By the Time Kevin McCarthy Rolled Out an Impeachment Inquiry, the FBI Had Already Debunked a Key Premise

/57 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday morning, in a desperate bid to keep his gavel, Speaker McCarthy directed three committees, including the House Judiciary Committee, to begin an impeachment query.

As Philip Bump laid out, only one of McCarthy’s justifications for impeachment — that Biden knew more about his son’s business than he stated publicly (but not under oath) — has been substantiated; several of the rest have no basis in fact.

More importantly, just one relates to Biden’s current term as President: the allegation that his Administration has interfered in the investigation into his son. When Bump wrote his column, he noted that David Weiss — the Trump appointed US Attorney whom Biden retained precisely to give independence to the investigation — had disputed the claim.

“Finally, despite these serious allegations,” McCarthy continued, “it appears that the president’s family has been offered special treatment by Biden’s own administration, treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the president.”

This allegation does have one advantage over the preceding four: It’s actually related to Biden’s time in office as president.

The suggestion here is that the handling of Hunter Biden’s tax and gun case was unfairly lenient, thanks to pressure from the Justice Department. This was alleged by whistleblowers from the IRS who offered testimony in front of Congress. The U.S. attorney leading the Hunter Biden investigation, David Weiss, disputed the allegations.

Only, according to a report from the WaPo, by the time McCarthy made this allegation, it had been even further debunked.

Last Thursday, FBI’s Baltimore Special Agent in Charge Thomas Sobocinski appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. He testified that his memory of a key October 7 meeting conflicts with claims that purported whistleblower Gary Shapley made about the meeting.

Shapley said Weiss told FBI and IRS agents during that meeting that Weiss was not the “deciding official on whether charges are filed.” But Sobocinski, who was also there, said he did not hear Weiss say that and “never felt that [Weiss] needed approval” to bring charges.

Sobocinski, who is the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, noted there was “bureaucratic administrative process” Weiss had to work through to bring charges outside Delaware but that his understanding was “that [Weiss] had the authority to bring whatever he needed to do.”

“I never thought that anybody was there above David Weiss to say no,” he said.

Pressed again on the issue later in the interview, he said, “I went into that meeting believing he had the authority, and I have left that meeting believing he had the authority to bring charges.”

Gary Shapley’s claims of politicization have been debunked twice now. The key claim of favoritism at the core of impeachment keeps crumbling.

Jim Jordan, at least, knew all this before McCarthy’s impeachment decision.

And yet McCarthy went forward anyway, with even less basis for the inquiry.

As Kevin McCarthy Embraces James Comer’s Wet Dreams of Dick Pics, George Santos Discusses “Paths Forward”

/51 Comments/in , /by

I don’t, yet, have the stomach to write up the shittiness of the Hill reporting on Kevin McCarthy’s embrace of James Comer’s wet dreams of dick pics and SARs.

Suffice it to say access merchants like Jake Sherman are transcribing Big Kev’s preordained decision to back impeachment without mentioning that he is supporting an inquiry because he has no evidence of wrongdoing on Biden’s part, a constitutional abomination.

This WaPo story is the rare story on the development that makes the corruption behind McCarthy’s decision — and his own weakness in adopting it — the story, as it should be.

To appease those lawmakers, Republican leaders are weighing whether to use a potential impeachment inquiry vote as a bargaining chip in the funding negotiations. But even if the inquiry is included in the talks, it’s not certain that Republicans have the necessary 218 votes to pass it. Some lawmakers are staunchly against it, and McCarthy has said that an impeachment inquiry would occur through a vote on the House floor, as opposed to his unilateral decision-making.

“I think it’s abusing the process,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) said, lamenting how political impeachments have become. “We’ve been good about letting [the] Judiciary and Oversight [committees] run their course, and I’ve not seen a compilation of facts or evidence that had been put together that would convince me or anybody else at the moment that the next step is an impeachment inquiry.”

House Republicans have been investigating whether Biden benefited from his son Hunter’s business dealings, but they have yet to discover evidence directly connecting the two. While they have uncovered allegations that the Justice Department stymied the investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial misdeeds, along with testimony about his penchant for touting the family brandto reel in business deals, investigators on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees have not unearthed any evidence of wrongdoing by the president.

The fact that McCarthy is capitulating to the most radical members of his own party out of desperation makes developments in Brooklyn more significant.

On August 15, EDNY indicted George Santos’ fundraiser, Samuel Miele, for impersonating McCarthy’s former Chief of Staff, Dan Meyer, in conversations with fundraisers.

That case was reassigned, as a case related to Santos‘ own fraud prosecution, to Judge Joanna Seybert. Within a week of the charges, the Miele case shifted to discussions of “possible dispositions,” code for a plea agreement, as suggested in a letter asking for a continuance of even an initial hearing to September 5.

Since that date, the parties have engaged in meaningful discussions about possible dispositions of this matter without the need for a trial. The parties are jointly requesting that the Court exclude the time from today’s date through September 5, 2023, to allow the parties to focus on those discussions instead of trial preparation.

Last week, after EDNY had provided some discovery to Miele, both sides joined in asking for another longer continuance to discuss what was explicitly described as a plea.

The parties now write to advise the Court that the government has made two substantial discovery productions in accordance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that negotiations concerning a potential resolution of this case without the need for a trial are active and ongoing. Under these circumstances, the parties respectfully submit that excluding additional Speedy Trial time to accommodate the defendant’s ongoing discovery review and facilitate plea discussions will serve the ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The day after the continuance in Miele’s case, prosecutors in Santos’ case asked for a continuance of a status hearing that had been scheduled for Thursday, in part, to “discuss possible paths forward in this matter.”

Further, the parties have continued to discuss possible paths forward in this matter. The parties wish to have additional time to continue those discussions.

By all appearances, Santos is further from a plea than Miele is, probably for good reason. Miele has testimony against Santos to offer as leverage; Santos has his seat in the House (though depending on the precise nature of his relationship with Andrew Intrater and Viktor Vekselberg, Santos might be able to trade testimony as well).

But this is a public integrity case, and as such, a resignation is one of the things that prosecutors are permitted to use in negotiating a plea deal.

And EDNY is discussing very short timelines, with Miele’s next hearing currently scheduled for October 6, and Santos’ next status hearing scheduled for October 27.

Which is to say that Big Kev may lose the deciding vote that made him Speaker even before discussions of impeachment and shutdowns are resolved.

David Weiss May Have More Bluster than Tactical Leverage

/102 Comments/in , , /by

There’s something missing from coverage of the claim, made in the second-to-last sentence of a Speedy Trial filing submitted Wednesday, that David Weiss will indict Hunter Biden before September 29, when — according to calculations laid out by prosecutor Leo Wise in the filing — the Speedy Trial Act mandates an indictment.

None of the coverage has considered why David Weiss hasn’t already charged the President’s son.

The filing was submitted in response to an August 31 order from Judge Maryellen Noreika; its very last sentence politely asked her to butt out: “[T]he Government does not believe any action by the Court is necessary at this time.” Given the unusual nature of this legal proceeding, there may at least be question about Wise’s Speedy Trial calculations. One way or another, though, the Speedy Trial clock and the statute of limitations (which Wise said in July would expire on October 12) are ticking.

It would take probably half an hour to present the evidence for the weapons charge — which would consist of the form Hunter signed to purchase a gun, passages from Hunter’s book, a presumed grand jury transcript from Hallie Biden, and testimony from an FBI agent — to a grand jury. It would take maybe another ten minutes if Weiss wanted to add a false statements charge on top of the weapons charge. There certainly would be no need for a special grand jury.

Any tax charges would be more complicated, sure, but they would be in one or another district (probably Los Angeles), ostensibly severed from the weapons charge to which the misdemeanors planned as part of an aborted plea deal were linked.

So why wait? Why not simply indict and avoid any possible challenge to Speedy Trial calculations?

The answer may lie in something included in a long NYT story citing liberally from an anonymous senior law enforcement official who knew at least one thing that only David Weiss could know. That story explains that Weiss sought Special Counsel status, in part, to get, “added leverage in a revamped deal with Mr. Biden.”

If Weiss indeed sought Special Counsel status to get leverage for a deal, then at least last month when he asked for it, he wasn’t really planning on indicting Hunter Biden. He was hoping to get more tactical leverage to convince Hunter Biden to enter into a plea agreement that would better satisfy GOP bloodlust than the plea that failed in July.

Now he has used the opportunity presented by Noreika’s order to claim he really really is going to indict Hunter, a claim that set off predictably titillated reporting about the prospect of a Hunter Biden trial during the presidential election.

Again, if you’re going to charge Hunter Biden with a simple weapons charge, possibly a false statements charge, why not do it already, rather than threatening to do it publicly? Why not charge him in the week after Noreika entered that order, mooting all Speedy Trial concerns?

