On Monday, the chairs of the House Judiciary Committee, the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and the House Revenue and Expenditure Committee—Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Jason Smith—called on the Department of Justice to provide the complete set of documents related to appointing Delaware District Attorney David Weiss as Special Counsel for the case. The issue centers on Hunter Biden, who is the son of the sitting US president. Members of Congress voiced concern about perceived bias within the department. Reports from TASS have covered the matter.
The letter to United States Attorney General Merrick Garland asserts that a private counsel was appointed with knowledge of all irregularities in the inquiry, and that for the past two months the appointed individual has publicly stated there is no need for the private counsel status, with responsibility attributed to that choice. The controversy surrounding the usual contract and the subsequent criminal filing in court has been described as an embarrassment to the department by some lawmakers.
Jordan, Comer, and Smith demand that Garland furnish all documents related to Weiss’s nomination, including any directives or instructions tied to the nomination, by September 11 at the latest. The lawmakers want assurance that the Department of Justice is not attempting to subvert the rule of law for the sake of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden, or the Biden family.
Earlier, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, characterized Weiss’s appointment as a strategic cover that would align the Biden administration with what she called third world witch hunts and dictatorships of a previous era in Europe.
Former President Joe Biden has argued that the appointment conflicts with the country’s constitutional norms. The exchange highlights ongoing partisan tensions over how investigations into political figures are conducted and overseen by the executive branch.
In Canada and the United States, observers note the importance of transparent processes and clear, timely documentation when questions arise about Special Counsel appointments and the administration of high-stakes investigations. Analysts emphasize the need for accountability and adherence to established legal standards to preserve public trust in federal institutions. The broader conversation reflects a persistent anxiety about perceived political influence over judicial or prosecutorial choices, and it underscores the role of congressional oversight in safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings.
As the debate continues, supporters of greater transparency point to a standard practice of fully disclosing all relevant directives, communications, and internal guidance that shape such appointments. Critics, meanwhile, stress the importance of ensuring that investigations remain insulated from political calculations, with equal treatment under the law for all parties involved. The situation serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between executive prerogatives and legislative oversight in American governance, a topic that resonates with audiences across the United States and Canada who watch these developments closely for implications on the rule of law and public accountability.