The Gaps in David Weiss’ Belated Indictment of Alexander Smirnov
David Weiss has indicted the informant behind an FD-1023 that Bill Barr used to justify the ongoing investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. Weiss charged Alexander Smirnov with one count of false statement and one count of obstruction.
The indictment alleges that Smirnov lied about the meetings he did have with Burisma, and lied about what Burisma officials told him.
The indictment ties Smirnov’s efforts to frame Joe Biden with Rudy Giuliani’s efforts, though without naming Rudy. For example, the indictment describes that both before and after this article, Smirnov promised his handler that Biden would soon be going to jail.
But the citations of the article simply omit mention of Rudy. 
In describing the side channel that Barr set up, it attributed the project to Jeffrey Rosen, not Barr.
It omitted mention that the side channel was primarily set up so that Rudy could share information, including information from Russian spies. And it didn’t describe that, per Scott Brady, he found Smirnov’s report by seeking information on Hunter and Burisma.
Q And the original FD1023 that you’re referring as information was mentioned about Hunter Bidden and the board of Burisma, how did that information come to your office?
A At a high level, we had asked the FBI to look through their files for any information again, limited scope, right? And by “limited,” I mean, no grand jury tools. So one of the things we could do was ask the FBI to identify certain things that was information brought to us. One was just asking to search their files for Burisma, instances of Burisma or Hunter Biden. That 1023 was identified because of that discreet statement that just identified Hunter Biden serving on the Burisma board. That was in a file in the Washington Field Office. And so, once we identified that, we asked to see that 1023. That’s when we made the determination and the request to reinterview the CHS and led to this 1023. [my emphasis]
It describes that after Pittsburgh closed their assessment (something Bill Barr has public disputed), the FBI interviewed Smirnov again, and he lied again.
It doesn’t describe that after Smirnov changed his story, and days after (in October 2020) Donald Trump yelled at Bill Barr about Hunter Biden, Richard Donoghue ordered David Weiss to accept a briefing on the FD-1023.
And the timing of the claimed investigation stinks.
It claims that some time in July 2023, the FBI asked David Weiss to help investigate the source that Weiss had been ordered to integrate into his investigation years before.
It doesn’t mention that Weiss was already under pressure from Lindsey Graham to use the informant report against Hunter Biden.
The FBI interviewed Smirnov’s handler on August 29 of last year. They interviewed Smirnov on September 27, where — they allege — he told still more lies.
But they did nothing when Hunter Biden asked for discovery on this on November 15, repeatedly misrepresenting Richard Donoghue’s role in it.
They only indicted after Judge Mark Scarsi suggested, in a preliminary hearing on January 11, that he would provide discovery on matters outside of prosecutorial deliberations.
Now they can withhold the details of how David Weiss used “a little more colorful language” when he acquiesced to accepting other materials from Scott Brady.
Great! They indicted another of James Comer’s great hopes to impeach Joe Biden.
But there are few people left in DOJ who are more conflicted on this prosecution than David Weiss.
Update: Took out a reference to the September 2023 interview that was out of timeline.
Thank you!
I’m listening to coverage of this now, with an informed ear.
As this is centered in LA, is there any chance that it involves Johnathan Buma?
Possibly! Buma could be the handler — tho the timing is off given Buma’s own complaints.
Buma had his own Ukrainian sources mainstreamed to Delaware, though.
“But they did nothing when Hunter Biden asked for discovery on this on November 15, repeatedly misrepresenting Richard Donoghue’s role in it.”
It struck me how that request was two days after the Feds raided Buma’s SoCal home on Nov 13, looking for classified docs he may have taken.
The question is , is Smirnov ” Dynamo “?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-the-fbi-truly-biased-against-trump
New Yorker article is pay-walled.
Usually worth checking if the Internet Archive has a copy, which it does in this case: https://web.archive.org/web/20231114190902/https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-the-fbi-truly-biased-against-trump
And if it doesn’t have a copy, you can try creating one. It doesn’t always get past paywalls, but it often does.
Thanks. The New Yorker article is from August 14, 2023
Typo
The FBI interviewed Smirnov’s handler on August 29 of last year. They interviewed Smirnov on September 27, where — they allege — the told still more lies.
