Posts

Hunter Biden: Which Came First, the Chick Selling Sex or the Extortion of Campaign Dirt?

/31 Comments/in , , , , /by

Darren Samuelsohn had a hilarious passage in his version of a story contemplating the prospect of Trump using his second term to seek revenge.

To his credit, unlike the NYT and WaPo versions of this story, he acknowledges that Trump already did this. He even manages to address maybe a quarter of the times when Trump did so, though always missing key details. For example, he describes that Trump fired Jim Comey as revenge, which led to the Mueller investigation.

Consider the firing of James Comey, who the president ousted less than four months into his first term following the FBI director’s public testimony that confirmed an active bureau investigation on potential collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. The president’s move there ignited a chain of events leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment, which kept Trump’s White House stuck playing defense for a giant chunk of their four-year term and resulted in a costly series of guilty pleas, legal trials and court convictions for Trump associates that gave way to a series of controversial presidential pardons.

Samuelsohn even mentions “controversial” pardons! — if only in passing. But he doesn’t mention Trump’s concerted demand to prosecute Comey as a result, or the IRS investigation of Comey and Andrew McCabe that the IRS claims was just a wild coincidence.

The funny part is where Samuelsohn describes Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to dig up dirt on Joe Biden as something that, like the Comey firing, led to backlash: impeachment.

Another Trump personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, sparked the first House impeachment of the president in the aftermath of his mission to conjure up an investigation of the Biden family in Ukraine.

But then two topics — the Durham investigation and Trump’s revenge against Tom Emmer for voting to certify the 2020 election — and two paragraphs later, Samuelsohn introduces Abbe Lowell’s attempt to subpoena Trump as “another front.”

Or on another front, Hunter Biden’s lawyers earlier this month asked for a federal court’s permission to subpoena Trump, Barr and other senior Trump-era DOJ officials as they argue against “a vindictive or selective prosecution arising from an unrelenting pressure campaign beginning in the last administration, in violation of Mr. Biden’s Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.”

This is not “another front”! This is confirmation that the effort attributed here to Rudy continues to this day, is a central factor in the 2024 election to return to the White House.

As I noted, the requested subpoenas specifically ask for communications with, “attorney for President Trump (personal or other),” and the request for communications, “discussing any formal or informal investigation or prosecution of Hunter Biden,” should cover any copy of the Perfect Phone Call to Volodymyr Zelensky that Trump might have in his personal possession.

The subpoena is a request for records showing the tie between Rudy’s efforts and the still ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden, which has since morphed into the rationale for Republicans’ own impeachment stunt.

The tie is not imagined. Among other things, Lowell points to records showing then-PADAG Richard Donoghue scheduling a briefing with David Weiss’s team on October 23, 2020. The briefing transferred the FD-1023 created as a result of Bill Barr’s effort to set up an intake process for the dirt Rudy obtained from Russian agents and others.

In fact, all the details of the investigation that Joseph Ziegler has shared raise questions whether there would ever have been a Hunter Biden grand jury investigation were it not for the dirt Ukrainians — possibly downstream of and ultimately directly tied to Rudy’s efforts to obtain dirt on Hunter Biden — shared with DOJ in 2019.

To be sure, Ziegler claims credit.

In his original testimony to House Ways and Means, Zeigler described that he decided to investigate the former Vice President’s son based off a Suspicious Activity Report tied to a social media site involving sex workers. From there, he read about Hunter’s contentious divorce. And from that he decided to launch a criminal investigation.

I started this investigation in November of 2018 after reviewing bank reports related to another case I was working on a social media company. Those bank reports identified Hunter Biden as paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring.

Also included in those bank reports was evidence that Hunter Biden was living lavishly through his corporate bank account. This is a typical thing that we look for in tax cases — criminal tax cases, I should say.

In addition, there was media reporting related to Hunter Biden’s wife, ex-wife, divorce proceedings basically talking about his tax issues. And I wanted to quote some of the things that were said in her divorce filing which was public record.

“Throughout the parties’ separation, Mr. Biden” — referring to Hunter Biden — “has created financial concerns for the family by spending extravagantly on his own interests, including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, gifts for women with whom he had sexual relationships with, while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills.

“The parties’ outstanding debts are shocking and overwhelming. The parties have maxed-out credit card debt, double mortgages on both real properties they own, and a tax debt of at least $300,000.”

This is all the information that I had in my hand in November when I wanted to open this investigation.

His supervisor, Matt Kutz, treated the investigation of the former Vice President’s son as a sensitive matter and demanded more evidence before letting Ziegler open the investigation.

After discussing the case with my previous supervisor at the time, Matt Kutz, he made a decision to look into the case further before sending it — sending the case up for referral.

[snip]

My manager at the time told me, “No, you cannot do that. That’s a tax disclosure issue.” I didn’t agree with him because there’s been multiple instances where we do that. That’s a normal part of our job. But he was my manager, and I wasn’t going to fight him on it, and he told me that I had to open this up the normal tax administrative way that we would do [for] these cases.

[snip]

[H]e said a political family like this, you have to have more than just an allegation and evidence related to that allegation. In order for this case to move forward, you basically have to show a significant amount of evidence and similar wrongdoing that would basically illustrate a prosecution report.

So he’s basically telling me that I have to show more than just non-[filed] tax returns and the information from the ex-wife in the divorce proceedings.

During Democrats’ questioning, Ziegler described how persistent were his efforts to find some basis to open an investigation into Hunter Biden.

Mr. [Ziegler]. My initiation packet, so sending the case forward to get — we call it subject case. It’s an SCI. It’s elevating the case to actually working the investigation.

My first one showed the unfiled returns and the taxes owed for 2015 and that was it on my first package. So that was the wrongdoing that we were alleging.

And my supervisor goes: You don’t have enough. You need to find more.

So I kept digging for more and more. And even after that point, he goes: You haven’t found enough.

So I ended up searching bank reports that [I] ran on the periphery of what we were looking at.

So I ran bank reports for Burisma, and in those bank reports I had found additional payments that Hunter had received. And then at that point I had found that Hunter did not report the income for 2014 related to Burisma.

So now I had a false return year. So that alone — it was basically so much evidence that I put in there — allowed us to elevate the case.

It took Ziegler three attempts before he was able to show enough evidence of wrong-doing that Kutz would agree to send the referral to DOJ Tax. That’s what led to the decision — at first, Ziegler attributed the decision to Bill Barr personally, though subsequently retracted that claim — to merge his IRS investigation with one Delaware had opened in January 2019.

So after three of these initiation packages, he finally allowed me to push this forward to DOJ Tax for their review.

So the way that our grand jury cases — or the way — I’m sorry. The way that our cases work is when the case is referred from IRS to DOJ Tax, the case has to go through our ASAC and SAC, and then it goes to DOJ Tax where they review and approve it and send it to the appropriate venue or jurisdiction.

So in [or] around March or April of 2019, the case went up to DOJ Tax.

And at that time we were told that William Barr made the decision to join two investigations together. So at that point in time I had found out that Delaware had opened up an investigation related to the bank reports and that that occurred in January of 2019, so 2 months after I started mine.

So when I found out about their case and was told that we had to merge the two, I did a venue analysis. I showed them that, “Hey, the venue’s in D.C. It’s not in Delaware. We need to work this in D.C.” But, ultimately, I was overruled, and it was determined to send the case, join the two case together, and work everything under Delaware. [my emphasis]

Here and elsewhere, Ziegler (working from memory) obscures details of this timeline: about when he came to learn of the Delaware investigation and when he submitted his finalized package for DOJ Tax.

In an email Ziegler sent in April 2019, though, he memorialized that, “Approx. February 2019 — My SSA advised me about the Delaware USAO looking into Robert Doe subsequent to the [Suspicious Activity Report]” on which Ziegler himself had predicated his investigation. That same email described submitting the package to DOJ Tax on April 12, 2019.

Two weeks later, his supervisor relayed the news that the case would end up in Delaware.

Jason Poole telephoned me and advised after inter‐department discussions well above his level, it is highly likely the Robert Doe case will go to the Delaware USAO for investigation.

So while Ziegler may have decided to pursue the former Vice President’s son based on payments to sex workers and divorce records before Delaware opened an investigation, DOJ Tax had not even considered whether this merited a criminal investigation until April 2019, at which point someone high up — possibly even the Attorney General himself — decided Delaware would oversee the case.

By that point, Delaware had been investigating for up to three months, and Ziegler had known that for two months.

That’s important because, if we can believe Johnathan Buma (I raised some cautions about his claims here), the FBI got a tip about Hunter Biden from two Ukrainians with ties to that country’s Prosecutor General’s Office in January 2019.

In January, 2019, DYNAMO, ROLLIE and THE ECONOMIST were taken to the US Attorney’s Office in downtown Los Angeles, where they presented severd of these schemes to an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), who was interested in pursuing money laundering cases in violation of the FCPA, which implicated US entities or persons. THE ECONOMIST’s presentation included detailed information concerning several multi-million and multi-billion dollar schemes. The information was based on an extrapolation of open-source information from Ukraine, as well as insight from THE  ECONOMIST’s consulting work in the PGO and ROLLIE’s foundation. One of the described scenarios alleged Hunter Biden (Hunter) had been given a lucrative position on the board of directors of the energy company, Burisma Holdings Limited (Burisma), and was likely involved in  unreported lobbying and/or tax evasion.

This approach from people affiliated with Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office (my earlier post provides descriptions of those ties) came months after Rudy Giuliani first tasked Lev Parnas with finding this dirt in November 2018 and after Trump had gotten personally involved.

Later that month [on December 6], I attended a Hanukkah celebration at the White House where Giuliani and Trump were both present. Trump approached me briefly to say, “Rudy told me good things. Keep up the good work.” Then he gave me a thumbs-up in approval.

By January 2019, Parnas was in communications with both Viktor Shokin and Yuri Lutsenko, both of whom might have had ties to Rollie and the Economist. On January 26, Lutsenko shared a package of information on Burisma that, again, has similarities to what Rollie shared that same month.

According to Buma, sometime after the January 2019 presentation Rollie and The Economist made to the Los Angeles US Attorney’s Office, Buma submitted an FD-1023 about their package and spoke to two FBI case agents located in Baltimore on the already ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden about it.

After receiving the presentation from ROLLIE and THE ECONOMIST, THE ECONOMIST provided me a thumb drive with some supporting documentation, much of which was in the Ukrainian language, which I do not speak. After I submitted my FD-1023 reports on this information, I was put in touch with two agents working out of the Baltimore office on a case based in Delaware involving Hunter. I spoke on the phone with these agents, who were very interested in the information due to its relation to their ongoing investigation that was mostly involving allegations of Hunter’s involvement with drugs and prostitution. Information derived from ROLLIE and THE ECONOMIST had previously been found to be credible, so this was handled carefully and quickly transferred over to the agents in Baltimore and was serialized in their case file.

As Buma described it, by the time this information showed up in the press, it had become clear that Rollie and the Economist shared the information for influence purposes tied to Joe Biden’s run for the presidency, not law enforcement.

[T]he derogatory information concerning the Bidens and Burisma quickly emerged in domestic US. media, suggesting that it was being provided for political influence rather than law-enforcement purposes.

But that didn’t prevent the Ukrainians from being invited, some time after June 26, 2019, to attend an event associated with the White House at which Rollie gave Mike Pompeo the same package of derogatory information on Hunter Biden. And somewhere along the line, Buma’s primary source who introduced them to the Los Angeles US Attorney’s Office had direct contact with Rudy Giuliani.

The precise relationship between Rollie and The Economist and Rudy’s efforts, started month earlier, remains obscure. But both had begun well before Ziegler’s pitch to DOJ Tax to investigate Hunter Biden criminally, and it’s likely that Delaware had the FD-1023 from the Ukrainians before DOJ Tax approved the investigation.

And by that point, in April 2019, Ziegler’s supervisor — the same guy who insisted he needed more than payments to sex workers to open an investigation into a politically sensitive figure — started documenting the demands for just such an investigation.

Around the same time in 2019, I had emails being sent to me and the Hunter — and the prosecutors on the case, the Hunter Biden prosecutors, from my IRS supervisor. So this was Matt Kutz still.

From what I was told by various people in my agency, my IRS supervisor, Matt Kutz, created memos which he put in the investigative files regarding the investigation potentially violating the subject’s Sixth Amendment rights. He also referred to Donald Trump’s tweets at the time.

[snip]

Q Okay. You’re talking about 2019. You were mentioning the fact that there was a George Murphy that was writing memos or emails and documenting some of his conclusions that were on the other side regarding this case.

Could you tell us more about him? What’s his title and who is he and how does he relate to you in terms of your chain of command?

A So it was actually Matthew Kutz. He was my supervisor at the time and from the articles that he was sending me, I would say he had more of a liberal view than I had and it was pretty obvious from the things he would send me and discuss. And that’s just me making an observation.

So I later found out about these memos that were put in the file regarding the issues that he saw with the investigation, the fact that we even had it opened. So I only learned about those after. And then it came to a point to where he’s sending us so many media articles about different issues that I had to tell him stop, please.

And I had to go around him. And that’s when I went to my ASAC at the time, George Murphy, who was above him.

MAJORITY COUNSEL 2. Off the record.

MAJORITY COUNSEL 1. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.]

MAJORITY COUNSEL 1. On the record.

Mr. [Ziegler]. So these articles were a lot about — were a lot of articles regarding Trump and getting a fair investigation and things related to that, Trump’s tweets and stuff like that. So, that’s what drew me to my conclusion.

BY MINORITY COUNSEL 1: Q What was the purpose behind him sending you the Trump tweets? What was he trying to get at, or was he trying to give you more information for your case? Why would he send those, or do you know?

A Yeah, I think he was bringing up concerns with potentially us prosecuting the case down the road, potential issues we’re going to incur. I don’t remember the exact email that he sent that caused me to be — that he had to stop sending me some of the news articles, because it wasn’t even the fact that he was sending me these news articles. It was the opinion he was providing in those emails that I did not agree or that I did not — not agree with but did not think was appropriate.

Gary Shapley replaced Kutz in 2020 — possibly because Kutz insisted on documenting the demands from the President for Ziegler’s thinly-predicated investigation — around the same time Bill Barr set up a means to ingest Rudy’s dirt.

But in 2019, Kutz was documenting in real time the problem with pursuing the son of Donald Trump’s opponent while Donald Trump demanded such investigations via Tweet.

It’s in the case file.

Trump’s demands for an investigation into Hunter Biden were deemed by the IRS SSA to be problematic influence on the case in 2019. Yet that investigation continues, now bolstered by Special Counsel status, and is the basis for the GOP impeachment pitch.

Samuelsohn’s rag has a reporter, Stephen Neukam, covering the GOP impeachment stunt almost half time (though Neukam apparently hasn’t bothered to cover the Scott Brady testimony that lays out even more details of how Barr set up a means to filter Rudy’s dirt into the Hunter Biden investigation, evidence that — contra Ziegler — Barr was “weigh[ing] in, or seek[ing] updates on the investigation after those cases were joined”). Barr has confirmed, on the record, knowledge of how information was shared from Brady to Weiss.

Yet Samuelsohn describes Rudy’s intervention as something past, something unrelated to the future prospect of Trump ordering up investigations into his rivals.

You cannot understand the GOP impeachment pitch — you cannot claim to be doing journalism on the Republican effort to impeach Hunter Biden’s father — unless you understand the ties between Rudy’s efforts and the Hunter Biden investigation.

You can write all you want about how institutional guardrails might stymie Trump’s efforts to politicize DOJ in the future. But if you gloss over evidence that those guardrails failed in Trump’s past Administration, if you ignore how Trump’s success at politicizing DOJ continues to have repercussions to this day — indeed, continues to be a central issue in the election — then you’re not really addressing the threat Trump poses, past and future.

Update: Fixed date of October 23 briefing.

In an Attempt to Claim Vindictive Prosecution, Trump Confesses Biden Hasn’t Interfered Like He Has

/11 Comments/in , , /by

To substantiate a claim that Joe Biden ginned up the twin prosecutions against him (motion, reply), Donald Trump picked two clauses (in italics) in an article (live link) that repeatedly describes the various ways that Biden and Merrick Garland have restored the independence to the Department of Justice from what it had been under Trump.

The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.

[snip]

In a statement, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said the president believed that Mr. Garland had “decisively restored” the independence of the Justice Department.

“President Biden is immensely proud of the attorney general’s service in this administration and has no role in investigative priorities or decisions,” Mr. Bates said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

The Jan. 6 investigation is a test not just for Mr. Garland, but for Mr. Biden as well. Both men came into office promising to restore the independence and reputation of a Justice Department that Mr. Trump had tried to weaponize for political gain.

[snip]

Complicating matters for Mr. Biden is the fact that his two children are entangled in federal investigations, making it all the more important that he stay out of the Justice Department’s affairs or risk being seen as interfering for his own family’s gain.

The department is investigating whether Ashley Biden was the victim of pro-Trump political operatives who obtained her diary at a critical moment in the 2020 presidential campaign, and Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for tax avoidance and his international business dealings. Hunter Biden has not been charged with a crime and has said he handled
his affairs appropriately.

Justice Department officials do not keep Mr. Biden abreast of any investigation, including those involving his children, several people familiar with the situation said. The cases involving Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden are worked on by career officials, and people close to the president, including Dana Remus, the White House counsel, have no visibility into them, those people said.

[snip]

Officials inside the White House and the Justice Department acknowledge that the two men have less contact than some previous presidents and attorneys general, particularly Mr. Trump and his last attorney general, William P. Barr.

Some officials see their limited interactions as an overcorrection on the part of Mr. Garland and argue that he does not need to color so scrupulously within the lines. But it may be the only logical position for Mr. Garland to take, particularly given that both of Mr. Biden’s children are involved in active investigations by the Justice Department.

The distance between the two men is a sharp departure from the previous administration, when Mr. Trump would often call Mr. Barr to complain about decisions related to his political allies and enemies. Such calls were a clear violation of the longtime norms governing contact between the White House and the Justice Department.

Mr. Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came to his job as president with a classical, postWatergate view of the department — that it was not there to be a political appendage. [my bold and italics]

Since the two clauses on which Trump relies conform with the evidence presented in the rest of the article — which is to say, they show that Biden has taken no steps to share his views with the Attorney General — Trump simply invents something that’s not in the article: a claim that Biden deliberately planted these quotes as a way to give Garland an order to prosecute Trump.

The Biden administration intentionally leaked these comments to the media in early 2022 so that President Biden could improperly provide instructions to and exert pressure on prosecutors and investigators without engaging in direct communications, as is clear from the fact that the article sourced the operative remark to “two people familiar with his comments.” Id.

Trump then dismisses prosecutors’ argument that such anonymous claims are not evidence by likening the misrepresentation of the article to three times Jack Smith prosecutors cited newspaper reports.

The reports at issue are not, as the prosecution claims, based on “rumor and innuendo.” Doc. 141 at 6. The Washington Post article is “based on internal documents, court files, congressional records, handwritten contemporaneous notes, and interviews with more than two dozen current and former prosecutors, investigators, and others with knowledge of the probe.” Doc. 116-1 at 3. The New York Times article is attributed to “interviews with more than a dozen people, including officials in the Biden administration and people with knowledge of the president’s thinking, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.” Doc. 116-2 at 2. For example, President Biden’s instruction that President Trump “should be prosecuted” is sourced to “two people familiar with his comments.” Id

7 See, e.g., Doc. 97 at 10; Doc. 109 at 30; Doc. 140 at 11.

Those three reports are:

A citation to a threat included in a WaPo report.

6 See Washington Post, FBI Joins Investigation of Threats to Grand Jurors in Trump Georgia Case, (Aug. 18, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nationalsecurity/2023/08/18/fbi-joins-investigation-threats-grand-jurors-trump-georgia-case/ (citing an online post stating, “These jurors have signed their death warrant by falsely indicting President Trump”)

A reference to the fact that Clinton entered into a deal to avoid indictment when he left office:

The same is true for President Clinton’s “forthright admission that he gave false testimony under oath” about matters occurring during his presidency in order to avoid indictment after his presidency. See John F. Harris & Bill Miller, In a Deal, Clinton Avoids Indictment, Washington Post (Jan. 20, 2001). 12

12 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/.

Factual details about the identities and now proven — all have now either been convicted or pled guilty — crimes of members of the J6 choir with whom Trump made a video.

The January 6 Choir includes defendants who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 and one who used chemical spray on a Capitol Police officer who died the next day. See Washington Post, Behind Trump’s Musical Tribute to Some of the Most Violent Jan. 6 Rioters (May 7, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/trump-j6-prison-choir/

This insane argument, which effectively insists on the truth value of the NYT article that states over and over that Biden has not done what Trump did to politicize investigation as part of a bid to claim that Biden has politicized this investigation comes after Hunter Biden made a bid to subpoena Trump for evidence of how he did interfere in the investigation of Joe Biden’s son.

Instead of anonymous quotes that actual confirm Biden hasn’t spoken with Garland about these investigations, Abbe Lowell relied on eight public tweets, including one blasting David Weiss and calling for a death sentence for Hunter.

D. Trump Truth Social post on July 11, 2023: “Weiss is a COWARD, a smaller version of Bill Barr, who never had the courage to do what everyone knows should have been done. He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. Because of the two Democrat Senators in Delaware, they got to choose and/or approve him. Maybe the judge presiding will have the courage and intellect to break up this cesspool of crime. The collusion and corruption is beyond description. TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE!”

Another of the tweets in the bid for subpoenas denied any involvement in the prosecution ten days before — notes from Richard Donoghue show — Trump interjected a complaint about Hunter Biden’s treatment amid complaints that DOJ wasn’t backing Trump’s false claims about election fraud, both of which led up to a threat to replace Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark.

For example, on December 27, 2020, then Deputy Attorney General Donoghue took handwritten notes of a call with President Trump and Acting Attorney General Rosen, showing that Mr. Trump instructed Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue to “figure out what to do with H[unter] Biden” and indicating Mr. Trump insisted that “people will criticize the DOJ if he’s not investigated for real.”

[snip]

D. Trump tweet on December 17, 2020: “I have NOTHING to do with the potential prosecution of Hunter Biden, or the Biden family. It is just more Fake News. . . .” [emphasis original]

Side note: Lowell very graciously didn’t point out that Donoghue, in his January 6 testimony, tried to spin these notes to make them less damning then they are, possibly up to including adding an “H” after the fact to pretend that Trump didn’t also consider the investigation of the son to be an effort to get to the father, as Trump’s earlier tweet made clear he did and does.

It wasn’t just Jeffrey Rosen with whom Trump raised the Biden investigation. Lowell also cited the passage from Barr’s book where Trump raised Hunter directly with the Attorney General.

Additionally, former Attorney General Barr’s latest book recalls an instance in mid-October 2020 in which President Trump called Mr. Barr and inquired about the investigation of Mr. Biden, which Mr. Barr says ended with Mr. Barr yelling at Mr. Trump, “Dammit, Mr. President, I am not going to talk to you about Hunter Biden. Period!”