Abbe Lowell appears unimpressed with Weiss’ promised indictment. He repeated in both a separate filing and a statement to the press that Weiss can’t charge Hunter because he already entered into a diversion agreement pertaining to the charge.

We believe the signed and filed diversion agreement remains valid and prevents any additional charges from being filed against Mr. Biden, who has been abiding by the conditions of release under that agreement for the last several weeks, including regular visits by the probation office. We expect a fair resolution of the sprawling, five-year investigation into Mr. Biden that was based on the evidence and the law, not outside political pressure, and we’ll do what is necessary on behalf of Mr. Biden to achieve that.

I think few stories on this have accounted for the possibility that that statement — “we’ll do what is necessary … to achieve” a fair resolution of the case — is as pregnant a threat as DOJ’s promise to indict in the next several weeks. That’s because everything leading up to David Weiss obtaining Special Counsel status actually squandered much of any leverage that Weiss had, and that’s before you consider the swap of Chris Clark as Hunter’s lead attorney for the more confrontational Lowell, making Clark available as a witness against Weiss.

As Politico (but not NYT, working off what are presumably the same materials) laid out, Hunter’s legal team has long been arguing that this investigation was plagued by improper political influence.

But even before the plea deal was first docketed on June 20, the GOP House started interfering in ways that will not only help Abbe Lowell prove there was improper influence, but may well give him unusual ability to go seek for more proof of it.

It appears to have started between the time the deal was struck on June 8 and when it was docketed on June 20. AUSA Lesley Wolf, who had negotiated the deal, was replaced by Leo Wise and others. When Weiss claimed, with the announcement of the deal, that the investigation was ongoing and he was even pursuing dodgy leads obtained from a likely Russian influence operation, it became clear that the two sides’ understanding of the deal had begun to rupture. This is the basis of Lowell’s claim that Weiss reneged on the deal: that Weiss approved an agreement negotiated by Wolf but then brought in Wise to abrogate that deal.

Whatever the merit of Lowell’s claim that the diversion agreement remains in place — the plea deal was such a stinker that both sides have some basis to defend their side of that argument — by charging Hunter, Weiss will give Lowell an opportunity to litigate the claim that Weiss reneged on the diversion agreement, and will do so on what may be the easier of the two parts of the plea agreements to make a claim that Weiss reneged on a deal, with Judge Noreika already issuing orders to find out why this stinker is still on her docket. I’m not sure how Lowell would litigate it — possibly a double jeopardy challenge — but his promise to do what’s necessary likely guarantees that he will litigate it. He’ll presumably do the same if and when Weiss files tax charges in California. It’s not necessarily that these arguments about reneging on a deal will, themselves, work, but litigating the issue will provide opportunity to introduce plenty more problems with the case.

That’s part of what was missed in coverage of this development this week. Weiss promised to indict. Lowell responded, effectively, by challenging the newly-minted Special Counsel to bring it on, because it will give Lowell opportunity to substantiate his claim that Weiss reneged on a deal because of political influence.

And those IRS agents claiming to be whistleblowers have only offered gift after gift to Lowell to destroy their own case. In their own testimony they revealed:

  • From the start, a supervisor documented concerns about improper influence and Sixth Amendment problems with this investigation
  • Joseph Ziegler, the IRS agent who improbably claims to be a Democrat, treated such concerns as liberal bias, evincing political bias on his own part
  • DOJ didn’t do the most basic due diligence on the laptop and may have used it in warrants, creating poisonous fruit problems
  • Ziegler treated key WhatsApp messages obtained with a later warrant with shocking sloppiness, and may even have misidentified the interlocutors involved
  • Ziegler didn’t shield himself from the taint of publicly released laptop materials (and Shapley was further tainted by viewing exhibits during his deposition)
  • Gary Shapley is hiding … something … in his emails

These two self-proclaimed whistleblowers have made evidence from this case public — all of which would never have seen the light of day if Weiss had honored the plea agreement — without the filter of a prosecutor to clean it up in advance.

All that’s before you consider the rampant leaking.

In both their depositions and their giddy public testimony before the House both Shapely and Ziegler did plenty of things that will provide basis to impeach them, not just as witnesses, but even as investigators, as did their anonymous FBI agent colleague’s laughable claim in his deposition that this was not an investigation riddled with leaks. James Comer seems intent on inviting all the other investigators who have complained they weren’t able to bulldoze rules designed to protect sensitive investigations to be deposed in an adversarial setting, which will provide still more surface area that Lowell can attack.

The gun charge is simple. But what investigative witnesses would present any tax case against Hunter Biden and would their testimony be impressive enough to sustain a case after Lowell serially destroyed Ziegler as the key investigator? And because Weiss has left Lowell with a viable claim that the diversion remains valid, he may be able to introduce the taint of the tax case into any gun prosecution.

Some of this shit goes on in any case, though not usually this much with politically exposed people like the President’s son. But prosecutors have a great number of tools to prevent defendants from learning about it or at least keeping it off the stand. Many of the IRS agents’ complaints were really complaints about Lesley Wolf’s efforts to preserve the integrity of the case. By bitching non-stop about her efforts, the IRS agents have ensured that Hunter Biden will get access to everything that Wolf tried hard to stave off from the investigation.

And there’s something more. Ziegler provided the name of his initial supervisor, who documented concerns that this case was politicized from the start. Both IRS agents identified for Lowell a slew of irregularities he can use to undermine any case. Republicans in Congress have bent over backwards to expose witnesses against Hunter to adversarial questioning (and both IRS agents got downright reckless in their public testimony). The way in which this plea collapsed provides Lowell reason to challenge any indictment from the start.

But the collapse also provided something else, as described in the NYT story: a David Weiss associate told the NYT that Weiss told them that any other American would not be prosecuted on the evidence against Hunter.

Mr. Weiss told an associate that he preferred not to bring any charges, even misdemeanors, against Mr. Biden because the average American would not be prosecuted for similar offenses. (A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.)

If this witness makes themselves available to Lowell, it provides him something that is virtually unheard of in any prosecution: Evidence to substantiate a claim of selective prosecution, the argument that Weiss believes that similarly situated people would not have been prosecuted and the only reason Hunter was being prosecuted was because of non-stop GOP bloodlust that originated with Donald Trump. It is darn near impossible for a defense attorney to get discovery to support a selective prosecution claim. Weiss may have given Lowell, one of the most formidable lawyers in the country, a way to get that discovery.

And all that’s before Lowell unveils whatever evidence he has that Joseph Ziegler watched and did nothing as Hunter Biden’s digital life was hijacked, possibly by people associated with the same Republicans driving the political bloodlust, possibly by the very same sex workers on which the case was initially predicated. That’s before Lowell unveils evidence that Ziegler witnessed what should have been clear alarms that Hunter Biden was a crime victim but Ziegler chose instead to trump up a weak criminal case against the crime victim. I suspect that Weiss doesn’t know what Lowell knows about this, either, adding still more uncertainty to any case he charges.

Over four weeks ago, Leo Wise asked Noreika to dismiss the misdemeanor tax charges against Hunter so they could charge them in another venue.

In light of that requirement, and the important constitutional rights it embodies, the Government moves the Court to dismiss the information without prejudice so that it may bring tax charges in a district where venue lies.

Now he and Weiss have made promises of another upcoming indictment, without yet charging it. At the very least, that suggests that there are a number of challenges to overcome before they can charge Hunter.

They likely still have time on any 2019 tax charges — the ones where, reportedly, both sides agree that Hunter overstated his income, which will make a tax case hard to prove. I’m not saying that Weiss won’t charge Hunter. Indeed, he has backed himself into a corner where he likely has to. But with each step forward, Lowell has obtained leverage to make Weiss’ own conduct a central issue in this prosecution (and even Wise may have made himself a witness given the centrality of his statements during the plea colloquy to Lowell’s claim that the diversion remains valid).

The Speedy Trial filings seem to have hinted at an intense game of chicken between Weiss and Lowell. And thus far at least, Weiss seems more afraid of a Hunter Biden indictment than Lowell is.

Right Wing Operatives Say Hunter Biden Shouldn’t Get Same Treatment as Dmitry Firtash

/34 Comments/in , , , , /by

In the wake of the Politico and NYT reports on the collapse of the Hunter Biden plea deal (which I wrote up here), right wing operatives have a remarkable complaint: That the President’s son got worse treatment from DOJ than mobbed up Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash.

The complaint started with Federalist Faceplant Margot Cleveland (who called the good Politico piece and the problematic NYT piece “virtually identical”).

Margot complains that Hunter Biden’s lawyer Chris Clark attempted to reach out to high level DOJ personnel to raise concerns about the degree to which the investigation into his client had been politicized from the start.

Clark’s efforts to meet with Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco failed.

