Buried at the end of his letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Monday denying he had asked for Special Counsel status in the Hunter Biden investigation, U.S. Attorney for Delaware David C. Weiss–claiming the matter was part of an “ongoing investigation”–refused to answer Graham’s questions about the FBI FD-1023 Form dated on June 30, 2020 that contains allegations by a highly credible confidential source that around 2015 then Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter were each paid $5 million by a Ukrainian Burisma executive to influence U.S. policy and that recordings of phone calls with the Bidens were made as an insurance policy.
Weiss’ response to Graham’s June 28 letter came a day after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a detailed letter to Weiss demanding answers about alleged efforts by Weiss’ staff to bury the FD-1023 investigation following an October 2020 briefing.
Graham, Weiss and Grassley letters presented below (footnotes at source links):
Dear Mr. Weiss:
Whistleblower allegations indicate that while you were investigating Hunter Biden you requested Special Counsel designation and were denied, and that you sought more serious charges and that attempt was rejected. Whistleblowers also indicated that you made efforts to bring charges in Washington, D.C. and California, and were also rejected. These allegations are corroborated by a contemporaneous e-mail. Please provide information regarding these allegations, as a prompt response is necessary to reassure the public that there is equal justice under the law.
I have been informed that you and your office were briefed on allegations in a FD-1023 form suggesting there may have been phone calls recorded between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden with a senior official at Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. The FD-1023 in question alleges that the confidential informant told the Department of Justice and FBI that such tapes may exist.
Were you in fact briefed on these allegations by United States Attorney Scott Brady or anyone else? If yes, what actions were taken to investigate this matter and what was the final disposition?
As I write, I do not know if the allegations are credible, but I do know they are serious, and I believe it is incumbent on you to clarify and inform the public. I believe this can be achieved without compromising confidential sources.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Weiss letter to Graham (via Politico):
Dear Senator Graham:
This is in response to your June 28, 2023, letter.1As I recently explained to the Honorable Jim Jordan,2 since the whistleblowers’ allegations relate to a criminal investigation that is currently being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, I have a duty to protect confidential law enforcement information and deliberative communications related to the case. As I likewise indicated, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these claims in more detail at the appropriate future time, as authorized by the law and Department policy.
To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation pursuant to 28 CFR § 600 et seq. Rather, I had discussions with Departmental officials regarding potential appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 515, which would have allowed me to file charges in a district outside my own without the partnership of the local U.S. Attorney. I was assured that I would be granted this authority if it proved necessary. And this assurance came months before the October 7, 2022, meeting referenced throughout the whistleblowers’ allegations. In this case, I’ve followed the process outlined in my June 30 letter and have never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.
Your questions about allegations contained in an FBI FD-1023 Form relate to an ongoing investigation. As such, I cannot comment on them at this time.
Sincerely,
David C. Weiss
United States Attorney
Grassley letter to Weiss dated July 9:
Dear U.S. Attorney Weiss:
Based on information provided to my office from individuals aware of the meeting, on October 23, 2020, Justice Department and FBI Special Agents from the Pittsburgh Field Office briefed Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, one of your top prosecutors, and FBI Special Agents from the Baltimore Field Office with respect to the contents of the FBI-generated FD1023 alleging a criminal bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden; however, the meeting did not include any IRS agents. In addition, based on information provided to my office, potentially hundreds of Justice Department and FBI officials have had access to the FD-1023 at issue, which begs the question that I’ve been asking since the start of my oversight in this matter: what steps have the Justice Department and FBI taken to investigate the allegations? You, Attorney General Garland, and Director Wray have failed to answer.
As you are aware, IRS whistleblowers have affirmed that AUSA Wolf prevented investigators from seeking information about Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s criminal business arrangements;1 AUSA Wolf frustrated investigative efforts to question Rob Walker about Joe Biden;2 AUSA Wolf admitted that “more than enough probable cause” had been achieved for a physical search warrant at Joe Biden’s guest house but prevented it from happening due to “optics”;3 AUSA Wolf prevented investigators from searching Hunter Biden’s storage unit;4 AUSA Wolf called Hunter Biden’s defense counsel informing him of the interest in the storage unit.5 Did AUSA Wolf take similar proactive measures to frustrate any investigation into the FD-1023?
In light of AUSA Wolf’s alleged questionable and obstructive conduct during the course of your investigation, I’m seeking clarification from you with respect to your knowledge of these allegations and how you’ve handled them. Please answer the following questions no later than July 21, 2023:
1. When did you become aware of the October 2020 briefing provided by Justice Department and FBI officials to AUSA Wolf and the FBI Baltimore Field Office?
2. Are you aware of any steps AUSA Wolf and the Baltimore Field Office took to investigate the information within the FD-1023 before and after the October 2020 briefing? If so, what steps were taken and when? If not, why not?
3. Why were IRS agents not included in the October 2020 briefing?
4. Does the scope of your alleged “ongoing investigation” include criminal bribery with respect to the alleged criminal scheme between a foreign national and then-Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden? If not, why not?
5. Have you taken any steps to recover the alleged audio recordings and related evidence referenced in the FD-1023? If not, why not?
6. When were you assured that you would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in the Hunter Biden matter? Have you requested that specific authority yet? If not, why not? If so, when, where and was the request satisfied?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland reported Monday on Grassley’s letter, noting, “A source familiar with that briefing has now confirmed to The Federalist that the Pittsburgh office told the Delaware office the CHS’s reporting appeared credible and merited further investigation. ” (excerpt):
While we do not know the answers to those questions yet, we do know from the Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers that they were not informed of the FD-1023. As Grassley noted in his letter, the IRS agents were excluded from the meeting with the Pittsburgh field office. We also know from the IRS whistleblowers’ congressional testimony and supplemental statements that they first learned of the FD-1023 when Barr publicly stated the information had been sent to Delaware for further investigation.
Who decided to exclude the IRS agents from the meeting? Who decided to keep them in the dark about the FD-1023 and the information contained in it? Was anyone from the Baltimore field office adequately skilled to investigate the CHS’s reporting? As members of the IRS’s International Tax and Financial Crimes group, both the IRS whistleblowers working with the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office were. So why were they cut out of the case?
Following the release of Grassley’s letter, a source familiar with the Delaware briefing told The Federalist that in addition to summarizing the contents of the FD-1023, the Pittsburgh office requested the FBI provide FD-1023 access to the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office and the agents out of the Baltimore field office working on the case. The Pittsburgh office also told Wolf and the FBI agents present during the briefing that the information contained in the FD-1023 bore indicia of credibility and they recommended it be further investigated.
But was it investigated? Grassley asked precisely that question to Weiss.