Garland Defends Hunter Biden Investigation Against G.O.P. Bias Claims
Garland Defends Hunter Biden Investigation Against G.O.P. Bias Claims
A prosecutor was prevented from filing additional charges, according to the attorney general, who refuted claims that he meddled in the investigation.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland vigorously refuted charges made by House Republicans that he prevented federal prosecutors in Delaware from broadening the probe into a wider variety of crimes when he defended the Justice Department’s five-year investigation into Hunter Biden on Friday.
Two I.R.S. employees testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that David C. Weiss, the Delaware U.S. attorney who has been in charge of the investigation, had informed them that Justice Department officials had prevented him from filing charges against Mr. Biden, President Biden’s son, in California and Washington, D.C.
The I.R.S. officials further asserted in their testimony that Mr. Weiss had informed them that his request to be named a special counsel had been denied. This would have allowed him to submit a thorough report of his findings that might eventually be made public once the investigation is over.
At a press conference held at the Justice Department’s headquarters, the attorney general refuted the claims made by I.R.S. officials, claiming that he had given Mr. Weiss “complete authority” to “continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way he wanted to and in any district he wanted to.”
Given the power he already enjoyed as a U.S. attorney, he laughed at the notion that Mr. Weiss, a seasoned prosecutor, would have desired to be named a special counsel.
Mr. Garland asserted that “Mr. Weiss never made that request,” adding that “the only person who has the authority to make someone a special counsel, or to refuse to make them a special counsel, is the attorney general.”
President Donald J. Trump appointed Mr. Weiss as the U.S. attorney for Delaware, and he later took charge of the Hunter Biden investigations during the Trump administration. Mr. Garland kept him on so that he could finish the investigation. Both Mr. Garland and Mr. Weiss have stated in the open that Mr. Weiss had complete control over the matter.
For a long time, Mr. Garland has worked to separate himself from the inquiry of the son of his employer and repair the Justice Department’s image as apolitical. Republicans have argued that Mr. Garland has militarised the department by unfairly investigating Mr. Trump while essentially clearing Hunter Biden. They want to paint the department as political.
On Tuesday, Mr. Weiss revealed a deal in which Mr. Biden would admit guilt to two minor tax offences in exchange for a pretrial diversion programme and a dismissal of a separate weapons charge. The inquiry would likely come to a close without Mr. Biden doing any jail time under the terms of the arrangement, assuming the federal judge who will hear the case next month approves it.
Mr. Weiss was silent. But on Tuesday, when he announced the settlement in the Hunter Biden case, he unexpectedly stated that the probe was “ongoing.”
Although it is unclear what he meant, the proclamation is likely to have the effect of prohibiting Mr. Weiss from discussing the investigation in public until it has been formally concluded. When the dispute was resolved, Mr. Garland declared that he would not prevent Mr. Weiss from testifying before Congress.
The testimony of the I.R.S. personnel was misrepresented by House Republicans as proof that Hunter Biden had a special deal from the Justice Department and that the agency had been influenced by politics.
Rep. Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement on Thursday that “if the federal government is not treating all taxpayers equally, or if it is changing the rules to engineer a preferred outcome, Congress has a duty to ask why, to hold agencies accountable, and to consider appropriate legislative action.”
On Friday, Mr. Garland defended the department’s conduct.
He told reporters that “some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department by alleging that we do not treat cases equally.” “This is an assault on a foundational institution of American democracy.”
However, Mr. Garland’s detractors, including Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, charged him with hypocrisy and advocating a two-tiered justice system.
“This air of righteous indignation from Merrick Garland is rich,” Mr. Cruz tweeted. “His response here is stunning in light of such serious allegations regarding the Hunter Biden investigation.”
According to House Republicans, the lead IRS agent looking into whether Hunter Biden committed tax crimes testified before Congress that his team had found evidence that Mr. Biden had used his father’s name—who was then out of office—in order to pressure a potential Chinese business partner to proceed with a proposed energy deal in 2017.
A synopsis of a WhatsApp message sent by Mr. Biden to his business partner Henry Zhao indicates that he said, “We would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.” Mr. Biden also said that he was seated next to his father.
According to the evidence, Mr. Biden wrote, “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,” in reference to other parties to the potential transaction. And Z, I promise you that you will regret not following my direction if I receive a call or text from anyone engaged in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman thanks to the man sitting next to me and everyone he knows.
It is unclear if Mr. Biden’s father, who was then six months out of office after serving as vice president for two terms, was actually present for the call or involved in any meaningful way in the business affairs of his son, who at the time was addicted to crack cocaine and experiencing financial difficulties.
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House, stated in an email on Friday that “the president was not in business with his son.” The commercial partnership that was mentioned in the WhatsApp conversation brought Hunter Biden millions of dollars, but the arrangement later broke down.
Hunter Biden’s attorney Christopher Clark issued the following statement on Friday on his client’s interactions with the Justice Department: “The D.O.J. investigation covered a period which was a time of struggle and addiction for my client. In the midst of a terrible addiction, my client may say or do things that can be verified, but they are entirely his own and unrelated to anyone in his family.
Mr. Clark claimed that the claims made by the Ways and Means Committee originated from a “very biassed” witness without providing any particular evidence.
Making any deductions or conclusions based on this text is dangerously deceptive, according to Mr. Clark.