And Lowell cited the reference to the briefing Scott Brady’s team did with David Weiss’ team to share an allegation Mikola Zlochevsky made sometime close to the time when, according to Chuck Grassley, Barr’s DOJ shut down an investigation into Zlochevsky.

Gary Shapley Aff. 3, attach. 6 (IRS CI Memorandum of Conversation, Oct. 22, 2020), (“Pittsburgh read out on their investigation was ordered to be received by this prosecution team by the PDAG.”), available at https://gopwaysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/T87-Shapley-3_Attachment-6_WMRedacted.pdf.

Lowell did not close the loop on this to show Barr confessing to personal knowledge of Brady’s project and the details of how the FD-1023 memorializing the Zlochevsky allegation got shared with Weiss, tantamount to a confession that he lied in his book. Nor did Lowell mention the Perfect Phone Call in which Trump asked the President of Ukraine to work with Barr to investigate the Bidens or the allegation that Trump’s handlers had removed a damning reference to Burisma.

You’re with me so far, right? In support of a claim that Joe Biden has interfered in the prosecutions of Trump, Trump demands that DOJ treat as reliable an article that says, in about seven different ways, that Biden doesn’t do that. And Trump did that a week after Hunter’s lawyer laid out eight tweets, two memorializations of conversations with Trump, two primary documents, and two congressional depositions, all of which show high level involvement and, at least on Trump’s part, attempted interference in the Hunter investigation, which ignores some of the most important public documents memorializing Trump’s interference.

But it gets crazier!

In response to AUSA Thomas Windom’s observation that, “the defendant does not provide the Court with even the roughest sketch of what this ‘fact finding’ would entail or uncover,” Trump says his discovery request already laid that out.

Finally, the Special Counsel’s Office professes confusion about what the fact finding “would entail” and claims that it requires a “rough[] sketch.” Doc. 141 at 14. The Supreme Court has provided one, in a case the Office cited: “the Government must assemble from its own files documents which might corroborate or refute the defendant’s claim.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464. So too have our discovery requests. See Ex. 2 (10/23/23 Requests 10-12, 24, 39-40, 43, 55).

The requests he points to are:

Conduct alleged in the indictment, and responses by witnesses described in the indictment (as well as a letter he includes with this filing, showing two prosecutors in this case attempted to persuade Bill Barr to adhere to normal procedures after the election).

11. Please provide all documents related to views and opinions expressed by Department of Justice personnel, including from the Public Integrity Section and National Security Division, discouraging, disagreeing with, or resisting investigations of election fraud, interference (including foreign interference), anomalies, or irregularities related to the 2020 election.

12. Please provide all documents related to or reflecting decisions by the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, election officials, or other government officials declining or refusing a review or investigation of election fraud, interference (including foreign interference), anomalies, or irregularities related to the 2020 election.

Advice from Steve Engel (who would go on to join in an effort to thwart Trump’s efforts to replace Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark), any of which Trump relied upon he could cite specifically.

24. Please provide all documents, including communications, memorandums, and opinions (whether formal written opinions, drafts thereto, or informal analyses), of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concerning the Electoral Count Act, election fraud, any litigation related to the 2020 election, or any advice provided directly or indirectly to any Executive Branch official concerning the outcome of the 2020 election.

Any discipline DOJ pursued for Michael Sherwin for violating rules that were routinely violated under Trump.

40. Please provide all documents relating to the March 2021 “60 Minutes” interview of Michael Sherwin, including all documents relating to investigations of potential violations of applicable rules, policies, or procedures resulting from Mr. Sherwin’s participation in the interview.

A known referral of fake electors from Dana Nessel.

39. Please provide all documents relating to the “referrals” referenced by Lisa Monaco during an interview on or about January 25, 2022.

A fishing expedition to get the kind of inflammatory texts that were selectively released during the Russian investigation, to obtain the texts everyone sent on their FBI cell phones).

55. Please provide all documents reflecting statements by any member of the prosecution team indicating an intent or effort to stop or hinder President Trump from becoming President of the United States.

Complaints that, broadly interpreted, could include those from Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that instead show the high level involvement of Trump’s DOJ in the Hunter Biden investigation and the investigators own efforts to conduct the investigation in such a way that it might become public.

10. Please provide all documents relating to complaints or concerns by any prosecutor from DOJ, the Special Counsel’s Office, or any federal law enforcement agent relating to the conduct of the investigations of President Trump, the 2020 election, or President Biden.

A request for communications that, the NYT article he relies on, says don’t exist: “coordination” between Biden and DOJ or the Special Counsel’s office. But also a request for communications that might, broadly interpreted, cover the entirety of Hunter Biden’s defense counsel communications with DOJ. (It would also include any victim interviews with Ashley Biden regarding her diary and other personal belongings stolen by Trump supporters.)

43. Please provide all documents relating to communications or coordination by the Special Counsel’s Office and DOJ with any of the Biden Administration, the Biden Campaign, Hunter Biden, the Biden family, the Biden White House, or any person representing Joe Biden. [my emphasis]

DOJ’s criminal prosecutors are not communicating with Joe Biden. They are, however, communicating with Hunter Biden (via his counsel) because Trump’s own US Attorney, now bolstered with Special Counsel status, is prosecuting Hunter Biden. And after having attacked Weiss publicly, Trump is now claiming that he needs Hunter Biden’s communications to prove Donald Trump is being treated unfairly.

The primary thing on which Trump relies to make a claim he’s being treated unfairly instead supports the opposite claim: That Merrick Garland is treating him better than he and his DOJ treated Joe Biden’s son. But in his effort to claim he wasn’t simply inventing all this, Trump revealed that even in this prosecution, he’s attempting to interfere in Hunter Biden’s prosecution.

Perfect Phone Calls: Redefining Vindictive Prosecution in the Trump Era

/41 Comments/in , , /by

On July 26, AUSA Leo Wise had this exchange with Maryellen Noreika, the judge presiding over the Hunter Biden case.

THE COURT: I have had one or two cases involving a person struggling with addiction who bought a gun, we usually see a felony charge for false statement.

The Defendant has admitted that his statement was false, but he wasn’t charged. Again, I’m not trying to get into the purview of the prosecutor, and I understand the separation of powers, it’s in your discretion, but I just want to ask, does the government have any concern about not bringing the false statement charge in light of our discussion of 922(g)(3) and the constitutionality of that charge.

MR. WISE: No, Your Honor.

Less than three hours later, after Wise revealed that prosecutors had a different understanding of the immunity provision in the plea deal than Hunter’s lawyers did, Hunter Biden pled not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges.

Hunter Biden faces stiffer penalties after exercizing a constitutional right

Hunter Biden exercised his constitutional right to plead not guilty to a plea deal that wasn’t what he had understood it to be.

Exactly 50 days later, Leo Wise and Derek Hines obtained an indictment charging Hunter Biden with three crimes under 18 USC 922: the original charge for possessing a gun as an addict — 922(g)(3) — along with two false statement charges 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) that Wise had said less than two months earlier prosecutors didn’t intend to charge. Then, the government dismissed the previous diversion agreement that charged Hunter solely with 922(g)(3).

Whereas on July 26, Hunter faced the possibility of avoiding any jail time for the gun crime and, even if he failed to fulfill the terms of his diversion, he faced a maximum of 10 years, as of September 14, on paper he faces 25 years. (In reality he would face a fraction of this and the total exposure is similar.) Hunter Biden faces those formally stiffer penalties even though AUSA Wise told Judge Noreika that the gun diversion was, “a contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a determination, period.”

The sharply increased penalty that Hunter Biden faces after agreeing to a diversion agreement but then pleading not guilty to tax charges may be a key dynamic in motions we’ll see in weeks ahead.

What Abbe Lowell said we could expect

Between the arraignment and his bid for a Trump subpoena, Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell has set expectations about what will occur between now and submission of pretrial motions on December 11.

He has asked for “Brady and other discovery,” but as of last week, “the defense has not received such material [about the targets of his subpoena request] in discovery from the prosecution or elsewhere, notwithstanding specific discovery requests and that some of this information likely resides with the DOJ.”

He said he expected to request an evidentiary hearing, which will presumably be tied to one or more motions to dismiss the indictment.

He described that those motions to dismiss would argue:

  • The gun charges are unconstitutional
  • The diversion agreement prohibits these charges
  • A selective and/or
  • Vindictive prosecution claim

The motion to dismiss the gun charges on constitutional grounds will associate this case with other similar challenges already wending their way towards SCOTUS. Whatever Noreika decides to do about it, it will mostly delay resolution of this case as those appeals proceed.

Lowell, and before him Chris Clark, have repeatedly said that Weiss could not indict Hunter on the gun charges because the diversion agreement remains in effect. I’m not sure how Lowell will make the argument that DOJ has effectively breached a “bilateral contract,” though it may also play a part in a vindictive prosecution claim, as I describe below.

Selective prosecution arguments almost never work. It would have to lay out evidence that there were similarly situated people — who purchased a gun without disclosing their addiction but, absent some other crime tied to the gun, were not charged. It is not enough to point to abundant data showing that this charge is rarely charged (as a number of journalists have laid out), which, if he files such a motion, Lowell would surely have. You also have to argue that you were charged only because you’re a protected class, which historically has meant racial discrimination. While (as Carissa Byrne Hessick recently laid out when Trump tried a selective prosecution claim) people have tried to say they were selectively prosecuted because of their political views, that hasn’t worked yet. And you could as easily argue that Hunter was being charged because he is the son of the guy who championed these drug and gun laws in the first place as you could that he was being charged because he is the President’s son — goodness knows the 2A crowd would make that argument.

One of the only reasons such a motion might work here where it would otherwise not is because there are people — thus far speaking anonymously to the press — who have stated that Hunter was charged only because he is who he is. For example, Glenn Thrush described that,

When officials with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reviewed Hunter Biden’s gun application several years ago, they believed the case most likely would have been dropped if the target were a lesser-known person.

And NYT described, in a story including Thrush, that,

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.

If Lowell can find these witnesses — experts on gun crimes who said Hunter was charged only because he was prominent and a Weiss associate whom Weiss purportedly told he knew that average Americans would not be prosecuted for such crimes –and get them to testify, then he would have what virtually no other defendant would: Proof that the prosecutor who brought the charge knew that similarly situated defendants would not be charged, but charged the defendant anyway.

Vindictive prosecution bids almost never work pre-trial

It’s Lowell’s mention of a possible vindictive prosecution claim that I revisited after reading his subpoena request and writing this post.

Normally, vindictive prosecution claims argue that a prosecutor retaliated against a defendant because they exercised a constitutional or statutory right. As mapped out above, Lowell might argue that David Weiss ratcheted up the gun charges against Hunter — 25 years of exposure instead of a diversion agreement — because he exercised his right to plead not guilty on the tax charges.

But that argument would be thwarted by several precedents that limit the ability of a defendant to plead vindictive prosecution, especially pre-trial. Bordenkirscher basically held that making dickish threats as part of plea negotiations is not vindictive prosecution. Goodwin made it much harder to argue that a prosecutor’s decision to ratchet up charges in response to a defendant’s decision to go to trial was presumptively vindictive, basically holding that the prosecutor may have, instead, added charges out of some societal interest in the prosecution.

You can see how this works in the case of Hatchet Speed, based on facts — involving felony gun charges in one district and the addition of a felony charge to a misdemeanor in another — not dissimilar from Hunter’s case. On January 6, Speed was an NRO contractor with TS/SCI clearance and a Naval reservist still training at Andrews Air Force Base. He had ties to the Proud Boys and expressed a fondness for Hitler. He went on a $50,000 weapon buying spree after January 6, including devices that — prosecutors successfully argued in a second trial — qualified as silencers under federal law. He was charged for unregistered silencers in EDVA and, at first, misdemeanor trespassing charges for his actions on January 6. Between the time his first EDVA trial ended in mistrial and a guilty verdict in his retrial, DOJ added a felony obstruction charge in DC, which his excellent FPD attorneys argued was retaliation for the mistrial. But DOJ responded with an explanation of the process leading to the addition of the felony obstruction charge: they added a second prosecutor, got better at prosecuting obstruction for January 6, found some more damning video of Speed at the Capitol, and came to recognize how Speed’s comments about the attack would prove the corrupt intent required for obstruction charges. They were pretty honest that they regarded Speed as a dangerous dude that they wanted to put away, too.

The same process might well happen if Lowell files a vindictive prosecution claim. Under Goodwin, Weiss might have to do little more than say there was a societal interest in jailing Hunter Biden to affirm the import of the gun laws his father continues to champion.

As with the selective prosecution claim, some facts exist with the Hunter Biden prosecution that might distinguish this from all the other impossible claims of vindictive prosecution. Most important is the contested status of that diversion agreement, about which both sides made conflicting claims during the failed plea hearing. If Noreika credits it as a bilateral contract between the two sides, as both Wise and Clark claimed it was at points during the hearing, then she might treat a vindictive prosecution claim as an abrogation of a contract followed by the ratcheting up of charges. If Noreika links it to the tax plea, as both sides described it as at different points in that hearing, then the question of whether Weiss reneged on the larger plea becomes an issue, but which might make this just a case of dickish threats covered by Bordenkirscher.

There’s also the fact that Weiss will have to come up with an explanation of why he and Leo Wise thought pretrial diversion was in the societal interest on June 20, why Leo Wise thought false statement charges were unnecessary on July 26, but then decided felony prosecution, including on two false statements charges, was in the societal interest on September 14. This is why Abbe Lowell keeps repeating,

no new evidence related to these charges emerged between June 20 (when the plea deal was first presented to the Court) and July 26 (when the prosecution reneged on its deal), and in fact only more favorable case law on this issue has developed since then.

While there was more evidence in Speed’s case (newly discovered video from the Capitol), mostly prosecutors just argued the evidence looked different as other obstruction cases unfolded.

Lowell is arguing that the only thing that explains why the five year old evidence against Hunter Biden might look different in September than it did in June is because of the political pressure brought to bear on Weiss, and maybe the threats that both Weiss and Thomas Sobocinski have described to the House Judiciary Committee that was significantly responsible for the threats.

That would make this a political influence and violent threats case, not a vindictive prosecution case — possibly a different kind of motion to dismiss on Due Process grounds, but not a vindictive prosecution case. Normally, though, prosecutors have lots of tools to exclude that kind of thing.

Vindictiveness on a much grander scale

Which brings me to Lowell’s request to serve subpoenas on Donald Trump, Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, and Richard Donoghue, which first sent me down this rabbit hole.

Consider the timing. The November 15 filing makes an impossible request; it asks for subpoena returns by December 1.

Defendant Robert Hunter Biden, through his counsel, respectfully moves this Court to enter an order directing that subpoenas duces tecum be issued to the following individuals—Donald John Trump (“Mr. Trump”); William P. Barr (“Mr. Barr”); Richard Donoghue (“Mr. Donoghue”); and Jeffrey A. Rosen (“Mr. Rosen”)—pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that each subpoena recipient be required to provide any responsive documents and materials by December 1, 2023, to allow Mr. Biden sufficient time to review the material in advance of any necessary pre-trial motion, evidentiary hearing, and/or trial.

Thus far, Judge Noreika has not ordered Weiss to respond, but if they do in normal order and Lowell replies, this thing wouldn’t be fully briefed until December 6. Lowell couldn’t possibly expect subpoena returns, even assuming any of those served would respond without legal challenge, until after the new year.

The motion reviews the standard for subpoenas and admissibility at length, but as Popehat noted in a piece that otherwise got many of the facts of this case (such as the role of Biden officials in it) wrong, it doesn’t brief how Lowell would be able to use these records. Lowell mentions vindictive or selective prosecution but doesn’t, yet, make a case for it. Lowell cites just one precedent for obtaining subpoenas for use in pretrial filings, as opposed to at trial.

Lowell doesn’t mention Armstrong, the precedent that usually makes it impossible for defendants to get discovery in selective prosecution challenges. But that may be instructive. Before Lowell is making a request for discovery based on a selective and/or vindictive prosecution claim, he is first asking for subpoenas, without fully laying out whether this would be a selective or vindictive or political influence prosecution claim.

Instead of arguing Armstrong, Lowell instead notes that he knows these records actually exist. “Before the government intones its stock phrase, this is no fishing expedition.”

On that point, he’s right. There are records responsive to these subpoenas. But it’s worth looking at what they are, what else would be included if he got full response to these subpoenas.

The subpoenas ask for any communications provided to the January 6 Committee mentioning Hunter Biden (request 4). The request cites Richard Donoghue’s notes of Trump referencing the Hunter Biden prosecution. I’m fairly certain those notes came from the Archives; they were the subject of a special waiver of Executive Privilege back in July 2021. For a variety of reasons, finding similar such notes at the Archives would be virtually impossible without another Executive Privilege waiver, a waiver that because of the conflict, would have to come from Trump, not Biden.

The subpoenas ask for any personal records, such as diaries, that, “reference to any formal or informal decision, discussion, or request to investigate or prosecute Hunter Biden” (request 3). If Donoghue’s notes were not treated as official documents, those would be included. Any drafts of Bill Barr’s book or notes that formed the basis for it, also cited in this motion, would also be included. In the subpoena request, Lowell cites to this WaPo story for Barr’s quote about Trump’s harassment, in which DOJ beat journalist Matt Zapotosky attributes Trump’s comments to Barr based on the fact that Hunter’s, “name was in the news because of the discovery of a laptop belonging to him.”

The full reference in the book describes Will Levi witnessing the call, which raises questions about whether he was on the call taking notes (as Richard Donoghue was during the December 27, 2020 call) rather than standing by, listening to just one side of the conversation as described in the book.

In mid-October I received a call from the President, which was the last time I spoke to him prior to the election. It was a very short conversation. The call came soon after Rudy Giuliani succeeded in making public information about Hunter Biden’s laptop. I had walked over to my desk to take the call. These calls had become rare, so Will Levi stood nearby waiting expectantly to see what it was about. After brief pleasantry about his being out on the campaign trail, the President said, “You know this stuff from Hunter Biden’s laptop?”

I cut the President off sharply. “Mr. President, I can’t talk about that, and I am not going to.”

President Trump hesitated, then continued in a plaintive tone, “You know, if that was one of my kids—”

I cut him off again, raising my voice, “Dammit, Mr. President, I am not going to talk to you about Hunter Biden. Period!”

He was silent for a moment, then quickly got off the line.

I looked up at Will, whose eyes were as big as saucers. “You yelled at the President?” he asked, confirming the obvious. I nodded. He shook his head in disbelief.

A month after the election, the Washington Post reported that there was already an investigation of Hunter Biden under way when I started as Attorney General and that this fact was never leaked. The President never confronted me about that report directly, but I had heard he was angry that I didn’t say anything after the presidential debate in which Biden falsely suggested the relevant e-mails on his son Hunter’s laptop may have been placed there by the Russians. Biden’s bogus statement relied on a letter published a few days before by a coterie of retired intelligence officials who had lost their professional bearings and lent their names to partisan hackery. Their claim was exposed a few days later when the FBI, together with John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, made clear there were no grounds to think the laptop’s damning content reflected foreign disinformation. But, of course, the media, having heralded the letter’s fictitious claims, stayed mostly quiet about its debunking. The damage was done. Biden got away with deception. And Trump thought I was to blame.

This, as well as other Hunter Biden references in the book, are fundamentally incompatible with Barr being personally involved in the Scott Brady project, including having personal knowledge of the circumstances by which Donoghue ordered the FD-1023 to be shared with the Hunter Biden team within ten days of this conversation.

But the degree to which Barr conducted Ukraine-related issues — not to mention a reference to sending Barr a laptop the day after FBI received a laptop believed to have been owned by Hunter Biden — on his personal cell phone would suggest he may have far more, and far more forthright, records about his knowledge of the Hunter Biden investigation in his personal possession. Those would be covered by the subpoena request for communications with, “any Executive Branch official, political appointee, Department of Justice official, government agency, government official or staff person, cabinet member” (request 2).

Trump too would have, “communications…discussing any formal or informal investigation or prosecution of Hunter Biden, including, but not limited to, any decision, referral, or request to investigate or not investigate or charge or not charge Hunter Biden” (request 1). Lowell includes eight examples in his motion: social media posts, four from during Trump’s term and four during the period between the posting of the plea and the failed plea deal.

Those are easy. The records exist, including records over which Trump could invoke no conceivable privilege.

Abbe Lowell is not making up his claim that the top officials at DOJ and Donald Trump communicated about this investigation. He’s not even making up the insinuation that some were intimately involved in efforts to filter dirt, potentially including from Russian agents, into the investigation of Hunter Biden. Scott Brady has already confessed to that.

But one detail of the subpoenas hints at where this could go: In addition to requests for communications with government officials about prosecuting Hunter Biden, it also requests for communications with any, “attorney for President Trump (personal or other) discussing or concerning Hunter Biden” (request 2).

These subpoenas ask for communications with Rudy Giuliani about Hunter Biden.

While the DOJ people may have insulated themselves from direct contact with Rudy (for example, Barr spoke with Victoria Toensing about Dmitry Firtash and the Brady project was set up through Robert Costello), Trump would have a gold mine of contacts with Rudy, including about the “Hunter Biden” “laptop.” He might claim privilege over those.

You know what other communication Trump had, “discussing any formal or informal investigation or prosecution of Hunter Biden” (request 1)? The perfect phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, including — to the extent it still exists — the version in which Zelenskyy named Burisma explicitly, the version in which Trump referenced recordings of Biden discussing corruption, the kind of thing, Lev Parnas claims, that had already been offered up by Mykola Zlochevsky, the guy who went on to make a new bribery claim about Joe Biden after that call.

What these subpoenas ask for pertains to political influence and threats. But they also ask for evidence of a different kind of vindictive prosecution: Trump’s explicit effort to exact his revenge for the Russian investigation on Democrats, on his Democratic opponent, by investigating Hunter Biden.

That’s a due process violation. But not of the kind covered by all the precedents that make it virtually impossible to prove vindictive prosecution.

Serving notice

These subpoenas seek evidence showing that Trump’s demand for an investigation of Hunter Biden for vindictive reasons reached the team investigating Hunter Biden. These are impossible subpoenas, insofar as they ask for compliance according to an impossible timeline and ask for compliance that may not legally be available (indeed, to the extent Trump has items in his possession, for various reason they may be covered by the Mar-a-Lago protective order). To the extent subpoenas ask for things covered by various privileges, they would pose impossible challenges to overcome. To the extent the subpoenas ask for the perfect phone call in which Trump demanded Zelenskyy’s help with an investigation of Hunter Biden, they are impossible subpoenas because the White House altered that record in real time.

But they are, also, subpoenas for records that undeniably exist, records that incorporate an effort Bill Barr set up to cater to Donald Trump’s personal lawyer that did result in at least one piece of evidence being introduced into the Hunter Biden investigation — Bill Barr’s communications with (!!!) Margot Cleveland would be responsive to his subpoena and would prove that point — records that further show that on at least two occasions, the President of the United States personally berated the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) making demands about this investigation.