Ultimately, though, he did get a meeting with Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, who oversees ethical violations at DOJ. As Faceplant Margot helpfully lays out, the meeting happened in the wake of yet another attempt by agents involved in the case — after repeated leaks to the press — to  force Weiss’ hand.

According to Politico, from the fall of 2022 through the spring of 2023, Clark, on behalf of Hunter, sought meetings with high-level Justice Department officials, including the head of the Criminal Division, the head of the Tax Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and the attorney general himself. Clark finally succeeded in his efforts to meet with a higher-up at Main Justice, when on April 26, 2023, Clark met with Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer and Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss.

Just one week earlier, Mark Lytle, a partner at the law firm Nixon Peabody, had penned a letter to key House and Senate committees informing them that his client, a career IRS criminal supervisory special agent, sought to make “protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress,” concerning an investigation into a politically connected individual. Those whistleblower disclosures, the letter explained, would “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee,” would show the “failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interests,” and would provide “examples of preferential treatment” and improper political influence. While the whistleblowers did not identify the politically connected taxpayer, Just The News confirmed the allegations concerned Hunter Biden.

So that means that after Hunter’s lawyer spent some six months trying to swing a meeting with top DOJ officials, a meeting materialized a week after news broke of the whistleblowers’ claims that political favoritism prevented them from properly investigating Hunter Biden.

Soon after Weiss, Hunter’s attorney Clark, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer met in late April 2023 to discuss the Hunter Biden investigation, the House Ways and Means Committee met on May 5, 2023, and received a “proffer” from the whistleblowers’ attorney concerning the testimony their client would provide Congress about the political interference into the Hunter Biden investigation.

Less than a week later, on May 11, 2023, Weinsheimer “thanked Clark for the meeting and told him Weiss would handle the next steps.” Then, on May 15, 2023, “at the request of the Department of Justice,” the two whistleblowers and their entire elite team of IRS investigators were removed from the Hunter Biden investigation. It was the same day, according to the Times’ weekend reporting, that Wolf proposed resolving the investigation into Hunter Biden with only a deferred prosecution agreement.

Margot leaves out a few details about what led up to the removal of the IRS investigators from the case. According to his own testimony, Gary Shapley had been sidelined months earlier, as he continued to resist requests from DOJ that he provide his emails pertaining to the case. According to Ziegler’s testimony, his related cases had already been put on hold.

Margot seeks to blame a meeting in April for things that IRS agents’ own behavior had triggered months (and in Shapley’s case, over a year) earlier.

After Faceplant Margot’s piece, one of Gary Shapley’s attorneys, Tristan Leavitt, got into it.

The thing is, Main DOJ grants audiences to the lawyers of high profile suspects fairly routinely. It’s one of the things you get when you hire a a lawyer of a certain stature.

On behalf of “Hunter Biden” “laptop” disseminator Steve Bannon, for example, “Hunter Biden” “laptop” disseminator Robert Costello met with JP Cooney and two other AUSAs twice in November 2022.

And in fact, as I pointed out in the beginning of an amusing exchange with Leavitt, someone directly tied to the politicized allegations against Hunter Biden availed himself of just that kind of access: Dmitry Firtash.

Unlike Hunter Biden, when Dmitry Firtash leveraged that kind of access, his attorneys — Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova  — were granted a meeting with the Attorney General, with Bill Barr, who may or may not have had a role in putting the investigation into Hunter Biden in Delaware in the first place.

In July, the tycoon changed legal teams, replacing longtime Democratic lawyer Lanny Davis with the husband-and-wife team of Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, who appear frequently on Fox News to defend Trump and have served as informal advisers to Trump’s legal team, including Giuliani.

After taking on Firtash’s case, Toensing and diGenova secured a rare face-to-face meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr and other Justice Department officials to argue against the charges, three people familiar with the meeting said.

Barr declined to intercede, the people said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said that the case “has the support of the department leadership,” adding: “We continue to work closely with the Austrian Ministry of Justice to extradite Mr. Firtash.”

Mind you, Toensing and DiGenova did not succeed in getting DOJ to drop the case against the mobbed up Ukrainian oligarch — though neither did Chris Clark’s meeting with Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer succeed in getting David Weiss to drop the case against Hunter Biden.

After Firtash’s success at getting an audience with the Attorney General was disclosed, only Mitt Romney, of all the Republicans in Congress, voiced any problem with the larger corruption aired during Trump’s first impeachment, which included the means and purpose for which Toensing got that meeting. But Republicans now feign outrage that the American citizen targeted in that earlier access campaign might seek a similar meeting.

At least according to Lev Parnas, the Firtash meeting had a direct role in a campaign against Hunter Biden, a campaign that developed in parallel to the criminal investigation and which — at least since Leavitt’s client has gone public — has provably merged.

Rudy first reached out to Parnas in November 2018. Joseph Ziegler first attempted to open the investigation, based on payments to a sex worker network, in November 2018.

In January 2019, per Ziegler’s testimony, Delaware’s US Attorney’s Office first started looking into Hunter Biden. That same month, Rudy and Parnas met with Yuri Lutsenko in New York, where Rudy — who connected Trump in on the phone in the way Republicans falsely alleged Hunter connected his father in to weigh in on the substance of business deals — tried to trade access to Bill Barr in exchange for dirt on Hunter and $200K.

Giuliani continued to receive conspiracy theories from different sources, and remained insistent that there must be some data on the Bidens’ corruption. In late January 2019, my business partner Igor Fruman got word that Yuri Lutsenko, Shokin’s replacement as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, was in New York and wanted to meet with Giuliani to discuss some legal matters. We set up the meeting in Giuliani’s office on Park Avenue. There, Lutsenko explained he’d requested the meeting because he wanted to sit down with Bill Barr and, Attorney General to Attorney General, discuss the overall problem of Ukrainian and American corruption, including the funneling of Ukrainian money into American institutions. Giuliani stopped Lutsenko and said he wasn’t interested in that, only in information concerning Joe and Hunter Biden. He then added statements to the effect that if Lutsenko wanted a conversation with Barr, he would need to offer a give and take, and Giuliani was interested in details about the Bidens.

[snip]

During the meeting, Giuliani stopped to call President Trump for about 3-5 minutes to update him on how the meeting was going with Lutsenko, and told Lutsenko that Trump was very happy with the help he was giving. He gave Lutsenko the thumbs-up. Lutsenko then promised that if we went to Ukraine, he would help us meet President Poroshenko and other officials who were dealing directly with the Burisma investigation. After the first meeting, Lutsenko kept pressuring Giuliani that he needed to meet Bill Barr. However, Giuliani eventually told Lutsenko he hadn’t provided enough information, and that the only way he could meet Bill Barr was if he retained Giuliani for $200,000. He then gave Lutsenko a “contract”. (It should be noted that Lutsenko refused to pay and to this day has never met Bill Barr.)

A few days later, Giuliani told me that he had decided that it might not be a good look for him to represent Ukrainian officials while representing Donald Trump, and introduced me to attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova, who he said would represent Lutsenko instead. Later on, Giuliani told me that Toensing and DiGenova had agreed to split the $200,000 retainer fee in some part with him.

In April 2019, Ziegler’s investigation and DE USAO’s investigations were consolidated.

The next month, Rudy’s efforts started to incorporate Firtash, with Toensing and DiGenova again serving as the public face of the effort, but with Rudy allegedly sharing in the spoils.

Near the end of our trip to Paris, we were introduced to one of Igor Fruman’s associates, a friend who happened to be an employee of a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash, who had many political and business connections, including with the head of Burisma, Zlochevsky. When we returned to the U.S., we met with the BLT Team and John Solomon said Firtash’s help would be key because of his relationship with Zlochevsky.

The problem was that Firtash would prove nearly impossible to contact. He was also facing a serious extradition case to the U.S. for a number of bribery, racketeering and other charges since 2014. Solomon and Giuliani put together a package of documents regarding confidential information in Firtash’s case, and had me travel to Vienna in June 2019 to meet with Firtash, letting him know that Giuliani and our whole team were serious and that we could help him if he helped us. From June until the time of my arrest in October 2019, we had ongoing communications with Firtash.

In October 2019 — per notes taken by Leavitt’s client — FBI received the first official outreach from John Paul Mac Isaac about a laptop that appears to have been packaged up, during a period when Hunter Biden’s digital life shows signs of being compromised, after Ziegler had opened the investigation. That happened just days after Rudy, Parnas, and John Solomon had planned to go to Vienna to obtain a different instance of the “Hunter Biden” “laptop,” a trip that was forestalled by Parnas’ arrest and Barr’s warnings to (at least) Fox News.

