A garland of evasions

I have collected notes on the latest developments in the shambolic investigation of Hunter Biden: prosecutor David Weiss’s letter to Senator Lindsey Graham (“To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation pursuant to” the statute for appointing a special counsel) and the IRS whistleblowers’ response to same (“Once again: U.S. Attorney Weiss having to request permission or ANY sort of special authority from Biden appointees in D.C., CA, or Main DOJ to charge Hunter Biden is inconsistent with what Attorney General Merrick Garland has told Congress and the American public—full stop”). See also, for example, Wendell Husebo’s Breitbart stories “David Weiss: FBI informant file alleging Biden bribes a part of ongoing investigation” and, most recently, “Whistleblower Boss Confirmed David Weiss Didn’t Have Authority to Charge Hunter Biden.”

The ins and outs of Weiss’s evolving story and Garland’s garland of carefully worded evasions are calculated to obfuscate the obvious. We need to pierce the fog. I have awaited an explanation that puts the details in context and clarifies their meaning.

That is what Andrew McCarthy does in his July 11 National Review column “Garland’s Sleight of Hand in Hunter’s Sweetheart Plea Deal” (behind NRO’s paywall). Subhead: “The attorney general was duty-bound to appoint a special counsel — he can’t pawn off the responsibility on any subordinate.”

My friend Andy has now adapted his paywalled NRO column into the accessible New York Post column “The deceit behind Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal gets even more audacious by the day.” McCarthy writes in the heart of this column:

In a nutshell, Weiss is straining to back up Garland while hoping no one notices that he does not deny the whistleblower allegations.

Weiss maintains that he did not formally request a special counsel designation (under Section 600 of the federal regulations governing the Justice Department).

Instead, he claims to have conferred with unidentified “Departmental officials” about being given authority under a different legal provision (Section 515 of the federal laws governing the functions of the attorney general) to file charges outside of his Delaware jurisdiction.

Ultimately, he adds, he was assured he would be granted Section 515 authority if it proved to be necessary, but he implies (though he is careful not to state outright) that he never asked — i.e., he says he has “never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.”

It’s a crock, through and through.

Whole thing here.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.