Posts

Special Counsel Weiss Demanding that Hunter Biden Show Up for Initial Appearance

/65 Comments/in , /by

David Weiss and Abbe Lowell are already having fights that suggest Weiss wants to give the GOP a bread and circus proxy fight with Trump’s perceived enemies.

Weiss is demanding that Hunter Biden appear in person for his initial appearance; Hunter believes that’s unnecessary, in significant part because he already did the things — like getting a mug shot and getting processed through probation — in this docket, before Judge Marylin Noreika, that he would otherwise do at an initial appearance for the gun charge.

Republicans will complain that one reason he cited — the Secret Service expenses — weren’t a consideration for Trump’s two federal arraignments.

Mr. Biden also seeks this procedure to minimize an unnecessary burden on government resources and the disruption to the courthouse and downtown areas when a person protected by the Secret Service flies across the country and then must be transported to and from a downtown location. Without getting into specifics, numerous agents and vehicles are required for what would have to be a two-day event (for a proceeding that may be very short in duration). This includes agents and vehicles in California and in Delaware, as well as agents who must travel with him on the plane. In addition, as the Court is aware of from the last appearance, security also requires shutting down local roadways in downtown Wilmington, advance coordination with local law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service, and several other logistical challenges.

As Hunter’s filing notes, though, the DE Court has already waived personal appearances this year.

arraignments by video when it is more efficient to do so.2 In this regard, the request by Mr. Biden is not out of the ordinary arraignments by video when it is more efficient to do so.2 In this regard, the request by Mr. Biden is not out of the ordinary.

[snip]

The government’s opposition to this common-sense request is puzzling because Mr. Biden is not asking for special treatment with this request, as individuals without the additional considerations described herein regularly make such appearances by video.

Note, these appearances would have taken place before Hunter’s father ended the federal COVID emergency — but it is true that people are still permitted to make initial appearances remotely.

It sounds like Weiss (and Leo Wise, who has insisted on public humiliation as part of this procedure), wants to argue for a change in release conditions, and do so while Hunter is there in public.

Since that proceeding, Mr. Biden has scrupulously complied with his conditions since returning home to California (D.E. 15), and it is his expectation that those conditions will remain in place until the Court orders otherwise. Moreover, should there be any discussion of revising Mr. Biden’s existing conditions of release, there is no reason why these discussions cannot take place with the Court and the government present by video conference.

That will be an interesting discussion, given that these charges were charged 59 months after the alleged crime, for something that Weiss already agreed merited a diversion. Perhaps Weiss will use his larded on charges and the felony punishment to make an argument that Hunter would be more likely to flee — but again, Weiss already agreed this merited diversion.

This may also be a tactical fight, in advance of the challenge Lowell has already promised about whether Weiss can indict Hunter for charges he already agreed to divert. As Hunter noted, it got put in the same docket, with the prior initial appearance noted, affirming that it is the same proceeding.

Things are going to get testy. They’re going to get testy in a way that will provide yet more evidence that Republicans are demanding — and Weiss is acceding — to treat this as a proxy prosecution for Trump’s opponent, even though it is, instead, the prosecution of a private citizen. They’re going to get testy in a way that will justify a stunt that was premature when Hunter’s attorneys threatened it last year — to put the President on the stand to lay out how this is a proxy fight designed to get to him.

Judge Noreika ordered Weiss to respond by tomorrow.

Hunter Biden Sues the IRS

/135 Comments/in , /by

I can’t help but wonder whether the lawsuits Abbe Lowell is filing on behalf of Hunter Biden are preparation for an assault on the criminal charges against the President’s son.

Last week, for example, Lowell alleged that Garrett Ziegler had criminally hacked an iPhone encrypted on “the laptop” and had altered information on it. Whatever else the lawsuit will do, it will establish that DOJ chose to charge a non-violent recovering addict for owning a gun for 11 days in 2018, but has yet to do anything about the people who’ve serially compromised the digital life of the President’s son.

Lowell already has a bunch of other information to substantiate a selective prosecution case. But if he can demonstrate that DOJ ignored more serious felonies while still pursuing Hunter, it would only add to the evidence.

Today, Lowell sued the IRS for the media tour that Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have conducted since April, enumerated as follows (note, this only includes live appearances; Tristan Leavitt has made obviously problematic claims to print journalists as well):

Attorney A’s public statements in a letter to the Committee on Ways and Means on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on April 19, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Mr. Baier of Fox News on April 20, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on May 24, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Baier of Fox News on June 28, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Axelrod of CBS News on June 28, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on June 29, 2023.

Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to Jake Tapper of CNN on July 20, 2023.

Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to Megyn Kelly of the Megyn Kelly Show on July 20, 2023.

Attorney B’s public statements to Mr. Solomon of John Solomon Reports on July 21, 2023.

Mr. Ziegler’s public statements to John Solomon of John Solomon Reports on July 24, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements to Martha MacCallum of Fox News on July 26, 2023.

Attorney A’s public statements on Fox News on July 31, 2023.

Mr. Shapley’s public statements to Kaitlan Collins of CNN on August 11, 2023.

While statute permits and Hunter Biden did ask for punitive damages, ultimately he only asked for attorneys fees and $1,000 per disclosure — just $15,000 for this listed disclosures, as well as a program to ensure that IRS uphold the Privacy Act.

He’s not going to get rich with this lawsuit.

But Lowell also asked for all information in the IRS’ possession relating to these disclosures.

Ordering Defendant to produce to Mr. Biden all documents in its possession, custody, or control regarding the inspection, transmittal, and/or disclosure of Mr. Biden’s confidential tax return information;

If successful, this request would generate a good deal of information about the IRS tracking of these leaks (and any earlier ones). It might provide proof, in the form of metadata, showing when the IRS agents accessed this information and under what circumstances, including Ziegler’s overt promise to go back and find more data in response to demands from members of Congress. It might obtain information on the IRS’ own investigation of this leaking.

If DOJ is going to charge Hunter with tax charges, they’re going to need to present the investigation as conducted by Shapley and Ziegler — a point Abbe Lowell made in a letter to David Weiss last month.

Among other ways, these agents, sill employed by the Government, would likely be witnesses should any tax charge you file ever be tried. It is unprecedented for Government officials who are the investigators or prosecutors in the case and would be witnesses and rial counsel to conduct themselves in this manner which seks to try the issues in the court of public opinion rather than properly in a court of law. That conduct itself (in addition to the various other infirmities with the Government attempting to bring charges against Mr. Biden26) would support dismissal of any charges you have fled or would try to so file in the future.27

26 To be clear, we do not believe the Government could validly bring charges against our client concerning these issues given the express language of he agreed-upon Diversion Agreement.

27 Courts recognize that the crime of leaking or disclosing such information by Government agents sworn to uphold the law is often more egregious than the crimes those agents are charged with investigating. See, e.g., United States v. Walters, No. 17. 2373 (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2018) Jacobs, J. concurring) ([Tlhe leak of grand jury tesimony in some respects more egregious than anything [Defendant] did (insider wading) — the FB supervisor took an oath to uphold the law and was acting in a supervisory capacity to discharge an important public function.” (emphasis ddd).

Again, on top of all the other things Lowell could point to to substantiate a claim that Hunter was being selectively prosecuted, Lowell might ask why Hunter is being prosecuted but not Shapley and Ziegler.

For five years, the government has (apparently) chosen to relentlessly pursue pickayune charges against Hunter Biden while ignoring the crimes committed to try to set up those charges.

And Abbe Lowell may be preparing to make that case in the case of any trial.

After Threats Elicited by Gary Shapley’s Misleading Testimony, Hunter Biden Prosecutors Reneged on the Plea Deal

/109 Comments/in , , , /by

In the wake of two news reports on the communications leading up to the aborted Hunter Biden plea, Jim Jordan et al demanded the documents shared with the Politico and NYT from Hunter’s lawyers. In response, Lowell sent the following documents, which Betsy Woodruff Swan published here:

While the letters include a familiar catalog of the Shapley and Ziegler media tour, there are a few details worth noting.

First, the August 14 letter goes to great lengths to distinguish the topic of Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler’s purported whistleblowing — prosecutorial misconduct — from the materials released, which focus on investigative material implicating Hunter Biden. That distinction ought be a way for DOJ to rein in the two purported whistleblowers, as Merrick Garland quickly did in the case of Michael Sherwin.

The letter claims, as Abbe Lowell has in the past, that some of the statements Shapley and Ziegler have made are false.

[T]he “facts” disclosed and conclusions reached are either false, legally incorrect, or were otherwise addressed during the various meetings between defense counsel and your Office.

