’ for the tax charges, he told Reuters, given his status as a first-time offender, his willingness to plead guilty and the amount of back taxes he owed, which reportedly totalled $1.2 million that he has since paid back.” [Forbes, 6/20/23]

HEADLINE: “Did Hunter Biden Get Off Easy? We Asked The Experts.” [Politico, 6/21/23]

  • Former IRS Lawyer, Maggie Abdo-Gomes, Argued It Was Rare For People To Face Criminal Charges For Failing To Pay Taxes And “The Laws Were Enforced As If It Had Been Anybody Else. I Would Say Probably A Little Stricter, Because Failure To Pay Is Very Common.” “The Truth “Maggie Abdo-Gomez, a Miami tax attorney and former IRS lawyer, said it’s rare for people to face criminal charges for simply failing to pay their taxes. ‘I’ve only seen them — one time — prosecute someone for failure to pay taxes,” she said. ‘Because the truth is, if we prosecuted for failure to pay taxes, the jails would be full. Forget the drug dealers and the murderers and everybody else. I have a small practice, and I’ve got tons of people that owe taxes.’ ‘The laws were enforced as if it had been anybody else,’ she added, regarding Hunter’s case. ‘I would say probably a little stricter, because failure to pay is very common.’” [Politico, 6/21/23]
  • Obama Justice Department Tax Division Head Caroline Ciraolo Said The DOJ Typically Would Have Brought Tougher Charges If It Had The Evidence That Hunter Biden Lied, But “That’s Not The Case Here” And Five Years Of Investigations Under Two Administrations Investigated The Issue. “Caroline Ciraolo, acting head of the Justice Department’s Tax Division for the last year of the Obama administration, said the case’s resolution didn’t strike her as outside the norm. If the Justice Department had found evidence that Hunter Biden lied or took other ‘affirmative acts’ to dodge his taxes, he likely would have faced tougher charges, she said. ‘If there was evidence of affirmative conduct, then under DOJ policy the charge would have been felony evasion of payment,’ she added. ‘And that’s not the case here. And after five years and an investigation that crossed two administrations on different sides of the aisle, I would imagine that if there was evidence of affirmative conduct, we would not be looking at the information we’re looking at right now.’” [Politico, 6/21/23]

HEADLINE: “Legal Experts Cast Doubt On GOP Claims Of A ‘Sweetheart Deal’ In Hunter Biden Case” [CNN Politics, 6/21/23]

  • Martin Sheil, Former Supervisory Special Agent For The IRS Criminal Investigation, Argued If Hunter Biden’s Name Was John Doe, No Criminal Tax Prosecution Would’ve Been Contemplated. “‘If Hunter Biden’s name was John or Jane Doe, no criminal tax prosecution would have ever been contemplated and he would have almost certainly been slotted into a pre-trial diversion program, saving the government the time and expense of a trial,’ said Martin Sheil, a former supervisory special agent in the IRS Criminal Investigation.” [CNN Politics, 6/21/23]
  • Former Federal Prosecutor, Shan Wu, Argued If Hunter’s Last Name “Was Not Biden I Don’t Think He Would’ve Been Charged.” “‘If his last name was not Biden I don’t think he would have been charged,’ Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor and CNN contributor, told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on ‘CNN News Central.’ ‘Typically in tax cases where the person has paid back the taxes, appetite for going after them criminally is low.’” [CNN Politics, 6/21/23]
  • Former U.S. Attorney, Michael Moore, Argued Hunter Biden Was “Probably More Severely Looked At” And That Hunter Was “Treated Differently To His Detriment.” “There’s nothing to this and they’re just trying to make much ado about nothing. He was probably more severely looked at. And remember this was a Trump-appointed prosecutor who remained in place to finish this case,’ Michael Moore, a former US attorney, told Bolduan on ‘CNN News Central.’ ‘You know, he was treated differently,” Moore said. ‘But he was treated differently to his detriment.’” [CNN Politics, 6/21/23] 

EXPERTS SAID THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST HUNTER BIDEN LIKELY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURSUED AGAINST AN AVERAGE AMERICAN

