-
Hunter Biden
-
[link=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.31.0.pdf]https://storage.courtlist…rts.ded.82801.31.0.pdf[/link]
Weiss says they are at an impasse and case looks to going to trial.
New jurisdictions outside of Delaware require the Special Counsel status.
Garland also says he will continue to serve as US attorney in DE … so I’m not sure how the legality of that works.
-
And after complaining for a year that Garland refused to appoint a Hunter Biden special counsel …
Comer says that Garland appointing a special counsel is an attempt at a “cover up”
[link=https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1690048691598434304]https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1690048691598434304[/link]
-
Why wouldn’t he question the announcement? Everyone including you should be questioning the announcement. And you would question this w hundreds of copy paste if Biden had an R after his name or his last name was Trump.
This looks like a political move not a legal move. Weiss slow walked the investigation. Hunter had serious tax evasion issues in 2014 -2015 that he could not be charged.
Weiss and his team negotiated a plea deal w Hunter’s team that essentially charged him w tax misdemeanors and gave him immunity from other charges. It was only stopped when a very smart judge saw it buried in the agreement in something like paragraph 14. After she questioned the arrangement the prosecutor admitted in court that he had never seen an agreement like this one.
So you appoint Weiss that slow walked this investigation, has sent 3 different letters to Congress w different versions, and as a result of this so called investigation negotiated a very nice deal.
This does not include all the “other funny stuff” the DOJ was doing in the investigation. This gives cover for Weiss w Congress in appearing and answering questions. It also delays answers right before an election. The Biden Crime Family is very much in action.-
Weiss was appointed under 515.
600.3 doesnt apply
{somehow this explains why Weiss can serve as a special counsel without being outside of government ….. but IANAL)
-
They can claim section 515. However 515 deals with special attorney NOT special counsel. Special attorney allows him to prosecute outside of Delaware.
[i]While some commentators have opined that the need to bring charges outside of Delaware may underlie the decision to give Weiss the special counsel titlehe will continue to serve as U.S. Attorney as wellsuch a rationale would appear unfounded because Attorney General Garland could have given Weiss the authority to prosecute outside of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. section 515. This provision authorizes the Attorney General to give any DOJ attorney extra-territorial authority as a special attorney. Moreover, as recently as [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/11/hunter-biden-special-counsel-investigation-00110872]June[/link], Garland had asserted that Weiss had essentially no limits on his authority.[/i]
[i]Moreover, appointing Weiss a special counsel contravenes the stated Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel set forth at 28 C.F.R. section 600.1 (a) and (b). That regulation sets forth two necessary elements in determining when a Special Counsel is warranted. The first elementsubsection (a) describes situations where the prosecution by a U.S. Attorneys Office or a division of the DOJ would present a conflict of interest for the DOJ or other extraordinary circumstances and subsection (b) adds that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. Weiss is not an outside Special Counsel. Rather, Weiss is the U.S. Attorney for Delaware and will continue to hold that position in addition to being Special Counsel[/i].
-
-
-
-
-
here we go …. chased it down from lawfare
[link=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/unpacking-the-hunter-biden-special-counsel-announcement]https://www.lawfaremedia….l-counsel-announcement[/link]
[b]How the Special Counsel Regulations Apply [/b]
Section [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.3]600.3 of the special counsel regulations[/link] specify that the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government, and Weiss is in the U.S. government. Attorney General Garland skirted this requirement by not appointing Weiss pursuant to the special counsel regulations. This has been the Departments approach in other special counsel regulations.
Attorney General Barr did something instructively similar when he appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as Special Counsel to investigate whether anyone violated federal law in connection with the investigations directed at 2016 presidential campaign activities. Barrs[link=https://www.justice.gov/d9/fieldable-panel-panes/basic-panes/attachments/2021/02/26/durham.order_.pdf] Order[/link] appointing Durham invoked 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 as the basis for the appointment. These statutes permit the attorney general to authorize an officer of the Department to conduct any kind of legal proceeding (Section 505) and to make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer of the Justice Department of any function of the Attorney General (Section 510). Barr thus appointed Durham pursuant to his general authorities, and then specified that the core special counsel regulations guaranteeing and specifying independence”28 C.F.R. §§ 600.4 to 600.10are applicable to the Special Counsel. Barr thus excluded the applicability by reference of the Section (Section 600.3) that required special counsel to be appointed from outside the Department.