If that’s true, Lowell should ask for a criminal investigation for their false statements before Congress.

It also reveals something that should be obvious but I hadn’t realized: The iCloud warrant which produced a bunch of WhatsApp texts, which Shapley discussed at length in his original testimony, has never been disclosed to Hunter himself, so must be sealed.

On several occasions during their testimony, Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler discussed a sealed search warrant, and showed and discussed with the Committee certain fruits of that sealed search warrant. Because we have never been notified of any such “electronic search warrant for iCloud backup”— nor of any other warrant to search for and seize any property of our client 13—we must presume that Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler were discussing, in violation of a sealing order, a search warrant that has been sealed. Nevertheless, Mr. Shapley purportedly produced WhatsApp messages that are the: fruit of these warrants, and they have now been published.” Moreover, Mr. Ziegler offered to produce to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee additional and more fulsome grand jury materials concerning these messages, with the intent of making such materials public.

So it’s not just that Shapley was violating grand jury secrecy (he was authorized by Ways and Means Chief Counsel to share tax information, but not grand jury information), he was also almost certainly violating a sealing order that remained in effect almost two months after Hunter Biden received a summons in conjunction with the tax charges (conveniently so for the purported whistleblowers, because the warrant affidavit may rely on poisoned fruit from their mistreatment of “the laptop”). Whatever judge authorized that warrant and gag — presumably DE’s Chief Judge, Colm Connolly — might be interested that investigative agents are just blowing off the gag they themselves presumably asked for.

The most alarming thing in the August 14 letter, though, is a claim that Leo Wise — who has taken the lead role in the prosecution — claimed in a July 31 call to be unaware of any grand jury leaks in the investigation, at all!

On a July 31, 2023, call, Assistant United States Attorney Wise stated he was “not aware” of any leak of grand jury information by the Government during the course of the Government’s investigation of our client. Such a statement was surprising given that Mr. Biden’s counsel have discussed such leaks with the Goverment 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.

[snip]

Yet, given your Office’s inaction in the face of a torrent of illegal leaks about your investigation of Mr. Biden, and now your reinvented denial that leaks ever happened at all—your Offices assurances are being rendered false.

It’s as if the guy Weiss brought in to salvage the case believes he has to simply deny what everyone watching can plainly see, that Shapely and Ziegler have set off a torrent of prejudicial information that could make it impossible for Hunter to get a fair trial, much less be exonerated if not charged.

In both the August 14 letter and the one from yesterday, Lowell claims that the political pressure Jordan et al have put on Weiss led the newly minted Special Counsel to ratchet up his charges.

The change to a rare misdemeanor failure to file/pay and a felony diversion for possession of a firearm (and now the actual filing of those firearm charges) occurred only after a chain of events starting with the improper disclosures arranged by you and your Committees of the so-called “whistleblowers” claims of prosecutorial misconduct and your, and the right-wing media with whom you coordinate, taking up those claims.

But there’s something that Lowell didn’t mention.

It’s not just political pressure that this media blitz has created.

It’s credible threats of violence.

As Ken Dilanian first reported, after Shapley started representing Lesley Wolf’s adherence to DOJ and FBI guidelines as political interference, she was targeted with credible threats. Thomas Sobicinski told the House Judiciary Committee how Shapley’s testimony had led to the harassment of employees, employees whose parents got calls and children got followed. He specifically agreed that Wolf “has concerns for her own safety.”

It’s not just that Shapley’s testimony has led to political pressure. It has led directly to credible threats of violence against the prosecutor who crafted the original plea deal.

And in the wake of those credible threats of violence, David Weiss decided to ratchet up the charges against the President’s son.

The threats of violence may not have caused Weiss’ subsequent decision to renege on the plea deal (though that is one thing that is likely to be the topic of litigation going forward).  But the public record, at least, makes clear that those threats of violence correlate with a decision to seek more punitive treatment of the President’s son.

And that’s a very chilling prospect: that MAGA right wingers could bully prosecutors into taking punitive action against Hunter Biden.

Not Breaking News and Stop Lying to Your Followers It is: David Weiss Indicts Hunter Biden

/75 Comments/in , /by

As promised, David Weiss has indicted the President’s son. As I suspected, he added a False Statements charge, on top of the weapons charge, so even if SCOTUS rules 18 USC 922 to be unconstitutional, Weiss will still have a felony against Hunter.