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman: “A Prosecution Of A Defendant Who Committed Tax Crimes During A Period Of Drug Addiction, And Then Turned His Life Around And Paid The Taxes, Would Be Very Losable.” According to an op-ed by former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman: “The bottom line is that both sides had plenty to gain or lose from the Hunter Biden case, and that may well have helped produce a sensible bargain.  The proposed deal, which is subject to approval by a judge, would allow Biden to avoid going to jail and turn the page on an extremely dark chapter of his life. And it would enable Weiss and his department to obtain a conviction and avoid trying a case with dubious prospects before a jury. A prosecution of a defendant who committed tax crimes during a period of drug addiction, and then turned his life around and paid the taxes, would be very losable.” [Los Angeles Times, Harry Litman Op-Ed, 6/20/23]

Former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu: “For The Facts We Are Seeing Here, What He’s Pleading Guilty To, I Think Someone Other Than The Child Of A Sitting President Would Not Have Been Charged Based On The Facts That We’re Seeing Here.” FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SHAN WU: “It seems very reasonable actually and my reaction is kind of the opposite of what we’re hearing and going to be hearing about complaints that there is favoritism, or a sweetheart deal given to Hunter Biden. My reaction to it actually is that for the facts we are seeing here, what he’s pleading guilty to, I think someone other than the child of a sitting president would not have been charged based on the facts that we’re seeing here.” [ABC News, Live, 6/20/23] (video)

Sources Said It Was Common For Prosecutors To Strike Deals With Defendants Where The Defendant Pleads Guilty To A Small Subset Of Potential Charges

Sources Told CNN It Was Common For Prosecutors To Strike Deals With Defendants Where The Defendant Pleads Guilty To Small Subset Of Potential Charges They Could Have Faced. “Sources familiar with the criminal probe told CNN in April that prosecutors were still actively weighing a felony tax charge against Hunter Biden. And it is common for prosecutors to strike deals with defendants where they plead guilty to a small subset of the possible charges they could’ve faced.” [CNN, 6/22/23]

Vox Reported That Hunter Biden Admitted To Committing Federal Crimes And Will Plead Guilty And In Exchange More Serious Charges Will Not Be Brought Against Him, Which Is “How The System Often Works.” “Yet it should be noted that Hunter was not let off the hook — he admitted to committing federal crimes and will plead guilty. In exchange, some more serious charges will not be brought and prosecutors will recommend a lighter sentence than they otherwise might have. That is how the system often works. Furthermore, the investigation into him isn’t yet over.” [Vox, 5/12/23]

  • Vox: “If [Trump] Had Simply Returned The Documents When Repeatedly Asked By Government Officials, He Would Likely Have Been Spared Charges. But He Did Not Do So.” “Trump, on the other hand, has shown no sign that he ever seriously considered admitting any criminal behavior or agreeing to any plea deal in the documents case. If he had simply returned the documents when repeatedly asked by government officials, he would likely have been spared charges. But he did not do so.” [Vox, 5/12/23]

 Experts Said It Was Not Unusual For Prosecutors And Investigators To Disagree Over What Charges To File Against A Defendant

 Former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu: “Those Sorts Of Disagreements Are Pretty Common Between Agents And Prosecutors. Sometimes One Side Wants To Be More Aggressive, Sometimes The Other.  So The Fact That There’s Disagreement Not Unusual.” FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SHAN WU: “I think the ultimate question is whether Weiss felt that he had the authority. He’s a Trump appointee, a holdover. Garland obviously made that calculation to look really hands off to let him stay on and do it. It wasn’t a particularly speedy investigation either. It took quite a while. And those sorts of disagreements are pretty common between agents and prosecutors. Sometimes one side wants to be more aggressive, sometimes the other.  So the fact that there’s disagreement not unusual, it’s also a bit unrealistic for them to say the Justice Department hasn’t been totally transparent about the whole investigation. That doesn’t happen in criminal investigations. You basically just get the evidence, you get the result. And I think the, you know, key is whether Weiss felt any pressure and at least what he’s saying is absolutely not.” [CNN, News Central; 6/23/23] (video)