The Garland Order invoked the same statutory authorities, plus the funding provisions of 28 USC 530, to appoint Weiss as special counsel. In other words, following Barr (and earlier special counsel appointments, including[link=https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/967231/download] Robert Mueller[/link]s), he appears to have appointed Weiss pursuant to his general authorities, not the special counsel regulations. And then he made the core special counsel regulations (absent the Section 600.3 outside the government requirement) applicable by reference.
-
Why am I not surprised that this would bring up Durham? There is a huge difference between Durham and Weiss.
Durham eventually resigned his post in CT.
Durham was appointed special counsel from the start of the investigation.
Durham had no whistleblowers claim the DOJ was interfering in the case. He was not being called before Congress to answer the whistle blowers claims or why he arranged a nice plea deal for those charged.
Durham had not negotiated a sweetheart deal w the individuals he did charge. Unfortunately for Hunter he went before a real smart judge.
Durham did not let the statute of limitations expire on the more serious issues.
Durham did NOT write letters to Congress changing his response in all of them.
Durham did not have the DOJ informing defendants of impending search warrants and interviews.
Durham did not have the #2 DOJ interfere w his case.
The handling of the case was starting to stink. Garland just made it really stink now.
If Weiss is as good as people thought he was he will clean it all up to save his reputation and show no one is above the law. After all isn’t that what the dems say about Trump?-
xxxxxx
-
Quote from Ixrayu
Why am I not surprised that this would bring up Durham? There is a huge difference between Durham and Weiss.
Durham eventually resigned his post in CT.
Durham was appointed special counsel from the start of the investigation.
Durham had no whistleblowers claim the DOJ was interfering in the case. He was not being called before Congress to answer the whistle blowers claims or why he arranged a nice plea deal for those charged.
Durham had not negotiated a sweetheart deal w the individuals he did charge. Unfortunately for Hunter he went before a real smart judge.
Durham did not let the statute of limitations expire on the more serious issues.
Durham did NOT write letters to Congress changing his response in all of them.
Durham did not have the DOJ informing defendants of impending search warrants and interviews.
Durham did not have the #2 DOJ interfere w his case.The handling of the case was starting to stink. Garland just made it really stink now.
If Weiss is as good as people thought he was he will clean it all up to save his reputation and show no one is above the law. After all isn’t that what the dems say about Trump?
it’s not like the author of that Lawfare article is some liberal hack … dude is from the Hoover Institute for Christ’s sake.
(Edit — I see those difference between Durham and Weiss … but I don’t really see how any of those would change the applicable statute)
______________
Same as Mueller too. And his statutory authority was challenged in a couple of cases.
Again, IANAL, so if there’s any there there I am sure someone will file suit to try to force Garland to appoint someone else.
But I’m doubtful there will be much of a legal case to be made
-
-
-
[link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/hunter-bidens-legal-team-claims-prosecutors-reneged-on-plea-deal]Hunter Biden’s Legal Team Claims Prosecutors Reneged on Plea Deal
[/link]
[link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/gopers-shamelessly-moving-the-goal-posts-in-hunter-biden-probe]Hunter Biden[/link]s lawyers said in a late Sunday filing that prosecutors chose to renege on the previously agreed-upon plea deal that would have resolved firearms and tax charges against the presidents son. Prosecutors [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/hunter-biden-plea-deal-is-dead-exasperated-prosecutors-say]confirmed[/link] Friday that the deal had collapsed, and Attorney General [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/shan-wu-writes-hunter-biden-special-counsel-david-weiss-shows-ag-merrick-garland-is-clueless]Merrick Garland[/link] announced that he would name [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/hunter-biden-gets-his-own-doj-special-counsel-merrick-garland-announces]David Weiss[/link], the U.S. attorney for Delaware, as the special counsel to lead investigations into Hunter Biden. In the filing Sunday, his defense lawyers said prosecutors had proposed and largely dictated the language in both the plea agreement and a separate deal to resolve a firearms charge. The filing also said that last months revelation from prosecutors that they are continuing to investigate Bidenincluding over possible foreign-lobbying chargeswas contrary to his understanding of the scope of immunity agreed to by the United States.[/QUOTE]
-
[h1][b]Hunter Bidens Lawyers Insist Part of Deal Still Stands[/b][/h1]
Lawyers for President Bidens son Hunter Biden argue in a new court filing that part of their failed plea deal with federal prosecutors should still stand, because a judges approval was never needed to handle a gun possession charge through a diversion program, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/biden-lawyers-deal-gun-charge/]Washington Post[/link] reports.