In the early part of October 2019, I got a call telling me to go to Vienna with Giuliani, where the former Chief Financial Officer of Burisma, Alexander Gorbunenko, would meet Giuliani and give us Hunter Biden’s hard drive and answer any questions we had. My Ukrainian contacts also told me they would have Viktor Shokin in Vienna to give an interview to Sean Hannity of FOX News, because Shokin was supposed to appear in a Viennese court on behalf of Dmitry Firtash, giving sworn testimony in court that would basically be saying what Giuliani wanted him to say – that he was fired because of Joe Biden. (As mentioned earlier, Biden did make statements that he had helped to get Shokin fired, but Ukrainian investigations into the matter some years later concluded that Shokin had been terminated because of multiple cases of corruption while in office.)

I have text messages confirming all these plans, and all are among the materials I submitted to Congress during the first impeachment inquiry. These include messages from Hannity setting up the interview, and messages coordinating that Giuliani, Toensing, and I would go to Vienna to meet Burisma’s ex-CFO Gorbunenko. Just before we were to fly to Austria, there was a meeting at FOX News in Washington, because Solomon was appearing that night on Hannity’s show and Giuliani was appearing on Laura Ingraham’s. The BLT Team got together in a FOX conference room and discussed how we would blow up the story once we got Hunter Biden’s hard drive in Vienna.

Right in the middle of these seeming lockstep parallel investigations of Hunter Biden — by Bill Barr’s DOJ and by the then President’s lawyer all over Europe, and before offers of two laptops — both with ties to Rudy Giuliani — were made, two things happened.

On July 25, 2019, then President Donald Trump got on the phone with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and — after making a quid pro quo tying aid to the announcement of an investigation into Burisma — told Ukraine’s president that both Rudy and Barr would reach out.

I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.

[snip]

I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.

The next month, in August, Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova succeeded in scoring the meeting Firtash wanted with the Attorney General. The Rudy investigation and the Barr investigation met first at Trump’s hotel and then at DOJ. And the day after IRS got a warrant to access the Hunter Biden laptop seemingly packaged up after Joseph Ziegler was already investigating, DOJ told Barr they were sending him a laptop.

Whether or not that Dmitry Firtash meeting was an explicit meeting of the Rudy and the DOJ investigations, whether or not that laptop Barr obtained was the same one Rudy had a role in packaging up, we do know the investigations have since merged.

After the first press blitz about Gary Shapley — arranged in significant part by Tristan Leavitt — Bill Barr raised attention to an FD-1023 obtained via a channel he set up to ensure that Rudy could share information obtained from known Russian spies without being prosecuted for soliciting known Russian spies. In response, Shapley and Ziegler both complained that they hadn’t had access to an informant report the sole operative detail of which involved a 2019 call set up with Mykola Zlochevsky during impeachment, in which he used those politicized discussions to reverse his earlier admissions in order to claim to have made a bribe to Joe Biden. Remarkably, Shapley — lawyered by people with close ties to Chuck Grassley, who released the FD-1023 — claims to have known about the tainted Pittsburgh evidence in real time.

That is, even three years later (or perhaps, especially three years later) the IRS agents who should have seen Hunter Biden’s digital life get attacked if not packaged up for their own consumption are complaining they’re not able to pursue leads obtained via a channel catering to Russian spies.

It’s not surprising that you could look at this timeline and still have right wingers claim that Hunter Biden is the one who got favorable treatment. Those people don’t care if they reveal their cynical hypocrisy in pursuit of attacks on democracy.

What is surprising is that people claiming to be journalists wouldn’t immediately lay out how absurd that is. The “democracy dies in darkness” guys sitting on their own evidence about this stuff have assigned upwards six journalists to cover this story, but few have shown any curiosity about how the known political hit job on Hunter Biden ties to the wails of the sources whose own stories they don’t bother to test.

It is the collective stance of the entire Republican party, save Mitt Romney, that it’s fine for Dmitry Firtash to score a meeting with the Attorney General as part of an alleged quid pro quo to get an investigation into Hunter Biden, but it’s a sign of corruption for Hunter’s lawyers to point out that happened to DOJ.

The Republican party claims it is a sign of corruption to call out their own corruption.

And virtually every Hill journalist is playing along.

“Ebb and Flow:” How David Weiss Volunteered for a Subpoena, or Worse

/113 Comments/in , /by

Politico and NYT have stories — relying on what Politico describes as, “more than 300 pages of previously unreported emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal team and prosecutors,” — chronicling the legal negotiations leading up to the failed Hunter Biden plea deal.

Politico’s, written by Betsy Woodruff Swan, is good.

NYT’s is not, in part because it dedicates a long passage to repeating Gary Shapley’s claims without noting the many things in his own testimony that discredit those claims, even while relying on props from Shapley’s testimony that have since been challenged. Luke Broadwater knows where his beat gets sweetened, and it is in treating James Comer like a credible person, not in exhibiting the critical thinking of a journalist.

When first published, the NYT couldn’t even get the date of the failed plea hearing, July 26, correct.

But hey — at least that error is less catastrophic than the one in a WaPo story on the same topic the other day, in which three reporters (at least two of whom never bother to hide their right wing allegiances, particularly when it pertains to chasing Hunter Biden dick pics) claimed that Joe Biden was now a “former” President.

For its errors and other problems, however, the NYT story is useful for the way in which it puts David Weiss at risk for his own subpoena.

Hunter Biden lays the groundwork for holding the government to their signed agreements

To understand why, a review of the current state of the (known) legal case is in order.

On August 11, as Merrick Garland was announcing that he had given David Weiss Special Counsel status, Weiss’ prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Hunter Biden. After describing that, “When the parties were proceeding to a negotiated resolution in this matter, a plea in this District was agreed upon,” the filing said that because Hunter did not plead guilty, it may have to file charges in the district where venue lies. At the same time, Weiss also moved to vacate the briefing schedule in the gun diversion.

Judge Maryellen Noreika gave Hunter a day to respond to the motion to vacate. That response, signed by Chris Clark but including Abbe Lowell on the signature line, explained that Hunter planned to fulfill the terms of the gun diversion agreement, which the government had stated was a contract between the two parties.

[T]he Defendant intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States, and concurs with the statements the Government made during the July 26 hearing,1

The Government stated in open court that the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the Plea Agreement, and that it was “in effect” and “binding.”

But, “in light of the United States’ decision on Friday to renege on the previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement, we agree that those issues are moot at this point.” Effectively, Hunter’s team was saying they considered the gun diversion as still valid, recognized everything else was moot, and described that it was moot because the government had reneged on the terms of the deal.

Then Abbe Lowell entered his appearance in the case. And Clark moved to withdraw from the case because — given that the plea and diversion would be contested — he might have to serve as a witness.

Mr. Clark’s withdrawal is necessitated by recent developments in the matter. Pursuant to Delaware Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), “a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless… disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.” Based on recent developments, it appears that the negotiation and drafting of the plea agreement and diversion agreement will be contested, and Mr. Clark is a percipient witness to those issues. Under the “witness-advocate” rule, it is inadvisable for Mr. Clark to continue as counsel in this case.

Noreika never actually approved Clark’s withdrawal, but the defense team filed notice that Hunter consented to the withdrawal while the docket remained active.

Meanwhile, Noreika ordered the government to reply to Hunter’s response on the briefing, and ordered Hunter to respond to the thing she failed to ask about in the first place, whether he objected to the dismissal of the charges.

Hunter’s team agreed that the charges must be dismissed, but reiterated that the court had no oversight over the diversion agreement (which had been Noreika’s complaint from the start).

Without adopting the Government’s reasoning, as venue for the existing information does not lie in this District, the information must be dismissed.

Further, the Defendant’s position is that the enforceability of the Diversion Agreement (D.I. 24-1 in No. 23-cr-00061-MN) has no bearing on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue (D.I. 31 in No. 23-mj-00274-MN), and any disputes regarding the effect of the Diversion Agreement are therefore not before the Court at this time.

The government, meanwhile, filed a seven page reply attempting to claim that the government did not renege on the plea that had been negotiated in advance of its filing in June, by describing how after Hunter refused to plead guilty because Leo Wise, an AUSA who had not been involved in the original deal, claimed its scope was far narrower than Hunter understood, the parties did not subsequently agree on one to replace the signed deal Hunter entered into.

First, the Government did not “renege” on the “previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement,” as the Defendant inaccurately asserts in the first substantive sentence of his response. ECF 33, Def. Resp. at 1. The Defendant chose to plead not guilty at the hearing on July 26, 2023, and U.S. Probation declined to approve the proposed diversion agreement at that hearing.

Then Noreika dismissed the charges.

David Weiss may have plenty of time to argue with Lowell, relying on Chris Clark’s testimony, that he should not be held to the terms of signed agreements he entered into in June.

But the two important takeaways from all this are, first, that Hunter Biden is stating that before the plea hearing, Weiss attempted to change the terms of the signed plea deal, and second, that Chris Clark is no longer bound by any terms of confidentiality that will allow him to prove that’s true.

A senior law enforcement official speaks, illegally

These twin stories are a warning shot to Weiss — before Hunter even gets more discovery on all the other problems with this investigation — what that is going to look like.