CNN Reported That It Was Not Uncommon For There To Be Internal Disagreements Among Investigators Over Which Charges To File Against Someone. “It isn’t uncommon for there to be internal disagreements among investigators over which charges to file against the target of an investigation, much like the disagreements that the IRS whistleblowers described. CNN reported last year that some FBI and IRS investigators were at odds with other Justice Department officials over the strength of the case, and that there were discussions over which types of charges were appropriate and whether further investigation was needed.” [CNN, 6/22/23]

New York Times: “Investigators Like Mr. Shapley Whose Job It Is To Uncover Evidence Often Have Different Perspectives From Prosecutors Who Have To Take Into Account How To Treat Defendants Fairly And Present Cases To Juries.” “But it remains unclear how much of the difference in the accounts reflects possible factors like miscommunication, clashing substantive judgments among agencies over how best to pursue a prosecution, or personal enmity among officials working on a high-pressure, high-profile case. Investigators like Mr. Shapley whose job it is to uncover evidence often have different perspectives from prosecutors who have to take into account how to treat defendants fairly and present cases to juries.” [New York Times, 6/27/23]

Vox: “Agents And Prosecutors Often Come To Different Views On This — With Agents Typically Believing Their Case Is Strong, And Prosecutors Feeling More Cautious.” “Prosecutors have a different institutional role than agents, though. Per DOJ, they’re tasked with assessing whether ‘the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.’ Agents and prosecutors often come to different views on this — with agents typically believing their case is strong, and prosecutors feeling more cautious. The Journal also reported that prosecutors were ‘struggling’ with whether ‘certain facts,’ such as Hunter’s ‘drug addiction,’ could make convicting him difficult (since his attorneys could argue he was not of sound mind).” [Vox, 5/12/23]

Prosecutors And Investigators Told The Independent It Was Not Unheard Of For Conflicts To Arise Between Special Agents And U.S. Attorneys, Especially When Investigators Felt There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support Charges, But Prosecutors Were Skeptical It Would Meet Legal Requirements To Obtain Convictions That Can Be Sustained On Appeal. “Because federal criminal investigators have no formal role in prosecutors’ decisions to seek charges or decline to prosecute in a particular case, it’s not unheard of for conflicts to arise between special agents and US attorneys, especially when the agents feel prosecutors are reluctant to bring evidence they’ve gathered to a grand jury for indictments. Yet even when investigators feel there is sufficient evidence to support charges, prosecutors often balk at presenting that evidence for indictments because they better understand the legal requirements to obtain convictions that can be sustained on appeal.” [The Independent, 5/26/23]

New York Times Reported It Was “Unclear” How Much The Difference In Accounts About The Hunter Biden Case “Reflects Possible Factors Like Miscommunication, Clashing Substantive Judgments Among Agencies Over How Best To Pursue A Prosecution, Or Personal Enmity Among Officials Working On A High-Pressure, High-Profile Case.” “But it remains unclear how much of the difference in the accounts reflects possible factors like miscommunication, clashing substantive judgments among agencies over how best to pursue a prosecution, or personal enmity among officials working on a high-pressure, high-profile case. Investigators like Mr. Shapley whose job it is to uncover evidence often have different perspectives from prosecutors who have to take into account how to treat defendants fairly and present cases to juries.” [New York Times, 6/27/23]

President Biden Has Acted With Integrity When It Comes To The U.S. Justice Department

PRESIDENT BIDEN KEPT THE TWO U.S. ATTORNEYS WHO WERE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS THAT COULD HARM HIM POLITICALLY

The Two U.S. Attorneys The Biden Administration Did Not Ask To Resign Were The U.S. Attorney In Delaware, Who Was Investigating Hunter Biden, And Special Counsel John Durham, Who Was Investigating The Origins Of The Trump-Russia Probe. “The Biden administration will begin removing all Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys appointed during the Trump administration, with two exceptions, a senior Justice Department official said.  The process, which is not uncommon, could start as early as Tuesday. They will be asked to resign.  John Durham will remain in place to investigate the origins of the Russia probe, but not as U.S. attorney for the district of Connecticut, the official said. He was appointed as a special counsel and given extra protections for the inquiry by Attorney General William Barr last fall. David Weiss, U.S. attorney for Delaware, will also remain in place. Hunter Biden, the president’s son, said in December that federal officials in Delaware were investigating his taxes.” [NBC News, 2/8/21]

