Multiple House committee chairmen have joined together to open an inquiry into U.S. Attorney David Weiss for the plea deal offered to Hunter Biden that would have involved not just no jail time for tax and gun charges, but immunity for other charges as well. Although U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected the deal at last Wednesday’s hearing, questions still remain. On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY), and House Ways and Means Committee Jason Smith (R-MO) issued a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland about the matter.

As the letter begins by mentioning in part, Judge Noreika regarded the deal as “not standard” and “different from what I normally see.” The letter later goes on to recap the judge’s concerns at length, which included how she wasn’t even sure about the authority and constitutionality of the deal. This came after she inquired multiple times about any precedence for such a deal.

“I asked if there is any precedent for this, I was told no. I was asked if there is any authority for this, I was told no,” Noreika is quoted in the letter as saying, according to a transcript of the court record.

The letter also went on to summarize the grave impact that such an unusual plea deal has, including and especially how it limits Noreika:

Taken individually, each of the provisions discussed above raises serious concerns about how the Department has handled this matter. But when considered together, the provisions appear to be even more troubling. Judge Noriega explained the problem: “What’s funny to me is you put me right smack in the middle of the Diversion Agreement that I should have no role in, you plop [me] right in there and then on the thing that I would normally have the ability to sign off on or look at in the context of a Plea Agreement, you just take it out and you say Your Honor, don’t pay any attention to that provision not to prosecute because we put it in an agreement that’s beyond your ability.”

In short, the Department shifted a broad immunity provision, which benefits Mr. Biden,from the plea agreement to the pretrial diversion agreement apparently to prevent the District Court from being able to scrutinize and reject that immunity provision. And then, the Department has benefitted Mr. Biden by giving up its unilateral ability to bring charges against him if it concludes that he has breached the pretrial diversion agreement. Instead, it has placed upon itself the burden of getting the District Court’s permission to bring charges even though the District Court normally has no role in policing a pretrial diversion agreement in that manner. So, the District Court is apparently removed from the equation when it helps Mr. Biden and inserted into the equation when it helps Mr. Biden.