Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley just exposed several inconsistencies in the government's narrative regarding its investigation of Hunter Biden, according to the Daily Caller.
This is the same investigation that ended with what many have referred to as a "sweetheart" plea deal. Biden managed to avoid jail time for a tax and a gun-related crime that he allegedly committed by pleading guilty to the charges.
The prosecutor who ostensibly led the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation of Biden is David Weiss.
Since the plea deal, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblower - Gary Shapley - has come forward to allege that Weiss, in point of fact, did not actually have control over the Biden investigation. Rather, Shapley alleges that what Weiss was allowed to do was limited by his superiors - including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The House Judiciary Committee has been investigating this situation. And, to this end, the committee has been trying to obtain testimony and documents from Weiss.
Thus far, Weiss has not provided such testimony or testimony. But, he has sent a letter to the committee in which attempted to deny the claims made by Shapley.
The only problem is that, according to Turley, the claims made in Weiss's letter simply do not add up.
Turley said as much during a recent appearance on the Fox News Channel.
There, host Bill Hemmer asked Turley:
So, I just want to remind viewers from a week ago, Weiss, the prosecutor out of Delaware, sent a letter to [U.S. Rep.] Jim Jordan [R-OH], and he seemed to outline his defense in four different parts. You have seen that letter. Do you have questions about the letter or do they satisfy you? And then I’ll ask you specifically about it, too.
"No, there is nothing to be satisfied with because there’s no answers in the letter," Turley said in response to Hemmer's questions.
Turley explained:
That is, what Weiss is saying is, "I was given this authority," but doesn’t deal with the specific allegations of these whistleblowers. We have numerous witnesses, and other witnesses who are named in these accounts, who were present at a meeting where Weiss allegedly said that he was not the final decision maker, that he had tried to become a special counsel and was denied, and they were also told that the charges were attempted in California and D.C., but rebuffed by those U.S. Attorneys.
Here, Turley noted that this is "in direct and irreconcilable conflict with" the statement made by Garland on the matter.
Turley continued:
What Weiss is saying is, "I was given this authority," and so he’s got to answer to these discrepancies. But the problem that Weiss has is that the case itself is just a glaring mountain of contradiction.
The question, now, is whether we will ever get to the top of this "mountain of contradiction." Time will tell.
