During a recent Fox News interview, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) insisted that he’s “a rule of law guy.” Johnson didn’t elaborate, but it wouldn’t be surprising if he’s planning to call on the House to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland for trampling on the rule of law by obstructing prosecution of a brazen $5 million shakedown by Hunter Biden.
Here’s the story of Hunter’s shakedown and what Garland did to make sure he could never be prosecuted for it. (READ MORE: The Merrick Garland Insurrection)
On July 30, 2017, Hunter sent this threatening WhatsApp message to an executive of CEFC, a large Chinese corporation he thought he had talked into giving him a seven figure “representation” deal.
I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
And the threat worked. Records obtained by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) show that on August 8, 2017, CEFC wired $5 million to Hunter’s account at a U.S bank.
Hunter probably thought none of this would ever come to light, but three years later an IRS investigation of his 2017 taxes turned up a copy of his extortionate WhatsApp message, and not long afterward, that copy made its way to Garland’s desk probably with a transmittal pointing out that Hunter’s shakedown was a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years under U.S. Code § 875(d).
Big problem. The matter had to be investigated, but investigation of the President and his son would involve the Justice Department in a massive conflict of interest.
Given that conflict, long-standing Justice Department regulations (28 CFR §§ 600.1 and 600.3) required Garland to appoint a Special Counsel from outside the U.S. government to investigate Hunter and his father.
But instead, Garland took control of the case himself and sat on it until August 8, 2022, when the matter became too old to prosecute under the federal five-year statute of limitations, and Hunter went Scot free.
That’s the case for Garland’s impeachment, and, once opened in the House, here’s how it would eventually be brought to trial before the Senate. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: Garland Drowns in a Swamp of His Own Making)
After swift introductory proceedings in the House, the Senate would appoint Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as Presiding Officer of the trial, and all the other Senators would be sworn in as jurors and instructed that 67 guilty votes would be required for Garland’s conviction.
Garland would then be required to submit written answers to Articles of Impeachment charging him with defying the Special Counsel regulations and obstructing prosecution of Hunter’s shakedown. That done, representatives appointed by the House would be required to submit written responses to Garland’s answers, and then it would be off to the trial.
On the witness stand, Garland would probably deny that he did anything to prevent prosecution of Hunter Biden’s shakedown, arguing that all criminal charges against Hunter were automatically assigned to David Weiss, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, and that Weiss alone was responsible for leaving the shakedown case unprosecuted until it had to be closed under the statute of limitations.
However, the House’s representatives would immediately challenge that contention and obtain two key rulings from Senator Leahy: first that Weiss was subject to Garland’s supervision and direction, and second that it would be up to the jurors to decide whether Weiss let the shakedown case wither away because Garland directed him to do so.
So, after hearing all the evidence, what would the Senate’s verdict be? Although many Democrats would probably vote for Garland’s acquittal, the most likely outcome would be Garland’s conviction and removal from office by the votes of 50 Republicans, 3 Independents and at least 14 like-minded Democrats. (READ MORE: Was Last Week the Beginning of the End for Biden?)
A stinging defeat for Garland, but a big win for Johnson and the rule of law.
