The Scope of U.S. Attorney’s Authority Becomes a Contentious Issue in the Hunter Biden Investigation

In a heated hearing on Wednesday, House Republicans interrogated Attorney General Merrick Garland about the Justice Department’s ongoing inquiry into Hunter Biden. The session examined dimensions of the criminal justice process that usually remain behind closed doors until a case is brought before the public in a courtroom setting.

Members of Congress directed numerous queries toward the protracted investigation of the President’s son, who is currently facing scrutiny for his commercial ventures and has also been indicted on a federal firearms charge, accusing him of dishonesty regarding his drug use during a 2018 gun purchase.

Whistleblower testimony from agents of the Internal Revenue Service suggests that the investigation has been deliberately delayed, and that the supervising prosecutor’s powers were curtailed by the Justice Department. Although Attorney General Garland vehemently rejects these allegations, they may become a pivotal focus in any forthcoming impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden.

Though the Hunter Biden case is atypical, it nonetheless highlights some of the lesser-known but critical elements of the criminal justice system.

Frequently Asked Questions About Criminal Prosecutions

How Are Cases Initiated?

Within the federal judicial system, investigations usually commence with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA, or Homeland Security. There are 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices where prosecutors evaluate evidence to determine if charges should be filed. While some inquiries result in criminal charges, prosecutors may opt not to proceed in others. Prosecutors generally possess considerable latitude in deciding whom to charge, the extent of the charges, and their gravity—choices that may deviate from the initial findings of the investigators.

What Happens When an Investigation Spans Multiple States?

When an ongoing investigation uncovers allegations that cross state lines, prosecutors have multiple routes available for filing charges. One option is for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to collaborate with the other state’s prosecutors to jointly file the case. Alternatively, a U.S. Attorney can seek authorization to pursue a case beyond their jurisdiction through a mechanism known as a “515 order” within the Justice Department.

Garland characterized this procedural mechanism as “very common” and “not cumbersome.” In the context of the Hunter Biden investigation, allegations have been made that David Weiss, the Delaware U.S. Attorney supervising the case, was rebuffed by his counterparts in Washington and California when he sought to file tax-related charges.

What Is a Special Counsel?

A Special Counsel is a lawyer appointed to handle investigations where the Justice Department identifies a conflict of interest or believes public interest necessitates external oversight. Though they operate outside the day-to-day jurisdiction of the Justice Department, special counsels must adhere to its regulations, guidelines, and practices. While the Attorney General reserves the right to overrule a special counsel, such a decision must be reported to Congress.

During the Wednesday hearing, questions arose about Weiss’s August appointment as a Special Counsel. Critics argued that a pending plea agreement indicated that Weiss was not the optimal choice for the role. Garland stated that the appointment was made upon Weiss’s request and cautioned against “changing horses midstream.”

Complexities Surrounding the Hunter Biden Case

Congressional Republicans have been rigorously scrutinizing not only Hunter Biden’s business activities but also the Justice Department’s management of his case. Multiple federal agents have offered conflicting views on the scope of Weiss’s authority during the final stages of last year’s investigations.

Veteran IRS agent Gary Shapley testified that Weiss had stated he was not the “deciding person” concerning the filing of charges against Hunter Biden. However, senior FBI agents Thomas Sobocinski and his deputy contradicted this, affirming that they did not recall Weiss ever making such a statement. “I never thought that anybody was there above David Weiss to say no,” Sobocinski clarified.

This divergence in perspectives further complicates the already contentious landscape surrounding the Hunter Biden case, highlighting the complexities in the operation and oversight of high-profile criminal investigations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Hunter Biden investigation

More about Hunter Biden investigation

• Justice Department’s Role in Federal Investigations
• Understanding the Function of a U.S. Attorney
• The Scope and Authority of a Special Counsel
• Congressional Hearings and Oversight
• The Legal Implications of the Hunter Biden Investigation
• Who is Merrick Garland? A Profile of the U.S. Attorney General
• Overview of Federal Firearms Charges
• Whistleblower Testimonies in Federal Cases
• Conflict of Interest in Legal Investigations
• Impeachment Proceedings: How They Work