The subpoena request does one more thing, as well. It notes that under 26 USC 7217, if any of Trump’s demands about this investigation covered a demand for tax prosecution — the kind of tax prosecution still being pursued in California — it would constitute a felony, one that explicitly names the President among those covered by the crime.

For his part, Mr. Trump has made a plethora of concerning public statements calling for an investigation or possible prosecution of Mr. Biden, both while in office and since leaving, that further suggest improper partisan, political demands were at play, either expressly or implicitly. See also 26 U.S.C. § 7217 (making it a felony for the President to request an IRS investigation of an individual).

These may be impossible subpoenas, but they do serve notice.

My guess is that, when and if Weiss responds, he simply says that those big efforts to politicize this investigation are totally separate from this little tiny isolated gun indictment. He may claim he doesn’t follow the Twitter feed of the guy who appointed him anyway — the same excuses Bill Barr made about other demands Trump served on DOJ via Twitter. Weiss may say, with reason, that some of Richard Donoghue’s involvement in this case actually served to ensure the investigation did not influence the 2020 election. But to even broach that subject, he’d have to admit that some of Richard Donoghue’s efforts, such as ordering Weiss’ attorneys to accept a bribery allegation from the head of Burisma made during impeachment, made after Rudy Giuliani solicited dirt from him, possibly in exchange for favors from DOJ that just happened to coincide with the closure of an investigation into him, can in no way be considered such a thing. Weiss may even say that to the extent that he sheep-dipped his prosecution team, swapping Lesley Wolf for Leo Wise, he has further isolated the team from such improper influences, influences that (Joseph Ziegler helpfully revealed) have been documented going back to 2019.

However Weiss responds, that response will precede whatever motions to dismiss — whether it’s selective or vindictive or really vindictive prosecution — that Abbe Lowell ultimately does file.

None of that will change the precedents — Armstrong and Bordenkirscher and Goodwin and others — that make it nearly impossible for defendants to make these arguments.

But there are aspects of this case, both the known evidence (much of it offered up by law enforcement officers whose actions led to threats against the prosecution team) and the legal posture leftover from that failed plea deal, that make the motions to dismiss genuinely different.

This case is, on one hand, a very simple prosecution involving claims Hunter Biden made in his book, the application of a law that his father championed. It is also, however, a test of whether defendants can fight a different kind of vindictive prosecution, the kind Trump demanded and continues to demand.

Thanks to Carissa Byrne Hessick, who generously served as a sounding board for my thoughts leading up to this post. The errors in the post are all mine.

David Weiss’ FBI FARA Headfake to Create a Hunter Biden Tax Mulligan

/42 Comments/in , , , /by

Last week, CNN reported that the President’s brother, James Biden, is among some number of people who have received a grand jury subpoena for ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden. The investigative steps are unsurprising. As I noted, David Weiss spoke with Los Angeles US Attorney Martin Estrada on September 19 of this year about something that “goes to an ongoing investigation.”

According to materials released by Joseph Ziegler, the IRS interviewed James Biden on September 29, 2022, the last interview in the investigation before the failed plea deal. He was asked about a range of topics: a payment he received from Owasco before he was working with them, his and Hunter’s interactions with CEFC, Hunter’s relationship with Kevin Morris, and about several dodgy people whom Hunter paid in 2018 — payments he wrote off on his taxes. Prosecutors had discussed at least two of those people with Hunter’s legal team during the summer in 2022.

James Biden’s September 2022 interview was voluntary, suggesting investigators obtained any documents discussed in the interview — all but two of which appear to predate April 2019, and so might be among the non-Google materials that investigators first obtained from the laptop provided by John Paul Mac Isaac — via other means, including the laptop and warrants obtained downstream of the laptop. Again, any Google content is an exception to this; it appears the IRS obtained the first Google warrant for Hunter’s Rosemont Seneca account before getting the laptop, but it also appears that the government did not obtain things normally available in a Google warrant–such as attachments and calendar notices–with that warrant and so instead relied on the laptop.

As CNN describes, thus far the subpoenas seek documents; it’s unclear whether anyone (besides someone from the new IRS team put on the case after Weiss removed Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler) has or will testify in person. There are certainly documents that the IRS didn’t seem to have in last year’s interview with James Biden, such as details of his trips to California in 2018 to try to save his nephew from the throes of addiction.

But it’s also possible Weiss is using subpoenas to obtain records that otherwise would be tainted by the laptop.

When Estrada testified to the House Judiciary Committee about the recommendations about this case his senior prosecutors made in three different reports, recommendations he adopted and conveyed to Weiss in a call on October 19, 2022, he referenced Justice Manual rules. “We look at whether a Federal offense has been committed and whether we believe that there is admissible evidence sufficient to prove to an unbiased trier of fact that an individual has committed an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” So the quality of evidence obtained in this investigation could be one reason Estrada’s career prosecutors advised him not to partner on this case.

The details about a renewed investigation into Hunter Biden are not surprising — Estrada’s testimony already suggested as much.

More interesting, however, is CNN’s report that the FBI has completed its part of the investigation, pertaining to FARA and money laundering, and expects no charges.

The FBI, which oversaw the money laundering and FARA portions of the investigation, concluded its findings and didn’t anticipate charges to emerge from those allegations, people briefed on the matter told CNN.

That’s important because potential FARA charges are the reason why this case didn’t end in a plea in July — or at least, the excuse David Weiss and his sheep-dipped prosecutor, Leo Wise, referenced to sustain a claim that the investigation was ongoing.

On July 10, in the wake of a Republican uproar about the Hunter Biden plea deal and public comments from Bill Barr about the FD-1023, Weiss told Lindsey Graham that the allegations of bribery Mykola Zlochevsky made, after outreach from Rudy Giuliani and sometime around when Bill Barr’s DOJ dropped their investigation of him, “relate to an ongoing investigation.” That was probably the second clue that Hunter’s legal team got that the investigation they believed had concluded remained (re)open — the first being Weiss’ press release on the charges on June 20. And in the failed July 26 plea hearing, a potential FARA charge is the specific criminal exposure Leo Wise raised which led Hunter to plead not guilty to a deal significantly negotiated by Delaware AUSA Lesley Wolf.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section.

Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’m trying to figure out if there is a meeting of the minds here and I’m not sure that this provision isn’t part of the Plea Agreement and so that’s why I’m asking.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor, the Plea Agreement —

THE COURT: I need you to answer my question if you can. Is there a meeting of the minds on that one?

MR. CLARK: As stated by the government just now, I don’t agree with what the government said.

THE COURT: So I mean, these are contracts. To be enforceable, there has to be a meeting of the minds. So what do we do now?

MR. WISE: Then there is no deal.

Leo Wise refused to agree that FARA charges were off the table, even though — if you believe Abbe Lowell’s version of events — Lesley Wolf led Hunter’s team to understand, weeks earlier, that FARA charges were off the table. And based on that, Hunter refused to plead guilty.

That’s what gave David Weiss the opportunity to ask to be made Special Counsel: a claim, made after he had already filed tax and a gun charge on June 20, that he was still pursuing an investigation tied to the FD-1023, which would be bribery and money laundering. That’s what led to the three felony gun charges for owning a gun for 11 days in 2018. And that’s what led to a renewed investigation in Los Angeles. And now, David Weiss is using a Los Angeles grand jury to obtain evidence from James Biden that he didn’t think he needed a year ago.

That potential FARA charge is the excuse Weiss used to limit a deal his office had entered into a month earlier. And now, less than two months into any new investigative focus in Los Angeles, CNN says the evidence doesn’t support FARA charges. That’s not surprising. Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley released numerous documents showing Weiss’ team discarded various FARA theories months and years ago (though a CEFC theory was still active as of July 2022).

But it means, at least per CNN, the rationale Weiss and Wise used to sustain the investigation proved short-lived.

That’s important background to Hunter Biden’s request for subpoenas for Trump and others in advance of pretrial motions that Hunter Biden will likely file next month, which I will discuss in more length in a follow-up. Contrary to what some smart commentators, like Popehat, have repeatedly argued, there’s no reason to believe Biden is pursuing this “to develop more evidence that Trump people have it in for him that he can use in future prosecutions,” if Trump returns to the presidency.

Indeed, Abbe Lowell said these subpoenas are, “relevant and material to a fundamental aspect of issues in his defense that will be addressed in pre-trial motions.”

Lowell further explained he needs the subpoenas to figure out whether Weiss’ “change of heart” regarding charges was a “response to political pressure.”

From a Fifth Amendment perspective, it is essential for Mr. Biden to know whether anyone improperly discussed, encouraged, endorsed, or requested an investigation or prosecution of him, and to whom and under what circumstances. The information sought would demonstrate that fact. This is especially true in light of the fact that no new evidence related to these charges emerged between June 20 (when the plea deal was first presented to the Court) and July 26 (when the prosecution reneged on its deal), and in fact only more favorable case law on this issue has developed since then.18 Thus, the prosecution’s change of heart appears to be in response to political pressure, rather than anything newly discovered in the investigation of Mr. Biden. Because such evidence, only some of which has been disclosed already, would tend to undermine the prosecution’s allegation that this case was free from any political inference and was not of a selective or vindictive nature, Mr. Biden’s requests are relevant and material under the requirements of Rule 17(c). [my emphasis]

I imagine that if David Weiss is ever forced to explain what led to the head fake with the plea, he will claim that it had to do with the way he tried to sheep dip the investigation after he decided to charge the case even in spite of Shapley and Ziegler’s efforts to force the issue.

Last December, according to IRS Director of Field Operations Michael Batdorf’s September 12 testimony, Batdorf and Darrell Waldon made the decision to remove Shapley and Ziegler from the Hunter Biden investigation. They didn’t implement it, though, until May, after and because Weiss decided he would charge the case, at which point the IRS assigned a completely new team.

Having an objective set of eyes — complete objective set of eyes on the case where the new investigative team came in and the case is good, the evidence is good, that was something that we just said, let’s — we removed the cooperating revenue agent that was doing tax calculations. We just got an entire new investigative team in there.

[snip]

My concern was the opposite, that if they remained on the case, the case would not go forward

[snip]

It was my interpretation from the phone conversation that we had in December [with Weiss] that there were concerns with the investigation and investigative team, and adding up all those concerns, so having a harder time jumping over that, you know, moving forward with this prosecution.

He never specifically stated that we had to remove the investigative team. He stated that he does not control IRS resources, and he understands that. But part of the concern of moving forward was our investigative team.

[snip]

There was no more investigative activities to take. We can get this to prosecution with a new investigative team.

Partly, this may have just been an effort to avoid having to provide Jencks material, some of which Ziegler and Shapley have since already provided Congress. Even last year, Weiss recognized that Ziegler couldn’t present the revenue assessments at trial that he has spent months sharing with Congress. With a new IRS team, Weiss has secured witnesses who can take the stand without requiring that Weiss share documentation of an obsession with charging Hunter Biden and, frankly, of including his father in the investigation.

It may also be an attempt to insulate any charges from a claim that a law enforcement official found by his supervisor to be making, “unsubstantiated allegations [about Weiss] of motive, intent, and bias” had forced a prosecutor’s decision. After which Shapley and Ziegler have spent months trying to do just that!

But it may not have been just the IRS team. Batdorf described that there had also been a change in AUSA, which would include Lesley Wolf, around the same time.

A It’s my understanding that there had been a change in the AUSA, the prosecution team.

Q And when was the change made? Do you know?

A I believe that was made in roughly — I think it was May or June of this year when we decided to move forward with the investigation.

When staffers asked FBI Special Agent in Charge Thomas Sobocinski in his September 7 interview the same question, he wasn’t sure whether that was true or not. “I don’t know that your statement is factually correct,” Sobocinski responded to an investigator asking why she had been taken off pleadings.

What Sobocinski did know, however, was that Lesley Wolf had received threats. It’s “fair” to say that “she may have concerns for her own safety,” Sobocinski agreed.

Weiss might argue that once Leo Wise took over as AUSA — if that’s what happened — then Weiss left prosecutorial decisions to Wise as a way to insulate charges from claims (made by the IRS agents trying to force more serious charges) that Wolf was biased.

The problem with that is that, on June 7, Lesley Wolf sent out what appears to be the final language on the immunity agreement tied to the plea deal.

Over the course of a few more emails, lawyers on both sides kept line-editing the deal. And on June 7, Wolf sent Clark a version that included the final language shielding Biden from future charges. The language is technical, but it would have immense consequences. Here it is in full:

“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.”

The language refers to two different statements of facts; one would accompany the guilty plea and the other would accompany the pretrial diversion agreement. Together, the two statements included substantial detail about the first son’s business dealings and drug use. The statements highlighted his time on the boards of a scandal-dogged Ukrainian energy company and a Chinese private equity fund, as well as his business venture with the head of a Chinese energy conglomerate. Wolf included those statements in her June 7 email.

Wolf was still on the prosecutorial team — and negotiating a plea deal that would have ruled out FARA charges — on June 7.

That’s the same day Weiss sent the first response, to a May 25 letter Jim Jordan sent Merrick Garland about the IRS agents’ complaints of being removed from the investigation. In it, he cited Rod Rosenstein’s explanation to Chuck Grassley in 2018 how congressional interference might politicize an investigation (in that case, the Mueller investigation).

The information sought by the Committee concerns an open matter about which the Department is not at liberty to respond. As then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote in 2018 in response to a request for information from the Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:

Congressional inquiries during the pendency of a matter pose an inherent threat to the integrity of the Department’s law enforcement and litigation functions. Such inquiries inescapably create the risk that the public and the courts will perceive undue political and Congressional influence over law enforcement and litigation decision.

Less than two months after telling Grassley to butt out, or the public would believe the Mueller investigation faced undue political influence, Rosenstein would grovel to keep his job, assuring President Trump he could “land the plane.” In practice, the reference was not exactly a guarantee of prosecutorial independence, but if Weiss hoped Jordan would understand that, the all-star wrestler didn’t take the hint that corn farmer Grassley took to heart.

Weiss might claim that he replaced Wolf with Wise and in the process had Wise reassess the prior prosecutorial decisions. But, given the date of that letter, there was never a moment he had done so before the political pressure started. David Weiss cannot claim he did so before being pressured by Jim Jordan.

And Jordan’s letter wasn’t the only political pressure. On the same day that Weiss said he couldn’t share information — the likes of which Shapley had already started sharing — because it might politicize an ongoing investigation, Bill Barr (one of the people Lowell wants to subpoena) publicly intervened in the case, insisting the FD-1023 recording Mykola Zlochevsky making a new allegation of bribery had been a live investigative lead when it was shared with Weiss in October 2020, the FD-1023 Weiss specifically said he could not address because it was part of an ongoing investigation.

On a day when Lesley Wolf remained on the case, both Jordan and Barr had already intervened. And because there was never a time that Weiss had replaced Wolf with Wise before the political pressure started, there was little time he had done so before the physical threats followed the political pressure.

In fact, when Congressional staffers asked Sobocinski whether he and David Weiss spoke about Shapley and Ziegler’s testimony after it went public on the day the plea deal was announced, Sobocinski described that both agreed that Shapley’s testimony would have an effect on the case. “We both acknowledged that it was there and that it would have had it had an impact on our case.” But that effect was, to a significant extent for Sobocinski, about the threats that not just investigators, but also their family members, were getting.

I am solely focused on two things, and they’re not mutually exclusive. The first thing is, like every investigation, I want to get to a resolution in a fair, apolitical way. The second thing, and it’s becoming more important and more relevant, is keeping my folks safe. And the part that I never expected is keeping their families safe. So that, for me, is becoming more and more of a job that I have to do and take away from what I was what I signed up to do, which was investigate and do those things. So when you talk about potential frustrations with communication, I am personally frustrated with anything that places my employees and their families in enhanced danger. Our children, their children didn’t sign up for this.

In Weiss’ testimony to HJC, he described threats too. But unlike Sobocinski, he may not have pointed to the effect Shapley’s now debunked claims had in eliciting them.

Weiss said people working on the case have faced significant threats and harassment, and that family members of people in his office have been doxed.

“I have safety concerns for everybody who has worked on the case,” he said.

He added that he doesn’t know what motivates the people who have threatened his team.

“I’ve certainly received messages, calls, emails from folks who have not been completely enamored of my — with my role in this case,” he added, noting that he is also concerned for his family’s safety.

Weiss’ testimony that he wasn’t sure what motivated the people who threatened his team may not help him insulate his case, because Shapley’s testimony likely wasn’t the only likely source of threats.

Among the things Lowell cited in his request for subpoenas were the four Truth Social posts Trump made between the plea deal first was posted and the day the plea failed, one of which criticized Weiss by name and called for Hunter Biden’s death.

Trump Truth Social posts on June 20, 2023:

  • “Wow! The corrupt Biden DOJ just cleared up hundreds of years of criminal liability by giving Hunter Biden a mere ‘traffic ticket.’ Our system is BROKEN!”
  • “A ‘SWEETHEART’ DEAL FOR HUNTER (AND JOE), AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR QUEST TO ‘GET’ TRUMP, JOE’S POLITICAL OPPONENT. WE ARE NOW A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!”
  • “The Hunter/Joe Biden settlement is a massive COVERUP & FULL SCALE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ‘SCAM’ THE LIKES OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN IN OUR COUNTRY BEFORE. A ‘TRAFFIC TICKET,’ & JOE IS ALL CLEANED UP & READY TO GO INTO THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. . . .”

Trump Truth Social post on July 11, 2023:

“Weiss is a COWARD, a smaller version of Bill Barr, who never had the courage to do what everyone knows should have been done. He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. Because of the two Democrat Senators in Delaware, they got to choose and/or approve him. Maybe the judge presiding will have the courage and intellect to break up this cesspool of crime. The collusion and corruption is beyond description. TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE!”9 [my emphasis]

There is, thanks in significant part to Jim Jordan, abundant documentation that between the time Lesley Wolf first sent out language seemingly promising Hunter Biden he would not be charged with FARA and the time Leo Wise told Judge Maryanne Noreika that he still could be, Republicans started pressuring David Weiss about his decisions. Thanks to Jordan, there are also multiple witnesses who have described that between the time Lesley Wolf shared immunity language and the time when — Abbe Lowell claims — David Weiss reneged on that language, the investigative team started having to fend off credible threats, not just to themselves, but also their family members.

To be sure, between the time Hunter’s lawyers made clear they planned to argue Weiss reneged on a deal and the time Lowell asked for subpoenas, in part, “possibly as impeachment of a trial witness,” Weiss testified that he always planned on continuing the investigation.

At the time, Biden’s lawyers signaled that the deal meant the Justice Department’s probe of the president’s son was over. But, according to Weiss, the investigation hadn’t ended at that point.

“I can say that at no time was it coming to a close,” he said. “I think, as I stated in the one statement I made at the time, the investigation was continuing. So it wasn’t ending there in any event.”

Yet according to CNN, two months after Weiss spoke to Estrada, seemingly to renew investigative activity in Los Angeles, any FARA investigation has ended. Instead, Weiss appears to be conducting new investigative steps in the tax case, investigative steps that started a week after IRS’ head of Field Operations testified that he understood “there was no more investigative activities to take.”

Both David Weiss and Leo Wise have publicly suggested that the ongoing investigation which Weiss insisted to Congress had always been planned was FARA or bribery related. That claim seems to have served no other purpose than to have given themselves a chance to reconsider tax charges both once claimed could be settled with misdemeanor charges.

Update: Batdorf link corrected.

The Kinds of Laptop Documents the Hunter Biden Investigation Used

/18 Comments/in , , /by

Back in July, while I was mocking the latest Devlin Barrett transcription of right wing spin about the Hunter Biden laptop, I contested his claim that the laptop had had little role in the investigation of Hunter Biden.

WaPo had ignored the bank records on which this investigation was predicated and built. And while bank records were surely more important to the tax investigation than anything on the laptop, the laptop would have been key to influence peddling allegations against the President’s son, both by the FBI and journalists (and now by Dick Pic sniffers in Congress, who keep using documents from a hard drive of the laptop the provenance of which they refuse to share publicly with Democrats).

[T]he IRS agents’ testimony (taken in conjunction with the report that the Washington Examiner was ethical enough to release), shows that the IRS didn’t obtain what is probably Hunter Biden’s rhb iCloud account — from which the cited, contested WhatsApp messages were probably obtained a second time — until August 2020, after it got some of the same material on the laptop. That potential taint may be why someone told Barrett to downplay the import of the laptop.

While the laptop may not have played a key role in substantiating a tax case against Hunter Biden, it may well have tainted the evidence in the case. It may well be part of the reason why Hunter Biden is getting to plead to misdemeanor rather than felony tax charges — because as even Whistleblower X explained that he had been told, there are emails that raised concerns about whether this could be charged at all, suggesting this case couldn’t withstand discovery.

Since then, Joseph Ziegler has proven that I was right (well, not about Hunter getting to plead to misdemeanor tax charges; we were all wrong about that).

But if anything, I underestimated how much the government used the laptop.

For example, Ziegler shared the filter term document for the laptop, with a creation date of February 7, 2020, focused exclusively on the tax investigation. While the filter term document for Hunter’s Google account was dated December 16, 2019, some documents that Ziegler says were obtained from Google warrants have creation dates of May 4, 2020 or August 12, 2020. These dates may reflect when the investigators obtained the filtered and scoped materials from the filter team; we know the team was working on a warrant for Blue Star Strategies in August 2020; that would have been central to a Burisma-related FARA investigation.

The FARA-related filter term document for the laptop Ziegler shared may not have been originally shared with him at all; the copy he shared has the same creation date, January 26, 2021, as the date he asked for all the filter documents (perhaps not coincidentally, just days after Joe Biden was inaugurated).

More interesting still, Ziegler provided part of an Excel spreadsheet that he described this way:

[A] relevant document timeline which was utilized throughout the investigation (Over 2,100 line items). This would have included emails and attachments recovered from the multiple electronic search warrants, calendar entries and open source (public) records. In this document, specifically in the “Description” column, the case investigators would summarize the relevant information found in the documents. The source of the document was included in the “Type Misc” column (For example, if the document came an electronic search warrant served on Google). The “related to” and “type of Doc” columns were utilized by the investigators to further sort the overall timeline. Pursuant to the Congressional Committees request, I have filtered this timeline for all relevant documents related to Burisma, U.S. and Foreign Government officials (Including former Government Officials). In addition, I have also provided the emails and attachments for some of the referenced documents in this Exhibit (Exhibits 302 through 313). [my emphasis]

This is it, folks: What Ziegler claims are all the (unclassified, at least) documents pertaining to Burisma.

This fragment of the spreadsheet is a good way to assess how the team spun particular records. It also shows their documentation of the open source records they claimed to rely on, for things including, “Archer reportedly meets with VPOTUS Biden,” “VPOTUS allegedly withholds $1B to Ukraine,” and “VPOTUS Biden allegedly pressures Ukrainian Poroshenko to fire Prosecutor Shokin (tied to $1 billion U.S. loan guarantees).” It was not very rigorous and in the descriptions of Biden’s role in pressuring Ukraine reflects clear bias.

