U.S. Attorney Weiss and DOJ Collaborated to Block Congressional Inquiry, Emails Reveal.

Emails Reveal DOJ’s Intervention in ⁣Hunter Biden ⁣Investigation

Emails obtained by ​the Heritage Foundation‌ following a‍ Freedom⁤ of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit and shared exclusively⁣ with The Federalist establish that on multiple occasions, ​the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of ⁣Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to ​respond to congressional inquiries related to the Hunter Biden investigation.

This revelation raises ​more questions ⁢about the June 7,‌ 2023,⁤ letter ‌ dispatched to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan under Weiss’s signature line, in which‌ the Delaware​ U.S. attorney claimed he had⁢ “ultimate authority” ​over charging decisions related to ‍Hunter⁢ Biden. It also suggests Weiss and the DOJ ⁣may have conspired to ‌mislead Congress.

Did the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs respond‌ to Sens. Chuck⁢ Grassley and Ron Johnson’s May 9, 2022, letter seeking information concerning ⁢the Hunter​ Biden investigation? Weiss posed that ⁣question to one of his lead assistant U.S.​ attorneys, Shannon ‌Hanson.

“Not ‍to my knowledge,” Hanson ⁤replied,⁤ followed soon after with⁤ a second email noting that Joe Gaeta, the then-deputy assistant attorney general in‌ the Office of Legislative‍ Affairs, was working on a response. And ⁢although ‌Grassley and Johnson had ‍addressed their May 9, 2022, inquiry ⁣solely‍ to Weiss, DOJ’s Office‌ of Legislative Affairs would intercede on ‍his behalf, responding in a letter dated June 9, 2022, that⁣ the ‍DOJ would ‌not respond to the questions posed.

The following month, Grassley ‌and Johnson dispatched ⁤ another‌ letter ⁢requesting information related to the ⁣Hunter Biden investigation, addressing this letter to Weiss, as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Again, the Office of ​Legal Counsel intervened, telling‌ Weiss’s ‌office in an⁣ email reviewed by​ The Federalist that ‍it ⁣would “take⁢ the lead ⁤on drafting a response” ‌to Grassley and Johnson’s​ letter.

These never-before-seen⁢ emails establish ​the Department of Justice and U.S. attorney⁢ collaborated in responding to congressional inquiries and were among the ‍first⁢ batch of ⁤documents​ provided to the Heritage Foundation following a court ⁢order ⁤last ​week in ⁢Heritage’s FOIA case⁤ against ⁤the DOJ. That court order required the DOJ to ⁢produce, by Aug. 25,⁤ 2023, all records collected from Weiss and‌ Assistant⁤ U.S. Attorney Lesley‍ Wolf ‍that were responsive to⁣ the⁣ Heritage FOIA lawsuit.

Mike‌ Howell, director of the ‍Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, ​initiated the FOIA request and ⁣then filed suit ​against the DOJ after the Biden⁢ administration ​attempted to slow-walk the production. Howell told The Federalist the emails‍ show that while Garland was claiming Weiss had the independence to bring whatever charges he​ wanted, Garland was “simultaneously running communications from Weiss to ‌Grassley through the political controls of Main Justice.” “It is a slap in the face,”‍ Howell said.

Significantly, ⁤the emails also call⁢ into question the veracity ‍of a series of exchanges ⁢between Weiss and ‍Jordan, beginning with Weiss’s June 7‌ response to the ⁣May 25, 2023, ‌letter Jordan sent to​ Garland. In ​that May 25 letter, Jordan questioned⁤ Garland ⁤on the removal of ‍the ⁤IRS whistleblowers from⁣ the Hunter Biden ‌investigation.

Even though the House committee addressed that letter solely to⁤ Attorney General Garland, Weiss responded to the inquiry on ‌June 7 in a letter, which opened:⁣ “Your ⁢May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was ‌forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department.” Weiss then claimed that, as Garland had stated, the Delaware U.S. attorney had “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…”

Two more letters ⁤would soon follow, the‍ first being to Weiss from Jordan on June 22. In‍ that ‌letter, Jordan reiterated the⁢ Judiciary Committee’s need for substantive responses, before asking Weiss for more details “in light of the unusual ⁢nature of your response on behalf of Attorney General Garland…” Specifically, ‍Jordan asked for information concerning the names of individuals ⁢who ​drafted ‌or‌ assisted in drafting the June 7, 2023,‍ letter, as well as ⁢details concerning the drafting and dispatching of the letter.

