In a significant development surrounding the ongoing Hunter Biden investigation, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, David Weiss, has broken his silence. His response comes after explosive allegations from whistleblowers claiming that the probe into Hunter Biden’s activities had been influenced by politics and that Weiss faced constraints when making prosecutorial decisions. The allegations also suggested that Congress was being denied the records it requested for oversight purposes. This blog post delves into the recent developments and Weiss’s official response.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan had previously requested U.S. Attorney David Weiss to provide materials related to the explosive whistleblower allegations. However, Weiss, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, declined to comply with the request, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Weiss, in his letter responding to Jordan, explained that he is “not at liberty to provide the materials” at this time. He emphasized the importance of protecting confidential law enforcement information and deliberative communications related to the Hunter Biden investigation, which is currently being prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

While denying the specific information sought by Congress, Weiss reassured that the Justice Department did not retaliate against the IRS whistleblowers for making protected disclosures to Congress. This statement aims to address concerns regarding potential reprisals against those who exposed the allegations.

The development comes as Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is expected to make his first court appearance on July 26. This court appearance is anticipated to shed further light on the charges against him and the course of the investigation. However, Weiss’s response indicates that the specific details of the investigation will remain confidential for now.

U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s response to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s request for records related to the Hunter Biden investigation signifies the complexities surrounding the case. Weiss’s emphasis on the protection of confidential law enforcement information and deliberative communications underscores the need for ongoing discretion and caution during the prosecution.

As the investigation proceeds and Hunter Biden’s court appearance approaches, the public eagerly awaits further updates and insights into the allegations against him. The outcome of this case could have significant implications, and it remains an important story to follow.

By Alki David

Alki David — Publisher, Media Architect, SIN Network Creator - live, direct-to-public communication, media infrastructure, accountability journalism, and independent distribution. Born in Lagos, Nigeria; educated in the United Kingdom and Switzerland; attended the Royal College of Art. Early internet broadcaster — participated in real-time public coverage during the 1997 Mars landing era using experimental online transmission from Beverly Hills. Founder of FilmOn, one of the earliest global internet television networks offering live and on-demand broadcasting outside legacy gatekeepers. Publisher of SHOCKYA — reporting since 2010 on systemic corruption inside the entertainment business and its expansion into law, finance, and regulation. Creator of the SIN Network (ShockYA Integrated Network), a federated media and civic-information infrastructure spanning investigative journalism, live TV, documentary, and court-record reporting. Lived and worked for over 40 years inside global media hubs including Malibu, Beverly Hills, London, Hong Kong and Gstaad. Early encounter with Julian Assange during the first Hologram USA operations proved a formative turning point — exposing the realities of lawfare, information suppression, and concentrated media power. Principal complainant and driving force behind what court filings describe as the largest consolidated media–legal accountability action on record, now before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. Relocated to Antigua & Barbuda and entered sustained legal, civic, and informational confrontation over media power, safeguarding, and accountability at Commonwealth scale.