“Are You Kidding Me”: Federal Judge Rebukes DOJ on its Own Refusal to Comply with House Subpoenas

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent rebuke of the…

JONATHAN TURLEY

By Johnathan Turley

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent rebuke of the Justice Department by a federal judge in a hearing on the refusal to comply with House subpoenas in the Biden corruption investigation. The Justice Department appears little concerned over the glaring disconnect in how it treats its own attorneys as opposed to other citizens — a pattern that we have discussed previously.

Here is the column:

“Are you kidding me?”

Those are four words that no lawyer wants to hear from a judge in a hearing. But that was not the least of it for Justice Department lawyers fighting House subpoenas into the Biden corruption scandal.

U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes slammed the DOJ for stonewalling Congress on the subpoenas while imprisoning figures like former Trump adviser Peter Navarro for doing the same thing.

The Biden Administration has blocked the testimony of prosecutors Mark Daly and Jack Morgan, who were involved in an inexplicable decision of the Justice Department to allow major felonies against Hunter Biden to lapse.

In prior hearings, IRS whistleblowers testified that they had an agreement on the table to extend the statute of limitations on the crimes, but Special Counsel David Weiss allowed the period to lapse without any explanation. Since the DOJ was in the midst of a plea negotiations, it made no sense that the DOJ would simply kill potential charges.

The handling of the Hunter Biden investigation has been widely criticized as affording special treatment to the President’s son, including scuttling searches of Biden property and giving Hunter a heads up before attempts to interview him.

Ultimately, the DOJ cut a plea bargain with Hunter that many of us rejected as laughable. It not only failed to charge the full array of still viable criminal allegations (including being an unregistered foreign agent), but included an absurd immunity agreement that would bar future charges.

The plea agreement fell apart in open court after the judge asked the lead prosecutor a simple question of whether in his long career he had ever seen such an immunity deal. He answered no.

Yet even after that meltdown, the DOJ admits that it tried to restore most of the agreement, but Hunter Biden’s team was insistent that the original deal remained enforceable — a position repeatedly rejected by later courts.

The DOJ was in a bizarre position. Its effort to give Hunter a sweetheart deal — or at least most of the original deal — could not occur because the beneficiary wanted it all. It had little choice but to charge him with the tax and gun crimes.

The House is in the midst of an impeachment inquiry that includes allegations of influence over the Hunter investigation. While insisting that there was no pressure or special dealing in the matter, the DOJ has blocked key sources of evidence…