Which brings me to the things for which the NYT is really useful: giving David Weiss or someone in his immediate vicinity an opportunity to cause David Weiss more problems.

Three times in the story, NYT provides anonymity to a “senior law enforcement official” to push back on the representation of the deal, including as laid out by documentary evidence. In one such instance, NYT helpfully notes that if Weiss commented, he would be violating DOJ policies and possibly the law (though the leaks in this story don’t appear to violate grand jury secrecy).

A spokesman for Mr. Weiss had no comment. He is legally barred from discussing an open investigation, and a senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the situation pushed back on the idea that Mr. Weiss had been influenced by outside pressures, and ascribed any shifts to the typical ebb and flow of negotiations.

In a second instance, this anonymous “senior law enforcement official” denies something — that David Weiss told an associate that “the average American would not be prosecuted for similar offenses,” the kind of assertion that might provide basis for an exceedingly rare successful claim of selective prosecution — that only David Weiss would know.

Mr. Weiss told an associate that he preferred not to bring any charges, even misdemeanors, against Mr. Biden because the average American would not be prosecuted for similar offenses. (A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.)

This chatty senior law enforcement official similarly denies something else that could bollox any further charges against Hunter Biden — that the only reason he “reneged” on the original terms of the plea deal are because IRS agents got journalists like the NYT’s to report claims of bias that their own testimony did not substantiate.

Now, the I.R.S. agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute.

Now, normally, misconduct by a prosecutor like Weiss would be reviewed by the feckless Office of Professional Responsibility. But that’s less likely with a Special Counsel, because of the reporting structure for an SCO. And that’s particularly true here given the involvement of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer in earlier discussions about the plea. Weinsheimer oversees OPR, and so any review by OPR presents a conflict. Indeed, Weiss may have asked to be made SCO precisely so he could escape the purview of OPR.

But to some degree that may not matter.

That’s because there are already parallel investigations — at TIGTA and at DOJ IG — into the leaking that occurred during this investigation. David Weiss was already going to be a witness in them, because Gary Shapley made claims about what Weiss said personally at a meeting on October 7, 2022, a meeting that was called first and foremost to discuss leaks.

So if Michael Horowitz wanted to subpoena Weiss to find out whether he was the senior law enforcement official denying things only he could deny, to find out whether days after being made a Special Counsel, Weiss decided to violate DOJ guidelines to which he still must adhere, the only way Weiss could dodge that subpoena might be to resign from both his US Attorney and his Special Counsel appointment.

And if Weiss and DOJ IG didn’t already have enough to talk about, there’s this passage from the NYT, with its truly epic use of the passive voice: “Mr. Weiss was quietly assigned,” by whom, NYT didn’t choose to explain.

NYT corrected their earlier error on the date of the failed plea hearing, but the date here is probably another: Both IRS agents and the FBI agent have testified that this occurred in 2019, not 2018. Indeed, Joseph Ziegler testified, then thought the better of it, in a period when Bill Barr was making public comments about all this, that Barr himself was involved, which would date it to February 2019 or later, in a period when Barr was engaged in wholesale politiciziation of the department. Who assigned Weiss to investigate Joe Biden’s son as Trump demanded it would already be a question for any inquiry into improper influence, but it’s nice for NYT to make it more of one, in a story otherwise repeatedly sourced to “a senior law enforcement official” who might know.

I don’t know whether Hunter Biden’s lawyers deliberately intended to bait Weiss into responding in the NYT. But under DOJ guidelines, he is only permitted to respond to these claims in legal filings, after Abbe Lowell makes it an issue after Weiss files an indictment somewhere, thereby confirming precisely the concerns raised in these stories and creating another avenue of recourse to address these issues.

But whether that was the intention or not, that appears to be what happened.

And that’s on top of the things that Gary Shapley and Ziegler have made issues by blabbing to Congress: describing documentation in the case file of 6th Amendment problems and political influence, the documentation showing that no one had validated the laptop ten months after starting to use it in the investigation, Lowell’s claims that after the IRS got a warrant for an iCloud account that probably relied on the tainted laptop, they did shoddy summaries of WhatsApp texts obtained as a result and mislabeled the interlocutors, and Shapley’s own testimony showing that he was hiding something in his own emails.

That’s on top of anything that Denver Riggleman’s work with the “Hunter Biden” “laptop,” the one Weiss’ office never bothered to validate before using, has produced.

Don’t get me wrong: if and when Weiss decides to charge Hunter Biden with felonies — and I assume he will (indeed, given that the Bidens are all together in Tahoe this weekend, he may have already alerted Biden to that fact) — it’s going to be hell for everyone, for the entire country. But the IRS agents demanding this happen will have made things far harder for Weiss going forward with their disclosures of details of misconduct conducted under Weiss’ watch.

Hunter’s lawyers have already documented the political influence behind this case

Swan’s story, but not the Shapley-parroting NYT one likely based on the same documents, describes that Hunter’s lawyers repeatedly raised the improper political influence on this case, starting with an April 2022 Powerpoint presentation on why DOJ would be stupid to charge Hunter.

In light of Trump’s ceaseless demands for an investigation of the first son, charging the younger Biden with tax crimes would be “devastating to the reputation” of the Justice Department, his lawyers asserted. It would look like the department had acquiesced to Trump’s political pressure campaign.

They noted that Trump had laid into Biden in his speech to the rowdy crowd right before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. “What happened to Hunter?” the president said. “Where’s Hunter? Where’s Hunter?”

Biden’s lawyers argued that the political pressure was itself a compelling reason not to bring any charges. A move seen as caving to the pressure, they contended, would discredit the department in the public eye, especially if the Justice Department was only going to charge him with paying his taxes late.

Clark wrote Weiss directly in October 2022, in the wake of the October 6 leak, noting that the only reason an unusual (and potentially unconstitutional) gun charge had been added in the interim was pressure from Republicans.

On Oct. 31, 2022, he wrote directly to David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware who was overseeing the probe. Weiss had been appointed by Trump and had been allowed to stay on during Joe Biden’s administration to continue the investigation — and Attorney General Merrick Garland had pledged to give Weiss full independence.

But Clark argued in his letter to Weiss that charging Hunter Biden with a gun crime would torpedo public trust in the Justice Department.

Biden, Clark continued, didn’t use the allegedly purchased gun to commit a crime, didn’t buy another one and didn’t have any prior criminal record. No drug user had ever been charged with a felony in Delaware for buying a gun under those same circumstances, he wrote. Prosecutors, he alleged, were weighing gun charges for one reason: “the relentless political pressure from the opponents of the current President of the United States.”

After all, Clark noted, federal law enforcement officials had known about Biden’s gun episode since 2018. Only politics explained why years later they were considering charges, he argued.

In January, Clark did another presentation — the first one threatening to put Joe Biden on the stand to talk about how this case was targeted at him, not Hunter.

He said Joe Biden would undoubtedly be a witness at trial because of leaks about the probe. He wrote that just a few weeks before sending his letter, there had been two back-to-back leaks related to Hunter Biden and the gun issue. First, someone told The Washington Post that investigators thought Biden deserved tax and gun charges. Then a few days later, The Daily Mail reported on a voicemail Joe Biden left for his son in the window of time when he allegedly owned the gun. Surely the back-to-back leaks were part of a coordinated campaign to push the Justice Department to charge his client with crimes. And, Clark said, the leaks prompted the president to address his son’s legal woes the next day on CNN.

“There can be no doubt that these leaks have inserted President Biden into this case,” he said.

On April 26, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer met with Hunter’s lawyers, which immediately preceded the efforts to reach a plea deal.

On May 11, Weinsheimer thanked Clark for the meeting and told him Weiss would handle the next steps. The prosecutors appeared to be nearing the end of their investigation, and they were ready to make a deal. This type of process is not unusual in high-profile white collar investigations where the targets of the probes have engaged with the government and signaled openness to pretrial resolution.

On May 18, another lawyer for Biden sent two Delaware prosecutors — including Lesley Wolf, a senior prosecutor in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office — the first draft of a proposed deal, structured so it wouldn’t need a judge’s sign-off and wouldn’t require a guilty plea from Biden.

As noted, Weiss may have used Weinsheimer’s intervention to justify his request to be appointed Special Counsel, but if he did it may backfire.

At each stage, after another wave of pressure from Republicans, the ask from prosecutors got bigger and bigger, first to include the gun, then to include a guilty plea with diversion.

That’s what the anonymous senior law enforcement official claims was just “ebb and flow.”

On June 7, the immunity agreement was written as follows.

The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution for any future conduct by Biden or by any of his affiliated businesses.

In the wake of the failed plea, prosecutors demanded that all immunity language be stripped, a truly insane ask.

No wonder Hunter’s lawyers are furious.

