Connect with us

Biden Administration

Leaked Emails Reveal That U.S. Attorney Weiss Colluded With the DOJ to ‘Subvert’ House Probe into Hunter Biden

Published

on

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Heritage Foundation was granted access to emails, which were then shared only with The Federalist. These emails show that the Department of Justice frequently intervened on behalf of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss in order to respond to congressional inquiries about the Hunter Biden investigation.

This information begs more concerns regarding the June 7, 2023, letter that the Delaware U.S. attorney claimed to have “ultimate authority” over Hunter Biden charging decisions and that was sent to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan under Weiss’ signature. It also raises the possibility that Weiss and the DOJ planned to deceive Congress.

Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit and shared exclusively with The Federalist establish that on multiple occasions, the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to respond to congressional inquiries related to the Hunter Biden investigation.

This revelation raises more questions about the June 7, 2023, letter (below) dispatched to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan under Weiss’s signature line, in which the Delaware U.S. attorney claimed he had “ultimate authority” over charging decisions related to Hunter Biden. It also suggests Weiss and the DOJ may have conspired to mislead Congress.

Below is a letter from Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent on on May 9th, 2022 requesting information concerning the Hunter Biden investigation.

“Not to my knowledge,” Following his response, Hanson sent a second email stating that Joe Gaeta, the office of legislative affairs’s then-deputy assistant attorney general, was preparing a reply. Moreover, even though Grassley and Johnson had sent their inquiry to Weiss alone on May 9, 2022, the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs would speak up for him, stating in a letter dated June 9, 2022, that the DOJ would not answer the questions.

The next month, Grassley and Johnson sent a second letter to Weiss, as well as to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, asking for more details about the Hunter Biden investigation. Once more, the Office of Legal Counsel stepped in, informing Weiss’s office via email that it would “take the lead on drafting a response” to Grassley and Johnson’s letter. The communication was reviewed by The Federalist.

These previously unseen emails, which were among the first batch of records handed to the Heritage Foundation after a court order was issued last week in Heritage’s FOIA litigation against the DOJ, show that the Department of Justice and U.S. attorney cooperated in responding to congressional queries. The DOJ was ordered by this court order to deliver all Weiss and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf records that were relevant to the Heritage FOIA lawsuit by August 25, 2023.

Although the Biden administration tried to drag out the process, Mike Howell, the head of the Heritage 

Foundation’s Oversight Project, made the FOIA request and later sued the DOJ. 

Howell informed The Federalist that the emails demonstrate that, despite Garland’s assertion that Weiss was free to press any accusations, Garland was “simultaneously running communications from Weiss to Grassley through the political controls of Main Justice.” “It is a slap in the face,” Howell said. 

Notably, the emails raise doubts about the accuracy of several communications between Weiss and Jordan, starting with Weiss’s reply from June 7 to Jordan’s letter to Garland from May 25, 2023. 

Jordan questioned Garland about the IRS whistleblowers’ exclusion from the Hunter Biden inquiry in that letter on May 25.

Weiss answered to the question on June 7 in a letter that began, “Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was sent to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department,” despite the fact that the House committee’s letter was only directed to Attorney General Garland. 

Then, Weiss asserted that Garland had been correct when she said that the Delaware U.S. attorney had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for determining where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution.”

Two more letters would soon follow, the first being to Weiss from Jordan on June 22. In that letter, Jordan reiterated the Judiciary Committee’s need for substantive responses, before asking Weiss for more details “in light of the unusual nature of your response on behalf of Attorney General Garland…” Specifically, Jordan asked for information concerning the names of individuals who drafted or assisted in drafting the June 7, 2023, letter, as well as details concerning the drafting and dispatching of the letter.

Weiss responded in a June 30 letter that he was not at liberty to provide substantive responses to the questions concerning an ongoing investigation. The Delaware U.S. attorney then sidestepped questions about the DOJ’s role in drafting the June 7 letter, stating only that he “would like to reaffirm the contents of the June 7 letter drafted by my office” — a statement representing that the Delaware office had composed the letter. 

Weiss then proceeded to “expand” on what he meant when he said in his June 7 letter that he had ultimate charging authority, writing: 

As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. If not, I may request Special Attorney status from the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515. Here, I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I 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 this matter.

Of course, having ultimate authority and being assured that you would be given ultimate authority if need be, are two different things. But the scandal goes beyond Weiss not having the authority to charge Hunter Biden, to what clearly seems to be an attempt by the DOJ and Weiss to mislead Congress. 