I’ve never seen a criminal investigator willfully torch internal aspects of his own investigation like this, but I’m grateful for the insight on the investigation. Thanks Joe Ziegler!

Perhaps the most interesting part of this timeline, though, is that as of the time when Ziegler secured a copy for himself, it reflected that of the 150 or so items in this spreadsheet (remember, just a fragment of a much larger one), 14 are sourced to the laptop. The spreadsheet may be outdated; there’s no mention of a Dropbox warrant that investigators definitely got, nor of any warrants targeting Devon Archer or Vadym Pozharskyi that investigators seemed to at least be contemplating in August 2020.

Still, whenever Ziegler saved a copy of this spreadsheet, almost 10% of the sources came from the laptop.

This table pulls together the documents Ziegler provided and lists those sourced to the laptop.

They seem to have sourced two kinds of things consistently to the laptop: calendar notices (items 2, 5, and 12, and possibly 7 and 13) and emails with attachments (items 6, 9, 10, and — I think — 11). That’s curious because both should be available — with far better provenance — with a Google warrant. Indeed, attached Burisma documents are one of the things of most suspect provenance on the public versions of the laptop.

But remember that these emails wouldn’t have been Hunter’s personal Google account; most of his personal email, with the exception of a Google account he used for sex-related accounts, was one or another iCloud address. These were Rosemont Seneca emails hosted by Google. Depending on how RS set that up, it may have complicated getting the emails, and so made sourcing certain things to the laptop easier. Note that Ziegler describes the “Schwerin” sourced documents as also a warrant, which would be similar.

That leaves the following seven emails sourced to the laptop rather than a more reliable warrant.

  • 1: May 7, 2014 email from Archer to Vadym’s Gmail ccing Hunter’s Rosemont Seneca email regarding plans for a trip to Kazakhstan (possibly the one where, Lev Parnas alleges, the first Hunter laptop was compromised) that references a meeting with the Kazakh Prime Minister
  • 3: April 8, 2015 email from Serbian diplomat Vuk Jeremić’s NGO email to Hunter’s iCloud email discussing a backchannel with “the bear” likely relating to Iranian talks
  • 4: May 29, 2015 email from Jeremić’s Gmail to Hunter’s iCloud, ccing Archer, clearly asking Hunter if he had asked his father (whom he referred to as the big guy) about something
  • 7: October 23, 2015 email from Rosemont Seneca’s Joan Mayer to both Hunter and Schwerin noting Sally Painter meeting with Vadym and Hunter; this should have been included in Google warrants, but may have been set up as a pre-set meeting notice
  • 8: October 30, 2015 email from Schwerin to Hunter forwarding an email from Sally Painter at Blue Star Strategies, linking a story about about Serhiy Kurchenko; it should have been available in warrants targeting all three though perhaps the way it was forwarded had it treated as an attachment?
  • 13: February 23, 2016 email from Rosemont Seneca’s Joan Mayer to both Hunter and Schwerin at their Rosemont Seneca emails regarding meeting with Frank Mermoud about Burisma; this should have been included in Google warrants, but may have been formally a pre-set meeting notice
  • 14: August 14, 2016 email from Jeremić’s gmail to Rosemont Seneca emails, asking Hunter to lobby for him to become UN Secretary General, in response to which Hunter explained, “as I have also said many times I won’t engage in I advocati ng on your behalf with my father or anyone else in the USG;” this is their last email in the public set, though Jeremic definitely tried to stay in touch via DM and WhatsApp after that; it should have come up in the Hunter and Schwerin warrants

There are two emails on this list — the two 2015 Jeremić ones — that wouldn’t hit a Google warrant at all (though depending on the dates of the iCloud backups the government obtained, should be in those). But the other Jeremić emails on this list that would be in Google as well.

So it may, instead, be a scope issue: that the filter team (and which agency provided the filter team over time varied) excluded Jeremić entirely from the Google batches, but included him in the laptop batches (plus, we can’t guess the date of that filtering process, so it could reflect later developments in the investigation). Most of these emails would fit under the suggested relevancy terms by dint of including Archer, but the one about the “bear” doesn’t appear to.

Which is to say one thing investigators may be getting from the laptop are documents that would be excluded from other filters.

And that’s just the Burisma (which spanned both the tax and FARA investigations) and FARA focused documents. Ziegler has not shared his list of tax documents, so there could — likely are, given Ziegler’s obsession with the sex workers Hunter slept with — be quite a lot of laptop documents from there.

As Lesley Wolf reportedly described on October 22, 2020, almost all emails were available in two sources anyway. But if someone packaged up this laptop, as I suspect, then it would mean the government got a collection of documents tailored to make a particular kind of impression that they wouldn’t have gotten without a lot more investigation.

That is, depending on what was done with the laptop before it got to the FBI, it may not be a matter of doctored records, but it could amount to packaging up a criminal investigation in a box, just what Rudy was looking for when the laptop walked into John Paul Mac Isaac’s shop.

Scott Brady’s “D-I-S-C-R-E-E-T” Vetting : A Marginally More Credible Witness than Gal Luft

/51 Comments/in , , , , , /by

About 70% of the way through the House Judiciary Committee interview of former Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady on October 23, he explained how reaching out to FBI’s legal attaché in Ukraine to ask that Legat to reach out to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General fit within the scope of a project Bill Barr had assigned him.

Brady had described the project, hours earlier, as vetting incoming information on Ukrainian corruption received from the public, including but not limited to, Rudy Giuliani, using public information.

[W]e were to take information provided by the public, including Mayor Giuliani, relating to Ukrainian corruption. We were to vet that, and that was how we described it internally, a vetting process.

We did not have a grand jury. We did not have the tools available to us that a grand jury would have, so we couldn’t compel testimony. We couldn’t subpoena bank records.

But we were to assess the credibility of information, and anything that we felt was credible or had indicia of credibility, we were then to provide to the offices that had predicated grand jury investigations that were ongoing.

Brady distinguished between reaching out directly to Ukrainian investigators, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or the Prosecutor General’s Office, and reaching out via the FBI.

The latter, Brady said, was,

a discreet, nonpublic way of securing information about these cases, including from publicly available documents or dockets, in a way that then wouldn’t, you know raise a flag and make the Ukrainian media, the national media aware? Because we were very concerned– [my emphasis]

“So ‘discreet’ here,” a Democratic staffer clarified, “means quietly, basically. You could do that quietly. Is that fair to say?”

“Yes,” Brady agreed, “quietly, as an investigation is…”

The Democratic staffer interjected, “Okay.”

“Usually conducted,” Brady finished, perhaps recognizing what he had just conceded.

Scott Brady’s misreading of discrete words

Two hours earlier, the same Democratic staffer had walked Brady through the email — one he himself had raised — via which a top Bill Barr aide, Seth DuCharme, had first given Brady his assignment on January 3, 2020.

DuCharme had given Brady that assignment between the time on, December 18, 2019, that the House had impeached Donald Trump for (among other things) asking President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to help Rudy Giuliani and Bill Barr look into the Bidens and Burisma, and the time, on February 5, 2020, that the Senate acquitted Trump.

The staffer asked Brady, close to the beginning of the Democrats’ first round of questioning in the deposition, what he took DuCharme to mean by the word, “discreet.”

In spite of the fact that both the staffer and Brady had that email in front of them, an email which spelled discreet, “d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t,” Brady tried to claim that by that, DuCharme meant to give Brady a discrete, “d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e” assignment.

Q And Mr. DuCharme refers to your assignment as a, quote, “discreet assignment,” correct?

A Yes. And I think what he meant by “discreet” was limited in scope and duration.

Q Oh, “discreet” means limited in this case?

A My understanding was that it was “discrete” meaning limited in scope and duration.

Q Okay. Did you think in any way that he was implying that it ought to be kept out of the public, this assignment?

Brady denied that this reference, “d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t,” meant Barr and DuCharme were trying to keep this project quiet, because after all, Bill Barr spoke of it publicly.

A No. I no, because, on the one hand, the Attorney General was speaking publicly of the assignment. However, it should be kept secret, to use your words, just as any investigation would be, any process would be that whether vetting or an investigation between the U.S. attorney’s Office and the FBI or any Federal agency.

Q You mean the information itself that you were discussing or coming upon in the investigation, that should be kept discreet or out of the public eye?

A The investigation, the process, all of that none of that is public

Q Got it.

A when we do that.

The staffer asked whether Brady really meant that Barr was discussing the assignment publicly on January 3, 2020, a month before Lindsey Graham first revealed — days after the Senate had acquitted Trump — that Barr had, “created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified.”

Q And you indicated that you believe that the Attorney General at that time was discussing your assignment publicly? Is that in your recollection, was he doing that publicly on January 3, 2020?

A No. I mean subsequent comments.

Q Okay. So, after it became known that this investigation or assignment had been given to you, Attorney General Barr did make public comments. Is that right?

A Yes.

That gives you some sense of the level of candor that Pittsburgh’s former top federal law enforcement officer, Scott Brady, offered in this testimony. About the most basic topic — how he came to be given this assignment in the first place — he offered two bullshit claims in quick succession, bullshit claims that attempted to downplay the sketchiness of how he came to be assigned a task intimately related to impeachment right in the middle of impeachment.

The word games about “d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t” are all the more cynical given that American Oversight, whose FOIA Brady repeatedly described having read (probably as a way to prepare for the deposition), titled their page on the it “A Possible Discreet Assignment.”

The high risk of deposing Scott Brady

Inviting Scott Brady to testify to the House Judiciary Committee was a high risk, high reward proposition for Jim Jordan.

Brady, if he could hold up under a non-public deposition, might give the Republicans’ own impeachment effort some credibility — at least more credibility than the debunked, disgruntled IRS agents and indicted fugitives that the project had relied on up to this point.

Sure enough, in the wake of his testimony, the usual propagandists have frothed wildly at Brady’s descriptions of how he faced unrelenting pushback as he pursued a project ordered by the Attorney General and “fully support[ed]” by the top management of the FBI. Poor Scott Brady, the right wing wailed, struggled to accomplish his task, even with Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, Chris Wray, and David Bowdich pulling for him.

The right wing propagandists didn’t need the least bit of logic. They needed only a warm body who was willing to repeat vague accusations, including (as Brady, a highly experienced lawyer who should know better did more than once), parroting public claims, usually Gary Shapley’s, about which he had no firsthand knowledge as if he knew them to be fact.

But testifying before House Judiciary also meant being interviewed by staffers of the guy, Jerry Nadler, who first raised concerns about the project after Lindsey blabbed about it. In real time, Nadler established that Bill Barr’s DOJ had set up Brady to ingest material from Rudy Giuliani, then put the US Attorney in EDNY (at the time, Richard Donoghue, but Donoghue would swap places with DuCharme in July 2020) in charge of gate-keeping several investigations into Ukraine. Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney in SDNY whom Barr fired in June 2020 in an attempt to shut things down, would later reveal that this gate-keeping effort had the effect of limiting SDNY’s investigation into Rudy’s suspected undisclosed role as an agent of Ukraine.

That part has become public: Freeze the investigation into whether Rudy is a foreign agent in SDNY, move any investigation into identified Russian asset Andrii Derkach to EDNY and so away from the Rudy investigation, and set up Scott Brady in WDPA to ingest the material Rudy collected after chumming around with Derkach and others.

What had remained obscure, though, was the role that Brady had with respect to that other “matter[ that] that potentially relate[s] to Ukraine:” the Hunter Biden investigation in Delaware. Indeed, DOJ’s letter to Nadler about it falsely suggested all covered matters were public. It turns out Stephen Boyd, who wrote the letter, was being “discreet” about there being another investigation, the one targeting Joe Biden’s son.

Inviting Scott Brady to a deposition before the House Judiciary Committee as part of an effort to fabricate an impeachment against Joe Biden provided the the same congressional office that first disclosed this corrupt scheme an opportunity to unpack that aspect of it.

It turns out Jerry Nadler’s staffers were undeterred by shoddy word games about the meaning of, “d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t.”

The virgin birth of a “Hunter Biden” “Burisma” search

The central focus of the HJC interview, unsurprisingly, was how an informant came to be reinterviewed in June 2020 about interactions he had with Burisma’s Mykola Zlochevsky months and years earlier, the genesis of the FD-1023 on which Republicans are pinning much of their impeachment hopes, and how and on what terms that FD-1023 got forwarded to David Weiss, who was already investigating Hunter Biden.

Yet it took three rounds of questioning — Republicans then Democrats then Republicans again — before Brady first explained how his team, made up of two AUSAs working full time, himself, two other top staffers, and an FBI team, came to discover a single line in a 3-year old informant report. With Republicans, Brady described that it came from a search on “Hunter Biden” 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]

That answer — which described Brady’s team randomly deciding to search non-public information for precisely the thing Trump had demanded from Volodymyr Zelenskyy less than a year earlier — satisfied Republican staffers. Again, they weren’t looking for logical answers, much less rooting out Republican corruption; they needed a warm body who might be more credible than Gal Luft.

It took yet another round of questions before the Democrats asked Brady why, if his job was to search public sources, he came to be searching 3-year old informant reports for mentions of Hunter Biden. At that point, the search terms used to discover this informant report came to shift in Brady’s memory, this time to focus on Zlochevsky, not Hunter Biden personally.

Q Okay. And so, in the actually, in the first and second hours, you said pretty extensively that your role was to vet information provided from the public, correct?

A Correct.

Q And so the 1023, the original 1023, was not information provided from the public, correct?

A That’s correct

Q Okay.

A yes.

Q But it came up because you’d received information from Mr. Giuliani and, in your vetting of that information, you ran a search?

A Correct.

Q Okay.

A And just to clarify, I don’t remember if we asked the FBI to search for “Burisma”

Q Right.

A or “Zlochevsky.”

Q Understood.

Searching on “Zlochevsky” and “Burisma” wouldn’t have gotten you to the specific line in a 2017 FD-1023 about Hunter Biden — at least not without a lot of work. Chuck Grassley revealed the underlying informant report came from a 3-year long Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation into Zlochevsky that had been closed in December 2019.

December 2019.

Remember that date.

Finding that one line about Hunter Biden in a 3-year investigative file would have been the quintessential needle in a haystack.

Spying on the twin investigations

Perhaps this is a good time to explain a totally new — and alarming — detail disclosed in this deposition.

Scott Brady didn’t just accept information from the public, meaning Rudy, and then claim to vet it before handing it on to other investigations. Brady didn’t just attempt to contact Ukraine’s Prosecutor General — through the Legat and therefore discreetly — to try to get the same cooperation that Trump had demanded on his call with Zelenskyy.

He also quizzed the investigators.

In the guise of figuring out whether open grand jury investigations already had the information he was examining, he asked them what they were doing.

In Geoffrey Berman’s case, this involved an exchange in which Scott Brady — the guy claiming to be working off public files and leads from Rudy — told Berman — the guy with a grand jury investigating Rudy — that Berman was wrong.

Q Okay. Let me be more specific. At some point, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Berman, wrote you a letter or email that provided information he thought that you should have because of the material that he knew you were reviewing, that he thought might be inconsistent with what you were finding; is that correct?

A That’s correct. And then we wrote him an letter back saying that some of the contents in his letter was incorrect.

Q Okay. So you had some kind of dispute with Mr. Berman about the information that they had versus the information that you had, the subject had seemed inconsistent. Is that fair to say?

A I think there was a clarification process that was important that we shared information and made sure that they especially had an understanding because they had a predicated grand jury investigation, what was in our estimation and our limited purview correct and incorrect. So we wanted to make sure they had the correct information. [my emphasis]

As we’ll see, this is important — nay, batshit crazy — based on what the full sweep of Brady’s deposition revealed about his interactions with Rudy. Because, as Brady conceded by the end of the interview, Rudy probably wasn’t entirely forthcoming in an interview Brady did with Rudy.

But, as described, it doesn’t seem all that intrusive.

In David Weiss’ case, however, Brady described that, after Hunter Biden’s prosecutors refused to tell him what they were up to and he intervened with Weiss himself, using “colorful language,” the Hunter Biden team instructed Brady to put his questions in writing.

Q Okay. And so the I think you said you passed along or, not you personally, but your office passed along interrogatories or questions for them.

A That’s right.

Q That was along the lines of asking them what steps they had taken. Is that fair to say?

A Some limited steps. Correct.

Q Okay. So you were asking them about their investigation to help inform your investigation.

A Yes, to help focus our process so that we weren’t doing anything that, as I mentioned, would be duplicative or would complicate their investigation in any way.

[snip]

Q Okay. And you wanted to know that because you didn’t want to start doing the same investigative steps that they were doing?

A Correct.

Q But you indicated before that you didn’t have the power to get bank records, for example; is that right?

A Correct.

Q So was there a reason that you would need to know whether the other district had subpoenaed something if you weren’t able to subpoena bank records yourself?

A Yes. For example, if we were given a bank account number and wanted to see if they had already looked at that, we would want to know if they had visibility and say, you know: Here’s a bank account that we had received; have you, you know, have you subpoenaed these records, have you can you examine whether this bank account has sent funds into other Burisma-related accounts or Biden-related accounts?

Q So you were looking to sort of use their grand jury or subpoena authority to learn information because you didn’t have that tool in your own investigation?

A We weren’t really looking to learn information about their investigation. We just wanted to know if we needed to do anything with that, to try to corroborate it through perhaps other sources or through the FBI, or if we should even hand it over, again, if it was credible or not credible. If there is nothing to be gained, I don’t want to waste their time if they said: Oh, yeah, we’ve looked at that, and this bank account doesn’t show up anywhere in our records.

Q So, if you had some kind of information or question about a bank account, was there anything stopping you from just passing that onto Delaware without asking them also to tell you whether they had received any information pursuant to a subpoena or any other lawful process?

A We could have, but that wasn’t my understanding of our assignment. Our understanding of the assignment was to really separate the wheat from the chaff and not waste their time with a dump of information, maybe, you know, a percentage of which would be credible or have indicia of credibility. So they have limited resources. They have, you know, a broad tasking. So we didn’t want to waste their time by doing that. We thought it would be more efficient to engage them, ask them: Have you seen this?

Yes, no. And then pass it on, make a determination of what to pass onto them.

Aside from the fact that this sounds like it took more time than simply sending a bunch of bank account numbers to allow the Delaware team to deduplicate — the FBI does have computers as it turns out, and one of the FBI’s best forensic accountants has worked on this investigation — the timing of this matters.

This happened in April and May 2020, so in the months and weeks before Brady’s team did a search on Hunter Biden and Burisma — or maybe it was Zlochevsky and Burisma — and found a 3-year old informant report mentioning the former Vice President’s son.

So Brady sent, and after some back-and-forth, got some interrogatories from Weiss’ team, and then the next month discovered an informant that Delaware presumably hadn’t chosen to reinterview.

“Do not answer” about the vetting

By the point when Brady described randomly searching on Hunter Biden and Burisma — or maybe it was Zlochevsky and Burisma — the former US Attorney had already repeatedly balked when asked if he had vetted anything pertaining to Zlochevsky.

The first time, his attorney, former Massachusetts US Attorney Andrew Lelling and so, like Brady, a former Trump appointee — I think this is the technical term — lost his shit, repeatedly instructing Brady not to answer a question that goes to basic questions about the claimed purpose for this project: vetting leads.

Q All right. The statements that are attributed to Mr. Zlochevsky, did you do any work, you or anyone on your team, to determine whether those statements are consistent or inconsistent with other statements made by Mr. Zlochevsky?

Mr. Lelling. He’s not going line by line from a 1023. He’s not discussing at that level of detail.

Q. Okay. Could you answer the question that I asked you though?

Mr. Lelling. No. Do not answer.

Q. That was not a line-by-line question.

Mr. Lelling. Do not answer the question. You picked the line. You read it. You were asking him

Q. That’s not no, I didn’t. What line did I read from?

Mr. Lelling. Okay. I’m being figurative.

Q. Okay. I’m asking

Mr. Lelling. He is not going to go detail by detail through the 1023.

Q. I’m not asking that. No, I’m not going to ask that. I am asking a general question about whether he tried to determine whether there were consistent or inconsistent statements made by one of the subsources, generally.

Mr. Lelling. Yeah. No. He can’t answer that. This is too much

Q. So we’re going to keep asking the questions I understand he may not want to answer. We’re going to keep asking the questions to make a record. If you decline to answer

Mr. Lelling. Sure. I understand. And some maybe he can. This is

Q. We’re going to keep asking the questions though.

Mr. Lelling. This is a blurry line, a

Q. Understood.

Mr. Lelling. deliberative process question. And I’m sort of making those judgments question by question. So, maybe, categorically, he can’t answer any of the questions you’re about to ask. Maybe he can. So

Q. Well, if you let me ask them, then we can have your response.

Mr. Lelling. Sure.

Q. Fair? Okay. So the subsource, Mr. Zlochevsky, did you make any effort in your investigation to look in public sources, for example, whether Mr. Zlochevsky had made statements inconsistent with those attributed to him by the CHS in the 1023?

Mr. Brady. I don’t remember. I don’t believe we did. I think what our broadly, without going into specifics, what we were looking to do was corroborate information that we could receive, you know, relating to travel, relating to the allegation of purchase of a North American oil and gas company during this period by Burisma for the amount that’s discussed in there. We used open sources and other information to try to make a credibility assessment, a limited credibility assessment. We did not interview any of the subsources, nor did we look at public statements by the subsources relating to what was contained in the 1023. We believed that that was best left to a U.S. attorney’s office with a predicated grand jury investigation to take further.

Brady’s team looked up whether Burisma really considered oil and gas purchases at the time. They looked up the informant’s travel. But did nothing to vet whether Zlochevsky’s known public statements were consistent with what he said to the informant.

Democrats returned to Brady’s description of how he had vetted things, including the FD-1023, later in that round. He was more clear this time that while his team checked the informant’s travel and while he repeatedly described his vetting role as including searching public news articles, his team never actually checked any public news articles to vet what the 1023 recorded about Zlochevsky’s claims.

Q Okay. But open source so, other than witness interviews, you did do some open source or your team did some open source review to attempt to corroborate some of what was in the 1023? Is that fair?

A Just limited to the 1023?

Q Well, let’s start with that.

A Yes.

Q Okay. And what does that generally involve, in terms of the open source investigation?

A It could be looking at it could be looking at public financial filings. It could be looking at news articles. It could be looking at foreign reporting as well, having that translated. Anything that is not within a government file would be open source, and it could be from any number of any number of sources.

Q So, when you look at news reports, for example, would you note if there was a witness referred to in the 1023 that had made a statement that was reported in the news article, for example? Would that be of note to your investigators?

A Relating to the 1023? No. We had a more limited focus, because we felt that it was more important to do what we could with certain of the information and then pass it on to the District of Delaware, because then they could not only use other grand jury tools that were available but, also, we didn’t have visibility into what they had already investigated, what they had already done with Mr. Zlochevsky, with any of the individuals named in this CHS report. [my emphasis]

Scott Brady claimed to search news reports, even in foreign languages. But did not do so about the matter at the core of his value to the GOP impeachment crusade because, he claimed, his team had no visibility into what the Delaware team had already done with Zlochevsky.