Appointed By President Trump, David Weiss, A Republican Who Has Been Described As A “Straight Shooter,” Was Confirmed By Voice Vote In 2018

CBS News Reported David Weiss, A 66-Year-Old Republican, Was Described As A “Straight Shooter” And Neither A “Trumper” Nor Is He Close To Biden. “The 66-year-old Weiss, a Republican, will have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to seek a federal grand jury indictment against the son of a sitting president, Democrat Joseph Biden. ‘David is a straight shooter,’ said a former close associate of Weiss who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity. The former associate described Weiss as a moderate Republican who is apolitical in his work. “He is not a Trumper nor is he close to Biden.” [CBS News, 4/14/22]

February 2018: David Weiss Was Confirmed By The U.S. Senate To Be A U.S. Attorney By Voice Vote. According to the actions taken on PN1313 during the 115th Congress on David Weiss being confirmed as a U.S. Attorney “02/15/18 Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.” [PN1313 — David C. Weiss — Department of Justice, 115th Congress, 2/15/18]

Former President Donald Trump Weaponized The Justice Department For His Own Political Ends

HEADLINE: “Trump Says The Justice System Has Been Weaponized. He Would Know.” [New York Times, 3/29/23]

HEADLINE: “All The Ways Trump, Not His Foes, Sought To ‘Weaponize’ The Government” [Washington Post, 7/10/23]

PRESIDENT TRUMP ABRUPTLY FIRED THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WHO HAD PROSECUTED SOME OF HIS ALLIES

HEADLINE: “President Trump Fires Top U.S. Prosecutor Who Investigated His Allies, Barr Says” [NPR, 6/20/20]

June 2020: President Trump Fired Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney For The Southern District Of New York, Whose Office Had Overseen The Prosecutions Of Several Trump Associates. “President Trump has removed Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, from office, ending the tenure of a top Justice Department official whose office has overseen the prosecutions of several of the president’s associates.  Attorney General William Barr announced the termination Saturday, less than a day after initially suggesting that Berman was resigning — only to be contradicted by Berman himself.  ‘Unfortunately, with your statement of last night, you have chosen public spectacle over public service,’ Barr said in a letter to Berman Saturday. ‘Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so.’  By Saturday evening, Berman confirmed that he would indeed step down, effective immediately, and allow for Deputy U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss to become acting U.S. attorney.” [NPR, 6/20/20]

  • Under U.S. Attorney Berman, Michael Cohen Pleaded Guilty To Financial Crimes, Lying To Congress, And Campaign Finance Crimes. “Under Berman’s watch, Cohen ultimately pleaded guilty to financial crimes, lying to Congress and campaign finance crimes. Under oath, Cohen implicated Trump in payments made to two women ahead of the 2016 elections to keep them quiet about affairs they said they had with Trump.” [NPR, 6/20/20]
  • S. Attorney Berman Issued A Grand Jury Indictment Against Lev Parnas And Igor Fruman, Giuliani Associates, Who Pleaded Not Guilty To Setting Up A Shell Company To Hide The Foreign Sources Of A $325,000 Donation To A Super PAC Supporting Trump. “Berman also issued a grand jury indictment against Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani associates. The two have pleaded not guilty to setting up a shell company to hide the foreign sourcing of a $325,000 donation to a superPAC committed to Trump’s reelection. The two also allegedly helped Giuliani in efforts to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.  And Berman’s office has investigated the business dealings of Giuliani himself, but no charges have been brought against him.” [NPR, 6/20/20]
  • S. Attorney Berman Had Been Investigating Rudy Guiliani’s Business Dealings. “Berman also issued a grand jury indictment against Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani associates. The two have pleaded not guilty to setting up a shell company to hide the foreign sourcing of a $325,000 donation to a superPAC committed to Trump’s reelection. The two also allegedly helped Giuliani in efforts to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine. And Berman’s office has investigated the business dealings of Giuliani himself, but no charges have been brought against him.” [NPR, 6/20/20]