No wonder Clark dropped off the case, to be replaced by a far more confrontational Abbe Lowell, so he could lay all this out.

NYT describes that David Weiss thought that being provided Special Counsel status, “could provide him with added leverage in a revamped deal with Mr. Biden,” which is not something included in the Special Counsel regulations. Those regulations especially don’t envision getting that status for the purpose of reneging on already signed deals.

Abbe Lowell (who is not named in either of these stories) has something else entirely in mind.

Gary Shapley used notes that utterly contradict his public claims to dupe credulous reporters like Broadwater to build pressure on Weiss. Hunter’s team laid out that long before that, they had made the case that this prosecution was designed to target Joe Biden. Since then, they’ve identified at least one witness who could testify that Weiss is pursuing charges he knows other Americans wouldn’t face and learned of another — Ziegler’s first supervisor — who documented improper political influence from the start.

That’s before getting discovery that may show how Ziegler sat and watched as Hunter Biden’s digital identity got stolen and rather than doing anything to halt that attack in process, instead responded by deciding to charge Biden, not those tampering with his identity.

Sure. Weiss can charge the President’s son now — and he may well have already refiled tax charges in California.

But like his bid to renege on the original terms of the plea deal, that may not work out the way he thinks.

How James Comer’s Counsel, James Mandolfo, Conducts an Investigation

/10 Comments/in , , /by

Amid the excitement yesterday, the Oversight Committee released the transcript of the now-retired FBI Agent who would have interviewed Hunter Biden if a bunch of things had gone differently on December 8, 2020.

Because I appear to be the only one who read the Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler interviews closely, I wanted to make sure to describe this one — to describe how James Comer’s counsel, James Mandolfo, simply ended the interview when the witness started describing how the rules about lawyers, sensitive persons, and elections — the same rules that Republicans claimed to care about with Carter Page — would have required the FBI to adopt less intrusive methods than they might otherwise have done.

As to the topic that the Oversight Committee cared about, the agent admitted he was upset that the Biden Transition Team learned of the interview in advance (though as he described, he only heard that from Gary Shapley). He also revealed that he and Shapley had another person to interview that day.

A We waited a period of time.    You know, I will add, it was frustrating, and I know supervisor number two was very frustrated, and I understood that frustration, but I also ‐‐ we had other ‐‐ another interview to conduct.    So after a certain period of time, and I don’t exactly recall how long, we transitioned to make an attempt to interview another ‐‐ or a witness as part of the investigation.

Shapley didn’t describe that detail. When being questioned by Democrats, the agent described that he simply moved on after this, and said he personally had not witnessed any politicization.

When Mandolfo asked for more background on Shapley’s claim that the FBI agent had asked, in May 2022, why the IRS weren’t asking for a Special Counsel, the agent’s attorney advised him not to answer on deliberative privilege basis.

The agent retired just a month after that, after the normal 20-year career at the FBI.

When the Democrats questioned the witness, though, he provided answers that were less helpful to James Comer’s conspiracy theories. He described how careful the FBI has to be when investigating attorneys and that such an investigation might require using least intrusive investigative methods. He described addition approvals required for Sensitive Investigative Matters. He described the care required during an election.

Effectively, he described that the FBI applied the rules required by the FBI’s investigative manual, the same ones that protected Donald Trump’s during the 2016 election.

Things got weirder when the Democratic staffers asked about the leaks. They appeared to be doing the same thing, basically getting this witness to explain why the things Shapley and Ziegler complained about all had ready explanations. And ultimately, the FBI agent did concede that if leaks got really bad it might make sense to reassign a team.

But when asked if he had ever been part of an investigation from which there were leaks, he denied it.

Q Generally speaking, do you think it could be problematic for agents’ views in 4 any ongoing investigation to be publicly reported or released to news sources?

A Yes.

Q And it could create problems potentially for the integrity of an investigation?

A Yes.

Q In your career, have you ever worked on an investigation in which there were leaks?    And you don’t need to be specific, just yes or no.

Mr. Zink [the Agent’s attorney]. Leaks to the press?

[Dem staffer]: To the press.

[Retired FBI Agent] Sorry. My pause is I’m thinking back through my career.

[Dem staffer] No, that’s fine.

[Retired FBI Agent] Not that I recall.

Wrong answer!!

The Hunter Biden investigation had several major leaks, starting in 2020, and continuing through the period when he retired (he was also part of the Duke Cunningham investigation, though I don’t recall major leaks from that).

Having not recalled that this investigation had serial major leaks, his answer about what he would do if he learned of one was still weirder.

[Retired FBI Agent] Not being part of one previously, I’d ‐‐ I, you know, believe it would 10 go to our Internal Investigations Section.    Whether there was ‐‐ now, if you’re asking if it  was an unsubstantiated allegation versus something I did believe happened, you know, then maybe potential removal of ‐‐ of, you know, the agent in question from the case to protect the integrity of the investigation.    You know, I’d want those steps to be taken.

[Dem staffer to Dem staffer] do you have any other questions before we stop?

[Dem staffer] So the question my colleague was asking you is there’s ‐‐ there’s an ongoing investigation. There’s a concern that there is a leak coming from someone on the investigative team, but ‐‐

Mr. Zink.    You mean generally or ‐‐

[Dem staffer] Generally.

Mr. Zink. Okay.

[Dem staffer] and ‐‐ but there is no clear answer as to who on the investigative team it is.    Would it be reasonable for management to consider removing the entire investigative team in order to protect the integrity of the investigation?

Ultimately the agent, who claimed he would have told his supervisor if there were a leak as there had been on this case which he didn’t acknowledge had been riddled by leaks, conceded that you might ultimately remove people from the team.

The discussion then turned to details about the investigation when someone — possibly the agent himself — asked to go off the record.

And that was it.

Mandolfo came back and ended the interview.

Mr. Zink. Just want to confirm with counsel for majority and minority that the terms “target,” “subject,” and “witness” as they were used in today’s questioning modify and relate to the FBI and Department’s investigation, not the grand jury’s investigation. Just confirming that.

Mr. Mandolfo. Yes. And just based upon the narrow scope and agreement that was formed amongst counsel and the parties that this would be limited to a very limited set of facts, we are now going to conclude with speaking with [Retired FBI Agent] at this time.

It’s not clear whether Mandolfo ended the interview because the retired agent realized he had violated grand jury rules (thus the clarification from his lawyer), whether he realized answering the question about other agencies would do so, or whether the discussion of leaks had been so unhelpful that Mandolfo had to stop.

But the tactic was a fairly telling indicator of what would happen if there were a substantive review of the investigation into Hunter Biden.

Perhaps we’ll now see some of that in discovery.

In Hunter Biden Case, Abbe Lowell Enters His Appearance

/128 Comments/in , /by

In Hunter Biden’s filing responding to David Weiss’ motion to vacate Judge Maryellen Noreika’s order for more briefing on the form of the plea deal, Abbe Lowell signed the response, pending his entry of appearance.

His appearance is as significant as what appears inside the response filing.

Chris Clark, who had been leading Hunter Biden’s team for years, is a very good lawyer and had been quite accommodating with the prosecution, even deferring on issues of discovery in the plea hearing he might not have otherwise, given the things the IRS Agents had disclosed about undue influence and Sixth Amendment problems with the case between the filing of the deal and the plea hearing. Lawyers often will do that to maintain cordiality to help craft a plea deal.

Abbe Lowell — who led Jared Kushner through the Mueller investigation unscathed, and got Robert Menendez acquitted, and got the Tom Barrack aide charged alongside him in a FARA case acquitted — is something else entirely.

I fully expect Weiss to do some outrageous things with his new Special Counsel status. Prosecutors always have a lot of tools, and Merrick Garland unwisely just gave Weiss more tools, including the impunity to engage in abuses like John Durham did.

But Lowell’s appearance and this filing — which asserts that the government “renege[d] on the previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement” — both implicitly and explicitly signal that Hunter’s team will take a far more confrontational view with prosecutors going forward.

As part of that, the Hunter filing makes clear they intend to hold Weiss to the already-signed diversion agreement on the gun charge. Hunter’s team filed it, per Noreika’s order — signed by both the prosecution and defense — on August 2.

The Defendant’s understanding of the scope of immunity agreed to by the United States was and is based on the express written terms of the Diversion Agreement. His understanding of the scope of immunity agreed to by the United States is also corroborated by prosecutors’ contemporaneous written and oral communications during the plea negotiations.

Fourth, the Defendant intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States, and concurs with the statements the Government made during the July 26 hearing,1 and which the Government then acknowledged in its filings agreeing to the public disclosure of the Plea and Diversion Agreements2 —that the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.