Only they did have visibility: they had those interrogatories they got in May.

Having been told by Brady that he didn’t bother to Google anything about what Zlochevsky had said publicly, Democratic staffers walked him through some articles that might have been pertinent to his inquiry, quoting one after another Ukranian saying there was no there there.

Only the claims in the June 4, 2020 article rang a bell for Brady at all, though he did say the others may have made it into a report he submitted to Richard Donoghue (who by that point had swapped roles with DuCharme at Main DOJ) in September 2020.

But as to Brady? The guy who spent nine months purportedly vetting the dirt the President’s lawyer brought back from his Russian spy friends claims to have been aware of almost none of the public reporting on the matters Rudy pitched him. Which apparently didn’t stop him from calling Geoffrey Berman and telling Berman he knew better.

The open source that Scott Brady’s vetting team never opened

Even before they walked Brady through those articles, some appearing days before the informant reinterview, Democratic staffers raised Lev Parnas.

Was Brady familiar with the interview, conducted less than a year before his team reinterviewed the informant, that Parnas claimed Vitaly Pruss did with Zlochevsky on behalf of Rudy Giuliani, the one that had been shared with the House Intelligence Committee as part of impeachment?

Okay. And just to be clear, I think my colleague has already explained this, but this document was provided to investigators on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2019, before your assessment began, in relation to the first impeachment inquiry of President Trump. But you indicated you were not aware that that evidence was in the record of that investigation?

A Correct.

[snip]

Q Okay. So you indicated you’ve never seen this document before. May I actually ask you, before we go through it: You, during the course of your investigation, you asked the FBI or directed others to ask the FBI to review their holdings for any information related to Burisma or Zlochevsky, correct?

A Yes. We asked them, for certain specific questions, to look in open source, as we talked about, and then to look in their investigative files to see if they had intersected with these names or, you know, this topic before.

Q Okay. And they yielded this 2017 1023 that then led you to interview the CHS, correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. But you never asked, for example, the House Permanent Select Committee investigators or anyone associated with that investigation to do a similar inquiry for evidence relating to Zlochevsky?

A No, I don’t believe we did.

Q Okay. And, like you said, you were not aware that this interview had taken place in 2019. Is that fair to say?

A I don’t believe I was, no.

Q Okay. And anyone on your team, as far as you know, was not aware that Mr. Zlochevsky had been interviewed at the direction of Giuliani before your assessment began?

A I don’t believe so.

One of the Democratic staffers got Brady to agree that, yes, he had found a 3-year old informant report and tried to contact Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, discreetly, but hadn’t bothered to see whether there were relevant materials in the wealth of evidence and testimony submitted as part of the impeachment.

Q Okay. I guess my question was just more based on your own description of your own investigative efforts. I mean, you went on your own, on your own initiative, to search FBI records that had anything to do with Zlochevsky, correct?

A Correct.

Q Or Burisma, but you don’t know what the search term was.

A Correct. There were multiple, but yes. I can’t remember the specific one that uncovered the underlying 1023.

Q Okay. But you didn’t make a similar effort to search the impeachment investigative files that were released and public at that time and dealing with the same matter. Is that

A Correct. To my knowledge, yes

Q Okay.

A that’s correct.

As Brady described, the team he put together to carry out a task assigned during impeachment that closely related to the subject of impeachment, “we were certainly aware” of the ongoing impeachment, but, “I don’t believe that our team looked into the record.”

Brady, at various times, also excused himself from anything pertaining to Lev Parnas because Rudy’s former associate had been indicted.

Mr. Brady. So, just to clarify, without going into detail, because Mr. Parnas had been indicted by SDNY, we didn’t develop any information relating to Mr. Parnas that either Mr. Giuliani gave us or that we received from the public, and we felt that it was best handled by SDNY, since they had that full investigation.

[snip]

[W]e cordoned that off as an SDNY matter. So, any information that we received from Mr. Giuliani, for example, relating to Mr. Parnas, we relayed to SDNY.

In the same way that the scheme Barr set up to gatekeep Ukraine investigations meant SDNY wouldn’t look at Andrii Derkach, because that had been sent to EDNY, Scott Brady wasn’t going to look at Lev Parnas, because he was sending that to SDNY.

That’s important backstory to the FD-1023 being sent to Delaware as if it had been vetted.

The things Rudy didn’t tell Scott Brady

It matters not just because it exhibits Brady’s utter failure to do what he claimed the task was: using open source information to vet material (which does not rule out that his team performed some other task exceptionally well). It matters because, Brady claims, Rudy didn’t tell him any of this.

One of the minor pieces of news in the Scott Brady interview came in an email that Brady and DuCharme exchanged about interviewing Rudy that probably should have — but, like other responsive records, appears not to have been — released to American Oversight in its FOIA.

Q And I’ll get copies for everyone. It’s very short. This is an email from Seth DuCharme to you, subject: “Interview.” The date is Wednesday, January 15, 2020. And, for the record, the text of the email is, quote, “Scott I concur with your proposal to interview the person we talked about would feel more comfortable if you participated so we get a sense of what’s coming out of it. We can talk further when convenient for you. Best, Seth.” And tell me if you recall that email.

A Yes, I do recall it.

Q Okay. And the date, again, is January 15, 2020, correct?

A That’s right.

Q So that was 14 days before the interview that you just described at which you were present, correct?

A Correct.

Q Does that help you recall whether this email between you and Seth DuCharme was referring to the witness that you participated in the interview of on January 29, 2020?

A Yes, it definitely did.

Q Okay. Just for clarity, yes, this email is about that witness?

A Yes, that email is about setting up a meeting and interview of Mr. Giuliani.

Q Okay. So the witness was Mr. Giuliani? That’s who you’re talking about?

A Yes.

Neither the date of this interview nor Brady’s participation in it is new. After the FBI seized his devices, Rudy attempted to use the interview to claim he had been cooperating in law enforcement and so couldn’t have violated FARA laws. And NYT provided more details on the interview in the most substantive reporting to date on Brady’s review, reporting that conflicts wildly with Brady’s congressional testimony.

The new detail in the email — besides that DuCharme didn’t mention Rudy by name (elsewhere Brady explained that all his “discrete” communications with DuCharme were face-to-face which would make them “discreet”) or that the email was written two days before Jeffrey Rosen set up EDNY as a gate-keeper — is DuCharme’s comment that “we” would be more comfortable if Brady participated so “we” got a sense of what was coming out of it.

I don’t want to take this away from you, because I know you and I

A Oh, sure.

Q just have one copy. But just, again, what this email says is, “I concur with your proposal to interview the person we talked about.” And then he says, “Would feel more comfortable if you participated so we get a sense of what’s coming out of it.” Do you see that?

A Uhhuh.

Q Okay.

A Yes.

Q So what did he mean by “we”? Who was he referring to by “we”? Do you know?

A I don’t know.

Q Okay. Is it fair to infer that he is referring to the Attorney General and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General where he was working?

A I don’t know. Yeah, some group of people at Main Justice, but I don’t know specifically if it was DAG Rosen, Attorney General Barr, or the people that were supporting them in ODAG and OAG.

Q Okay. But they wanted to, quote, “get a sense of what’s coming out of it,” correct? A

From the email, yes.

Scott Brady was supposed to vet Rudy, not just vet the dirt that Rudy shared with him.

And on that, if we can believe Brady’s testimony, Brady failed.

As Democratic staffers probed at the end of their discussion on the Parnas materials from impeachment, it was not just that Brady’s own team didn’t consult any impeachment materials, it’s also that Rudy, when he met with Brady on January 29, 2020, didn’t tell Brady that he had solicited an interview in which Zlochevsky had said something different than he did to the informant.

Q Okay. Then the other question I think that I have to ask about this is: This is a prior inconsistent statement of Mr. Zlochevsky that your investigation did not uncover, but it’s a statement that Mr. Giuliani was certainly aware of. Would you agree?

A Yes, if based on your representation, yes, absolutely.

Democratic staffers returned to that line of questioning close to the end of the roughly 6-hour deposition. After Republicans, including Jim Jordan personally, got Brady to explain that he was surprised by the NYPost story revealing that Rudy had the “laptop” on October 14, 2020, Democratic staffers turned to a Daily Beast article, published three days after the first “Hunter Biden” “laptop” story, quoting Rudy as saying, “The chance that [Andrii] Derkach is a Russian spy is no better than 50/50” and opining that it “Wouldn’t matter” if the laptop he was pitching had some tie to the GRU’s hack of Burisma in later 2019.”What’s the difference?”

Using that article recording Rudy’s recklessness about getting dirt from Russian spies, a Democratic staffer asked if Brady was surprised that Rudy hadn’t given him the laptop. Brady’s attorney and former colleague as a Trump US Attorney (and, as partners at Jones Day), Lelling, intervened again.

Q So when you said earlier that you were surprised you hadn’t seen the laptop, were you surprised that Mr. Giuliani didn’t produce it to you?

A Yes

Q And why is that.

Mr. Lelling. I don’t think you can go into that. You can say you were surprised.

Q You can’t tell us why you were surprised?

Mr. Lelling. He can’t characterize his rationale for his surprise. That’s correct.

Q Why is that? Just for the record, what is the reason?

Mr. Lelling. Because it gets too close to deliberative process concerns that the Department has.

Q It’s deliberative process to explain why he was surprised that Giuliani didn’t give him something that Giuliani said he had public access to?

Mr. Lelling. Correct.

Then Democrats returned, again, to Lev Parnas’ explanation of how Vitaly Pruss had interviewed Zlochevsky, this time using this October 24, 2020 Politico story as a cue. Democrats asked Brady if he was aware that, eight months before the vetting task started, Rudy had heard about laptops being offered.

Okay. And what I am asking you is, have you ever heard that during the course of your investigation that Mr. Giuliani actually learned of the hard drive material on May 30th, 2019?

A No, not during our 2020 vetting process, no.

Q Mr. Giuliani never shared anything about the hard drives or the laptop or any of that in his material with you?

Mr. Lelling. Don’t answer that.

Q Oh, you are not going to answer?

Mr. Lelling. I instruct him not to answer.

Q. He did answer earlier that the hard drive. That Mr. Giuliani did not provide a hard drive.

Mr. Lelling. Okay.

Mr. Brady. He did not provide it. We were unaware of it.

Then Democrats explored Parnas’ claim in the Politico story that Zlochevsky said he’d provide dirt, if Rudy helped him curry favor with DOJ (note, the staffers misattributed a statement about extradition in the article, which pertained to Dmitry Firtash’s demand, to Zlochevsky). When they asked Brady if he knew that Zlochevsky had reason to curry favor with DOJ because was accused of money laundering, Brady first pointed to two other jurisdictions where such investigations were public, then asked for legal advice and was advised not to respond.

Q Okay. And according to the article Pr[u]ss told Giuliani at the May 30th, 2019, meeting that Mr. Zlochevsky had stated that he had, quote, “derogatory information about Biden, and he was willing to share it with Giuliani if Giuliani would help Zlochevsky, ‘curry favor with the Department of Justice and help him with an extradition request or other efforts by DOJ to investigate or prosecute Zlochevsky.'” Do you see that allegation in the report?

A I see the first part, I’m sorry. I don’t see the extradition.

Q Okay. So what it says in the article is that Zlochevsky was interested in currying favor with the Department of Justice, correct?

A Yes.

Q Are you aware that Mr. Zlochevsky was accused of money laundering among other financial crimes?

A I’m sorry, by which jurisdiction? I’m aware that there were allegations regarding potential money laundering and Mr. Zlochevsky that were investigated by the U.K. and by Ukrainian prosecutors. Could I just have one second?

Q Sure.

Mr. Lelling. I don’t think he can give you further detail.

The day after this October 23 interview, in which Brady claimed to have randomly discovered the 3-year old informant report that led to the reinterview that led to the FD-1023 Republicans want to build impeachment on by searching on Hunter Biden and Burisma — or maybe it was Zlochevsky and Burisma, Grassley released his letter with a slightly different story than the one Brady offered about how Brady came to learn about the 3-year old informant report.

While Grassley, whose understanding tends to rely on disgruntled right wing gossip, is often wrong in his claims about causality and here only speculates that Zlochevsky came up, Grassley nevertheless revealed a US Kleptocapture investigation into Zlochevsky, one that was opened in 2016 and shut down in December 2019.

Although investigative activity was scuttled by the FBI in 2020, the origins of additional activity relate back to years earlier. For example, in December 2019, the FBI Washington Field Office closed a “205B” Kleptocracy case, 205B-[redacted] Serial 7, into Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of Burisma, which was opened in January 2016 by a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FBI squad based out of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. This Foreign Corrupt Practices Act squad included agents from FBI HQ. In February 2020, a meeting took place at the FBI Pittsburgh Field Office with FBI HQ elements. That meeting involved discussion about investigative matters relating to the Hunter Biden investigation and related inquiries, which most likely would’ve included the case against Zlochevsky. Then, in March 2020 and at the request of the Justice Department, a “Guardian” Assessment was opened out of the Pittsburgh Field Office to analyze information provided by Rudy Giuliani.

During the course of that assessment, Justice Department and FBI officials located an FD-1023 from March 1, 2017, relating to the “205B” Kleptocracy investigation of Zlochevsky. That FD1023 included a reference to Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma, which the handling agent deemed at the time non-relevant information to the ongoing criminal financial case. And when that FD-1023 was discovered, Justice Department and FBI officials asked the handler for the Confidential Human Source (CHS) to re-interview that CHS. According to reports, there was “a fight for a month” to get the handler to re-interview the CHS. [my emphasis]

Lev Parnas claimed that Zlochevsky was offering to trade dirt on Biden for favor with DOJ in May 2019, and according to Grassley, in December 2019 — the same month Rudy picked up dirt in Ukraine — DOJ shut down a 3-year old investigation into Zlochevsky, one that was opened during the Obama Administration when Hunter was on the board of Burisma. The source of the tip on the informant is, at least if we can believe Grassley, the investigation on Zlochevsky that got shut down the same month as Rudy picked up his dirt.

Given Brady’s refusal to answer whether he knew about the money laundering investigation, it’s likely he knew about that investigation and so may even have been doing this math as he sat there being quizzed, discreetly, by Democratic staffers. The source of the informant tip his “vetting” operation pushed to the Hunter Biden investigation — the one on which Republicans want to build impeachment — may be the source of Zlochevsky’s interest in trading dirt on Joe Biden in exchange for favor with DOJ.

According to Brady, Rudy didn’t tell him about the earlier events, and his “vetting” team never bothered to look in impeachment materials to find that out.

The possible quid pro quo behind Republicans’ favorite impeachment evidence

To be sure, there are still major parts of this evolving outline that cannot be substantiated. The letter Parnas sent to James Comer doesn’t include the detail from Politico about currying favor (though it does include notice in June 2019 of a laptop on offer).

SDNY found Parnas to be unreliable about these topics (though who knows if that was based on “corrections” from Scott Brady?). As noted, Democratic staffers conflated Dmitry Firtash’s efforts to reach out to Bill Barr with this reported effort to curry favor. In a November 2019 interview not mentioned by Democratic staffers, Pruss denied any role in all this.

But the claimed timeline is this. In May 2019, Vitaly Pruss did an interview of Zlochevsky, seeking dirt on Biden for Rudy. After Rudy erupted at a June meeting because Zlochevsky had none, Pruss floated some, possibly a laptop, if Rudy could curry favor with DOJ. In August, a whistleblower revealed that Trump asked Zelenskyy to help Rudy and Barr with this project, kicking off impeachment in September. In October 2019, Parnas and Rudy prepared to make that trade in Vienna, dirt for DOJ assistance, only to be thwarted by Parnas’ arrest. According to the FBI, six days later (but according John Paul Mac Isaac, the day before the Parnas arrest), JPMI’s father first reached out to DOJ offering a Hunter Biden laptop. In December, a bunch of things happened: Rudy met with Andrii Derkach; the government took possession — then got a warrant for — the laptop, followed the next day by Barr’s aides informing him they were sending a laptop; the House voted to impeach Trump, and if we can believe Grassley — on an uncertain date — DOJ closed the Kleptocracy investigation into Zlochevsky they had opened during the Obama Administration. Sometime in this period (as I noted in this thread, the informant’s handler remarkably failed to record the date of this exchange, but it almost certainly happened after the Zelenskyy call was revealed and probably happened during impeachment), the informant’s tie to Zlochevsky, Oleksandr Ostapenko, interrupted a meeting about other matters to call Zlochevsky which is when Zlochevsky alluded to funds hidden so well it would take 10 years for investigators to find them.

Then, just days into January, DuCharme tasked Brady with ingesting dirt from Rudy, and after consultation with DuCharme, Brady decided he’d attend the interview with Rudy “so we get a sense of what’s coming out of it.” In that interview, Rudy didn’t tell DOJ about the interview that Parnas claims he solicited with Zlochevsky. He didn’t tell Brady he had first heard of laptops on order in June 2019. Nor did he tell DOJ, months later, when he obtained a hard drive from the laptop from John Paul Mac Isaac, still several weeks before Brady submitted a report to Richard Donoghue on the dirt Rudy was dealing.

If you corroborate Parnas’ claims about what happened in May and June 2019, then Zlochevsky’s later comments — possibly made after a DOJ investigation into him got shut down — look like the payoff of a quid pro quo. Remarkably, Brady never factored that possibility into his vetting project because he didn’t actually vet the most important details.

Scott Brady will undoubtedly make a more credible witness than Gal Luft if and when Republicans move to impeach Joe Biden. After all, he’ll be able to show up without getting arrested!

But this deposition made several things clear. First, his task, which public explanations have always claimed was about vetting dirt from Rudy Giuliani, did very little vetting. And, more importantly, if Lev Parnas’ claims to have solicited an interview on behalf of Rudy are corroborated, then Rudy would have deliberately hidden one of the most consequential details of his efforts to solicit the dirt that the DOJ, just weeks after closing an investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky, would set up a special channel to sheep dip into the investigation into President Trump’s opponent’s son.

It turns out that the most senior, credible witness in Republicans’ planned impeachment against Joe Biden actually has more to offer about Trump’s corruption than Biden’s.

Gary Shapley’s “Red Line” Tantrum Actually Started Two Weeks Earlier

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

Days before an October 7, 2022 meeting at which, Gary Shapley has claimed for months, his “red line” was crossed, the thing he has used to excuse months of leaking as “whistleblowing,” he scripted the things — including a demand for a Special Counsel to make the decision that David Weiss announced having made in the meeting — that Shapley claimed to record in real time at the meeting.

Indeed, the documents House Ways and Means released last month purporting to support their complaints about the Hunter Biden prosecution show that Shapley’s tantrum had been going on for weeks and had started in significant part because the charges he was demanding wouldn’t be rolled out in advance of the 2022 election.

It has already been established that no other attendee at the October 7, 2022 meeting has backed Gary Shapley’s version of that meeting. No other attendee remembered David Weiss conveying that he didn’t have the authority to make this charging decision regarding Hunter Biden on his own. Most attendees have charitably explained that Shapley didn’t understand what he was hearing, particularly with regards to Special Attorney versus Special Counsel status. In his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Matthew Graves attributed Shapley’s claims to, “the garble that can happen when you layer hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay. And when you look at a lot of this, it’s someone said that someone said that someone said.”

Even just Shapley’s own notes undermine his claim. As I have noted, between his hand-written contemporaneous notes and his emailed memorialization, Shapley reordered how things happened at the meeting, moving the reasons Weiss gave on October 7 for why he wouldn’t charge 2014 and 2015 — the charges against Hunter Biden that would have to be charged in DC — after Shapley’s own claim that David Weiss didn’t have the authority to make that prosecutorial decision.

Per his contemporaneous notes, the first thing discussed after the discussion about the leak was Weiss’ rationale for not charging 2014 and 2015, the two more substantive years that would have to be charged in DC. Once you’ve explained that, then whether or not Weiss got Special Attorney status for DC is significantly moot (2016 was only ever treated as a misdemeanor).

In his email to his boss, though, Shapley moved that discussion to after his argument, covering the DC charges, the LA charges, and the involvement of DOJ Tax Attorney, that Weiss didn’t have authority to charge. If Weiss had already explained his prosecutorial decision about the most problematic Burisma years — something Shapley’s hand-written notes record him has having done — then none of the other complaints about these years (that Weiss or Lesley Wolf let the Statutes of Limitation expire, that Weiss didn’t get Special Attorney authority in DC) matter. Shapely reorders his notes to hide the fact that the DC decision didn’t matter.

Shapley’s hand-written notes record Weiss sharing a prosecutorial decision — not to charge the 2014 and 2015 tax years. By making a decision not to charge in DC, Weiss was exercising the prosecutorial authority Shapley claimed Weiss said he didn’t have. Once you describe Weiss making a prosecutorial decision, then any claim that he didn’t have prosecutorial authority crumbles.

It crumbles even more given a few other details.

Shapley’s retroactive memorialization of the October 7, 2022 expresses great fury over Weiss’ decision not to charge the 2014 and 2015 years, as well as the delay of charges until after the election.

But Shapley learned of this weeks and even months earlier. 

On July 29, for example, Joseph Ziegler asked Lesley Wolf about timing. Per Shapley’s own memorialization, she said Weiss was aiming to indict before the end of September, but Wolf herself expressed doubt that would happen. That comment on timing, coupled with her stated disinclination to toll the 2014 tax year, was a pretty solid indication that she was disinclined to charge 2014.

Zeigler

Any dates or goals?

Wolf

David has indicated that the end of September would be his goal to charge. The is reflective of keeping everything on track. They do not want to get any closer to a mid-term. If doesn’t happen by end of September it would have to wait until November after the elections. She stated she does not think that is likely to by charged by September.

Sol on 2014 blows on November 8, 2022.

X Factor on timing will include any delay defense counsel has requested and that they would be amenable to toll statutes. She is not leaning toward tolling again…but it is possible.

Current plan is that the prosecution recommendation will be collaborative with DOJ Tax and USAO.

[snip]

They will communicate any decisions on specific tax years and decision to charge or not charge to the prosecution team in advance of any final document. [my emphasis]

On August 16, the IRS investigators had a meeting with David Weiss, one that Wolf happily arranged on August 8. Because Wolf and other DOJ personnel could’t attend, that would be a second meeting the IRS had with David Weiss alone.

On August 11, DOJ Tax tried to set up a meeting for the following day, an invitation which Ziegler accepted; Shapley was not invited. There’s no memorialization of this meeting, at which DOJ Tax probably explained why it viewed the 2014/2015 tax years as weaker charges.

On August 15, in advance of the meeting with Weiss, Shapley reminded  Darrell Waldon and Michael Batdorf about the forthcoming meeting with Weiss. Only Michael Batdorf, the second-level supervisor who testified that Shapley had a habit of, “a tendency to go to level like grade 7 five-alarm fire on everything,” responded. Shapley’s August 17 memorialization of the August 16 meeting, shared with those supervisors again, showed that Weiss was “leaning” towards only charging the CA charges, 2017 to 2019. Shapley recorded Weiss aiming to charge by the end of September, but said himself it’d be “October/November” (even though, in July, Wolf had said that if it wasn’t charged by September, it would be after November).