The Trump Administration’s Firing Of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman Was Chaotic

HEADLINE: “U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman Agrees To Step Down After Trump Fires Him, House Democrats Launch Probe” [NBC News, 6/20/20]

The Attorney General Had First Issued A Statement Saying U.S. Attorney Berman Was Stepping Down And President Trump Would Immediately Nominate SEC Chair Jay Clayton. “The standoff began late Friday night, when the attorney general released a statement saying that Berman was ‘stepping down.’ In the announcement, he said that the president would be nominating Jay Clayton, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to succeed Berman.” [NPR, 6/20/20]

Shortly After, U.S. Attorney Berman Said He Learned From A Press Release That He Was Stepping Down He Said He Had Not Resigned And Had No Intention To Resign. “Just a short time later, Berman fired off his own announcement, denying Barr’s statement.  ‘I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney,’ said Berman, who spearheaded the prosecution of Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen and brought the grand jury indictment against associates of the president’s current personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.  ‘I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,’ he said. ‘I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption.’” [NPR, 6/20/20]

A NEW YORK TIMES INVESTIGATION SHOWED THE DURHAM PROBE ACTUALLY SHOWCASED THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

HEADLINE: “How The Durham Inquiry Backfired To Show Weaponization Of Trump DOJ” [The Guardian, 2/10/23]

New York Times Reported Special Counsel John Durham’s Investigation Became “Roiled By Internal Dissent And Ethical Disputes As It Went Unsuccessfully Down One Path After Another Even As Mr. Trump And Mr. Barr Promoted A Misleading Narrative Of Its Progress.” “Interviews by The Times with more than a dozen current and former officials have revealed an array of previously unreported episodes that show how the Durham inquiry became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes as it went unsuccessfully down one path after another even as Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr promoted a misleading narrative of its progress.” [New York Times, 1/26/23]

  • Special Counsel Durham And Attorney General Barr Never Disclosed That The Inquiry Expanded To Include An Investigation Into Suspicious Financial Dealings By Trump – The Specifics Remain Unclear. “Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it.” [New York Times, 1/26/23]
  • Special Counsel Durham Used Russian Intelligence Memos Suspected Of Containing Disinformation To Gain Access To Emails Of An Aide To George Soros Even Though A Judge Repeatedly Rejected His Requests For Access And The Emails Yielded No Evidence That Durham Cited. “Mr. Durham used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide to George Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media. Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued.” [New York Times, 1/26/23]
  • Two Of Special Counsel Durham’s Team, Including His Longtime Aide, Quit In Protest Of His Tactics And Decisions. “There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known. The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)” [New York Times, 1/26/23]
  • Attorney General Barr Visited Special Counsel John Durham Often Even Though “Attorneys General Overseeing Political Sensitive Inquiries Tend To Keep Their Distance From Investigators.” “While attorneys general overseeing politically sensitive inquiries tend to keep their distance from the investigators, Mr. Durham visited Mr. Barr in his office for at times weekly updates and consultations about his day-to-day work. They also sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together, people familiar with their work said.” [New York Times, 1/26/23]

Former George H.W. Bush Attorney General: “It Was Clear To People Following The Durham Investigation As It Unfolded That It Was Highly Irregular From The Start… Indeed There’s Good Reason To Believe That Its Purpose And Primary Function Was To Create Fodder To Advance Trump’s Election Prospects.” “Ex-DoJ officials say the Durham inquiry seemed aimed from the start at boosting Trump’s political fortunes. ‘It was clear to people following the Durham investigation as it unfolded that it was highly irregular from the start,’ said former deputy AG Donald Ayer who served in the George HW Bush administration ‘Indeed there’s good reason to believe that its purpose and primary function was to create fodder to advance Trump’s election prospects.’” [The Guardian, 2/10/23]