AG Garland stonewalling on appointing a special counsel to probe President Biden's involvement in Hunter's influence-peddling racket

There is an obvious need for a special counsel to  investigate President Biden's involvement in the influence-peddling operation run by his son Hunter, in which millions of dollars were received from entities in China, Ukraine, and elsewhere.  Yet, in testimony before a Senate committee Tuesday, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, ignored the conflict of interest he faces, as an appointee of Biden, supervising the investigation of Hunter Biden underway in Delaware.  Kyle Morris of Fox News reports:

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday refused to provide an update on the federal tax and finance investigation into Hunter Biden as he defended the probe and dismissed the need to appoint a special counsel.

Under questioning from Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., who expressed concern over the fairness of the investigation that has caused Americans to question their "confidence" in the Justice Department, Garland did not say whether he has been briefed on the Hunter Biden investigation, which is being overseen by David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware.

"He is supervising the investigation," Garland said of Weiss. "I'm not at liberty to talk about internal Justice Department deliberations, but he is in charge of that investigation. There will not be interference of any political or improper kind."

YouTube screen grab.

Garland fell back on the excuse that the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware (one of the smallest of the U.S. districts) was appointed by Trump:

"Because we put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee from the previous administration, who is the United States attorney for the district of Delaware," Garland responded. "And because you have me as the attorney general who is committed to the independence of the Justice Department from any influence from the White House and criminal matters."

The staff and budget available to Weiss, as well as the fact that he serves at the pleasure of the president, severely limit what can be done to investigate.

Moreover, recent revelations clearly indicate that President Biden himself was involved in Hunter's business schemes when he was vice president and after, despite repeated denials by the president and his press secretary, Psaki.

Jonathan Turley lays out the case:

The New York Post is reporting that President Biden agreed to cover more than $800,000 in bills of Hunter, including legal fees tied to the foreign deals. While President Biden's denial of knowledge of Hunter's deals has been repeatedly contradicted (including by Hunter himself), White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declared that President Biden stands by his denials. However, she declined to explain new information showing that a key business partner in these deals visited the White House over a dozen times, including at least one meeting with then Vice President Biden.

The New York Post shows that on Jan. 17, 2019, Hunter Biden's then-personal assistant, Katie Dodge told accountant Linda Shapero that Joe Biden was covering the legal costs. The email states "I spoke with Hunter today regarding his bills. It is my understanding that Hunt's dad will cover these bills in the short-term as Hunter transitions in his career."

What may be even more damaging is the the new disclosure that Hunter Biden's business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca, one of the key firms involved in the alleged influence peddling schemes. (snip)

President Biden has long insisted that that his son did "nothing wrong." That is obviously untrue. One can argue over whether Hunter committed any crime, but few would say that there is nothing wrong with raw influence peddling worth millions with foreign entities. The public has a legitimate reason to know whether the President or his family ran an influence peddling operation worth millions.

Given this mounting evidence, the position of Attorney General Garland has gone from dubious to ridiculous in evading the issue of a special counsel appointment.  He continues to refuse to acknowledge these conflicts with the President. In a hearing yesterday, Garland again refused to address the issue, even discussing what it would take to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. There is no reason why he cannot answer such legal questions without getting into the evidence produced in Delaware.

Federal regulations allow the appointment of a special counsel when it is in the public interest and an "investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances."

It is hard to imagine a stronger case for the appointment of a special counsel.

The corrupt media refuse to publicize the need for a special counsel, in utter contrast to the clamor they created to get the appointment of the Mueller investigation, which found nothing on President Trump and wasted 35 million dollars.  However thorough and honest the efforts of the U.S. attorney in Delaware, this case requires the appointment of a special counsel, but thanks to the bias of the media, the public has little awareness.

If you experience technical problems, please write to