Here’s what Shapley said about 2014 and 2015 in that email:

We again pushed back on not charging 2014/2015. DOJ Tax continues the position that the defenses (load/taxes paid by another person on half the income) would make it too complex for the jury. I believe their position is unsupportable–both considering precedent and evidence. I made it clear that not only do we disagree with that position but that we could provide countless prosecution recommendations that included diverted income to nominees and various loan claims to support our position. The USA agrees with us but then talks to DOJ Tax and they convince him otherwise. This has happened a couple times. As a result, we will continue to communicate our position to ensure this moves forward consistent with how other tax cases would be treated with similar fact patterns.

I explained that 2014 is not charged how it would severely diminish of the overall conduct and would essentially sanitize some major issues to include the Burisma/Ukraine unreported income. I also explained that if 2014 is not charged and/or included in a statement of facts in a guilty plea, that the unreported income from Burisma that year would go untaxed. I believe leaving out 2014/2015 would deliver a message that is contrary to IRS’s efforts to promote voluntary compliance. [my emphasis]

Some of this is about getting taxes paid — the explanation Shapley would repeat in his memorialization of the October 7 meeting. But some of it is about tying Hunter’s tax crimes to Burisma.

Once again, Batdorf was the only who responded. He said he would escalate Shapley’s concerns still further, so the Chief and Deputy Chief of IRS could “at least show full support for the 2014/2015 years.” In Waldon’s testimony, he expressed being surprised at the October 7 meeting, because “I was not fully aware of a decision regarding some of the investigative years,” (49) a view that may stem from Shapley’s efforts in August to reverse this decision.

On August 18, Mark Daly from DOJ tax sent the investigative team (but not Shapley) an email that seems consistent with presenting to grand juries in both Delaware and Los Angeles in September — but not DC, once again consistent with a decision not to charge 2014 and 2015. Of note: this email was saved on June 27 of this year, before Ziegler and Shapley testified to the Oversight Committee on July 19 and Ziegler offered to go back to find more materials. Ziegler appears to have already taken steps to share information that he feigned was just a response to Congressional inquiries.

Shapley appears to have memorialized an August 25 email from Lesley Wolf asking a newly added FBI agent, along with Ziegler and Mark Daly, not to use email to coordinate between meetings. Shapley wasn’t a recipient of this particular email. It’s an example of the double set of books Shapley confessed to in his original deposition.

On September 20, 2022, over a week before the interview of James Biden (Hunter’s uncle and sometime business partner and Joe’s brother) and the day after Martin Estrada was confirmed as US Attorney for Los Angeles, Shapley emailed Weiss, cc’ing no one else, asking for a call in the following two days. The next day, September 21 at 1:23PM, Weiss said he would set up a meeting “in the near term,” including IRS and FBI, to provide an update. This email thread, which Shapley would pick up over a month later, would become the one where Shapley’s paranoia about Weiss cutting off communication with Shapley first expressed. As we’ll see, this Shapley request to Weiss was also the ultimate genesis of the October 7 meeting.

Just over two hours after Weiss promised an update shortly on September 21, Shawn Weede, Weiss’ Criminal Chief, wrote to set up the meeting Weiss had promised, proposing the meeting for September 28 (still one day before the interview of James Biden). Shapley responded 22 minutes later, noting that he would be in the Netherlands on the day of the proposed meeting, but would be willing to call in.

The next day, at 11:15AM, Weede wrote back to say a “sanitized” meeting was unworkable, and so proposed the meeting for the week of October 3, after Shapley got back.

Also on September 22, Shapley memorialized a meeting that started at 2:30PM noting that Lesley Wolf and DOJ Tax’s Mark Daly joined the meeting late, but without documenting anyone else who attended. The memorialization was closely focused on briefings of Estrada’s office on the case (though Shapley refers to Estrada as “her”). It also clearly records DOJ tax still conducting their review, as well as a decision not to charge either the gun charge and/or anything else until after the election — precisely the eventuality that Wolf had warned would happen almost two months earlier.

Gun charge will likely not be indicted in October.

[snip]

USAO and DOJ Tax made the decision not to charge until after the election. They said why should they shoot themselves in the foot by charging before.

Within an hour after the start of the call, Shapley was going ballistic about precisely that eventuality. Starting at 3:34PM, Shapley alerted Batdorf — but not his immediate supervisor, Waldon,

Big news on Sportsman. Joe Ziegler and I need to speak with you as soon as possible.

In a follow-up, Shapley explained that the “bad news” he had was precisely what he had been warned about in July, that the charges would be delayed until after the election.

Bad news. Continued inappropriate decisions affecting timing. i.e. Election. We can talk later if you are busy….I believe their actions are simply wrong and this is a huge risk to us right now.

Note: There was no risk to the IRS of delay after the election. It would mean the 2014 charges would toll (unless Hunter’s lawyers agreed to waive tolling, as they had before), but that’s another thing Shapley was warned about. A significant part of Shapley’s tantrum seems to stem from a personalized concern that charges would not come out before the election.

Batdorf ended the exchange by instructing, “Please ensure your ASAC and SAC are updated as well.”

Shapley did that, but not until almost two hours later, in a 5:28PM email to Darrell Waldon (his ASAC), Lola Watson (his SAC), and Michael Batdorf. Without noting that he had already bypassed chain of command, Shapley complained,

During todays SM call there was some information provided to the team concerning decisions made by the USAO and DOJ that need to be discussed. For example, the AUSA stated that they made a decision not to charge until after the election. In itself, the statement is inappropriate let alone the actual action of delaying as a result of the election. There are other items that should also be discussed that are equally inappropriate.

None of those other items “that should be discussed” were obviously reflected in his memorialization of that call.

At least on paper, this tantrum, made two weeks before a pre-election leak to the WaPo, was about something he had been warned of in July, not news at all, but one tied — explicitly in his mind — to the election, not timing per se.

Side note: Unlike Ziegler’s, many of the documents Shapley shared are stripped of all metadata. Not this email, though. This email — which he shared twice (Attachment 5, Attachment 24) — both reflect a creation date of September 20 (this is European notation), over eight hours apart, with the second reflecting Tristan Leavitt as document author.

That would mean these documents were saved after Darrell Waldon (September 8) and Michael Batdorf (September 12) testified. There’s good reason to believe these documents were chosen with some knowledge of the IRS supervisors’ testimony.

To make it plain: For months, Gary Shapley claimed that his red line was crossed on October 7, 2022. But the emails he himself turned over show that’s not true. His red line was crossed on September 22, 2022, and the red line had a lot to do with making charges public in advance of the election.

Importantly, that means his red line was crossed before the leak to the WaPo, not afterwards.

The day after Shapley’s tantrum started — which no one at DE USAO or FBI would have known about — the FBI ASAC seconded the plan to wait until Shapley returned before holding the meeting that would become the October 7 one, noting that then Weiss could be present.

Meanwhile, on September 28, Waldon emailed Ziegler and all the other people Shapley had involved in his tantrum, noting that he was trying to arrange a meeting with Weiss and Poole. Ziegler responded to everyone, on the morning of September 29, promising any update from prosecutors in CA. Waldon responded asking Ziegler to call him. And Ziegler responded, suggesting they should do a pitch on the 2014 and 2015 years to DC prosecutors: “we also need to request the presentation of 2014 and 2015 to the criminal chief / US attorney in DC – similar to what we would do in California for 2017 2018 and 2019.” Again: Waldon seems to have been surprised when, at the October 7 meeting, Weiss announced that the decision had been made.

That was at 11:11AM on September 29. At 2:25PM, Ziegler went into the interview with James Biden, Hunter’s uncle. Lesley Wolf and two other prosecutors who, like Ziegler, would not be at the October 7 meeting, also participated in the interview. The interview focused largely on the 2017 to 2019 years (though also asked questions that might reflect a campaign finance investigation into Kevin Morris), but which Ziegler now points to as critical testimony supporting his argument for felony charges in 2018. Shapley was already a week into a tantrum about charges not being filed before the election before this interview.

Seven minutes after the James Biden interviewed finished — based on public records, at least, the last major investigative step in the investigation, Weede proposed and the ASAC confirmed a meeting for October 7 at 11AM. The FBI ASAC confirmed as well. Then the next day, a Friday, the ASAC followed up to confirm once again, management and investigators would be present. She followed up again at end of day Monday, October 3, confirming she and her boss, Thomas Sobocinski would attend. Weede confirmed. The ASAC touched base once again on Tuesday morning.

Only at that point, on October 4 — with no record in the thread that Shapley had told his own boss, Waldon, that this meeting was in the works, did he respond to the ASAC alone, asking for her top three items “so we can be on the same page.”

His own list might was effectively a first draft of the things he would record as having happened in notes and a memorialization email days later: Special Counsel, the delay until after the election, and venue.

At 2:26PM, WaPo posted the story that preempted prosecutors’ decision to wait until after the election before charging — the decision Shapley first learned of in July but staged a tantrum about more recently.

At 4:34, the ASAC responded, asking if Shapley’s ASAC (Waldon) would attend, and describing her own agenda as:

  • Delays
  • Venue
  • Communication
  • Anything further that develops by tomorrow

Of course: that “anything further that develops” had already developed: the story in the WaPo.

Shapley responded a minute later, saying, he had just tried to call her, but that yes, both Shapley and his SAC would attend.

Nine minutes after that exchange occurred with no mention of the WaPo story, Shapley informed his bosses about it.

Just an FYI that there was a media leak today purportedly from the “agent” level on Sportsman. I imagine it will be a topic of discussion at tomorrows meeting in Delaware. I spoke with Justin Cole about this to provide anything he may need.

I have no additional insight that is anything but a rumor.

Federal agents see chargeable tax, gun-purchase case against Hunter Biden – Espotting.com

Just keeping you informed.

[Link to original WaPo story, but note that Shapley shared an Espotting link]

As I’ve noted, Shapley’s reference to rumors is inconsistent with his past statements about the leak.

As all that was going on, the other DE AUSA besides Wolf, Carly Hudson, wrote Ziegler at 10:07AM on October 6, asking him what he was supposed to remind her about — something he heard immediately after the James Biden interview on September 29.

David asked me to remind him what you [s]aid “regarding the call you received from management after the James Biden meeting.”  I’m not 100% sure what he means.  Would you mind reminding me about that call so I can remind him?

Ziegler didn’t respond until 6:51PM, well after the WaPo had published the story. Ziegler explained that IRS management had been informed that DOJ Tax didn’t anticipate charging until 2023; they weren’t done with the approval process.

They heard from DOJ-Tax that they don’t expect the case to be indicted until 2023 as they still have various levels of approval. I think this is what you are asking about.

There’s no documentary record of it, but it would be inconceivable that Ziegler hadn’t shared this with Shapley when he heard it, on September 29. Which is to say that Shapley knew there were reasons — beyond the fact that James Biden wasn’t interviewed until September 29 and beyond the election — why Hunter wasn’t going to be charged until after the election.

Nevertheless, going into a meeting he would much later pitch as his “red line,” a meeting that ended up significantly focused on a pre-election leak promising charges, Shapley would claim the election was what was causing the delay.

Five Years Ago Today, Hunter Biden Bought a Gun

/30 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, Judge Maryanne Noreika dismissed the gun-related Information against Hunter Biden, signed by Baltimore AUSA Leo Wise, that was filed on June 20, an Information tied to a diversion agreement that Leo Wise also signed.

At the arraignment on Hunter’s new charges — three charges replaced one — Magistrate Judge Christopher Burke reminded the Special Counsel’s team (Derek Hines had the speaking role at the arraignment, not Leo Wise) about the Information still on the docket.

Mr. Hines, one question on my end. The Indictment now obviously has been filed on the docket and that still has the prior felony information that was filed with regard to the prior gun charge back at the point where it was thought that there might be a plea. Did the Government intend to dismiss that charge?

MR. HINES: Yes, consistent with local practice, we intend to file a written motion within the next day.

THE COURT: Okay. And that will go to Judge Noreika and she will review that.

It took Leo Wise two tries — he forgot to sign the first motion to dismiss — but Weiss’ team did indeed move to dismiss the Information, and the docket identified the motion to dismiss that Noreika granted as the amended one, the one Leo Wise actually signed.

And so it was that on the last day off the fifth year after Hunter Biden purchased a gun, Judge Noreika dismissed one charge against him for doing so. Weiss’ team moved to dismiss the Information without prejudice to refiling it. But as of today, the statutes of limitation begin to expire on both that Information — charged under 18 USC 922(g)(3) and 18 USC 924(a)(2) — and the charges in the Indictment — which added charges under 18 USC 924(a)(1)(A) and 18 USC 922(a)(6) and 18 USC 924(a)(2), something Leo Wise noted at the failed plea hearing in July. Any charge tied to unlawful possession of that gun, as opposed to unlawful statements made during the purchase of the gun, will expire on October 23.

So, 9 days into the 30-day period during which Judge Burke gave Hunter’s team to file motions, things may begin to get interesting,

Since the failed plea, the two sides have been involved in a dance regarding whether the diversion agreement — which, as noted, Leo Wise signed on July 26 — remains binding on the government. Over and over, the government, with its evolving titles, has claimed it does not remain binding. Over and over, Hunter’s team preserves the record, insisting it does.

For example, when the government moved to vacate Judge Noreika’s briefing order with an August 11 filing — a motion signed by Leo Wise — claiming that, “there is no longer a plea agreement or diversion agreement,” Hunter’s lawyers responded two days later countering, “the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.” On August 15, DOJ filed a reply — signed by newly promoted Assistant Special Counsel Leo Wise — disputing Hunter’s claims, focusing not on whether Wise signed the diversion, but whether Judge Noreika approved the plea or Probation signed the diversion.

On September 6, in response to an order from Judge Noreika, DOJ filed a status update — once again signed by Leo Wise — stating (among other things) that the diversion had not been executed because, while it had been signed by Leo Wise, it had not been signed by Probation. Lowell responded — again, protecting the record — that the court had been provided an executed copy of the diversion agreement, the one signed by Leo Wise.

I don’t know who will win this dispute. I know that DOJ — in filings signed by Leo Wise — keeps saying that where the diversion agreement says “approval” in ¶¶ 1 and 2, it means approval by Probation, not the parties mentioned in ¶¶1 and 2. But from the moment DOJ first opened this docket — with a letter signed by Leo Wise — they referred to executed agreements that were signed that day.

I also know that DOJ keeps speaking of a plea agreement as it existed on July 26, not the agreement that DOJ entered into on some unspecified date in June before that, between which time and July 26, Leo Wise took over from Lesley Wolf and the scope of the immunity agreement started shrinking, one of two things that led the plea to fail on July 26.

At the arraignment last week, Lowell warned that several things were going to happen by or before November 3, when motions are due.

MR. LOWELL: Yes, a couple of things, Judge. First, I understand that Judge Noreika did advise the Government of their Brady obligations. I would want to talk to the Government about the overall discovery issues, especially with the thirty-day motions schedule. We would like to get discovery in the case obviously before we file the motions. We will talk to them. I don’t know that we’ll have any problems that we will need to bring for the Court’s attention, but we will see.

And second of all on those motions, I appreciate the date, I think we can conform to that based on the discovery perhaps, but I think there will be a number of motions which won’t be a surprise to Your Honor or to Judge Noreika, including motions to dismiss which we discussed during the last proceeding which would focus on our view that there was an agreement in effect which would prevent this charge from being filed as well as questioning the constitutionality of the statutes that have been cited and others depending on what happens. So that thirty days seems right, but we’ll talk to the Government.

[snip]

MR. LOWELL: The only other thing that would maybe not change the schedule but would add to the schedule, is that at least one of those motions, I think given what we all know about this case, we will be making a request for an evidentiary hearing. [my emphasis]

Lowell said he:

  1. Wanted Brady and other discovery before he filed motions
  2. Would make a request for an evidentiary hearing
  3. Would file motions (plural) to dismiss, arguing:
    • The diversion agreement prohibits these charges
    • The gun charges are unconstitutional
    • “others depending on what happens”

As a threshold mattter, Lowell seems to believe he had not, by last Tuesday, received all the Brady discovery, even though Chris Clark agreed he had received it back in July. That is, Lowell believes the government has evidence that either exculpates Hunter (which is unlikely) or impeaches the investigation or prosecution that DOJ has not yet turned over.

It’s not a mystery what some of this is. In an August 13 appearance on CBS, Lowell described that if Weiss decided to file charges other than what got filed in June, something must have “infected” the process.

LOWELL: But you asked me whether or not that has been part of the investigation and after five years and what we know happened in the grand jury, of course that had to be part of what the prosecutor has already looked at, as well as every other false allegation made by the right wing media and others, whether it’s corruption or FARA, or money laundering. That was part of what this prosecutor’s office had to have been looking over for five years. I can assure you that five years concluded that the only two charges that made sense were two misdemeanors for failing to file like millions of Americans do, and a diverted gun charge for the 11 days that Hunter possessed a gun. Everything else had been thoroughly looked at. So is that possible that they’re going to revisit it? Let me answer it one way. If the now Special Counsel decides not to go by the deal, then it will mean that he or they decided that something other than the facts and the law are coming into play.

[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.

More spectacularly, in a September 14 appearance on CNN, after the gun charges were filed, Lowell casually mentioned that prosecutors, “don’t share their emails with me, at least as of yet.”

LOWELL: And that the only thing that changed, Erin, was not the facts and not the law, which has only gotten worse for law enforcement but the application of politics. If it turns out that they continue to escalate the charges, then that is an issue that should be explored.

BURNETT: Okay. So but you are saying that they would be doing that because they are under political pressure from Republicans, MAGA Republicans as you referred to them, in Congress.

LOWELL: Well, they don’t talk to me about their motives.

BURNETT: Yeah.

LOWELL: They don’t share their emails with me, at least as of yet. All can I do, as you as a good reporter does, is make connections. So, if they thought after five years this was appropriate and then the political pressure came and now they think this is appropriate and if it’s no change in the facts and no change in the law, then let me ask you as a journalist would ask, what changed? And I’m telling you, the only thing that’s changed is the politics.

That is, Lowell insinuated that he would demand emails from the prosecution team to understand what led them to (to use the phrase used in the first Hunter filing signed by Lowell) renege on a plea deal.

I have said repeatedly when covering this case and I’ll repeat again, defense attorneys make the kinds of claims that Lowell is making — raising selective prosecution claims and insisting they haven’t gotten Brady discovery, for example — all the time. Such claims usually don’t work. Mind you, you would always need to take those claims more seriously when dealing with someone like Lowell; he’s a formidable lawyer. But even still, selective prosecution claims almost never reach the bar required to get an evidentiary hearing and DOJ has a great deal of flexibility in how they fulfill their discovery obligations. Lowell is making incredibly aggressive claims here, especially the casual suggestion he might get prosecutors’ emails.

The Hunter Biden case is different though. It’s different because Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have spent months making easily debunked claims about politicization in favor of Hunter Biden, even while disclosing the existence of evidence showing the opposite, improper political influence to investigate Hunter. And it’s different because James Comer and Jim Jordan and Jason Smith and the chief investigative counsel they all keep swapping between committees like a cheap date, Steve Castor, keep forcing one after another investigative witness to go on the record about this investigation.

Take just one example: the emails that Gary Shapley belatedly claimed he was a whistleblower to try to explain away because David Weiss’ team demanded them in discovery. Michael Batdorf — the Director of IRS-CI Field Operations who described that Shapley uniquely escalated things to him because he has, “a tendency to go to level like grade 7 five-alarm fire on everything,” also described that Shapley wasn’t a mere supervisor on this team, he was playing an investigative role.

He was taking investigative steps with the special agents. I mean, he was one of the team.

So it wasn’t just an agent involvement. It was the supervisor involvement. He was, again, taking those actions as if he was a working case agent. (97)

Batdorf provided this description to explain why it was reasonable to remove the entire IRS investigative team (which Batdorf also repeatedly said was not retaliation, undercutting yet more of Shapley’s claims). But it would also serve to explain why it was totally reasonable for Weiss to demand Shapley’s emails in discovery, first in March 2022 and then, after Shapley refused to turn them over, again in October 2022. Batdorf also revealed that Weiss had to and did go over his head to get Shapley’s emails. If it was reasonable to obtain Shapley’s emails for discovery — and Batdorf has explained why it was — then it would be reasonable for Hunter Biden to expect to get them.

Republicans’ frenzied dick pic sniffing has also provided clear evidence, both in the form of testimony about whether Shapley’s notes accurately reflect what happened on October 7, which multiple witnesses say they do not, and in notes that clearly conflict with what he typed up and sent in emails, to demand Shapley’s hand-written notes, in addition to his more formal memorializations.

Normally, evidence that Shapley has been biased or dishonest would only matter for any tax case Weiss attempts to charge down the road. Weiss has time yet under the statute of limitations for tax charges, allowing him to see how this gun charge will go down, and possibly allowing him to delay responding to precisely this kind of discovery request until after the gun charges are resolved.

Except that thanks to frothy Republicans, there is already evidence showing that Shapley’s media tour “infected” Weiss’ prosecutorial team before they made the decision to “renege” on a plea agreement and add additional felony gun charges against Hunter.

When asked by Steve Castor in an interview on September 7 how Shapley’s media tour was affecting the ongoing investigation (which Thomas Sobocinski continues to oversee), the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Baltimore office described that the media tour, “is affecting my employees,” so much so that the children of retired FBI agents “are being followed.”

Castor later asked a question I’m sure Abbe Lowell would love to know the answer to: Why Lesley Wolf was taken off court filings. Sobocinski balked at answering, even questioning whether Castor’s premise was “factually correct.” But Democratic staffers followed up to ask whether Wolf has faced threats. Sobocinski responded that “my office and the FBI have done things and initiated things to ensure that she remains safe.”

In other words, Shapley made himself relevant to not just the tax charges but also to all charges from David Weiss’ office by setting off a media frenzy that led to credible threats that — Hunter’s attorneys can and undoubtedly will argue — may have led prosecutors to ratchet up the charges against Hunter.

It turns out, though, that it wasn’t just the threats Shapley elicited that affected Lesley Wolf’s involvement in the case. Just five days after Sobocinski’s interview, Batdorf was willing to answer that question.

Q And looking at the individuals who were working on the case outside of IRS, so looking at the AUSA, for instance, to your knowledge, was there any change in the personnel of the AUSA from when it started in 2018 to now? Has there been a change, or has it been generally the same career people working the case the entire time?

A It’s my understanding that there had been a change in the AUSA, the prosecution team.

Q And when was the change made? Do you know?

A I believe that it was made in roughly — I think it was May or June of this year when we decided to move forward with the investigation. (99)

According to Politico, Wolf remained involved in the plea negotiations at least as late as June 7. According to Batdorf, Weiss did ultimately remove her.

