Posted on 12/27/2023 9:24:23 AM PST by Red Badger
The scope of top Hunter Biden prosecutor David Weiss’ authority was off limits for his former staffer when she testified before congress.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware Lesley Wolf testified Dec. 14 before the House Judiciary Committee and did not have permission to discuss the details of Weiss’ charging authority on the Hunter Biden case, according to a transcript reviewed by the Daily Caller.
“Okay. With respect to the Hunter Biden case, Stuart Goldberg testified that even though David Weiss has said he has ultimate charging authority, that the Tax Division still was required to approve any tax charges. Was that your understanding?” Wolf was asked.
“I am not authorized to speak on the particulars of any ongoing matter,” Wolf replied. “Okay. So you’re not authorized to speak on David Weiss’ charging authority? I mean, that’s been one of the areas that the justice Department has allowed witnesses to address.”
“It is my understanding that because you have heard directly from others on this issue who are in a far better position than I am to speak to the actual scope of his authority, that I am not authorized to speak on that” Wolf answered.
“So you’re not authorized to speak on Weiss’ authority?”
“That’s correct,” Wolf said. She proceeded to give a generalized description of what she believed Weiss’ authority to be without going into detail.
“It was always my understanding, without the particulars, was that U.S. Attorney Weiss would have the necessary authority to bring charges that he believed were appropriate, to bring in any jurisdiction that he felt it was appropriate to bring said charges in,” Wolf stated.
She did not answer specific questions related to cases she worked on where DOJ Tax authority might have been an issue. Wolf instead spoke vaguely about the tax division’s general approval processes and referred to the criminal tax division manual.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division Stuart Goldberg testified before the Judiciary Committee in October and said the DOJ Tax Division has approval authority over Weiss’ investigative steps and any potential tax charges he decides to level against Hunter Biden, according to a transcript reviewed by the Caller.
Goldberg cited the DOJ’s own manual and regulations outlining the scope of the DOJ Tax Division’s authority. The guidelines still apply even with Weiss’ special counsel status, Goldberg stated. Weiss confirmed the DOJ Tax Division’s authority under federal regulations and the DOJ manual when he testified before the Judiciary Committee in November, according to a transcript reviewed by the Caller. Weiss pointed out he did not run into problems with DOJ tax officials during the Hunter Biden investigation.
Weiss, the Delaware U.S. Attorney, defended Wolf and his entire team on the Hunter Biden case during his testimony. Wolf is no longer employed by the DOJ and left her position weeks before her testimony.
IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have accused Wolf and other DOJ officials of giving Hunter Biden special treatment throughout the ongoing criminal investigation into the first son centered around his taxes.
Witness testimony from DOJ, FBI and IRS officials confirmed key allegations first brought forward by the IRS whistleblowers, House Republicans detailed in a report released Dec. 5. The other witnesses, including Weiss himself, were permitted to describe how they perceived Weiss’ charging authority and the DOJ Tax Division’s ability to approve Weiss’ decisions.
One major allegation provided by Shapley was that Weiss stated at an Oct. 7, 2022 meeting the DOJ rejected his request for special counsel authority and instructed him to follow the process. Shapley’s attorneys have released an email Shapley sent and handwritten notes documenting his account of the Oct. 7, 2022 meeting.
Weiss confirmed DOJ officials rejected his request for special attorney authority under section 515 in spring 2022 and told him to follow the process instead. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan told reporters Weiss’ testimony vindicated the IRS whistleblowers and confirmed Shapley’s accusation.
In addition, Weiss confirmed President Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves and the Central District of California E. Martin Estrada did not cooperate on the Hunter Biden case. Graves’ choice resulted in the statute of limitations expiring for alleged tax-related offenses committed by Hunter Biden in the 2014-15 tax years, Weiss confirmed.
Graves and Estrada testified separately before the House Judiciary Committee in October and both said they did not partner with Weiss on the case, according to transcripts reviewed by the Caller.
Graves and Estrada’s conduct was first highlighted by the IRS whistleblowers. The IRS agents testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes in the 2014-15 tax years were tied to income he received from Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings.
Wolf faced additional questions in relation to Weiss’ ability to charge outside of his jurisdiction and the section 515 request he made in spring 2022. She repeatedly declined to answer those specific questions and deferred to Weiss.
“I think, again, to the extent I’m authorized to speak on the scope of U.S. Attorney Weiss’ authority, I indicated it was my understanding that he would have the authority he needed. The particulars of that and what it looked like, I do not have either authorization to speak to or, quite frankly, the knowledge thereof,” Wolf reiterated.
Weiss wrote three letters to congressional lawmakers addressing the IRS whistleblower allegations prior to his testimony. In a June 7 letter, Weiss said he had “ultimate authority” over the Hunter Biden case, yet he wrote a letter later that month saying his charging authority had geographical limitations.
Weiss subsequently wrote a letter in July to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham denying Shapley’s accusation he requested special counsel authority. He alluded to internal discussions over special attorney authority without going into detail.
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss special counsel in August following the IRS whistleblower allegations and the collapse of Hunter Biden’s guilty plea agreement in Delaware. Weiss is simultaneously serving as special counsel and the Delaware U.S. Attorney.
Garland testified in September and similarly deferred to Weiss on particular details of the Hunter Biden investigation and his charging authority.
Hunter Biden is staring down nine federal tax charges in the Central District of California including three felonies and three federal gun charges in Delaware. He pleaded not guilty in October to the gun charges and seeks to have them dismissed.
Shapley and Ziegler said in a statement they were vindicated by the California tax indictment. Hunter Biden is suing the IRS for alleged illegal disclosures by the whistleblowers.
Hunter Biden’s arraignment for the California tax charges is scheduled to take place in January.
Henry Rodgers contributed to this report.
There is a very nice jail in Cheltenham. Put her in it.
In the unlikely event that Trump (or any Republican) is allowed to win in 2024, whoever is appointed as the new Attorney General needs to build a RICO case like no one has ever seen against the Biden administration. Of course, if it’s anyone other than Trump, it’s likely that we’ll see a return to the “magnanimous winner” position, which is what got us here in the first place.
ANOTHER BIDEN CIRCLE JERK
“I am not authorized to speak on the particulars of any ongoing matter,” Wolf replied.
Nixon should have used this dodge. It’s preposterous that congress can’t compel Wolf’s testimony. She should be held in contempt.
“So you're not authorized to speak on Weiss’ authority?”
“That's correct,” Wolf said.
\/
the demcommies love playing hot potato with their guilt.
This is Obstruction of Congress, Obstruction of Justice and Sedition
That’s and Insurrection!!!!
did not have permission to discuss the details of Weiss’ charging authority on the Hunter Biden case,
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.