The Department of Justice (DOJ) told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that his subpoena of two FBI agents as part of an ongoing probe into Mr. Hunter Biden is constitutionally null.
Specifically, the probe revolves around an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting held by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who was nominally in charge of the criminal probe into Mr. Biden’s alleged tax crimes.
In that meeting, according to testimony from IRS whistleblowers, Mr. Weiss told IRS investigators and several agents of both the FBI and IRS that the decision to press charges on Mr. Biden did not lie solely with him, indicating that higher-ups at the DOJ had some role in blocking the advancement of charges against the president’s son.
According to additional whistleblower testimony, the DOJ consistently “hamstrung” the investigation by moving the case slower than normal, refusing to enforce lawful search warrants, and preventing Mr. Weiss from pressing charges against Mr. Biden on two occasions in both the District of Columbia and California.
In order to investigate that claim, Republicans, including Mr. Jordan and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.), issued a subpoena against four people said to be at the Oct. 7 meeting, including Thomas J. Sobocinski, FBI special agent in charge, and Ryeshia Holley, FBI assistant special agent in charge, in addition to two others from the IRS.
Mr. Uriarte told Mr. Jordan that the subpoenas of the two agents “lack legal effect and cannot constitutionally be enforced,” citing the “ongoing investigation” into the matter.
Earlier, Mr. Biden was set to receive a generous plea deal, condemned as a sweetheart deal by Republicans. The deal, which would have granted Mr. Biden practically complete immunity for tax, gun, and drug crimes committed between 2014 and 2019, was ultimately rejected by the judge.
Mr. Biden subsequently withdrew a guilty plea for two misdemeanor tax charges recommended as part of the deal.
Following the breakdown of the deal, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he would elevate Mr. Weiss to the status of special counsel, a move criticized by Republicans who said a fresh actor should be brought in to handle the investigation.
The status of the case as an ongoing investigation shields it from substantial congressional oversight due to separation of powers limitations—a fact noted by Mr. Uriarte in his response.
“The Department remains committed to safeguarding the public interest in the integrity of our investigations and prosecutions and to furthering the Executive Branch’s duty to ensure that the law be faithfully executed,” he wrote. “Our obligation to ‘protect the government’s ability to prosecute fully and fairly’ is vital to the Executive Branch’s core constitutional function to investigate and prosecute criminal matters.”
He added, “In keeping with these principles ... we must continue to protect the Department’s criminal law enforcement decisions and its legal judgments from even the appearance of political or other inappropriate influences.”
He said that preventing disclosure of non-public information “protects the public interest in the integrity and fairness of criminal investigations and proceedings.”
DOJ Open to Negotiation
Nevertheless, Mr. Uriarte said that the DOJ would continue its “commitment to good-faith negotiations with the House Committee on the Judiciary in response to your interest in this matter,” but called the subpoenas “premature” pending further “discussions” between the panel and the DOJ.In the letter, Mr. Uriarte suggested there could be some room for coming to a compromise on the issue, such as altering an original prohibition against the agency sending counsel for the agents’ deposition.
“It would not be appropriate for Department personnel to discuss the ongoing investigation or answer any questions about the Department’s work in the absence of agency counsel,” he wrote.
“The public’s strong interest in the integrity of law enforcement work is one critical reason that counsel for the Department must be present when an agency witness appears before Congress,” Mr. Uriarte wrote. “Excluding agency counsel in these circumstances ‘undermine[s] the Executive Branch’s ability to protect its confidentiality interests in the course of the constitutionally mandated accommodation process.’”
The exclusion of counsel, he said, “interferes with the Executive Branch’s ability to protect potentially privileged information, including law enforcement sensitive information.
“Here, the subpoenas issued by the Committee prohibit the attendance of agency counsel at appearances by two FBI employees where the Committee has indicated it will ask questions regarding information they learned within the scope of their official duties, including regarding the ongoing criminal investigation. These subpoenas lack legal effect and cannot constitutionally be enforced.”
However, this prohibition on agency counsel was entirely in line with House rules, which do not permit agency and department counsels to attend depositions.
Nevertheless, in an indication that information flowing to the committee would be limited, Mr. Uriarte highlighted, “As Mr. Weiss and his office have repeatedly stated, his investigation remains ongoing.”