He charged a total of three charges.

This is where things start to get interesting.

Remember: Abbe Lowell insists that Weiss can’t charge Hunter, because he Weiss signed a diversion agreement that — per AUSA Leo Wise — was a binding contract between DE USAO and Hunter. Over the weekend, I wrote about how even with this indictment, Weiss may have far less leverage over Hunter than he thinks.

Gary Shapley’s Notes Show That Gary Shapley Misrepresented David Weiss

/21 Comments/in , , /by

When Gary Shapley wrote down what was said about charging Hunter Biden with tax crimes in California at a contested meeting on October 7, 2022, he quoted Weiss as saying that if the US Attorney declined to prosecute, Weiss, “will request approval to proceed in CA” [my emphasis].

When Shapley relayed what happened in the meeting to his boss around six hours later, he described that Weiss “would have to request permission,” [my emphasis] even while admitting he was “unclear” on what Weiss said about where he’d get that permission.

Shapley’s lawyers shared these handwritten notes, over three months into his media tour with the right wing congressional set, because they think the fact that Shapley wrote down his understanding that Weiss said, “he is not the deciding person” [the latter part of which is redacted in the hand-written notes], that they disprove the testimony of others at the meeting.

The Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Sobocinski, said that both before and after the meeting, he understood Weiss to be the final decision-maker.

But this discrepancy later in his notes — Shapley’s replacement of “will” with “would have to,” his replacement of “approval” with “permission” — instead reveals that Shapley misunderstood what was said in the meeting, and then misrepresented what happened both that same day, with his supervisor, and ever since, with dumb right wingers in Congress.

To be sure, both versions are consistent with what David Weiss and Merrick Garland have been saying all along — including to Jim Jordan in June and to Lindsey Graham in July: that if Weiss decided to bring charges outside Delaware and the local US Attorneys didn’t want to partner on the case, he could ask for Special Attorney authority under 28 USC 515 and Garland would grant it. Both versions are consistent with the process Weiss has laid out. You ask the local US Attorney, and if they say no, you get Special Attorney authority.

But in the notes Shapley took in the meeting, he recorded Weiss committing to taking the steps to charge the later tax years — the ones that had to be charged in Los Angeles, two of the three years that were part of the plea deal. In his email to his supervisor, Shapley transformed that into his panic that, “this case could end up without any charges,” [emphasis and panic Shapley’s], something that was sharply at odds with the commitment Shapley had recorded Weiss making in the meeting — will — to follow the process necessary to charge the case. Plus, Weiss’ description of seeking “approval” rather than “permission” substantially disproves Shapley’s claim that anything said at the meeting was “inconsistent with DOJ public position and Merrick Garland testimony.” Shapley had to reword what he originally recorded Weiss as saying to support that claim.

That he did so — that he rewrote his own notes to match his belief, and then shared the rewritten version rather than the original with Congress — damages his credibility rather than backing it.

To be sure, neither set of notes is reliable.

For example, there is at least one thing missing from Shapley’s hand-written notes that he records in the email to his boss: the substance of his objection to David Weiss’ decision not to charge the 2014 and 2015 tax years.

I stated for the record, that I did not concur with that decision and put on the record that IRS will have a lot of risk associated with this decision that there is still a large amount of unreported income in that year from Burisma that we have no mechanism to recover.

Shapley’s claim may not be (or may no longer be) true: at the plea hearing, AUSA Leo Wise stated that there was no restitution owed. But I have no doubt Shapley did make this objection. If he didn’t record making a statement he thought to be that important, then, what else did Shapley say that he didn’t write down?

More importantly, what did Shapley not say that he didn’t record?

There’s nothing unredacted in Shapley’s notes recording Sobocinski’s question — which Shapley included in his email to his boss — about whether there was any problem on the case with politicization.

FBI SAC asked the room if anyone thought the case had been politicized — we can discuss this [if] you prefer.

That’s important because, at least per Sobocinski’s interview with the Committee, no one raised concerns about politicization at the meeting. “I was asking in a room of leaders on this case to say, ‘Hey, we are working together. We’re moving this thing
forward. Do you think there’s any manipulation from the outside that’s stopping us from what we’re doing?'” Sobocinski told the House Judiciary Committee about the question. And, at least per Sobocinski’s representation, “nobody in that room raised their voice to say anything other.”