1 The Government stated in open court that the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the Plea Agreement, and that it was “in effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr. 46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I believe that this is a bilateral agreement between the parties that the parties view in their best interest.”); id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a determination [sic], period.”); id. at 41:12–15 (“Your Honor, the United States[’] position is that the agreements stand alone by their own terms … ”); id. at 89:12–14 (Government: “[T]he statement by counsel is obviously as Your Honor acknowledged a modification of this provision, and that we believe is binding.”).

2 (D.I. 24 in No. 23-mj-00274-MN); (D.I. 20 in No. 23-cr-00061-MN) (stating that the Diversion Agreement was a “contract[] between the Government and a defendant” and that Government assented to public filing because “the Government and the Defendant expressly agreed that this diversion agreement would be public”).

If Noreika upholds the diversion, it not only avoids a felony on the gun charge itself, but a false statement charge that prosecutors told Noreika they waived filing as well. It would take one piece of leverage Weiss had off the table.

If she upholds the diversion, that leaves the tax and any FARA (or related) charges, and potentially an attempt to go after Hunter’s benefactor, Kevin Morris (though once DOJ charges Hunter, he will have the ability to start a legal defense fund that will be opaque to regulators).

As the filing notes and as Lowell noted in a relentless Face the Nation appearance yesterday: The prosecutors were the ones who approached Hunter’s team — in May, the same month the IRS removed Gary Shapley’s entire IRS team from the case — to make a deal to avoid trial. [my emphasis]

First, in May 2023, the Defendant, through counsel, accepted the prosecutors’ invitation to engage in settlement discussions that the Defendant and counsel understood would fully resolve the Government’s sprawling five-year investigation.

Second, as is customary in negotiated resolutions, prosecutors (and not the Defendant or his counsel) proposed and largely dictated the form and content of the Plea and Diversion Agreements. This is true with respect to the form in which the documents were presented to the Court (i.e., as two separate and independent agreements), as well as the express language of paragraph 15 of the Diversion Agreement (the so-called immunity provision). Throughout the settlement process the Defendant and his counsel negotiated fairly and in good faith with the prosecutors.

Third, consistent with their terms, the Defendant signed both agreements, was willing to waive certain rights, and to accept responsibility for his past mistakes. As was required as part of the Plea Agreement, he was prepared to plead guilty to the two misdemeanor tax charges in open court and he truthfully answered Your Honor’s questions, including those regarding his understanding of the promises that had been made to him by the prosecutors in exchange for a guilty plea. The Defendant’s understanding of the scope of immunity agreed to by the United States was and is based on the express written terms of the Diversion Agreement. His understanding of the scope of immunity agreed to by the United States is also corroborated by prosecutors’ contemporaneous written and oral communications during the plea negotiations. [my emphasis]

Part of that is just bluster. As Lowell noted on FTN, obviously Hunter wanted to avoid trial, too. The reasons why Hunter would want to avoid trial, though, are all obvious.

But the press has shown zero curiosity about why Weiss’ team would have wanted to avoid a trial, even after Joseph Ziegler explained some of what that was.

And when asked whether there will be trial, Lowell reminded that now there’ll be discovery and motions and maybe the prosecutors will decide they want to avoid a prosecution in the end too.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The US Attorney said, due to this impasse, a trial is in order. Is a trial going to happen? Can you avoid one?

LOWELL: Well, the answer to the second question is you can but let me answer the first question. When you do not have a resolution and somebody pleads not guilty, as Hunter did, then two things happen. A judge put together a scheduling order, the end of which would be a trial. There’d be discovery and motions, etc. So that’s why that statement was made.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it’s not inevitable?

LOWELL: It’s not inevitable. And I think what–

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you’re trying to avoid one?

LOWELL: Yes, we were trying to avoid one all along. And so were the prosecutors who came forward to us, and we’re the ones to say, “can there be a resolution short of a prosecution?” So they wanted it and maybe they still do want it. [my emphasis]

Even as noting that a prosecution would entail discovery and motions, Lowell noted that the only explanation for DOJ reneging on the plea agreement was if something besides the facts and the law had infected the process.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So let’s start with why this plea deal hit the impasse.

LOWELL: So if you were in court or read about what happened on July the 26th, you have to ask yourself, as you just asked me, “why?” And there are only a few possibilities. Remember, it were the prosecutors who came forward and asked if there was a resolution possible. They’re in charge of figuring out the form, the document, and the language. They did that. And so the possibilities are only, one, they wrote something and weren’t clear what they meant. Two, they knew what they meant, and misstated it to counsel. Or third, they changed their view as they were standing in court in Delaware. So to answer that question, I’ll ask you a question. And everybody else who’s paying attention, what group of experienced defense lawyers would allow their client to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on a Monday, keeping in mind that they knew that there could be a felony charge on a Wednesday? That wouldn’t happen.

[snip]

LOWELL: –Because I know we were a little rushed. So to answer your question squarely. People should keep in mind that while Mr. Weiss’ title changed last week, he’s the same person he’s been for the last five years. He’s a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general, who had career prosecutors working this case for five years, looking at every transaction that Hunter was involved in. So whether it was tax or the gun, or possible any other charge, if anything changes from his conclusion, which was two tax misdemeanors, and a diverted gun charge. The question should be asked: what infected the process that was not the facts and the law?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Or new evidence? I mean, are you confident your client won’t face new criminal charges?

LOWELL: I’m confident that if this prosecutor does what has been done for the last five years, look at the facts, the evidence and the law, then the only conclusion can be what the conclusion was on July 26. It’s new evidence, there’s no new evidence to be found. Some of these transactions are years old. They’ve had people in the Grand Jury, they’ve had data that was provided to them. I don’t know the possibility exists after this kind of painstaking investigation for them to be “oh, my gosh, there’s a new piece of evidence which changes.” The only thing that will change is the scrutiny on some of the charges, for example, the gun charge.

Already, Ziegler, who did nothing as he obtained one after another piece of evidence that people were hijacking Hunter Biden’s digital identity, revealed that there is documentation of undue influence on this prosecution in the case file. And now Lowell is suggesting that the only explanation for any change in Weiss’ posture from May would reflect similar undue political influence on the case.

And that’s the kind of thing that might make motions and discovery more painful for Weiss than the press currently understands.

Merrick Garland Makes David Weiss a Special Counsel

/152 Comments/in , /by

Merrick Garland just announced that after David Weiss requested it on Tuesday, he made Weiss a Special Counsel.

Given the way Garland let John Durham wildly abuse his authority, the way that Weiss tried to sand-bag Hunter Biden, and given Weiss’ permission of really problematic actions during the Trump Administration, I have grave concerns about this.

That said, it will make it harder for James Comer to continue holding dick pics hearings.

Update: Weiss has filed in Delaware to dismiss the tax charges there so they can be brought in a different district (presumably California and DC, though that suggests he’s going to try to file things past their statutes of limitation). This may mean DOJ has to release all the things that Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler revealed were in the file, including Weiss’ own disinterest in validating “the laptop.”

On January 19, 2022, SCOTUS Upheld Judge Tanya Chutkan’s Decision Rejecting Trump’s Executive Privilege Claims

/116 Comments/in , , /by

On November 9, 2021, Judge Tanya Chutkan — the judge who randomly got assigned to Trump’s January 6 prosecution — rejected Trump’s request to enjoin the Archives from turning over documents to the January 6 Committee.

Chutkan held that because the incumbent President had waived Executive Privilege and the January 6 Committee had a legislative interest in preventing another attack on the peaceful transfer of power, she had no reason to second guess the political branches of government about the import of the investigation.

The legislative and executive branches believe the balance of equities and public interest are well served by the Select Committee’s inquiry. The court will not second guess the two branches of government that have historically negotiated their own solutions to congressional requests for presidential documents. See Mazars, 140 S. Ct. 2029-31.

Defendants contend that discovering and coming to terms with the causes underlying the January 6 attack is a matter of unsurpassed public importance because such information relates to our core democratic institutions and the public’s confidence in them. NARA Br. at 41. The court agrees. As the Supreme Court has explained, “the American people’s ability to reconstruct and come to terms” with their history must not be “truncated by an analysis of Presidential privilege that focuses only on the needs of the present.” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 452-53. The desire to restore public confidence in our political process, through information, education, and remedial legislation, is of substantial public interest. See id.

Plaintiff argues that the public interest favors enjoining production of the records because the executive branch’s interests are best served by confidentiality and Defendants are not harmed by delaying or enjoining the production. Neither argument holds water. First, the incumbent President has already spoken to the compelling public interest in ensuring that the Select Committee has access to the information necessary to complete its investigation. And second, the court will not give such short shrift to the consequences of “halt[ing] the functions of a coordinate branch.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 511 n.17. Binding precedent counsels that judicially imposed delays on the conduct of legislative business are often contrary to the public interest. See id.; see also Exxon Corp. v. F.T.C., 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (describing Eastland as emphasizing “the necessity for courts to refrain from interfering with or delaying the investigatory functions of Congress”).