The process by which Weiss removed his own AUSAs from the prosecution team appears to have taken two steps. First, between June 7 and June 20, Leo Wise started signing things, including things that Lesley Wolf negotiated. While Wolf was never on the Hunter Biden docket, Delaware AUSA Benjamin Wallace was on early filings (and has not withdrawn from it). According to reports from the day, a number of Weiss’ prosecutors attended the scotched plea deal as well.

But since Weiss was named Special Counsel, just Wise and Hines have appeared on filings, using their new title, Assistant Special Counsel. In other words, it seems that Weiss may have belatedly — very, very belatedly — tried to create a prosecutorial clean team that might sustain charges against the President’s son.

Along the way, Wise made preposterous claims — such as that he was not aware of any leaked grand jury information — that suggest that on top of removing Wolf from the process, Weiss is serially attempting to sheep-dip the prosecution, to create a team unaffected by the bullshit that has gone on for five years, so as to create the illusion of apolitical, neutral prosecutorial decisions.

On a July 31, 2023, call, Assistant United States Atiomey Wise stated he was “not aware” of any leak of grand jury information by the Government during the courseof the Government’s investigation of our client. Such a statement was surprising given that Mr. Biden’s counsel have discussed such leaks with the Government on multiple occasions over the past two years and addressed these leaks in at least four prior letters and countless telephone calls with your Office.1 We incorporate by reference counsels’ prior correspondence on these issues, enclosed herewith as Exhibits A – D.

Not only does that ignore the press blitz Republicans have created, to which both Wise and jurors would have been exposed.

But at least in June, Leo Wise signed things negotiated by Lesley Wolf. You can’t claim that Wise represents a team isolated from the original investigative team if he was signing documents negotiated by Wolf.

That transition, from Wolf to Wise, is a central factual issue that would determine whether DOJ reneged on the terms of the plea agreement, as Hunter’s team insists DOJ did. That transition, from Wolf to Wise, will significantly determine whether that diversion agreement really does remain binding — meaning the indictment already charged would need to be dismissed, with statutes of limitation expired even for an Information to backstop any diversion agreement that remained in place.

Again, normally defendants would never get access to such details. Normally defendants would never contemplate, as Lowell did publicly, getting prosecutors’ emails.

But Jim Jordan and James Comer and Steve Castor have been jumping through hoops providing Lowell cause to do just that.

And so, on the fifth anniversary of the day when Hunter Biden purchased a gun, things may start to get interesting.

Update: Hunter’s attorneys have filed a consent motion to extend deadlines, with Hunter’s initial motions deadline extended to December 11 (provided Judge Noreika approves).

The parties in the above-captioned case have conferred, and respectfully submit the following proposed modified briefing schedule for all pretrial motions: (a) the defendant’s pretrial motions to be filed by December 11, 2023; (b) the government’s oppositions/responses to be filed by January 16, 2024; and (c) the defendant’s replies to be filed by January 30, 2024. The parties will be prepared to argue the motions, if the Court so directs, following completion of all briefing. This proposed schedule excludes deadlines for motions regarding jury selection, discovery, and motions in limine (which can be scheduled at a later time once a trial date is determined).

The Timeline of the Hunter Biden Investigation Doesn’t Support Attacks on Lesley Wolf

/25 Comments/in , , , /by

Self-imagined IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, continue to engage in an information campaign that not only hasn’t provided real evidence for impeachment, but also must be creating real difficulties for David Weiss as he attempts to charge the tax case against Hunter Biden.

The House Ways and Means Committee released a slew of documents provided by the IRS Agents the other day in advance of Thursday’s Impeachment Clown Show. Below, I’ve laid out just the documents pertaining to the investigation (that is, the purported topic of their whistleblower complaint), along with explanations of what the documents show. There are a bunch of other investigative documents (Shapley appears to have let Ziegler assume most of the legal risk of releasing the bulk of the new IRS and grand jury documents), some of which reflect a real sloppiness about parts of the investigation, which would pose still more problems charging this case.

I also plan to write a follow-up post laying out Gary Shapley’s actions in advance of the October 7, 2022 meeting. They show that the items he claimed presented a new “red line” for him in that meeting had instead been raised with him months earlier. He came into the meeting with an agenda — notably, that David Weiss should ask to be appointed Special Counsel (as opposed to Special Attorney) — and raised non-sequiturs given the posture of the case at the time.

As to some other key claims the IRS Agents have made, especially against Lesley Wolf, the record provides countervailing evidence on those too.

As noted, for example, the decision not to take overt steps in 2020 came directly from Donald Trump’s Deputy Attorney General’s office, from someone — Richard Donoghue — who knew first-hand about Russian efforts to tamper in the election by focusing on Hunter Biden. The IRS Agents and Republican Members of Congress have blamed Wolf for that.

One key complaint is that Gary Shapley wasn’t permitted to surprise Hunter Biden during the day of action on December 8, 2020. But as Wolf represented it in a call Ziegler memorialized on December 11, the norm would have been to work through Hunter’s lawyers for an interview. Her support of going with only a heads up to the Secret Service was a deviation from that norm, she claimed. There’s no support in these documents for Shapley’s claim (and Ziegler’s hearsay claim) that the Transition Team got a heads up from DOJ, so if Shapley had a credible source for it, it wasn’t documented notice.

Another complaint — one Republicans in Congress can’t let go — was that Wolf used a subpoena to get the contents of a storage facility Hunter had rather than a search warrant. But a month earlier than that, the plan wasn’t to get a warrant, it was to do a consent search. When Ziegler pitched her on a search warrant after the Rob Walker interview, he wanted to do the search immediately, within a week, in spite of what she represented would be the onerous approval process to get a warrant. According to what Ziegler records Wolf saying, all the lawyers involved in this decision agreed with her (not surprisingly, given that a taint review after going overt would involve the same level of defense attorney involvement as a subpoena would). When the IRS escalated this issue on December 14, they still didn’t know how a taint review would work in the Fourth Circuit, meaning they had not yet tested Wolf’s claims.

Importantly, the reason Ziegler thought it so important to do a search of the storage facility rather than serve a subpoena is that he wanted to find proof of foreign bank accounts, something for which Wolf claims there was no evidence.

Ziegler brought up the potential for foreign accounts and the records that he had seen thus far that indicate there are foreign accounts involved in this case. Wolf said that there is no indication what‐so‐ever that the Subject has foreign accounts and that any records related to that would be turned over [pursuant to subpoena].

Even in the most recent Republican documents, reflecting what Ziegler and Shapley turned over, I’m aware of no such evidence. The foreign payments Republicans claim are so suspect went right through corporations established in Delaware. Many of the payments appear to have gone through the same Wells Fargo accounts on which Ziegler predicated this investigation five years ago. And the IRS appears to have checked (one, two) with the most likely havens — Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands — about whether there were foreign accounts. I haven’t read all the investigative documents or the tax returns and investigators may find something else, but if this is correct, then it’s one hell of a money laundering claim these guys are chasing, consisting of payments through corporations headquartered right in Delaware and payments through Hunter’s main bank account.

It was already clear from Ziegler’s testimony that his complaints about delays in interviews in 2021 didn’t account for Wolf’s efforts to prioritize more important investigative steps, such as getting approval for a subpoena for Hunter’s attorney, George Mesires, rather than focusing on interviews with sex workers. The interview with Mesires took another year to schedule. But one set of emails from the time show it was Ziegler’s IRS supervisor, and not Lesley Wolf, that pushed back on his plans for interviews; the supervisor suggested he bring in “collaterals” to do some of the investigative work rather than do it all himself.

The IRS Agents and Republican Members of Congress similarly keep complaining that David Weiss let the statute of limitations expire on the 2014 and 2015 charges most closely focused on Burisma. There was already evidence (most especially in the hand-written notes that Shapley only belatedly shared) that it wasn’t so much that Weiss “let” SOLs expire, but that he made a prosecutorial decision — one Shapley refused to abide by — not to charge those years. Lesley Wolf first started raising questions about the sufficiency of the evidence in May 2021. This new trove of documents show that Shapley had been informed that DE USAO was disinclined to charge those years more than two months before October 2022, and again in August 2022. There is a good deal of evidence that Shapley’s manufactured panic about “letting” SOLs expire instead is an expression of disagreement with a prosecutorial decision.

Perhaps worst of all, the depiction the IRS Agents have made of Lesley Wolf does not reflect what appears in these documents, which show her to be more supportive of them than they claimed. On September 21, 2020, Wolf followed up immediately when the FBI showed reluctance to pursue parts of the investigation. In October 2020, she was supportive of the IRS’ wishes to do the Day of Action interviews sooner rather than later. In December 2021, she made a point of commending all the work Ziegler had done on the case. In June 2022, David Weiss recognized Ziegler’s work. In August 2022, Wolf noted that Ziegler was  busy dealing with a family issue and empathized, “know I am thinking of you and sending good thoughts.”

The one thing Wolf absolutely did push back on was the IRS Agents’ efforts to conduct a campaign finance investigation of the funds Kevin Morris provided to Hunter to pay off his taxes. At one point, her request that they prioritize the 2014 tax case first (which she said hadn’t been proven yet) was depicted as obstruction. At another — in Shapley notes that again appear to conflict with what he was writing in the official record — she provided several good legal reasons not to pursue the case, including that any “donation” from Morris to Joe Biden via Hunter was even more attenuated than the John Edwards case that failed. By recording and publicly releasing Wolf noting that the law was not clear on this issue, Shapley will make it almost impossible to charge, because anyone charged would simply point out that even DOJ agreed it wasn’t a clear campaign finance donation. And what the IRS Agents otherwise portray as Wolf’s disinterest in involving Public Integrity (PIN) because they would take authority away from her was (here and elsewhere) instead described as PIN requiring another layer of approvals, precisely the thing that IRS Agents were complaining about elsewhere.

The IRS Agents’ recriminations of Lesley Wolf have gotten her targeted with serious threats. And yet, their own record doesn’t substantiate the claims they have made against her.

Update: Corrected which countries IRS reached out to: the Caymans and Hong Kong, not Cyprus.

Timeline

September 21, 2018: Suspicious Activity Report from Wells Fargo.

October 31, 2018: Primary investigation initiated into other entity.

November 1-2, 2018: Request of support for SAR, only other agency investigating was DA office.

December 10, 2018: Primary investigation initiated into Hunter Biden.

January 18, 2019: Update from Wells Fargo on SAR.

Around February 2019: SSA informs Ziegler that DE USAO looking into SAR.

March 28-29, 2019 Exhibit 400: April 26, 2019, FBI FD 302, re: March 28, 2019, Interview with Gal Luft. It appears likely there were two 302s of these interviews (possibly three) because Luft’s alleged lies don’t appear in unredacted form in this one.

April 12, 2019: Package submitted to DOJ-Tax

April 15, 2019 Exhibit 206: April 15, 2019, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Jessica Moran, Subject: Approx. Timeline. This shows the above timeline, about which Ziegler was not clear in his testimony.

April 29, 2019 Exhibit 207: April 29, 2019, Email from Matthew Kutz to Kelly Jackson, cc’ing Joseph Ziegler and Christopher Wajda, Subject: Robert Doe – FYI Venue issue. Kutz is the person to whom Ziegler attributed his understanding that Barr had assigned this to DE USAO himself, before backing off that claim. Kutz is also the person who was documenting 6A and inappropriate influence on the investigation. Ziegler provides none of that.

August 5-7, 2020 Exhibit 202: August 5-7, 2020, Emails Between Joshua Wilson, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, cc’ing Susan Roepcke, Michelle Hoffman, Joseph Ziegler, and Joseph Gordon, Subject: BS SW Draft. This was a warrant for BlueStar emails. AUSA Wolf objected not just to the mention of Joe Biden in the warrant (which is the only thing Ziegler leaves unredacted), but also to a great deal of stuff that was outside scope of the warrant. The SDNY FARA investigation was active in this period, which may be why other stuff was included, but in short order, even the IRS seemed to concede the SDNY FARA investigation into CEFC (the one that would rely on Gal Luft’s interview) was not viable.

Exhibit 203: Draft of B[lue]S[star email] Warrant.

September 3-4, 2020 Attachment 2: September 3-4, 2023, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, Mark Daly, Joshua Wilson, Susan Roepcke, Alyssa Ruisard, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Christine Puglisi, Stefania Roca, Michael Dzielak, Gary Shapley, and Joseph Gordon, Subject: Today’s Agenda. This is an incredibly helpful list of where key legal process stood:

  • 4 iCloud backups (Ziegler asked whether location data was necessary, which he and Shapley suggested was mandatory before)
  • Relevancy review of iPhone Backup (which tells you they were still scoping the phone when they got the iCloud warrants)
  • Search warrant for BlueStar (about which investigators disagreed in August)
  • Supplemental email search warrant (unclear on which account)
  • DropBox search warrant (which wouldn’t be served for some time, but which seems to have been an attempt to get emails they knew of but didn’t have)
  • Discussion of 2703-D orders (metadata) for two accounts belonging to Vadym Pozharskyi and one to Devon Archer; elsewhere Ziegler relies on the “laptop” for emails involving the two

The agenda also notes investigative developments involving SDNY (the FARA investigation), Pittsburgh (the FD-1023), and Comerica.

September 3-4, 2020: Memo of Meeting. At this meeting, there was a discussion of keeping Hunter Biden’s name off overt requests, to which Ziegler objected (as if he wanted it to be discovered). There’s a discussion of whether the investigation would continue or not after the election, which Wolf said it would. Wolf attributed sensitivities to Richard Donoghue. Note: Shapley doesn’t say who was involved in the follow-up call on September 4.

September 21, 2020 Attachment 3: September 21, 2020, IRS CI Memorandum of Conversation Between Gary Shapley and Mark Daly, Authored by Gary Shapley. This memorializes a meeting earlier that day in which Joe Gordon expressed uncertainty among FBI management about how many interviews they would participate in after the election. Lesley Wolf pushed back hard on this. This memo reflects double hearsay (Wolf to Mark Daly to Shapley) blaming Special Agent Josh Wilson for the reluctance on investigating Hunter, because he had just moved back to Wilmington with his family. Shapley also memorializes a call to his ASAC about the details. This is another instance where Wolf was pushing the investigation hard.

October 19, 2020 Attachment 5: October 19, 2020, Email from Gary Shapley to Lesley Wolf, Subject: Computer. This is an email Shapley read, in part, in his testimony, regarding IRS’ need to know what was going on with the laptop. Ironically, he notes that there may be specific disclosure limitations tied to the IRS warrant, a concern with which he has since dispensed.

October 21, 2020 Attachment 4: October 2, 2020, Emails Between Lesley Wolf, Joseph Ziegler, Gary Shapley, and George Murphy, Subject: Dates. This reflects ongoing discussion about when to do the day of action, in an attempt to avoid interviewing Hunter in Delaware, as opposed to LA. Lesley Wolf was again supportive of Shapley’s goals to do the interviews sooner rather than later.

October 21, 2020 Exhibit 210: October 21, 2020, Emails Between Jack Morgan, Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Mark Daly and Carly Hudson, Subject: Mann Act. Jack Morgan emails Lesley Wolf regarding nine communications, two with traffickers, that he says may support Mann Act exposure. In only two cases was the travel confirmed. There are no dates in this list. Three instances include travel to Massachusetts (and so might coincide with the apparent hijacking of Hunter’s digital identity while he was in Ketamine treatment).

October 22, 2020: Notes on laptop. As noted, Shapley wildly misrepresented what the notes on the laptop actually say. They show that 10 months after accessing the laptop, the FBI still hadn’t done basic things to validate the content on the laptop had not been tampered.

October 22, 2020 Attachment 6: October 22, 2020, IRS CI Memorandum of Conversation between Prosecution Team, Authored by Gary Shapley. Shapley records Wolf as saying that there would not be a warrant on the DE residence. He does not record why. He also records the briefing on the Pittsburgh lead, ordered up by PDAG (Donoghue). This meeting happened an hour after the laptop meeting, but Shapley treats it as a separate meeting (and doesn’t say who attended).

October 23, 2020 Exhibit 400A: Tony Bobulinksi FBI FD-302 Interview Memorandum. This interview happened on October 23, 2020; Bobulinski went straight from the White House to self-report at the FBI. He repeatedly refused to let the FBI image his phones. It certainly doesn’t help Bobulinski’s credibility as a witness.

October 23, 2020 Exhibit 400B: Attachment Tony Bobulinksi FBI FD-302 Interview Memorandum.

November 2-9, 2020 Attachment 7: November 8-9, 2020, Emails Between James Robnett and Kelly Jackson, cc’ing Michael DePalma, George Murphy, and Gary Shapley, Subject: 1 page brief needed. The day after networks called the election for Joe Biden, the Deputy Chief of IRS-CI ordered the team to put together a one-page summary of the Hunter Biden investigation, to be delivered to him by Tuesday, November 10.

November 9, 2020 Attachment 8: November 9, 2020, Email from Kelly Jackson to Gary Shapley, cc’ing George Murphy, Subject: Recipient of the 1 pager. Effectively, the IRS team checked how far this would circulate before drafting.

~November 9, 2020 Attachment 9: Sportsman Investigation, IRS CI One-Pager. This appears to be a draft, not the final, as there are inline questions and answers. This provides a good summary of where the investigation was, notes that the FARA investigation pertained to CEFC (and that investigators planned no overt steps). It also says that the plan was to do a consent search of the storage facility (and a residence, though it’s not clear which one), which puts the later dispute in context.

December 8, 2020 Exhibit 401: December 8, 2020, Transcribed Interview of John Robinson Walker.

December 8-9, 2020 Exhibit 204: December 8-9, 2020, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Mark Daly, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, cc’ing Christine Puglisi and Gary Shapley, Subject: Storage Location Warrant. The discussion returns to a warrant for the storage facility outside of DC (in VA). Ziegler says he wants to execute it the following week. Wolf tries to explain that there will be too many approvals required and heavy filter requirements because the facility is in the Fourth Circuit.

December 10, 2020 Attachment 10: IRS CI Monthly Significant Case Report, Subject Name: Robert Hunter Biden, December 2020. This periodic report (Shapley only provided two, raising questions about whether there were others) includes the most substantive description of how the investigation was predicated off sex workers. Shapley bitches about Wolf forgoing the approvals and instead applying the subpoena to the storage facility (without noting that the initial plan was to do a consent search). He says that the only viable charges at that point were tax charges (meaning the SDNY FARA charges didn’t flesh out). This report also notes the election meddling allegations. Shapley also bitches that prosecutors aren’t responding to Congressional inquiries, a totally inappropriate stance, one he would repeat in a later report. He blames the December 2020 leak on DOJ, with no explanation. Unclear whether this really is dated December 10, before the December 11 call with Wolf.

December 11, 2020 Exhibit 205: Joseph Ziegler’s Notes re: Phone Call with Lesley Wolf About the Storage Unit Warrant. The notes of this call actually debunks several things Ziegler has claimed. Wolf notes that the normal way to interview Hunter would be to call his lawyers, but she worked hard to go through just Secret Service. She also notes that all lawyers involved agreed subpoenaing for the documents was the appropriate thing to do.

December 14, 2020 Attachment 11: December 14, 2020, Emails Between Kelly Jackson, George Murphy, and Gary Shapley, Subject: SM – call with DFO today. This escalated matters on the facility to Deputy Commissioner. At that point, one of the IRS people didn’t even knew how a taint would work after a search.

December 15, 2020 Attachment 12: December 15, 2020, FBI Electronic Communication, Title: Attempted Interview: Hunter Biden 12/08/2020. The 302 reflecting the non-interview of Hunter. Slightly over two hours later, Hunter’s lawyers contacted the FBI.

January 26, 2021 Exhibit 315A: January 26, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Stefania [redacted], and Carly Hudson, Subject: Can you send me the filter terms that have been used for Relativity? For some reason, Ziegler included these filter terms, which will be very helpful to Hunter’s lawyers. Notably, there were two sets of filters: tax and FARA, which may explain the source of Ziegler’s frustration that they didn’t get all results. At that point FARA was exclusively focused on Ukraine.

Exhibit 315B: Appendix A, Filter Keywords for Google Email.

Exhibit 315C: Appendix A – Laptop, Filter Keywords for Laptop Filter.

Exhibit 315D: Appendix A, Filter Keywords for Laptop FARA Filter.

February 5, 2021 Attachment 13: February 5, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Joshua Wilson, Susan Roepcke, Michelle Hoffman, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Christine Puglisi, Stefania Roca, Michael Dzielak, Matthew McKenzie, cc’ing Joseph Gordon and Gary Shapley, Subject: Agenda 2/5 Meeting @ 12:30PM. This reflects Wolf and other lawyers briefing seemingly more than one AAG (unclear whether this is Acting, or Assistant, since no one was confirmed yet). Shapley was put out that NSD asked to be briefed on the tax side of the case.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1E: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Hunter Biden Representation Letter and Discussion of Hunter Biden 2014 Tax Return. A fragment of an interview with Hunter’s accountant regarding a representation letter signed 3 months after the initial representation. Gelfound really didn’t seem as worked up about it as the IRS.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1F: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Alleged Gulnora Deduction. The part of the Gelfound interview regarding how the sex worker came to be deducted.

April 27, 2021 Exhibit 1J: Transcript of Recorded IRS CI Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound, re: Hunter Biden’s Tax Payments. Gelfound suggested that the payments with a lien would be paid by Kevin Morris first, possibly because of publicity.

May 2021 Attachment 14: IRS CI Monthly Significant Case Report, Subject Name: Robert Hunter Biden, Month/Year of Report: May 2021. This notes the 2021 expiration of the 2014 tax year. It states that FBI is not sold on charging decision. It says FBI is actively involving FARA. And it claims there are campaign finance violations (pertaining to Kevin Morris paying off Hunter’s taxes), which Wolf wanted nothing to dø with, in part to avoid PIN involvement. She stated that 2014 could not yet be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what she wanted them to focus on.

June 14, 2021 Exhibit 1G: Interview excerpt of Gulnora. This is the interview with the sex worker payments to whom Hunter deducted. She appears to have ties to the overseas escort service, so these payments could be the ones that triggered the entire investigation. Marjorie Taylor Greene misrepresented this interview in her campaign to turn Hunter into a sex trafficker.

September 9, 2021 Exhibit 208: September 9, 2021, Email Between Joseph Ziegler, Lesley Wolf, Stefania Roca, cc’ing Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, Mark Daly, Christine Puglisi, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, and Joshua J. Wilson, re: Frustrations with Interview Delays. Ziegler complains that some interviews with sex workers have to be put off because DOJ Tax is still approving, among other things, a subpoena for Hunter’s lawyer George Mesires.

September 10-24, 2021 Attachment 15: September 10-24, 2021, Emails Between Gary Shapley and Jason Poole, Subject: Quick Call. Shapley’s own supervisor was blowing him off too, but he did follow-up twice to complain about approvals.

September 20, 2021 Exhibit 209: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Mark Daly and Joseph Ziegler, Subject: Re: email sent to mgmt with list of 10 [redacted]. Mark Daly gets involved and seems to move these forward.

