Hunter Biden special counsel may have found a ‘smoking gun’: Alan Dershowitz

In a recent interview on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin,’ Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz discussed Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of David Weiss as special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. Dershowitz highlighted the significance of this appointment, stating that it may indicate the discovery of new evidence, potentially a “smoking gun.” He also questioned why a special counsel has not been appointed for President Joe Biden, emphasizing the importance of this position in investigating such high-profile cases. Dershowitz further raised concerns about the scope and focus of the investigation, urging for clarity on what has been examined and whether it extends beyond tax-related matters.

Dershowitz also addressed the implications of the special counsel appointment for other ongoing investigations, particularly those involving former U.S. Attorney John Durham. While some argue that this could hinder Durham’s investigation, Dershowitz expressed mixed views, highlighting the constitutional separation of powers and the ability of Congress to conduct its own investigations. He emphasized the need to distinguish between the powers and limitations of special counsels and U.S. attorneys, calling for a careful examination of how these appointments may affect the ability of Congress to carry out its investigative duties.

Appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel

In a recent development, the appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel has sparked significant interest and speculation. With Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz weighing in on the matter, there is no doubt that this appointment holds considerable importance.

Background on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Appointment

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to appoint David Weiss as Special Counsel has raised eyebrows and captured the attention of legal experts and observers alike. The appointment comes amidst a backdrop of ongoing investigations and political turmoil, making it a subject of intense interest.

Speculation on the Significance of the Appointment

The appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel has triggered various speculations regarding its potential significance. Some believe that this move suggests the uncovering of new evidence, possibly indicating a breakthrough in the ongoing investigation. The appointment also raises questions about the scope and breadth of the investigation, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

Discussion of Dropped Indictment and Initiation of Plea Bargain

The dropped indictment and initiation of a plea bargain have brought the case into the spotlight once again. As legal experts delve into the details of this development, theories and conjectures emerge, trying to make sense of the complex situation. The dropped indictment and subsequent plea bargain serve as a reminder of the intricate nature of legal proceedings and the strategies employed by both prosecutors and defense counsel.

Prediction of Plea Bargain Not Lasting

While a plea bargain can often bring a case to a swift resolution, there is considerable speculation as to whether it will endure in this particular instance. Many legal observers predict that this plea bargain might not last, given the intricacies and complexities surrounding the case. As the legal team and the Special Counsel dive deeper into their investigative efforts, unexpected twists and turns may arise, potentially undermining the plea bargain.

Case Moved to Central District of California

The decision to move the case to the central district of California has ignited further interest and speculation among legal experts and the public alike. This geographic relocation potentially indicates the uncovering of new evidence or a shift in focus. The move to a different jurisdiction often signifies a significant development in an investigation, leaving experts eager to unravel the underlying reasons behind this decision.

Implication that Special Counsel Found New Evidence

The transfer of the case to the central district of California has led to speculation that the Special Counsel, David Weiss, has come across new evidence that could prove crucial to the investigation. This possibility raises the tantalizing question of whether a “smoking gun” has been discovered, a piece of evidence that could potentially reshape the entire case. However, until concrete details emerge, these implications remain speculative and subject to further investigation.

Questions about the Scope of the Investigation

With each new development in the case, questions continue to emerge regarding the scope and extent of the investigation. Legal experts and observers are eager to understand the factors that led to the appointment of a Special Counsel and what specific aspects of the case they will be focusing on. As the investigation unfolds, a clearer picture of its scope is likely to emerge, shedding light on the direction the case might take.

Extent of Previous Investigations and Potential Payments from Other Governments

As the case progresses, questions surrounding the extent of previous investigations and potential payments from other governments loom large. Understanding the full extent of any previous investigations is essential in determining the impact and significance of the current appointment. Additionally, if there were indeed any payments involved from foreign governments, it raises important legal and ethical questions that need to be addressed thoroughly.

Formalization of the Special Counsel Status

One aspect that has raised questions and ignited speculation is the timing of the formalization of the Special Counsel status. Many wonder why this appointment was not formalized earlier, given the gravity of the case and ongoing investigations. The lack of clarity and confusion surrounding this delay only adds to the intrigue surrounding the appointment and the subsequent proceedings.