Accordingly, the court holds that the public interest lies in permitting—not enjoining— the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again.

On December 9, 2021, the DC Circuit upheld Chutkan’s ruling. Patricia Millett repeated Chutkan’s argument that the agreement of Congress and the Executive provided no basis for the courts to intervene. But she also described that even by a heightened standard — even if Trump were withholding these documents while still President — the need for the documents would overcome his privilege claim.

While former President Trump can press an executive privilege claim, the privilege is a qualified one, as he agrees. See Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 446; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707; Appellant Opening Br. 35. Even a claim of executive privilege by a sitting President can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713; In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 292. The right of a former President certainly enjoys no greater weight than that of the incumbent.

In cases concerning a claim of executive privilege, the bottom-line question has been whether a sufficient showing of need for disclosure has been made so that the claim of presidential privilege “must yield[.]” Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 454; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 706, 713. 12

In this case, President Biden, as the head of the Executive Branch, has specifically found that Congress has demonstrated a compelling need for these very documents and that disclosure is in the best interests of the Nation. Congress, which has engaged in a course of negotiation and accommodation with the President over these documents, agrees. So the tests that courts have historically used to police document disputes between the Political Branches seem a poor fit when the Executive and Congress together have already determined that the “demonstrated and specific” need for disclosure that former President Trump would require, Appellant Opening Br. 35, has been met. A court would be hard-pressed under these circumstances to tell the President that he has miscalculated the interests of the United States, and to start an interbranch conflict that the President and Congress have averted.

But we need not conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court could second guess the sitting President’s judgment that it is not in the interests of the United States to invoke privilege. Under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the January 6th Committee far exceed his generalized concerns for Executive Branch confidentiality.

[snip]

Keep in mind that the “presumptive privilege” for presidential communications “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. In United States v. Nixon, the particular component of the rule of law that overcame a sitting President’s assertion of executive privilege was the “right to every [person]’s evidence” in a criminal proceeding. Id. at 709 (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972)). Allowing executive privilege to prevail over that principle would have “gravely impair[ed] the basic function of the courts.” Id. at 712.

An equally essential aspect of the rule of law is the peaceful transition of power, and the constitutional role prescribed for Congress by the Twelfth Amendment in verifying the electoral college vote. To allow the privilege of a no-longer-sitting President to prevail over Congress’s need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would “gravely impair the basic function of the” legislature. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 712.

On January 19, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld Chutkan’s ruling. With only Clarence Thomas dissenting, Justice Kavanaugh noted that the DC Circuit’s ruling that Trump’s appeal would have failed even under more stringent standards made any review of this decision unnecessary.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege if the current President does not support the claim were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

I have written repeatedly about how Merrick Garland set up a framework in July 2021 by which Congress’ investigative requests would provide an opportunity for President Biden to waive Executive Privilege without violating DOJ’s contacts policy. That is, in July 2021, Garland solved a tricky problem with investigating the former President: how to obtain privilege waivers while keeping the existing President entirely walled off from the criminal investigation.

But this legal background, in which, with just one dissent, SCOTUS upheld a Tanya Chutkan opinion pertaining to an investigation into Donald Trump, will prove critically important in the days ahead, for two reasons that go to the screeds the former President is engaging in on his failed social media platform.

Along with making a venue complaint that has failed the dozens of times other January 6 defendants have made it (here’s a Roger Parloff post from before the Riley Williams and Oath Keepers trials showed that juries will rule against the government on precisely the same charges), Trump is preparing to claim that Judge Chutkan is biased and must be recused.

And Trump has been claiming that DOJ could have brought this case years ago, before the election season.

As to the first point, on a topic directly pertinent to this investigation, eight Justices have already upheld Judge Chutkan. Three Trump appointees, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the decision, have already ruled with Judge Chutkan.

That will make it harder to claim her prior central involvement in the January 6 investigation presents a conflict.

More importantly, that Judge Chutkan decision in November 2021 led to a SCOTUS decision, on January 19, 2022, upholding the DC Circuit’s opinion that the peaceful transfer of power is a sufficiently important basis to overcome an Executive Privilege claim, even if only for a congressional investigation, which litigation in the stolen documents case noted was a significantly lower standard than a criminal investigation.

Yet, even in spite of that decision on January 19, 2022, Donald Trump continued to make Executive Privilege claims that delayed DOJ’s investigation. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews with Mike Pence’s advisors in summer 2022. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews of Trump’s White House Counsel later that summer. He did so to stall DOJ’s interviews with other top aides in January 2023. And he did so to stall Mike Pence’s testimony.

Donald Trump continued to stall DOJ’s investigation using Executive Privilege claims for 463 days after a Justice that he himself had appointed had already rejected such claims. At the very least, these frivolous Executive Privilege invocations were critically responsible for any delay from July 2022, when Greg Jacob and Marc Short first refused to answer some questions because of Trump’s privilege claims, until April 2023, when Mike Pence testified — nine months.

Nine months, Trump kept making Executive Privilege claims that it was clear SCOTUS wouldn’t uphold.

Indeed, Trump’s frivolous Executive Privilege claims are responsible for even more of any delay than his own Special Master demand in the stolen documents investigation caused — in that case, three months.

Donald Trump is complaining that he wasn’t charged for his attempt to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power in 2020 until during his campaign to regain the presidency.

But he is personally responsible for much of that delay.

Protection Racket: Donald Trump Thinks He’s More Special Than Steve Bannon

/51 Comments/in , , /by

As you no doubt know, Trump and his January 6 prosecutors had a bit of a spat about the protective order governing evidence in the case.

The timeline goes like this:

August 2, 9:55PM: A Jack Smith prosecutor — given the initials, probably Thomas Windom — sends John Lauro a proposed protective order, “largely track[ing] the existing protective order in SDFL.”

“Evening of August 3 and early afternoon of August 4:” DOJ reaches out twice more.

Friday, August 4, 1:09PM: Trump’s latest defense attorney sends their own proposed protective order.

Friday, August 4, 2:39PM: A prosecutor (probably Windom) responds saying that Trump’s proposed order doesn’t make sense, notes that DOJ is again proposing the same order as adopted (by Aileen Cannon) in SDFL.

Friday, August 4, 2:45PM: Someone responds saying they adopted their proposal “form [sic] similar orders used in the district.”

Friday, August 4, 6:06PM: An AUSA responds, noting that Trump’s proposed order “would leave large amounts of material completely unprotected in a way not contemplated by standard orders in” DC.

Friday, August 4, 6:39PM: Someone responds saying they should brief it to Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya, whom they do not name, and ask that DOJ note “that we have did not have adequate time to confer.”

Friday, August 4: Trump tweets out video attacking the prosecutors prosecuting him and Joe Biden.

Friday, August 4: Trump tweets, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Friday, August 4, at least 3 hours after Trump’s tweet: DOJ files for a protective order, noting that Trump plans to just spill out grand jury information. The proposed motion is closely modeled on the Steve Bannon one.

Saturday August 5: Judge Chutkan orders Trump to respond by 5PM Monday

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government’s 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant’s position on the Motion. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the government’s proposed Protective Order, ECF No. 10-1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline

Saturday, August 5: Trump attorney John Lauro moves for reconsideration, claiming — while misrepresenting the timeline — that the government had not conferred with him about the protective order.

Saturday August 5: DOJ responds noting that Trump is holding things up and noting that Lauro left out other efforts to consult.

In emails not appended to the defendant’s extension motion, the Government followed up on the evening of August 3 and early afternoon of August 4. Thereafter, defense counsel finally responded by sending an entirely different protective order.

Saturday, August 5: Judge Chutkan denies Lauro’s motion, ordering him to comply by 5PM on Monday.

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant’s 11 Motion for Extension of Time is hereby DENIED. Defendant may continue to confer with the government regarding its proposed protective order before or after the August 7, 2023 5:00 PM deadline for his response. The court will determine whether to schedule a hearing to discuss the proposed protective order after reviewing Defendant’s response and, if included, his revised proposed protective order with modifications in redline.

But what has been missed is this: The protective order the government proposed last Friday is the protective order Judge Carl Nichols, the former Clarence Thomas clerk appointed by Trump, issued for the Steve Bannon contempt case.

Here’s that order, which Chutkan has ordered Trump to modify.

Here’s the order Trump appointee Carl Nichols adopted in 2021 for a similarly situated defendant. They’re not identical: the one the government proposed includes more detail about what should be treated as sensitive. But otherwise, they’re the same.

What this boils down to is that Trump — after issuing threats targeting prosecutors and judges — thinks he’s more special than Steve Bannon.

And Judge Chutkan isn’t buying that bullshit.

Update: In Trump’s response, he didn’t include the protective order he wants. He included a great deal of other shit, including the docket from SDFL. But this is a protective order adopted in DC District that separates out sensitive material; it’s from the Russian troll farm case.

image_print