September 20, 2021 Attachment 2: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Darrell Waldon, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Here Ziegler lashes out at his own supervisor, who suggests he send a “collateral” to do interviews in LA, rather than doing them himself. Contrary to wanting to go overt in the past, he claims he is trying to keep things quiet. Ziegler writes that this is “a case I’ve worked with very little problems and only support from my management, you’re making it hard for me to do my job” (though he may have only been referencing the IRS side).

September 20, 2021 Attachment 3: September 20, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Michael Batdorf, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Ziegler escalates to Mike Batdorf. He notes, “I don’t want to put some details in this email” and also says he’s only cc’ing Shapley “because I’ve briefed him on what has happened and because he’s been my management since day 1,” which is of course false.

September 22, 2021 Exhibit 506: September 22, 2021, Emails Between Justin Cole, James Lee, James Robnett, Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Joseph Ziegler, Subject: Sensitive Case Heads Up. CNN reached out to IRS and said they had a recent witness saying the case was almost wrapped up, claiming to having a Hunter email saying that all this would go away when his dad became President, claiming there was a plea deal. Batdorf gets the question, sends it to Ziegler, he asks if he can share with the lawyers. Batdorf asks not to share the CNN side, even though they regularly share media reports. Ziegler reports back that Wolf said no plea had been offered.

September 20-23, 2021 Exhibit 507: September 20-23, 2021, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, David Denning, Christine Puglisi, Michael Batdorf, and Gary Shapley, Subject: Travel. Batdorf follows up again and Ziegler says “It seems to have been a miscommunication from my senior management. … I had a significant amount of trust in my prior management, and for some reason, that has gone away.”

November 16, 2021 Exhibit 1H: IRS CI Memorandum of Interview with Jeffrey Gelfound on November 16, 2021.J

November 23, 2021 Exhibit 402: John Robinson Walker FBI FD-302.

December 20, 2021 Exhibit 200: December 20, 2021, Email from Lesley Wolf to Mark Daly, Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, Matthew McKenzie, Joseph Ziegler, Christine Puglisi, Antonino Lo Piccolo, Susan Roepcke, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Michael Dzielak, Stefania Roca, Joseph Gordon, and Joshua Wilson, Subject: Thank you! Wolf gives extra credit to Ziegler for all his work.

January 12, 2022 Attachment 16: Notes from January 12, 2022, Sportsman Call. Wolf gives good legal reasons not to pursue the campaign finance investigation, notably that the law is uncertain and the facts are even more attenuated here than they were for John Edwards. She doesn’t want to involve PIN because it would add another level of approval.

Janaury 27, 2022: Prosecution Memo. As described in Shapley’s testimony, this document is what goes through a series of approval processes.

February 15, 2022 Attachment 17: February 15, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Darrell Waldon, cc’ing Lola Watson, Subject: For Review/Approval: Sensitive T26 Prosecution Recommendation – SPORTSMAN – SA Ziegler. This was Shapley’s rebuttal to CT’s non-concur on prosecution, based on Hunter’s addictions. Though Shapley (and especially Ziegler) has elsewhere stated clearly that Hunter was totally incapacitated in this period, Shapley now claims, “the universe of his conduct clearly indicated he was lucid during his periods of insobriety and therefore a blanket lack of willfulness defense to the pattern of conduct is not reasonable nor logical.”

May 13, 2022 Attachment 18: May 13, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf and Darrell Waldon, which Gary Shapley Forwarded to Joseph Ziegler and Christine Puglisi, Subject: Sportsman – 3rd DOJ Tax – Taxpayer Conference Delayed. Because of a delay in the tax conference at which the prosecution recommendation would be presented, Shapely pitches briefing Jason Poole and David Weiss on it in advance.

June 14-15, 2022 Exhibit 314: IRS CI Presentation re: Sportsman Investigation “Robert Doe,” Tax Summit, June 14-15, 2022. This is the slide deck presenting the case. Most of it — three pages — describe spin-off investigations. It shows the main remaining steps were to establish venue somewhere besides Delaware and get discovery production; at this moment, Shapley was refusing to turn over discovery production to DOJ.

June 30, 2022 Exhibit 1K: June 30, 2022, Email from Matthew Salerno to Mark Daly, Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, cc’ing Chris Clark, Brian McManus, and Timothy McCarten, re: 2018 Tax Defenses Proffered, wh ich Mark Daly Forwarded to Joseph Ziegler, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Christine Puglisi, and Michael Dzielak. This is Mark Daly forwarding Hunter’s lawyers’ rebuttal on some of the 2018 deductions, explaining while none of Hunter’s efforts to develop businesses worked, he was attempting. Ziegler has claimed there’s contrary evidence (from James Biden) in the record, but none of that is definitive and James Biden testified his memory wasn’t great on the matter.

June 21-28, 2022 Exhibit 201: June 21-28, 2022, Emails Between David Weiss, Joseph Ziegler, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Lesley Wolf, Carly Hudson, Jack Morgan, and Mark Daly, Subject: Sportsman Request. After thanking Ziegler for all his work, Weiss asks IRS to have a revenue agent rerun all the loss numbers for 2014 and 2015. He asks for that, first, because that’s what is normally done, and second, because, “at trial we are going to need a testifier on this issue and that testifier can’t be Joe.” While Ziegler ultimately complied with Weiss’ request, Ziegler first appears to have redone the analysis himself. This email will give Hunter’s attorney cause to question the revenue analyst about Ziegler’s role in these numbers, if this ever gets charged.

July 29, 2022 Attachment 19: Notes from July 29, 2022, Sportsman Call. This includes details of the state of the investigation, including mentions of approval for a new prong of FARA investigation, with references to SDNY (CEFC) and Romania. The outstanding witnesses include George Mesires and family members, including James Biden (and possibly Hallie Biden, though that’s redacted), though an August 18 email lists Mervyn Yan among those left to be interviewed. Wolf clearly tells the team that if they don’t indict by September, it’ll be after November. She clearly says that prosecution decision will be collaborative with DOJ Tax. She clearly says she’s not inclined to toll the 2014 and 2015 tax years ago. In short, she clearly communicates, in July, all the things that the IRS agents claim were surprises in October.

August 5-8, 2022 Exhibit 503: August 5-8, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Meeting with David. Wolf sets up an August 16 meeting that it appears Ziegler requested, at which only Weiss will be present from DOJ. She requests he run numbers on an early undetermined issue. Ziegler says he’s working with revenue agent — the one Weiss asked to involve in June — on that. Wolf is again warm with Ziegler.

August 11, 2022 Exhibit 501: August 11, 2022, Emails Between Mark Daly, Joseph Ziegler, Christine Puglisi, Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, cc’ing Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Meeting. An internal IRS meeting about charging decisions that would precede the meeting with Weiss.

August 12, 2022 Exhibit 502: Calendar Invitation, Subject: Sportsman – Call re Charging, Organized by Mark Daly, Required Attendees: Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Susan Roepcke, Jack Morgan, Carly Hudson, Joseph Ziegler, and Christine Puglisi, Scheduled for August 12, 2022. The tax meeting on charging decisions.

August 15-18, 2022 Attachment 4: August 15-18, 2022, Email Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Update. Shapley telling his supervisors that Weiss was still not inclined to charge 2014 and 2015. One of his complaints is that if 2104 and 2015 weren’t charged, it would take the Burisma stuff off the table, which doesn’t sound like a tax decision. He’s still worried about not collecting that revenue, though the revenue is not that much (even if you believe him about what was owed). He claimed that Weiss mocked CT’s non-concurrence, but DOJ Tax does seem to side with not charging some of this. Shapley also claimed that the reason he was only learning venue on CA was through lack of transparency, except that’s totally consistent with what Wolf had said earlier: You decide charges first, then venue.

August 15-18, 2022 Attachment 20: August 15-18, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Update. This appears to be a dupe.

August 18, 2022 Exhibit 211: August 18, 2022, Email from Mark Daly to Joseph Ziegler, Michael Dzielak, Michelle Ann Hoffman, Christine Puglisi, Lesley Wolf, and Carly Hudson, cc’ing: Jack Morgan, Jason Poole, and John Kane, Subject: Going forward. At this point, the three remaining interviews were Mesires, Merv[y]n Yan, and James Biden.

August 25, 2022 Attachment 21: August 25, 2022, Emails Between Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, cc’ing Joseph Ziegler and Mark Daly, Subject: Case Coordination. The FBI SSA (who may have replaced Joe Gordon) complains they’re not communicating enough between meetings and asks to start an email chain. Wolf asks him to stand down until they can meet — clearly an effort to avoid creating discoverable information. Shapley turns it into a Memo for his files.

September 20 – November 8, 2022 Attachment 29: September 20, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, David Weiss, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: SM Meeting – Management. On September 20, Shapley asks for a quick call. Weiss responds that he would set up a meeting/call for updates in near term (what would end up being the October 7 meeting). Then on November 8, after the prosecution meeting is canceled, Shapley attempts to set up a meeting in December. Shapley then writes back on November 8 saying the FBI can’t make it on December 2, so asks Weiss to confirm that December 5 would work.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 22: Notes from September 22, 2022, 2:30PM, Conversation, at which Lesley Wolf and Mark Daly are Present. Shapley notes that Wolf and Daly both joined late but doesn’t say how late. He describes that the US Attorney (whom he refers to as “her” but has to be a reference to Martin Estrada, who was just confirmed on September 19) has only been sworn in and will need time to get up to speed. DOJ Tax also wanted to defer the charges until after the election. And DE’s finance guy had a number of remaining questions.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 23: September 22, 2022; 3:33PM ff, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf, Subject: Conversation with Batdorf Michael T. Shapley texts Batdorf, then emails the texts, complaining about the decision to wait until after the election.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 5: September 22, 2022, 5:28 PM Email from Gary Shapley to Darrell Waldon, Lola Watson, and Michael Batdorf, Subject: SM Update. Shapley tells his supervisors that Wolf said they wouldn’t charge until after the election. Shapley complains that, “the statement is inappropriate let alone the actual action of delaying as a result of the election.” He claims ther are other items (which he doesn’t lay out) “that are equally inappropriate,” probably that they weren’t going to charge the gun charge in October. Shapley was told months ago about this, but is wailing now.

September 22, 2022 Attachment 24: September 22, 2022, Email from Gary Shapley to Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Lola Watson, Subject: SM Update. This appears to be a dupe, with the news he had a doctor’s appointment redacted.

September 21-October 6, 2022 Attachment 25: September 21-October 6, 2022, Emails Between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Call on Charging Timeline. This is a thread between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley (whose name the FBI tried hard to keep obscure), Gary Shapley, about setting up the meeting he wanted. Because he was in the Netherlands the last week of September they instead waited until he returned. Shapley sent out his list of agenda items, showing clearly that he came into the October 7 meeting with an agenda — listing “1. Special counsel 2. election deferral comment – continued delays 3. venue issue”. — and a wildly mistaken understanding of how Special Attorney status works. At 4:34PM, two hours after the WaPo story posted, she says the meeting will include, “Anything further that develops by tomorrow.”

September 21 – October 6, 2022 Attachment 1: September 21-October 6, 2021, Emails Between Shawn Weede, Ryeshia Holley, Gary Shapley, cc’ing Garret Kerley and Lesley Wolf, Subject: Call on 2 Timeline. This shows the last two emails to the earlier thread.

September 28-29, 2022 Exhibit 504: September 29, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler, Darrell Waldon, and Gary Shapley, cc’ing Lola Watson and Michael Batdorf, Subject: Sportsman. Darrel Waldon writes to note he requested a meeting with the US Attorney’s office. Ziegler notes he’s awaiting information about CDCA’s decision on charging 2017-2019. Hours later, Waldon asks him to call his cell. Seemingly after that call, Ziegler responds that, “we also need to request the presentation of 2014 and 2015 to the criminal chief / US attorney in DC.” This seems to be inconsistent with past claims about when and how closely DC USAO reviewed this case.

September 29, 2022 Exhibit 401: IRS CI Memorandum of Interview with James Biden on September 29, 2022. Ziegler has pointed to this interview — “James B was not sending RHB any deals while he was out in California.  … conversations were about getting RHB well at this point and not about business” — as proof that Hunter’s lawyers were lying about his attempts to do business in 2018; yet Hunter’s uncle made clear that he kept trying to engage him and also noted that his memory was not all that clear. The interview also raises questions about Tony Bobulinski’s motives and credibility (as Rob Walker already had). The interview timing is as important as anything else — Shapley went on a tear about the timing of charging before this key interview was even done.

October 6, 2022 Attachment 26: October 6, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman. After responding to Holley, Shapley alerts his supervisors of the Devlin Barrett story that he would later claim he didn’t know where it was published, noting that it is likely to come up at the meeting the next day. He identifies that the leak was “purportedly from the ‘agent’ level, reveals he spoke with the IRS press person about it, and stated, “I have no additional insight that is anything but a rumor.” This marks the third or fourth inconsistent representation of Shapley’s knowledge of the leak.

October 6, 2022 Exhibit 505: October 6, 2022, Emails Between Joseph Ziegler and Carly Hudson, Subject: Sportsman Uncle question. One of the AUSAs tells Ziegler that Weiss asked about something Ziegler raised, and he states that DOJ-Tax didn’t expect the case to be indicted until 2023, as they were still working on approvals. Hudson sends the email at 10:07AM; Ziegler responds at 6:51PM. I find it exceedingly unlikely Shapley did not also know that the case would not be indicted until 2023.

October 7, 2022: Handwritten notes. As noted these notes show that Shapley misrepresented what David Weiss said and introduced the DC USAO review that would be mooted by the decision not to charge 2014 and 2015, something Shapley had been alerted to months earlier.

October 7-11, 2022: Shapley to Darrell Waldon. The original email Shapley shared, which makes it clear the meeting was dominated by the leak.

October 7-11, 2022 Attachment 6: October 7-11, 2022, Email Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Sportsman Meeting Update. This adds Mike Batdorf’s response to both Shapley and Waldon, 3 hours after Waldon said he’d handle the referral to TIGTA.

November 7, 2022 Attachment 27: November 7, 2022, Notes, Subject: Telephone Call from FBI Special Agent Mike Dzielak and IRS-CI Case Agent Joe Ziegler. A 10-minute call in which an FBI Special Agent discusses with Shapley and Ziegler that DE USAO was asking for management level emails. Dzielak suggests that the FBI was balking, in the same way that Shapley still was. Shapley offered up that this was proof that DE USAO had no intention of charging, which is utterly debunked by the fact that they had made this request once before (he says in April-May here, but in his House Ways and Means testimony he said it was in March). There’s no mention of the leak.

November 8-10, 2022 Attachment 28: November 8-10, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley and Ryeshia Holley, Subject: Next Meeting in Delaware. This reflects Shapley’s immediate effort to schedule a December meeting after the November prosecution meeting was canceled. One reason he did so was because of the request for his own emails.

December 13, 2022: Shapley email to Michael Batdorf. This is the email where Shapley asked Batdorf to ask him if he had any questions about the emails that got turned over.

December 13-16, 2022 Attachment 30: December 13-16, 2022, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, and Darrell Waldon, Subject: Meeting at Del USAO Today. Shapley emails Batdorf and Waldon to tell them that prosecutors and the FBI had an all-day meeting in Wilmington. Waldon asks if anyone from Tax participated.

January 6, 2023 Attachment 7: January 6, 2023, Notes, re: Call between Gary Shapley and Michael Batdorf on Whistleblowing. Shapley memorializes an either 8- or 13-minute call with Mike Batdorf, alerting him that on January 4, he lawyered up with “whistleblower” counsel. He gave a weird pitch (including that he would criticize the IRS, but that the IRS could boast that it was an IRS agent who “came forward.” Shapley claimed he would attend to 6103 and 6e matters he has not — including getting approval before sharing. He specifically left out the Senate Finance Committee. And he admitted that he expected DOJ to make “nefarious” allegations against him but hoped the IRS would support him. Batdorf said he hadn’t heard of any allegations.

January 20, 2023 Attachment 8: January 20, 2023, Emails Between Gary Shapley, Michael Batdorf, Darrell Waldon, and Lola Watson, Subject: Discussion – Sportsman. In the guise of finding out what was expected of him, Shapley claimed that FBI investigators had been brought back on the Hunter Biden case (which he learned via Ziegler).  He also noted that a third FBI Agent on the team retired before mandatory retirement. Waldon corrects Shapley that the FBI agents met with DE USAO on other issues, but only inquired about Hunter Biden.

January 25-February 10, 2023 Attachment 9: January 25-February 10, 2023, Email Between Gary Shapley and Michael Batdorf, Subject: For Review/Approval: Administrative Leave Request for Protected Whistleblower Activities – Shapley. Shapley asks Batdorf for paid leave for meetings, including with Congress, months before any overt meetings with Congress happened (suggesting he may have met with Grassley). Batdorf not only gives him leave but offers to pick up his work to enable it. Shapley offers to document with whom he was meeting (which given that this request preceded most overt outreach by months, would have been really helpful), but Batdorf says that’s not necessary.

April 13, 2023 Exhibit 212: April 13, 2023, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Lola Watson, cc’ing Gary Shapley, Subject: Sportsman. Ziegler updates Lola Watson (but not Kareem Carter), about meetings Hunter’s lawyers are having, including with Brad Weinsheimer (which leaked). He claims, without evidence, that Weiss was responding to the Merrick Garland testimony. And he addresses two investigations (which involves someone whose taxes would have implications for Hunter Biden — possibly Kevin Morris, would be consistent with Ziegler’s testimony) from which his team has been excluded.

Attachment 31: May 15, 2023, Notes from Conference Call with Kareem Carter, Lola Watson, Gary Shapley, and Joe Ziegler, Re: Sportsman. Memorialization of 17-minute call on which Kareem Carter took the International Tax team off the Hunter Biden case. Some of Shapley’s claims (such as that he documented complaints going back ot June 2020) are not substantiated in the emails released. And he was downright insubordinate on the call. Importantly, his memorialization does not reveal that Ziegler was not invited on the call, and in fact falsely suggests that Ziegler received an invitation to the call.

May 18, 2023 Exhibit 213: May 18, 2023, Email from Joseph Ziegler to Douglas O’Donnell, Daniel Werfel, James Lee, Guy Ficco, Michael Batdorf, Kareem Carter, and Lola Watson, Subject: Sportsman Investigation-Removal of Case Agent. Joseph Ziegler’s email in which he acknowledges breaking chain of command to complain about his removal.

Gary Shapley Didn’t Tell Congress about Election Meddling Concerns

/41 Comments/in , /by

I’m reading my way through the documents from Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that the House Ways and Means Committee released the other day.

While I have yet to read the tax-related documents closely, the others don’t help the evidence-free impeachment much, undoubtedly complicate David Weiss’ hopes of charging Hunter Biden on tax crimes, and probably give Abbe Lowell a stash of documents he would otherwise not have gotten, some of which show investigative sloppiness and potential evidentiary problems for any case Weiss does charge (again, some of which Lowell would otherwise never have gotten).

Plus, some of the documents undermine the Agents’ claims to be whistleblowers. The documents show they had advance notice of both Delaware’s decision to decline prosecution of the 2104 and 2015 tax years and of the timing of any prosecution. They show Shapley walked into a key October 7, 2022 meeting with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda entirely at odds with his knowledge of declination and timing. From that point forward, phantoms of Shapley’s paranoia, not facts, appear to have driven his actions.

For now, though, I want to point to two details that utterly destroy Shapley’s complaints about delays in 2020. It has always been the case that most of Shapley’s complaints about politicization (besides his own) pertained to events that happened under the Trump Administration. Indeed, that’s something that Jason Smith struggled to address at his own presser the other day: how events from 2020 could support the impeachment of Joe Biden.

But details in two documents Shapley sent in late 2020 reveal that during his entire media tour, Shapley has been withholding a key detail that make these complaints all the more ridiculous.

The first is what must be a draft (since it is not dated and includes editorial questions) one page summary of the investigation written for the IRS Deputy Commissioner around November 9, 2020. It explained (as other documents the IRS agents did too) that after the IRS got a Suspicious Activity Report regarding a UK porn site that wasn’t reporting income to US-based contractors, one of whom Hunter Biden had also paid as an escort, the IRS used that to start pulling Hunter’s tax returns, an initial predication that is going to be comedy gold in any opening arguments Abbe Lowell ever gives at a Hunter Biden trial. It also revealed (again, this gets mentioned in other documents) that there was a FARA investigation out of New York regarding Hunter’s ties to CEFC. Finally, the document attributed any pre-election guidance not just to David Weiss’ office, but also to DOJ Tax and the Deputy Attorney General’s office.

To date no proactive interviews have occurred as a result of guidance provided to the investigative team by the USAO in Delaware, DOJ Tax PDAG and the Deputy Attorney General’s office.

We’ve known of the Deputy Attorney General’s involvement since Shapley’s transcript was first released, which described that the guidance involved Richard Donoghue. Shapley has nevertheless blamed Weiss’ office for these delays ordered by Bill Barr’s top deputies, and Smith even blamed Lesley Wolf personally.

But the centrality of the DAG’s office in such delays is important background to a report filed on December 10, 2020 — which shows that its author (it’s not entirely clear who wrote this, but Shapley provided it) was upset that investigators weren’t improperly sharing information with Congress even then — attributes any delays in the investigation to concerns about election interference.

This investigation has been hampered and artificially slowed by various claims of potential election meddling. Even after the election, our day of action to go overt was delayed more than two weeks.

The memo clearly dismisses those claims, which suggests whoever wrote it thinks they know better than FBI counterintelligence investigators. But it also ignores someone else who knows better about known efforts by Russia to use Hunter Biden as a campaign prop: Donoghue. In February 2020, when he was US Attorney for EDNY, Bill Barr ordered him to serve as a gatekeeper for any investigation implicating Ukraine. This was a specific effort to prevent the SDNY investigation into Rudy Giuliani to pursue Rudy’s efforts to fetch dirt, including a laptop!!, from Andrii Derkach in December 2019.

But starting in July, Donoghue swapped places with Seth DuCharme, becoming the Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General, where he proceeded to issue guidance to delay any overt investigative steps in the Hunter Biden investigation. In other words, the orders to delay overt steps until after the election would have involved someone who knew as well as anyone in government that the effort to exploit Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma involved a plot coordinated with known Russian agents.

But over the course of a four month media blitz, Gary Shapley — represented by people close to Chuck Grassley, who of late has been pushing this Russian information operation himself — suppressed the fact that DOJ had concerns, concerns that manifested in multiple Treasury sanctions afterwards, that the effort to focus attention on Burisma was orchestrated by Russia, Ukranian agents of Russia, and Donald Trump’s own efforts to solicit dirt whereever he could.

Twice yesterday, Republicans refused to vote on Democratic requests that James Comer subpoena Rudy (the first request included a request to subpoena Lev Parnas as well). Yet this detail from Shapley — and his suppression of it for four months — makes a Rudy subpoena all the more important.