Should be
— **he** told still more lies.
So, I’m not getting how this helps Weiss or Comer. Unless this (alleged) liar conspired with HB in a way that can be proven in court, it would seem to me that this legal Jenga piece will cause collateral damage when it’s pulled out.
It appears Weiss only chose to indict Smirnov to hide otherwise discoverable communications. That protects Weiss and/or his patrons.
I’d be surprised if Lowell didn’t subpoena him as a hostile witness (see the next post) or a deposition. Is there any way Weiss can stop that event?
So Smirnov as sacrificial lamb ? I want to see Rand Paul, and that gang of Senators and Representatives that spent the 4th of July in Russian get indicted, next. Along with the rest of the Putin loving assholes.
The Moscow Eight . . .
when did the repugs line up with the Russians????
i think it may have happened when Vlad showed them the hacked but never released RNC emails that Guccifer 2.0 got . . .
thanks everyone on this blog for all the smart!
So I took this as Weiss finding a way out of the mess he created by pointing at Smirnov and claiming ‘he lied’ as the reason this whole thing happened. Getting this guy indicted gives him an accomplishment. Is there more to this than I am seeing ?
Think Lowell will be able to use this to his advantage? /s
To this point, Merrick Garland looked monumentally incompetent and not up to the job. After today, it’s clear he’s fully supportive of Wise, Weiss, Burr and the rest of the Barr / Rosenstein deadenders engaged in the corrupt Hunter prosecutions and attacks on the administration. The president needs to have him and the rest of these assholes forcibly removed from the Justice Dept. Anything less is political and parental malpractice.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
A tad violent and reductionist, chock full of questionable assumptions.
Sounds like this will coopt any attempt into investigation of Weiss…which eventually would work up the chain to Donaghue/Rosen and then Barr.
And the more Smirnov toes the omerta line, the better his plea deal will be. Everyone’s interests align in this coverup.
A setup for a quick plea deal, Barr and Rudy never mentioned, with a fairly quiet sun-setting in comparison to how the 1023 was brought to public attention? Or not a quick deal, instead a pending prosecution, where we do not discuss pending prosecutions? It seems it could be either. It is admitted there was a handler, and the handler may have had contemporary opinions of credibility which might be material to Lowell’s targeted prosecution contention. With inquiry into how the 1023 moved among hands with subsequent pressures.
After evaluating the attacks claiming the peculation of the Clintons, I found out that ex-presidents and vice presidents make between $50k to $200k in giving speeches. Then they get seven figure book contracts. After that they go onto corporate boards. Taking a bribe made no sense when a person can make money going on an hour riff and then turning over your personal notes to a ghostwriter to further legally bolster one’s wealth.
Yep. And they make that much for each speech. Sometimes more than double it.
Former Republican Senator from California during the Carter and Reagan era, S.I. Hayakawa, was a professor of English, who held a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was the source of the witticism that, “We should keep the Panama Canal. After all, we stole it fair and square.” He then helped structure its legal return to Panama. That sort of Republicanism no longer exists.
He was criticized for how much money he earned from his speeches. His retort was, in effect, that he wasn’t paid that much because he was a Senator, refuting the implication that he was being bribed. He was a Senator because he could earn that much from public speaking. Times have changed, but the lucrativeness of the gig has only gone up.
One of the irks of the Clintons was Bill’s habit of visiting countries for highly paid speaking engagements shortly before Hillary visited on official business as Secretary of State.
“The elephant sleeps but still remembers”
https://youtu.be/n_uyVJIxm0Y
Clearly, Trump isn’t in as much demand before smart audiences. Thus, Trump has to keep his grift rolling mainly in the US with the anti-intellectual crowd.
Would a presidential pardon be enough to free up the full discovery details? Just wondering.
“I’ll try to prove it for you bro”. Is that how all CHS talk to their handlers?
I’m pretty confused. I don’t understand the mechanics of how indicting Smirnov affects discovery in a separate prosecution of Hunter Biden, short of mooting the entire HB case (Smirnov lied in his 302 -> 302 used to justify HB case -> HB case has no basis and is tossed), which doesn’t seem to be happening here. Isn’t HB still entitled to the same discovery he was previously, since his charges haven’t changed?