So unless the redacted lines at the end of Shapley’s notes record Shapley providing some kind of affirmative answer, then there’s no evidence he took the opportunity to express the wild claims of politicization he was making contemporaneously, but he also didn’t record himself passing up that opportunity. At least per Sobocinski’s memory, the SAC gave him an opportunity to air those concerns and he didn’t take it, an opportunity that might have elicited a very simple explanation about what Shapely was misunderstanding about how the Special Attorney process worked and might have saved us from all the theatricality that threatens all charges against Hunter Biden now.

Indeed, whether or not Shapley said anything in response to Sobocinski’s question, the most suspect part of his email to his boss was an offer to discuss politicization in person: “we can discuss this [if] you prefer.” Both these documents are designed to provide for accountability, but Shapley appears to have declined to write down anywhere what his claims about politicization were, which would have made him accountable to his claims just like he wants to hold Weiss accountable for what he understood him to say.

Shapley reorganized his notes between the hand-written ones and the email in a way that changes their meaning, too.

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.

The LA decision mattered — the one about which Shapley originally recorded Weiss saying he “will” pursue Special Attorney authority if need be. The DC decision did not.

Just as important a problem for Shapley’s credibility is that for more than three months, Shapley has been claiming the email was his best record of the meeting, without distinguishing what parts of the email were his editorial statements and what parts a record of the meeting. That parts of the email reflected him editorializing should have been clear to anyone smarter than Jim Jordan; Shapley’s use of “I believe” and “in my opinion” are a big tip-off.

But it’s clear that Republicans have nevertheless treated the email, and all its bullet points, as a record of the meeting. That’s most problematic with the way Shapley recorded his understanding that Weiss had asked for permission to file in DC, permission which hadn’t been granted.

Staffers in Congress have been quizzing meeting attendees about things Shapley included in his email, without making clear they were background and not contemporaneous notes. One example that relates to the way Shapley packaged up his notes, at several points Steve Castor quizzed Sobocinski about whether he, “remember[ed] anything in that meeting about the fact that D.C. had declined to bring a case?” Sobocinski didn’t remember that — but likely for good reason. Shapley doesn’t record it as having happened, at all, in this meeting (and Sobocinski did not entirely back Shapley’s claim that that is what did happen). All Shapley recorded in his hand-written notes is that when Weiss asked for Special Attorney status (which Shapley lists as Special Counsel), DOJ — not Matthew Graves — told him to follow the process, which requires first asking if the US Attorney wants to partner on the case.

Even in these hand-written notes, this comment may have been editorializing; after all, Shapley records it after Weiss had already delivered his decision not to charge 2014 and 2015. But his hand-written notes definitely don’t reflect anyone saying that Graves had refused to partner on the case at the meeting.

In Sobocinski’s interview, he talked about how Shapley’s little media tour has created more challenges to actually charge this case, including threats against team members, particularly Lesley Wolf. There is nothing that Shapley has released publicly that helps the case and a great deal that will give Abbe Lowell more ammunition to demonstrate that the people pushing for tax charges against his client were going nuts because they weren’t allowed to violate rules on Sensitive Investigative Matters and because they didn’t understand bureaucratic process.

This is yet another example: Gary Shapley provided his editorialized version of a meeting that, he claims, was his red line to Congress and only months later did he share the underlying notes. Not only do the notes show he misrepresented what Weiss said about Los Angeles, but they raise yet more questions about Shapley’s equivocations about a leak that happened to coincide with a red line that isn’t entirely backed by his own notes. The motivated inconsistencies in the notes are the kind of thing defense attorneys use to discredit entire investigative teams, and Shapley has simply offered it up.

At this rate, Shapley’s media tour will be singularly responsible for making it impossible for Weiss to do the one thing Shapley claimed had to happen: charges against Hunter Biden.

David Weiss May Have More Bluster than Tactical Leverage

/102 Comments/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that’s before you consider the rampant leaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/34 Comments/in , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barr declined to intercede, the people said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And virtually every Hill journalist is playing along.

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

/113 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Noreika dismissed the charges.

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

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

A senior law enforcement official speaks, illegally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to some degree that may not matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder Hunter’s lawyers are furious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Hunter Biden Case, Abbe Lowell Enters His Appearance

/128 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it’s not inevitable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

Merrick Garland Makes David Weiss a Special Counsel

/152 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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