Weiss‍ responded in ‍a June⁤ 30 letter that​ he was not at liberty to provide substantive responses to the questions concerning an ongoing investigation. ⁢The Delaware U.S. attorney ⁢then sidestepped questions about ‍the⁣ DOJ’s role​ in‍ drafting ⁢the June 7 letter, stating only ⁢that he “would like to reaffirm the contents​ of the June 7⁤ letter drafted‌ by‍ my office” —⁤ a statement representing that the⁤ Delaware office ​had⁢ composed the letter.

Weiss then proceeded to “expand” on what he‌ meant when he said ⁣in‍ his June 7 letter that he had ultimate charging authority, writing:

As the 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 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. If not, I may request Special Attorney 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.

Of course, having ultimate ‌authority and being assured⁢ that you would be given ultimate authority if need⁢ be, are two different things. But the scandal goes ⁢beyond Weiss not having⁤ the authority to charge Hunter Biden, ⁤to what clearly seems to be an attempt by the DOJ and Weiss to mislead Congress.

It’s⁣ important to remember that when ⁤Weiss sent the​ June ‌7‌ letter to Jordan,⁢ the whistleblowers’ transcripts had⁤ not yet been released.⁢ Thus neither Weiss ​nor‌ the DOJ knew⁢ the specifics of the whistleblowers’ testimony, leading them to represent to Congress that​ Weiss ‍had​ ultimate decision-making authority — something Weiss would later have to massage.

Weiss’s questionable ‌statements didn’t end there, however. In‌ the June 30 letter, ⁣Weiss represented to Congress that he had drafted the June 7 letter.

But why would ⁤Weiss⁤ draft the June ‌7 letter? That letter was ‌not even addressed ​to Weiss.‌ And the ⁣emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation establish that even when congressional oversight letters were addressed directly to the Delaware ⁣U.S. attorney, Weiss did not answer them. Instead, the DOJ’s Office ⁣of Legislative Affairs intervened and spoke on his⁢ behalf.

There is a second reason to suspect Weiss did not​ draft the June 7 letter: the footnote reference in the‌ correspondence to the Linder ⁣ letter.

Jason Foster, a former congressional staffer and the founder and chair of Empower Oversight, which‍ represents the IRS whistleblowers, told The Federalist that when he “worked⁢ on Capitol Hill (particularly⁤ on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ‌which did regular oversight of⁣ the⁢ Justice Department), the Department’s ⁢Office of Legislative Affairs​ frequently referenced‌ the otherwise-obscure Linder letter in response to ⁢congressional oversight.”

“It’s hard to imagine the ⁣letter was widely ​known outside of Justice Department headquarters,” Foster continued, “especially in‌ U.S. ⁣attorneys’ offices, which almost never respond directly to congressional correspondence.”

Conversely, it is ‌easy to imagine Main Justice drafting​ the June 7 letter on behalf of Weiss to provide Garland cover and ⁣to‌ seemingly corroborate​ the attorney ‌general’s⁢ Senate testimony that he had given Weiss ⁢full authority to⁤ make charging decisions in⁣ the Hunter Biden investigation.

That ⁢cover may soon be blown ‌away, however, thanks to the Heritage‌ Foundation.

“The only ‌reason these ⁤documents are ​starting to trickle out is because​ we sued for transparency,” Howell told The ⁣Federalist. “We’ve faced taxpayer funded ⁢resistance ⁣at every step of the way and haven’t given up,” he added,‍ noting that “the DOJ is under a judicial order⁢ to continue this production.”

The ​next round of responsive documents is due by Oct. 31, and since ⁤none of the documents produced to date include references to⁣ Jordan’s May ‌25,‌ 2023, letter,⁣ it ⁢seems⁣ likely we’ll⁣ see those emails in the next batch — unless House Republicans seek ‌access to‍ them first through a subpoena.