U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland outdid himself last week with his appointment of David Weiss as special counsel to continue the investigation of Hunter Biden. In a case that has already featured a series of inexplicable decisions pointing ineluctably to a cover-up, the Weiss appointment indicated that concealment and not enlightenment continues to be the order of the day – because while the need for the appointment of a special counsel has been readily apparent for months, the selection of Mr. Weiss just makes no sense.
With the collapse of the proposed plea bargain between the government and Hunter Biden, Weiss will now presumably get to investigate and possibly prosecute Biden’s alleged failure to pay taxes, falsification of a gun application, his failure to register as a lobbyist for foreign entities, and other possible crimes we have yet to hear about.
The public would doubtless also want him to reveal what was behind the statute of limitations on some of the more serious tax allegations, as well as how it came to pass that Biden was offered a sweetheart deal that included an extraordinary offer of blanket immunity. Keep in mind that many millions of dollars allegedly flowed to Biden and his designees from foreign companies through a myriad of shell corporations which bore all of the hallmarks of classic tax-dodging schemes. The incredulity expressed by the federal judge presiding over that aborted plea hearing spoke volumes.
It is important to note: Weiss was in charge of the investigation of Hunter Biden, and all of the above is his work product. Does the Attorney General (or anyone else, for that matter) really believe that Weiss can be relied upon to blow the whistle on himself or any of his partners in this episode? We now know that the testimony of several IRS whistleblowers alleges that decisions made throughout the Hunter Biden investigation led by Weiss were influenced by politics. With all this in mind, one has to ask: Was the Weiss appointment designed to shed light, or to continue the obfuscation?
Additionally, Mr. Garland has long maintained that if Weiss made a request to be appointed special counsel because he felt he needed additional formal powers, the request would be granted; Garland says he appointed Weiss as special counsel because the latter now asked for it. But how could Weiss have signed off on the aborted plea deal before pursuing all relevant avenues of inquiry? One of the main reasons the plea deal reeked lay in the fact that, despite granting blanket immunity, it did not contain anything about a violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act. If it had, there would have needed to be something about who in the government Hunter Biden illegally importuned on behalf of his clients. After all, unless Hunter was just blowing smoke, he did tell his clients that he was speaking to his father on their behalf.
Now, this does not necessarily mean that then-Vice President Joe Biden took money in exchange for acting on their behalf, but it would at least have enmeshed him in an influence-peddling scheme.
So many of us would like for Weiss to follow the money trail his investigation uncovers wherever it may lead, if only to dispel the aura of corruption that has engulfed the President. At the same time, we are also mindful that an ongoing criminal investigation by the special counsel would probably mark the end of congressional inquiries, since “ongoing investigation” is a standard ploy of those not wishing to cooperate with Congressional oversight committees. The question now is whether we can expect a new cover-up that seeks to conceal the earlier one. Time will tell.
