Thread by @tristanleavitt

🧵Having read the Politico and NYT stories that came out tonight thanks to Hunter Biden's legal team handing all their emails over to the press, I have several thoughts. /1

First and foremost, it's shocking on its face that prosecutors were willing to let Hunter Biden off scot free. But piecing together the two stories with what we already know, they raise even more alarm bells about how this case was handled. /2

First, almost as soon as the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office endorsed the conclusions below in Feb. 2022 (three felony tax violations and misdemeanors for 2015-2019), Hunter Biden's attorneys were working the refs behind the scene to prevent charges being brought. /3

The Politico article doesn't reference the fact that the case had been presented to U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matt Graves in Mar. 2022--or that the same day Hunter's team was meeting with prosecutors (April 26, 2022), Attorney General Merrick Garland was on Capitol Hill testifying before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that because the investigation is under USA Weiss, "There will not be interference of any political or improper kind." /4

Hunter's attorneys were meeting with prosecutors from both Weiss's office *and* DOJ's Tax Division, because the Tax Division held the keys to whether Weiss's office would have freedom to pursue the charges or not. DOJ Tax could deny Weiss's ability to bring charges. /5

If DOJ Tax had approved the charges, Weiss would have the full backing of Main DOJ (a situation AG Garland would later imply existed). Instead, DOJ Tax merely granted discretion, which is why Weiss's team had to go hat-in-hand to the relevant venues to ask them to partner. /6

Presumably this awkward situation of not having DOJ Tax backing is why, around this timeframe, Weiss discussed with DOJ officials special charging authority. But being told "if it proved necessary" meant he had to "follow the process"--try to get other USAs to partner. /7

But in addition to the conflict of Delaware having to work through other Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys (hardly the independence Garland implied), Hunter's team was working ALL the refs--and making everything about Hunter Biden's tax crimes a political issue re: Donald Trump. /8

AUSA Lesley Wolf had already pulled punches in the 2018-2021 investigation, and now in 2022 she was more than sympathetic to the arguments from Hunter's legal team, who she met with regularly without investigators. Clark told her charging Hunter would be "career suicide." /9

Prosecutors waited for Biden appointee Martin Estrada to be confirmed as U.S. Atty for the Central District of CA in September before presenting the 2016-2019 charges there. But early the next month Weiss told investigators DC wasn't partnering and CA might not either. /10

But just 3 weeks after the 10/7/22 meeting, when SSA Shapley called out the preferential treatment for Hunter Biden, Clark's 10/31/22 letter leaned heavily on politics (Pres. Trump, Sen. Grassley) while using THE THREAT OF JOE BIDEN TESTIFYING *to undermine the case*. /11

In case the letter to Weiss wasn't enough, Clark starts requesting in-person meetings. He gets one with Weiss in Jan. 2023, where the lawyer for the son of the most powerful man in the world tries to gaslight Weiss about where the true pressure to succumb was coming from. /12

Did Clark also meet with U.S. Atty Martin Estrada in the Central District of California just to make sure he was on the same page or knew President Biden might testify in the case? We don't know, but Estrada declined charges that same month, in Jan. 2023. /13

But back to Delaware--aside from the bullying from Hunter Biden's legal team, why would Weiss go to AG Garland for special charging authority after Estrada rejected partnering in the CDCA when he's now been told the President might testify to undermine any case he brought? /14

At the same time AG Garland testified to Senator Grassley on March 1, 2023 about USA Weiss's independence and not having heard of problems in Delaware, Main Justice had been passing around Chris Clark's emails asking who he could appeal to over Weiss's head. /15

But then on Apr. 19 we sent the IRS whistleblower letter to Congress, and my co-counsel Mark Lytle went on various news outlets to share the allegations of preferential treatment and unmitigated conflicts of interest. /16cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bi…

Notwithstanding what AG Garland had assured the American people about Weiss's independence, THE VERY NEXT WEEK after our letter, ADAG Bradley Weinsheimer bigfoots Weiss by making him take another meeting with Chris Clark--this time with Main Justice adding their pressure. /17

The rest of the timeline is just wild. Main DOJ tells Clark the "next steps" would come in Delaware. Four days later the IRS whistleblowers were removed. The same day the "familiar figure" of AUSA Wolf proposed the UBER-sweetheart deal with no charges or plea whatsoever. /18

It cannot have been a coincidence that Chris Clark's letter to Weiss was on Oct. 31, 2022, the eve of the 2014-2015 tax charges expiring. It sounds from the Politico article that Clark cited the same things to Weiss he cited in his spring 2022 PowerPoint that *began* with Trump's impeachment. What better way to intimidate a very non-MAGA career official like Weiss than with the prospect that going to trial over the 2014 and 2015 years, presenting evidence on the Burisma and other foreign income, would inextricably tie you to an impeached former president on the VERY THING he was first impeached over--and that Joe Biden would put his finger on the scale by testifying to try and make you look like a conspiracy theorist in your case, which Clark said would "destroy the Justice Department’s reputation."

To be clear, everyone I've talked to has pointed out that Joe Biden testifying wouldn't really help Hunter. But I think the threat of it in this context would have had an impact on Weiss. I also understand that:
- Weiss had already previewed in the Oct. 7, 2022 meeting with IRS and FBI officials that he was likely to let the 2014-2015 tax charges against the President's son expire in Nov. 2022. Nevertheless, Clark's letter HAD to have sealed the deal.
- Hunter's legal team had also expressed willingness to extend the statute of limitations tolling agreement (so as to avoid pushing prosecutors to make a decision to indict within the statute of limitations). Still, it's rather hard to believe a Washington Post article from three weeks earlier was the impetus for Clark's Halloween letter rather than to ensure the impending expiration of the 2014-2015 charges.
- The Politico article presented Clark's letter in the context of the gun charge, and without seeing the letter it's hard to know for sure. /19

Discovering what led to the Apr. 26 meeting and what happened between then and May 11 is critical to understanding DOJ HQ’s involvement in a case where AG Merrick Garland swore there was none. It goes to the heart of whether Weiss and Garland misled Congress. /19

According to my sources, Chris Clark’s email to Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer was on Feb. 21, 2023. It was around *two months* before Weinsheimer (eyes and ears for Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco) agreed to a meeting—undoubtedly with her sign-off. /20

What changed? The April 19, 2023 letter to Congress. It didn’t specify who our client was or what case their disclosures were about, but outlets with sources close to the investigation immediately reported it was Hunter Biden. This seems to have spurred DOJ to action. /21

On Friday, April 21 CNN reported that Hunter’s attorneys had scored a meeting with US Atty David Weiss and “at least one other senior career official” from DOJ HQ. We now know that was ADAG Weinsheimer—a MUCH more senior official than one would expect. /22 amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/21…

Contrary to CNN’s reporting in that article, meeting with the US Atty and an ADAG is hardly “routine when lawyers request a status update.” It’s an appeal over the US Atty’s head. And the Deputy AG’s office is DOJ’s nerve center, overseeing all of DOJ and reporting to the AG. /23

Why was an appeal necessary? Weiss had told agents in ’22 he would request special charging authority if USA Martin Estrada declined to partner on the CA charges, but as of Feb. ’23 he had instead let the case languish. Biden’s attorneys were nervous the tide could change. /24

Apparently the whistleblower allegations coming out moved DOJ HQ to agree. So Weinsheimer finally accepted the 2-month-old meeting request from Hunter’s attorneys. He also set out to determine precisely what SSA Shapley (a known quantity to Weiss) might disclose to Congress. /25