Hunter Biden’s Bargain Plea

“Gradually, then suddenly.”

That’s how a character in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” describes how he went bankrupt, but it could easily be Hunter Biden’s explanation for how his habit of trading on the family name blew up on him at the moment a plea deal was supposed to bury it all for good. Now the plea deal itself—scheduled to be approved Wednesday in Delaware by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika—has become an issue.

The federal investigation into the young Mr. Biden’s taxes and financial dealings began in 2018. It’s been punctuated by the surfacing of lurid laptop photos of Hunter taking drugs and cavorting with women in the nude. There have also been occasional teases about Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in Hunter’s business, including the never explained email from a business partner saying 10% of a deal with a Chinese company would be “held by H for the big guy.”

That was the gradual part.

Suddenly came last week. First was the testimony before Congress—under oath and in public—by whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. These career Internal Revenue Service investigators proffered details about how the president’s political appointees sabotaged their investigation, tipping off Hunter’s lawyers about searches and interviews, forbidding questions about “the big guy,” and running out the clock on the statute of limitations for the more-serious tax issues involving Burisma payments.

Then, just a day after the whistleblowers testified, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) dropped another bombshell: A Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-1023 form memorializing a trusted source’s claim that Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky alleged he’d been “coerced” into paying Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each. News outlets dutifully reported that the form was “unverified” (a qualifier absent from most reporting on the infamous Steele dossier).

But saying the information is unverified raises the key question: What steps, if any, did the FBI take to verify these allegations?

Think about it. As recently as two months ago, the bureau wouldn’t even admit to Congress that the FD-1023 existed. Not until FBI Director Christopher Wray realized some people had already seen a copy, and he was threatened with contempt, did the FBI fess up and give members of Congress a limited look.

Even more disturbing, though the form is dated June 30, 2020, Messrs. Shapley and Ziegler said their team never saw it. By releasing the document, Mr. Grassley has given the American people more detailed information about the bribery allegation than Justice and the FBI ever gave the IRS team. The same goes for the laptop, which the IRS whistleblowers say they never saw.

On top of all this, U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the federal prosecutor handling Hunter’s case, has a credibility problem. Attorney General Merrick Garland was unequivocal in asserting that Mr. Weiss had “complete authority” to bring charges wherever he wanted—and never asked for special-counsel status. But Mr. Shapley testified (under oath, remember) that Mr. Weiss told him and other investigators that he wasn’t the “deciding person on whether charges were filed.”

Mr. Weiss, who could clear this up, has made a series of public statements that instead only add to the confusion. He has said that he had “ultimate authority,” that he never sought special-counsel status, and that if he had asked he would have been granted it.

Someone isn’t telling the truth here.

The Heritage Foundation is suing for answers. It wants to know if Mr. Garland lied when he said Mr. Weiss hadn’t asked for special-counsel status. And it wants the answer before Wednesday, when Hunter’s plea is to be approved.

So Heritage is asking a court to force the Justice Department to release internal communications relating to Mr. Weiss and the special-counsel question. It may not win. But Heritage is right to say that there are too many questions about the fairness and integrity of the whole Hunter Biden investigation to let it all be swept under the carpet with a plea deal.

Meanwhile, the burden of proof has shifted. With each hearing, Congress has unearthed troubling allegations that are increasingly specific and backed up by witnesses. Now we learn that Devon Archer, Hunter’s former best friend and business associate, will tell the House Oversight Committee about client meetings that Joe Biden either attended in person or via speakerphone while he was vice president.

The New York Post reports that Mr. Archer will testify that there were at least 24 such conversations. The more we know, the harder it is to believe Joe Biden’s assertion that he never discussed business with Hunter.

It’s rare for a judge to rip up a plea arrangement. But it is well within Judge Noreika’s discretion to do so. The issue now goes well beyond what Hunter Biden did, or even his father’s involvement. It’s whether the two powerful institutions that handled this investigation and came up with this sweetheart deal—the FBI and the Justice Department—can be trusted.

Write to [email protected].