Previously, when Attorney General Merrick Garland had been called before Congress, he testified that David Weiss had full authority in the Hunter Biden probe.
This week, Weiss testified before Congress, but he contradicted the statements made by Garland.
In September, Garland was called to the Hill to testify before several committees regarding the Hunter Biden probe.
More specifically, Garland was asked to answer questions regarding whistleblower allegations that David Weiss, now the special counsel in the case, had restrictions put on him during the probe.
Before the committee, Garland testified:
"Mr. Weiss asked to be made special counsel. I had promised that I would give him all the resources he needed and I made him special counsel."
Notice Garland did not say that he repeatedly asked, with the implication being that as soon as Weiss asked, the authority was granted, which is where the possibility of perjury comes into play. Garland had further stated that there would be no influence on his part in the investigation, stating:
"I promised the Senate that I would not interfere… I would not influence the investigation.
"I do not intend to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations, whether or not I had them."
That testimony did not exactly gibe with what whistleblowers had stated, nor did it exactly match up with recent testimony by Weiss.
This week, David Weiss was called before the committee in an unprecedented move to discuss an active investigation.
Weiss says he had asked for special attorney authority much earlier, but he was not given it.
In the earlier stages of the investigation, Weiss admitted:
"I asked for something, and in that conversation, they didn't give it to me."
That "something" was the special counsel designation and the ability to bring charges, which he did not initially get.
In fact, it was only after significant public pressure that Garland finally appointed Weiss as special counsel, which, by the way, is technically against the law, as no existing DOJ employee is supposed to be appointed as special counsel.
By its definition, special counsel is supposed to be a non-partisan outside appointment.
This all comes down to the timeline of these requests, and unless I am grossly misunderstanding something, Garland perjured himself before Congress.
According to whistleblowers and Weiss, it would appear that Garland was clearly calling some of the shots in that probe, but that is only the tip of the iceberg here.
It is pretty clear that Weiss did not have the authority he sought earlier in the investigation, and while he was eventually given that authority, Garland's testimony makes it sound as though Weiss was given that authority from the outset, which Weiss himself stated was not the case.
In Weiss' full testimony, he was very careful about using the word denial, calling it a "process."
This is all semantics at this point on his part, so now Congress has to dial in that timeline.
On the surface, it seems like a clear case of perjury on Garland's part, and if that is the case, Republicans will have the ammunition they need to impeach Garland, but that will not be the end of Garland's problems.
Perjury before Congress is punishable by up to five years in prison, and you better believe that Republicans would be pushing for the maximum sentence.