Will She Testify?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the possibility of President Joe Biden being compromised to our enemies. The House Judiciary Committee has been investigating the Biden crime family. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan recently issued the 60^th subpoena into the Biden impeachment inquiry.

According to Tyler O’Neil at The Daily Signal, the 60^th subpoena letter went to Leslie Wolf, assistant U.S. attorney for Delaware, demanding that she testify before the committee on December 7 at 10 a.m. in Washington, D.C. 

Jordan explained in a letter to Wolf that the Judiciary Committee considers her testimony essential to its oversight of the “executive branch’s commitment to impartial justice” and to “whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden.” The Justice Department under Biden twice refused to make Wolf available for a voluntary interview, leaving the committee “no choice but to compel your testimony at a deposition.”

While the Justice Department agreed to make some employees available, Wolf was not among them.

Republicans have accused Wolf of impeding the Delaware U.S. attorney’s investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged influence peddling. Republicans note that Hunter Biden handsomely benefitted from lucrative business deals in China, Ukraine, and elsewhere while his father, then the vice president to President Barack Obama, served as the administration’s point-man for those countries.

Democrats, meanwhile, have claimed that there is no evidence the president directly benefited from his son’s foreign business deals. President Biden has denied any wrongdoing on his part or on the part of his son.

Democrats can say what they want to say, while Jordan is looking for evidence of wrongdoing. He clearly disagrees with the view of Democrats as he noted the following in his letter to Wolf.

“Witness testimony and public reporting indicates that as an assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, you were directly involved in that office’s investigation of Hunter Biden, which deviated from standard investigative procedures,” Jordan notes in the letter.

The letter cites whistle blower testimony, noting that Wolf “attended a substantial majority, if not all, of the prosecution team meetings concerning the [Justice] Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden.”

Jordan also accuses Wolf of breaking from “standard investigative protocol” in five ways, either “directly or by instructing others.” He claims that she told Hunter Biden’s lawyer about a potential search warrant for his abandoned storage unit and later objected to executing a warrant for the unit; that she prohibited investigators from asking witnesses about “the big guy” or “dad,” presumably referring to President Biden; that she ordered investigators to remove any reference to “Political Figure 1,” i.e. Biden, from a search warrant; that she prohibited investigators from following up on evidence of criminal campaign finance violations; and that she forbade investigators from interviewing Hunter Biden’s adult children.

Furthermore, Jordan cites witness testimony that Wolf obstructed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania from briefing the Delaware office “about information from a highly credible confidential human source regarding bribes allegedly paid to President Biden and Hunter Biden.” The former U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania testified that Wolf served as the “primary interface” for the Delaware office to receive information about Biden family bribery allegations, and that Wolf “constricted” the information sharing between the two offices.

“Given your central role in the [Justice] Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden, you are uniquely situated to advance not only the committee’s oversight and inform potential legislative reforms, … but also the committee’s impeachment inquiry,” Jordan notes.

Jordan’s letter also rejected the argument from the Justice Department that Congress does not have the authority to force non-political appointees to testify in front of committees. In his letter, Jordan brought no less than a Supreme Court decision to prove his point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has a ‘broad and indispensable’ power to conduct oversight, which ‘encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed laws, and surveys in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them.’

In his letter, Jordan also cited Supreme Court precedent recognizing that “Congress may seek information from the Executive Branch about ‘corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of government.’”

Here, whistleblowers have brought forward numerous allegations of corruption (e.g. preferential treatment for the president’s son), maladministration (e.g. retaliation against whistleblowers), and inefficiency (e.g. an investigation so bogged down by delays and micromanagement that the statute of limitations lapsed before prosecutors could file certain charges), all backed by contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence.”