Merrick Garland’s Biden investigations: Seven lingering questions.
Risky Business: Hunter Biden’s Legal Troubles and the Department of Justice’s Handling
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is currently facing legal challenges on multiple fronts. The investigation into his business dealings has raised questions about how much the President knew. In this series, Wayward Son, the Washington Examiner delves into the journey that led us here. Part One explored Hunter Biden’s failure to register as a foreign agent, while Part Two revealed his extensive foreign affairs beyond Ukraine. Now, in Part Three, we examine concerns surrounding the Department of Justice’s handling of the prosecution.
Unanswered Questions and Attorney General Garland’s Appearance
Attorney General Merrick Garland is set to appear before the House Judiciary Committee this week, finally shedding light on the Hunter Biden case. Members of the committee are expected to grill Garland on various issues, including the controversial prosecution of former President Donald Trump and the perceived disparity in the treatment of anti-abortion activists compared to Black Lives Matter activists.
Here are seven key questions for Garland:
- Why did David Weiss need to become a special counsel if he always had full authority in the Hunter Biden case?
- Why didn’t prosecutors present their case in California until President Joe Biden’s chosen US attorney was confirmed?
- Is Hunter Biden the only person of interest in the ‘Sportsman’ investigation?
- What did the Justice Department do to look into the Biden bribery allegation?
- Why did the Justice Department ask the IRS and FBI to hand over all emails and documents related to the Hunter Biden case last year?
- Why was Hunter Biden’s defense team given the opportunity to help draft the initial plea deal?
- What explains the different approaches taken in the Trump and Biden classified document cases?
The authority of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss during the initial years of the investigation is a pressing concern. Despite Garland’s claims that Weiss had complete autonomy, evidence suggests otherwise. Weiss had to seek permission from other jurisdictions to bring charges against Hunter Biden, and his requests were denied by U.S. attorneys appointed by Joe Biden.
The decision to file tax charges against Hunter Biden in California was made early in the case. However, the delay in seeking permission from the Central District of California’s U.S. attorney allowed President Biden’s nominee to have authority over the decision. This timing raises questions about potential political influence.
While Hunter Biden is the primary target of the investigation, there is a possibility that other individuals involved in his foreign business dealings are also under scrutiny. Immunity has been granted to at least one of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, and a Democratic lobbying firm faced its own investigation.
An FBI document revealed an allegation of bribery involving Joe and Hunter Biden. The Justice Department has been evasive in answering questions about their investigation into this allegation, despite its potential significance. Lawmakers may press Garland on the steps taken to substantiate or dismiss the claim.
The Justice Department’s unusual request for high-level emails and documents related to the Hunter Biden case raises concerns about potential unethical conduct. The timing of this request, along with the subsequent removal of the entire IRS team from the investigation, warrants further explanation.
Hunter Biden’s defense team played a significant role in drafting the language of his initial plea deal, according to reports. This level of involvement raises questions about standard procedure and the fairness of the deal. Garland may face inquiries about the extent of defense team input in high-profile cases.
The divergent treatment of Trump and Biden in handling classified documents after leaving office is a point of contention. Trump faced a surprise raid, while Biden’s lawyers were given multiple opportunities for consensual searches. The disparity in investigative steps and verification processes raises concerns about potential bias.
As Attorney General Garland faces the House Judiciary Committee, these questions will shed light on the Hunter Biden investigation and the Department of Justice’s handling of the case.
How will the Department of Justice ensure a fair and unbiased treatment of Hunter Biden’s case, considering his family connections and the high-profile nature of the investigation
Into Hunter Biden’s financial transactions and potential money laundering?
It is well known that Hunter Biden had substantial financial ties to foreign entities and received large sums of money for his business ventures. The question remains as to what extent the Justice Department investigated these transactions and whether any potential money laundering activities were discovered. Hunter Biden’s tax filings have come under scrutiny, with allegations of underreporting income and questionable deductions. Despite these red flags, it took several years for the Justice Department to initiate an investigation into his tax affairs. The delay in addressing these concerns raises questions about the seriousness with which Hunter Biden’s case was initially treated. The perception of preferential treatment is a key concern surrounding Hunter Biden’s case. Given his close family ties to the President, many are questioning whether he has received special treatment or leniency. The Department of Justice must address these concerns to maintain public trust and confidence in the fairness of its actions. Given the high-profile nature of the case and the potential implications for the Biden administration, it is crucial that the Department of Justice handles the prosecution of Hunter Biden vigorously and without bias. The American people deserve to see justice served, regardless of political affiliations or family connections. Transparency and accountability are the pillars of a functioning justice system. It is imperative that the Department of Justice provides clear and thorough answers to these key questions. The American people deserve to know if there has been any inappropriate interference or bias in the handling of Hunter Biden’s case. As Attorney General Garland prepares to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, he must demonstrate a commitment to upholding the principles of transparency and accountability. By addressing these unanswered questions, the Department of Justice can restore faith in its ability to execute its duties fairly and impartially. The legal troubles faced by Hunter Biden and the Department of Justice’s handling of the case have far-reaching implications. They not only impact the credibility of President Biden’s administration but also highlight the need for greater scrutiny of political figures and their family members. The American people must have confidence that no one is above the law and that justice will be served, regardless of one’s last name. In the next part of this series, Wayward Son will explore the potential consequences for President Biden and the broader political landscape.The Importance of Transparency and Accountability
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