It’s important to remember that when Weiss sent the June 7 letter to Jordan, the whistleblowers’ transcripts had not yet been released. Thus neither Weiss nor the DOJ knew the specifics of the whistleblowers’ testimony, leading them to represent to Congress that Weiss had ultimate decision-making authority — something Weiss would later have to massage.

Weiss’s questionable statements didn’t end there, however. In the June 30 letter, Weiss represented to Congress that he had drafted the June 7 letter. 

But why would Weiss draft the June 7 letter? That letter was not even addressed to Weiss. And the emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation establish that even when congressional oversight letters were addressed directly to the Delaware U.S. attorney, Weiss did not answer them. Instead, the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs intervened and spoke on his behalf.

There is a second reason to suspect Weiss did not draft the June 7 letter: the footnote reference in the correspondence to the Linder letter. 

Tristan Leavitt, a former Capitol Hill staffer and the president of Empower Oversight, which is helping represent IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, told The Federalist that when he “worked on Capitol Hill (particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did regular oversight of the Justice Department), the Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs frequently referenced the otherwise-obscure Linder letter in response to congressional oversight.”

“It’s hard to imagine the letter was widely known outside of Justice Department headquarters,” Leavitt continued, “especially in U.S. attorneys’ offices, which almost never respond directly to congressional correspondence.”

Conversely, it is easy to imagine Main Justice drafting the June 7 letter on behalf of Weiss to provide Garland cover and to seemingly corroborate the attorney general’s Senate testimony that he had given Weiss full authority to make charging decisions in the Hunter Biden investigation.

That cover may soon be blown away, however, thanks to the Heritage Foundation. 

“The only reason these documents are starting to trickle out is because we sued for transparency,” Howell told The Federalist. “We’ve faced taxpayer funded resistance at every step of the way and haven’t given up,” he added, noting that “the DOJ is under a judicial order to continue this production.” 

The next round of responsive documents is due by Oct. 31, and since none of the documents produced to date include references to Jordan’s May 25, 2023, letter, it seems likely we’ll see those emails in the next batch — unless House Republicans seek access to them first through a subpoena.

Biden Administration

U.S. Announces $725 Million Military Aid Package for Ukraine

Published

on

Washington, D.C. — The United States is poised to deliver an additional $725 million in military aid to Ukraine, signaling continued support for Kyiv’s efforts to defend against Russian aggression. The latest package, confirmed by two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, includes counter-drone systems and munitions for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

Notably, the package raises questions about whether it includes the coveted Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a longer-range missile that Ukraine has repeatedly requested to target deeper into Russian-controlled territory. However, the officials declined to confirm whether ATACMS would be included.

In addition to munitions, the aid package features anti-personnel landmines, which Ukraine is using to counter Russian and North Korean ground forces, particularly in contested areas like Russia’s Kursk region.

President Joe Biden remains resolute in using all funds allocated by Congress for Ukraine’s military support before the end of his administration in January. Before Monday’s announcement, approximately $7.1 billion in military assistance had been provided, drawn from Pentagon stockpiles.

While the Biden administration continues to bolster Ukraine, questions loom about the incoming Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. President-elect Trump h as promised to “end the conflict,” potentially signaling a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

In a noteworthy development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested last week that NATO membership for Ukrainian-controlled territories could help end the “hot stage of the war.” This remark signals a potential softening in Ukraine’s stance as it seeks to balance territorial integrity with international support.

HIMARS munitions have been a linchpin in Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling precision strikes on Russian targets. The possible inclusion of ATACMS in this package could extend Ukraine’s reach, putting more strategic Russian positions at risk. Meanwhile, the addition of counter-drone systems underscores the escalating drone warfare in the region, as both sides employ drones for surveillance and strikes.

The use of anti-personnel landmines reflects Ukraine’s tactical efforts to slow Russian advancements, particularly in areas where conventional defense lines have proven difficult to maintain.

The aid announcement comes amid heightened speculation about U.S. foreign policy under the incoming Trump administration. While President Biden has championed robust support for Ukraine, critics argue the ongoing assistance risks overextending U.S. resources. Trump’s pledge to “end the conflict” could signify a more isolationist approach, raising concerns among Ukraine’s allies about the continuity of U.S. support.

As the war grinds on, Ukraine remains reliant on Western military aid to sustain its defenses and reclaim lost territory. The latest U.S. package underscores Washington’s strategic commitment, even as domestic and international pressures mount.

Whether the new administration will maintain this trajectory remains uncertain, but for now, the U.S. remains a steadfast partner in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty.

SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

U.S. Government Has Sent $239 Million to Taliban Since 2021 Due to State Dept’s Vetting Failures, Report Reveals

Published

on

The U.S. government has inadvertently sent at least $239 million to the Taliban in development assistance since 2021, according to a new report. The oversight occurred because the State Department failed to properly vet award recipients.

Less than a year after it was reported that the Taliban established fake nonprofits to siphon millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, a new investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the terrorist group has received hundreds of millions in development assistance due to inadequate vetting by the State Department. Since the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, at least $239 million have likely filled the Taliban’s coffers.

The State Department’s divisions known as Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) disbursed the funds to implement development projects aimed at supporting American foreign policy and national security goals in Afghanistan.

Investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements before awarding at least 29 grants to various local entities. The agency has a system in place to identify whether prospective awardees have a record of ethical business practices and is supposed to conduct risk assessments to determine if programming funds may benefit terrorists or terrorist-affiliates before distributing American taxpayer dollars. However, in the more than two dozen cases examined, the agency neglected these procedures and failed to maintain proper records.

“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” the SIGAR report states. “As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.”

The watchdog identified issues with 29 awards distributed by DRL and INL. For instance, DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards totaling about $12 million. INL did not provide any supporting documentation for 19 of its 22 awards totaling about $295 million, making it impossible to determine if they complied with vetting requirements. The State Department acknowledged that not all its bureaus have complied with document retention requirements, complicating the assessment of the magnitude of its transgressions. INL cited “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” as reasons for not retaining records.

Given the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, SIGAR emphasized the importance of U.S. government activities adhering to laws, regulations, and policies intended to prevent transactions with terrorists.

Besides establishing fraudulent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to loot significant portions of the $3 billion in humanitarian aid the U.S. has provided Afghanistan since the Biden administration’s abrupt military withdrawal, the Taliban has also accrued millions by charging taxes, permit fees, and import duties. This money has flowed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department arm known for its corruption, which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement this year. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government’s international broadcasting service, also disbursed funds.

The United Nations has received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for Afghanistan, and a significant percentage of that money likely went to the Taliban, according to a federal audit. The U.S. government does not require the UN to report on taxes, fees, or duties incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan, further complicating accountability.

SOURCE: SIGAR REPORT

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

US Announces $1.7 Billion in New Security Assistance for Ukraine

Published

on

The United States announced on Monday a new tranche of military aid for Ukraine valued at approximately $1.7 billion. This package includes critical air defense munitions and artillery rounds that Ukrainian forces have urgently requested.

The assistance package comprises $200 million in equipment drawn from existing U.S. military stocks, ensuring rapid deployment to the battlefield. Additionally, it includes around $1.5 billion in new orders, which will take longer to reach Ukraine, according to a statement from the Defense Department.

Key Components of the Aid Package

The new security assistance will provide Ukraine with:

  • Various types of air defense munitions to shield against Russian strikes
  • Artillery rounds
  • Ammunition for HIMARS precision rocket launchers
  • Multiple types of anti-tank weapons
  • Other crucial capabilities

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed deep gratitude in a social media post, thanking U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and the American people for their continued support. Zelensky emphasized that the aid includes items “critical to strengthening Ukrainian defenders, as well as funding to sustain previously committed equipment from the United States.”

Zelensky visited special forces in the border region of Kharkiv on Monday. Moscow’s forces launched a surprise ground offensive in this region in May but failed to make significant progress. The Ukrainian leader observed firsthand how the ongoing assistance from the U.S. helps to save lives and protect citizens from Russian attacks.

The United States has been a pivotal military supporter of Ukraine, committing over $55 billion in weapons, ammunition, and other security assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Before late April, Washington had announced limited new aid for Ukraine this year, with only a $300 million package made possible through Pentagon savings on other purchases. After months of intense debate, Congress finally approved large-scale funding for Kyiv in April, authorizing $95 billion in aid, including $61 billion specifically for Ukraine.

Despite the new aid, Ukrainian forces are facing significant challenges. On Monday, Russia claimed its forces had captured the village of Vovche in eastern Ukraine, marking the latest in a series of front-line advances by Moscow.

The Ukrainian military reported that it had repelled six Russian attacks on the Kharkiv front line over the past day, including at Vovchansk, a small town that Russian forces have targeted since May. As the conflict grinds through its third year, neither side has managed to gain a decisive advantage, although Moscow’s forces have made recent gains.

Continue Reading

Trending