The chairmen of three House committees investigating alleged corruption and bribery by Joe and Hunter Biden sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding answers about the sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden that was torpedoed by Delaware federal Judge Maryellen Noreika last Wednesday who raised doubts about the unusual arrangement being presented before her in a court hearing in Wilmington. The unusual plea deal covered two years of tax charges and a diversion agreement on a gun crime that would have given Hunter Biden probation on the tax charges and two year diversion on the gun charge that would be dropped when completed.
The letter, signed by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), gives Garland until August 14 to answer questions about the plea deal, specifically on Paragraph’s 14 and 15 of the Plea Diversion Agreement and the claim in court by prosecutors that Hunter Biden is still under investigation. The letter also calls on the Justice Department to provide a briefing to the committees “regarding the nature of the Department’s ongoing investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden.”
Dear Attorney General Garland:
The Committees on Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Oversight and Accountability are continuing their oversight of the Executive Branch’s commitment to impartial justice, as well as investigating the veracity of statements made in response to congressional inquiries related to the Department of Justice’s investigation of Hunter Biden. Given recent unusual events relating to the Department’s plea and pretrial diversion agreements with Mr. Biden, we write to better understand the Department’s decision to sign off on such apparently atypical agreements.
According to court documents and recent news reports, Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware declined to accept on Wednesday the Department’s plea and pretrial diversion agreements with Mr. Biden. 1 The plea agreement relates to tax charges that have been brought against Mr. Biden while the pretrial diversion agreement pertains to a firearms charge. Judge Noreika described the Department’s deal as “not standard” and “different from what I normally see.”2
(SKIP)
The Department’s unusual plea and pretrial diversion agreements with Mr. Biden raise serious concerns—especially when combined with recent whistleblower allegations—that the Department has provided preferential treatment toward Mr. Biden in the course of its investigation and proposed resolution of his alleged criminal conduct.18
The Committees, therefore, request that the Department provide written answers to the following questions:
1. Other than Mr. Biden’s case, how many times in the last ten years has the U.S. Attorney’sOffice for the District of Delaware included in a pretrial diversion agreement a provision similar to paragraph 14 of the agreement with Mr. Biden? What percentage of the total pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware does that number represent?
2. Other than Mr. Biden’s case, how many times in the last ten years has any unit of the Department included in a pretrial diversion agreement a provision similar to paragraph 14 of the agreement with Mr. Biden? What percentage of total pretrial diversion agreements
entered into by the Department does that number represent?
3. Other than Mr. Biden’s case, how many times in the last ten years has the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware included in a pretrial diversion agreement an agreement not to prosecute crimes that are unrelated to the charges being diverted? What percentage of the total pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware does that number represent?
4. Other than Mr. Biden’s case, how many times in the last ten years has any unit of the Department included in a pretrial diversion agreement an agreement not to prosecute crimes that are unrelated to the charges being diverted? What percentage of the total pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department does that number represent?
5. Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware or Mr. Biden’s counsel suggest placing paragraph 14 into the pretrial diversion agreement and requiring the District Court to give the Department permission to bring charges against Mr. Biden in the event the Department determines that he has breached the agreement?
6. Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware or Mr. Biden’s counsel suggest placing in the pretrial diversion agreement immunity for conduct described in the plea agreement?
Additionally, to advance our oversight and inform potential legislative reforms, please provide the Committees with the following documents and information:
1. A list of similar pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years concerning the same charge of felony possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
2. All documents and communications referring or relating to each similar pretrial diversion agreement entered into by the Department in the last ten years concerning the same charge of felony possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
3. A list of pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years that include a provision similar to paragraph 14 of the agreement with Hunter Biden;
4. A list of pretrial diversion agreements entered into by the Department in the last ten years in which the Department agrees not to prosecute crimes that are unrelated to the charges being diverted;
Trending: Roseanne Barr Hits the Bullseye with Assessment of ‘Soy Induced Frail Boy’ David Hogg
5. A generalized description of the nature of the Department’s ongoing investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden; and
6. An explanation of why the Department originally agreed to a plea agreement if other investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden are ongoing.
Please provide this information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2023. Additionally, please reach out to the Committees’ staff to schedule a briefing regarding the nature of the Department’s ongoing investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden. Pursuant to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over criminal justice matters in the United States.19 The Committee on Ways and Means is authorized to conduct oversight of the Internal Revenue Service and the administration of the Internal Revenue Code. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability may examine “any matter” at any time.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
via thegatewaypundit