Everyone’s talking about a coverup, but I don’t see how the dirt gets on the spade to bury the body. What am I missing? Thanks!
It complicates things since it involves another indictment of another individual. They could try a FOIA since it involves an investigation into Hunter, but that runs into the same firewall, and any action would be after that case was resolved.
Can/should Biden sue Smirnov? Can he force Weiss to recuse himself? If Biden sues Smirnov does he get useful evidence for his criminal trial? Could some legal people weigh in on this?
Biden has an even stronger civil case then he does with the Rudy gang on the notebook. But that takes time, so he may not pursue that option. Smirnov would be the one to force the recusal. These are separate cases involving different defendants. Though Lowell may have pretty good grounds to force Garland to remove Weiss from his cases if he can prove an out of jurisdiction grand jury in California was used in investigating crimes committed in Delaware.
An involuntary recusal is almost impossible here IMO.
One of the statutes his appointment to SC gives him the authority to use a grand jury in any district, that does not allow his use of an out of district grand jury for crimes in another district. Which not only would be illegal but unconstitutional. Canon raised that question with Jack Smith when he filed the superseding charges, only SC Smith is much better at this than Weiss.
I believe the DOJ guidelines are more flexible here. If you have a link that explicitly shows the constraints and illegality that you are describing in contravention of the federal code and guidelines, I’m sure we’d all like to see them.
I can’t answer regarding discovery.
Regarding the coverup: That starts from Barr closing the original investigation. Then Trump ordered Barr to reopen it. Barr sent it to Delaware. Weiss was the guy Trump wanted to investigate Hunter Biden. The cover-up is that they knew the source was lying the entire time and tried to keep that knowledge hidden while still publicly leaking false information from the source to damage Biden.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your third username; you have previously commented as “Purveyor of Things” and “truthteller.” Pick a name and stick with it; changing usernames constitutes sockpuppeting and is not permitted. /~Rayne]
If what you say is true then Barr himself might be in jeopardy here. What’s the SOL on this sort of oddness?
There’s a train bearing down on Rudy.
Boom! There goes another Gomer Comer fairy tale!
Who was the lawyer conducting the grand jury in California? If that’s open knowledge. When did that grand jury sit, again, if open knowledge. How does that fit the timing of the indictment? Are these new names to us, from the California indictment?
SEAN F. MULRYNE
CHRISTOPHER M. RIGALI
Assistant Special Counsels
Weiss didn’t charge either Biden with the bullshit allegations from Smirnov, so it’s unlikely this will ultimately torpedo the criminal case. The real problem is that Congressional Republicans have used this as a basis for impeachment forever. They knew it was bullshit, but they just wanted to foist it on the public for as long as they could.
The cynicism of those people has no limits.
Eight years of political allegation(s) rumor mill for 2016 election and carries on today. The linked FD-1023 with 4 pages here is a piker to the raw Steele intelligence fiasco.
Nearly 4 years to follow up and divulge – from June 2020 to Feb. 2024. This is disgusting while the entire time the media was/is leaked innuendo in service of deflection, distraction, and distortion of tax funded legal and legislative career(s) with fingerprints left behind.
“Podmazat (transliterated by CHS), which literally translates to “oil, lubricate, or make things run smoothly, “ …)”
The only “Honorable” behavior I can see here is in CA Judge Scarsi doing the basic job to move a trial along with a ruling indicating he may require adequate evidence.
Where’s the Zlochevsky in all this? When the “FBI CHS” news started breaking, I expected to hear Zlochevsky’s name, not Smirnov’s. The reliance on the Smirnov FD 1023 always seemed boneheaded, since it has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, whereas Barr set up Zlochevsky’s tales to have more of a veneer of credibility.
Someone please tell me if I’m chasing elk in the deer forest. In trying to follow the many strands of this tangled web, I’ll be the first to admit I wander astray.
Elk have a stronger odor…not that that helps per se.
I wasn’t expecting that, timbozone! But I’ll file it away for future reference. Thanks.