The federal prosecutor who settled with Hunter Biden said Monday he was told he could file charges anywhere in the country, contradicting claims by an IRS whistleblower that Democratic-appointed US prosecutors prevented him from doing so.
Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss wrote in a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that he never asked to be appointed special counsel, as Republican lawmakers and the whistleblower claimed, but said he did seek the status of ” special counsel,” which would have given him authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction without the permission of the US attorney in that district. And he said they told him he would get it.
“I have been assured that this authority would be given to me if necessary,” he said in his letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., adding that this assurance “came months before October 7, 2022. meetingDuring which, according to the IRS whistleblower, Weiss said Democratic appointees in central California and Washington, DC had prevented him from filing charges in those locations.
Weiss said he has “never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction” and was writing the letter “to clear up an apparent misperception and avoid future confusion.”
Weiss’s new statement adds context to a claim by whistleblower Gary Shapley, a former IRS criminal investigator, who told Republicans that Weiss spoke to the US attorney’s offices in the District of Columbia and California to file charges, and that those offices did not support it. Weiss and the Justice Department have not denied that those discussions took place, but now Weiss is essentially saying that if he believed those charges were justified, he could have filed them. Ultimately, a plea deal was reached on the charges only in Delaware.
Weiss was nominated to become a federal prosecutor in Delaware by President Donald Trump and took office in 2018. The Hunter Biden investigation began later that year. The Biden administration has kept Weiss in office to prevent a presidentially appointed US prosecutor from overseeing his son’s criminal case.
In June, Weiss announced a plea deal under which Hunter Biden will admit to two federal misdemeanor charges for failing to pay his taxes and one count of gun possession for another felony. Biden has agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanors, which likely will not result in any jail time. A third charge, involving lying about a gun permit application, is likely to be dismissed if he meets certain conditions.
On June 30, Weiss sent a letter to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, denying that he had retaliated against Shapley for Shapley’s claim that Weiss had been barred from filing charges. outside of their home district.
Shapley told the House Ways and Means Committee in May that Weiss had sought the authority to impeach Hunter Biden in two federal districts with charges broader than the tax-related misdemeanors he was ultimately charged with. He also claimed that Attorney General Merrick Garland was not telling the truth to Congress when he said in earlier testimony that Weiss had authority to bring charges outside of Delaware.
The Justice Department denied Shapley’s claims.
“As both the Attorney General and US Attorney David Weiss have said, US Attorney Weiss has full authority on this matter, including the responsibility to decide where, when and whether to bring charges as he sees fit. He doesn’t need further approval to do it,” said Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs.
Weiss’ letter on Monday does not address Shapley’s claim that Weiss indicated at the October meeting that he was not the only decision-maker. The tax division of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, has a hand in the tax charges. That division is currently headed by a career Justice Department attorney.
In a statement, a lawyer for Shapley’s attorney said: “The story of United States Attorney David Weiss continues to change. In practice, it doesn’t matter whether Weiss requested special counsel or special counsel authority. Under no circumstances should ‘the process’ have included the political appointees of the subject’s father, because Congress and the public had assured him that he would not, but he did.”
