House Judiciary Committee investigators are set to question Special Counsel David Weiss Tuesday morning amid whistleblower allegations that politics influenced or hampered prosecutorial decisions in his years-long investigation into Hunter Biden.
Weiss, who has been leading the investigation into the president’s son since 2018, back when he served as U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware, will voluntarily testify behind closed doors at the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning at 10:00 a.m.
His interview comes after a number of current and former Justice Department officials related to the Hunter Biden probe have testified voluntarily behind closed-doors at the committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on the matter.
IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler alleged that politics impacted prosecutorial decisions throughout the probe with regard to search warrants, decisions regarding lines of questioning during interviews of specific individuals, and more. Shapley also alleged that Weiss did not have “ultimate authority” to pursue charges against the president’s son, and instead needed approval from Main Justice in Washington–something DOJ officials have confirmed in their voluntary transcribed interviews before the committee.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Tax Division Stuart Goldberg participated in a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary Committee last month. Fox News Digital reviewed a copy of the transcript of Goldberg’s interview, in which he said Weiss needed approval from his unit at the Justice Department before bringing charges in the Hunter Biden probe. Goldberg did say, however, that a prosecutor could appeal his division’s decision if they disagreed.
Shapley also alleged that Weiss was considering bringing charges against Hunter Biden in California but said the U.S. attorney there chose not to partner with him for prosecution. The charges were never filed.
HUNTER BIDEN PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO FEDERAL GUN CHARGES OUT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL DAVID WEISS’ PROBE
Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, told the House Judiciary Committee during his transcribed interview last month that he did, in fact, decline to partner with Weiss in bringing charges against Hunter Biden in his district. Estrada, though, did offer Weiss “administrative support.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped Weiss in August to serve as special counsel with jurisdiction over the Biden investigation and any other issues that have come up, or may come up, related to that probe.
Weiss has been leading the Biden investigation since 2018.
In his first move as special counsel, Weiss charged Biden with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
The president’s son pleaded not guilty to all charges last month.
Weiss has said the investigation into the president’s son is ongoing.
Weiss’ interview comes amid House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry against President Biden. The impeachment inquiry is being led by Jordan, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.
“Special Counsel Weiss is appearing voluntarily to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the scope of his authority,” Weiss spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle told Fox News. “Mr. Weiss is prepared to take this unprecedented step of testifying before the conclusion of his investigation to make clear that he’s had and continues to have full authority over his investigation and to bring charges in any jurisdiction.”
“Consistent with department policy and the law, he will be unable to address the specifics of his investigation,” Hornbuckle said. “At the close of this matter, Special Counsel Weiss will prepare a report, which the Attorney General has committed to making public to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law, department policy and the public interest.”