According to Fox News and CNN, reports indicated that Hunter Biden’s case was at a critical stage and the U.S. Attorney’s Office was weighing whether to indict him.
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman raises questions about the reports, including the grand jury.
The grand jury disbanded, and the case could now be in the hands of government prosecutors. Former U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman said that “The Story” left a strange dynamic.
“None of it adds up. It doesn’t make sense. He said that indictments should have been filed when witnesses were first called and the standard was set.
“The fact that the grand jury is ending here rather soon or has ended, basically, means you need to start over. You must re-present any evidence you might have presented if the new grand jury is formed.
Tolman stated that charges or threats of charges would normally be brought against the first grand jury before its termination. [….]
“It doesn’t add up. It’s definitely not what I would do. It’s also not what my U.S. attorney and assistant U.S attorneys would have done in this particular case,” he stated.
You’re only buying his time if you don’t intend to charge him. Tolman was also concerned about funny business.
Tolman stated that Hunter Biden would have been charged quickly if anyone wanted justice in the case.
“You would have threatened to distribute narcotics, and possess firearms – which carry long prison sentences,” he stated. He also said that prosecutors could elect to press him as a “source” to probe allegations Joe Biden knew about or was involved in foreign business dealings of his son – something the White House strongly denies.
Tolman stated, “It is so simple and basic that I can only conclude that political games have been played from the beginning.”
Tolman noted that there was plenty of evidence that could have been plumbed. “This is the equivalent of a softball being floated and then you have an extremely big bat.”
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, raised the big question: Joe Biden.
…It is also curious how you get to a “critical stage” in the Grand Jury on such charges without hearing testimony from the person referenced as “the big guy” who would receive a ten percent cut and Hunter’s uncle who helped in some of these dealings.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 20, 2022
…That is the type of evidence that would establish a conspiracy or broader criminal enterprise. The concern is that a narrow criminal case could be brought that avoid such implications and allows for a plea bargain…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 20, 2022
…Finally, if you are investigating a FARA violation in lobbying for foreign interests, wouldn’t the grand jury want to hear from the object of that lobbying, Joe Biden? Emails repeatedly show Hunter referencing his father to clients in this influence peddling scheme.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 21, 2022
The vast majority of prosecutors will be seeking to pursue the larger crime and/or bigger fish. One of the most important questions would be whether there is evidence of influence peddling. Reports suggested that the grand jury was also looking into taxes and gun questions. We reported that they asked a witness for the identity of the “big man”, which would suggest they were investigating Chinese connections.
However, this is a valid concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R.WI) and Turley have raised. They are concerned that they may just attempt to reach a narrow plea deal on Hunter regarding his gun or taxes. This doesn’t address the larger issues. Ron Johnson also raised the issue of a cover-up by claiming that the Biden Administration has not turned over documents regarding Hunter Biden’s SARs. The Democrats could accept a narrow plea deal and then say, “See?” When in fact, there are a lot of things to investigate, “There was nothing greater.” This could be a good fit for the current facts. This would be a complete failure of justice and two systems of the swamp.
