The chairman of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Ways and Means Committees announced Monday that they are launching an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s sketchy probation-only plea deal, which unraveled last week in a Delaware courtroom.
On Wednesday, Hunter Biden appeared before the federal court prepared to enter a guilty plea on two misdemeanor tax counts, but the deal fell apart under scrutiny from US District Judge Maryellen Noreika.
In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) asked the Department provide documents and information pertaining to the suspiciously generous plea agreement.
One provision in the unprecedented diversion agreement would have granted Hunter, 53, broad immunity for past crimes even though the prosecutors claimed they were still investigating his crimes.
In their letter, the chairman asked the Department to provide a generalized description of the nature of the Department’s ongoing investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden and an explanation for why the they agreed to the plea deal if other investigation(s) concerning Hunter Biden were ongoing.
Another provision would have prevented the Justice Department from charging Hunter if he violated the terms of his probation unless a judge gave permission.
Noreika rejected the agreement, saying she wanted to make “sure that I do justice as I’m required to do in this court.”
The chairmen wrote that “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 short, the Department shifted a broad immunity provision, which benefits Mr. Biden, from the plea agreement to the pretrial diversion agreement apparently to prevent the District Court from being able to scrutinize and reject that immunity provision,” the committee leaders added.
“And then, the Department has benefitted Mr. Biden by giving up its unilateral ability to bring charges against him if it concludes that he has breached the pretrial diversion agreement. Instead, it has placed upon itself the burden of getting the District Court’s permission to bring charges even though the District Court normally has no role in policing a pretrial diversion agreement in that manner.”
“So, the District Court is apparently removed from the equation when it helps Mr. Biden and inserted into the equation when it helps Mr. Biden.”
The Republicans added that they were “concerned that, contrary to its representations to the Judiciary Committee, the Department may be claiming that other investigations into Mr. Biden are ongoing to shield the Department from Congressional oversight about this matter.”
“In that regard, it was notable that Mr. Biden’s counsel stated at the hearing that it was his understanding that the immunity provision in the pretrial diversion agreement would preclude the Department from bringing charges against Mr. Biden under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” the letter says.
“While the Department did not agree with that position, it is difficult to understand how the parties would not have a meeting of the minds regarding a clause of the agreement as fundamental as the scope of the immunity provision, and it raises questions about what discussions have taken place between the Department and Mr. Biden’s counsel regarding the status of those investigations.”
The Committees requested 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’s Office 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?
The congressmen asked for the following documents:
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;
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.
The chairmen requested that the Justice Dept. provide the information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2023.