Discussion of Confusion and Lack of Clarity

The confusion and lack of clarity surrounding the formalization of the Special Counsel status have opened the door to endless debates and discussions among legal experts and observers. It is crucial to ascertain the reasons behind this confusion and address any concerns that may arise as a result. Clarity is paramount, both for the smooth progress of the case and to ensure public trust in the judicial process.

Importance of Determining the Extent of the Investigation

Establishing the full extent of the investigation is of utmost importance to all parties involved. It allows for a clearer understanding of what is at stake and the potential implications that may arise from the case. By determining the scope of the investigation, the Special Counsel can proceed with the necessary diligence and ensure that no stone is left unturned in their pursuit of justice.

Expectation of Finding Answers from the New Lawyer

With the appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel, expectations run high regarding the potential answers and revelations that may come to light. As a seasoned lawyer with a wealth of experience, Weiss is expected to navigate the complexities of the case and shed light on critical aspects that have remained elusive thus far. His appointment brings a fresh perspective to the investigation and raises hopes of uncovering the truth.

Implications on Other Investigations

The appointment of a Special Counsel not only impacts the current case but also has implications on other ongoing investigations. A comparison is being drawn between this situation and the investigation conducted by special counsel John Comer into the activities of Hunter Biden. Questions arise regarding the ability to prevent Comer from pursuing his investigation, as debates around constitutional issues and separation of powers ensue.

Questioning the Ability to Prevent Comer from Conducting His Investigation

The appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel reopens the discussion on the ability to prevent John Comer, another special counsel, from conducting his investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities. The clash of investigations and the potential overlap signify a complex legal landscape, further compounded by concerns around constitutional issues and the separation of powers between different branches of government.

Constitutional Issues and Separation of Powers

The clash between investigations raises profound concerns regarding constitutional issues and the balance of power between different branches of government. The appointment of multiple special counsels, each tasked with investigating different matters, raises questions about the overall efficacy of the system. Striking a delicate balance between accountability and independent investigations is crucial to uphold constitutional principles and ensure a just and fair process.

Impact on Congress’ Ability to Investigate

The appointment of a Special Counsel also has a significant impact on Congress’ ability to conduct its investigations. The ongoing investigations, both within the executive branch and through the appointment of special counsels, can potentially impede or influence Congress’ own inquiries. As the lines between various investigations blur, concerns regarding transparency and the ability to hold those in power accountable come to the forefront.

Role of Special Counsel

The role of a Special Counsel is a topic that arouses heated debates and discussions. Arguments revolve around the authority and power vested in this position, as well as the individual’s ability to simultaneously hold the role of Special Counsel and U.S Attorney. The very nature of the Special Counsel’s role often brings government rules into question, highlighting potential contradictions that need to be addressed to ensure coherence in the legal system.

Debate on Whether One Individual Can Hold the Role of Special Counsel and U.S Attorney Simultaneously

The overlapping nature of the roles of Special Counsel and U.S Attorney gives rise to discussions on whether one individual can effectively perform both functions simultaneously. While some argue that having a single individual assume both positions can streamline the investigative process, others express concerns about the potential conflicts of interest and compromised independence that may arise. The debate underscores the need for clarity and guidelines to govern such scenarios.

Contradiction of Government Rules

The appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel has brought to the surface contradictions in government rules surrounding the roles and responsibilities of this position. As legal experts and observers grapple with the intricacies of the case, these contradictions highlight the need for a thorough examination and possible revision of existing regulations. Ensuring consistency within the legal system is vital to maintaining public trust and upholding the principles of justice.

Importance of Upholding Checks and Balances

Throughout this appointment and the subsequent investigations, it is imperative to emphasize the importance of upholding checks and balances within the legal system. The role of Special Counsel is just one component of a complex framework designed to safeguard the integrity of investigations. Striking the right balance between accountability and preserving individual rights is essential for justice to prevail and for the public’s confidence in the legal process to remain intact.


The appointment of David Weiss as Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden case holds significant implications for ongoing investigations, the role of the Special Counsel, and the balance of power within the government. As the case progresses, the potential revelations and legal debates surrounding the investigation will undoubtedly continue to captivate the attention of legal experts and the public alike. It is crucial to prioritize constitutional principles, separation of powers, and transparency in order to ensure a fair and just resolution. The weight of this case, coupled with the appointment of a Special Counsel, underscores the importance of upholding these principles and preserving public trust in the judicial process.