-
[link=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4153140-hunter-biden-attorney-withdraws-from-tax-case-citing-potential-role-as-witness/?email=066c0990fa413d52c3842f29a42abb22ffa00eae&emaila=02c3337a6605235631b8cab2e023d54e&emailb=e0d37ab6f97ed06914f0e75a1ebed673001a81f7f84978ff9209f3e23f7ba5d3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=08.15.23%20RZ%20The%20Hill%20breaking%20alert%20-%20Hunter%20Biden%20attorney]https://thehill.com/regul…ter%20Biden%20attorney[/link]
Hunter Biden’s attorney withdraws, claiming that he may become a witness in litigation over the government’s decision to withdraw from the plea agreement.
High powered DC attorney Abbe Lowell taking over.
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, Clark wrote.
He went on to cite Delaware professional conduct rules dictating that a lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/politics/special-counsel-hunter-biden-gun-deal/index.html]https://www.cnn.com/2023/…en-gun-deal/index.html[/link]
Special counsel says Hunter Bidens gun deal is withdrawn and invalid[/h1]
The Justice Department prosecutors said [link=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23909981-special-counsel-response-hunter-biden]in a court filing[/link] on Tuesday that for the diversion agreement to be legally binding, it would have had to be signed by a probation officer after last months court hearing in Delaware.
…
In sum, because Ms. Bray, acting in her capacity as the Chief United States Probation Officer, did not approve the now-withdrawn diversion agreement, it never went into effect and, therefore, none of its terms are binding on either party, prosecutors wrote.
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2023/08/13/politics/hunter-biden-trial-lawyer/index.html]Bidens lawyers on Sunday[/link] said they believed an agreement to resolve a felony gun possession charge was valid and binding.[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/17/hunter-biden-plea-deal/]https://www.washingtonpos…unter-biden-plea-deal/[/link]
Long review on the collapse of the Hunter Biden plea deal –
How a fight over immunity unraveled Hunter Bidens plea deal[/h1]
…
And in the three weeks since {the plea deal collapse}, efforts to negotiate a new deal have also foundered, doomed by the federal governments insistence that any immunity offered be narrow while the FBI keeps investigating Hunter Bidens work for foreign entities and by the younger Bidens equally fervent demand that any agreement he signs should put his legal troubles behind him.
…
[color=”#2a2a2a”]But people familiar with the matter said that when prosecutors came to Bidens team late this spring to start talking about a possible plea, they focused only on the potential charges of failure to pay taxes and illegally possessing a gun, leaving defense lawyers with the impression that other investigatory avenues {such as foreign activities} had come up dry.[/color]
…
Bidens camp, on the other hand, has been adamant that the terms meant he no longer would have to worry about criminal investigators and would also be protected if Trump returned to the White House and tried to order his Justice Department to again pursue charges against the son of his Democratic rival.
[/QUOTE]
-
-
now DOJ will prosecute the gun charge –
[link=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/06/prosecutors-plan-to-seek-indictment-of-hunter-biden-on-gun-charges-this-month-00114335#:~:text=Biden%20is%20expected%20to%20be,in%20California%20or%20Washington%2C%20D.C.]https://www.politico.com/…20Washington%2C%20D.C.[/link]
Federal prosecutors will seek an indictment of Hunter Biden for illegally possessing a gun as a drug user by Sept. 29, according to [link=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.37.0.pdf]a new court filing[/link] on Wednesday.
Biden is expected to be charged in Delaware with felony counts related to his purchase of a gun in October of 2018. At the time, he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Prosecutors said last month that they also plan to charge the presidents son with tax crimes in California or Washington, D.C.
