Trump Appointed Weiss with Democrats’ Blessing

Democrats’ response to Republican claims that Hunter Biden got a “sweetheart deal” has been to note that then-President Donald Trump appointed U.S. Attorney David Weiss – the prosecutor who allowed Biden to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges and enter a pretrial diversion program on a gun charge.

Trump has tried to flip the script, saying on social media that Hunter Biden got “a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence,” because “the two Democrat Senators in Delaware … got to choose and/or approve” Weiss.

It’s true that Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both Democrats, played a part in selecting Weiss, because of a longstanding Senate policy that allows home-state senators to sign off on presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys.

But Weiss is a registered Republican, according to news reports, who was ultimately nominated by Trump and approved unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike in a voice vote.

Weiss has come under fire from Republicans ever since he announced the agreement on June 20. Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges for not paying federal taxes, for which prosecutors would reportedly recommend a sentence of probation. He also agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion program for unlawful possession of a firearm by a user of a controlled substance, which is a felony.

Hunter Biden is scheduled to appear in court on July 26 to enter his guilty plea. The plea deal still has to be approved by a federal district judge, and any penalties would be based on U.S. sentencing guidelines and other factors, Weiss’ office said.

Although the Department of Justice press release noted that the investigation into Hunter Biden is “ongoing,” numerous Republicans derided the agreement as a “sweetheart deal” or a “slap on the wrist” due to the influence of the Biden administration.

The focus on Weiss intensified when two IRS whistleblowers testified before Congress that Hunter Biden had received “preferential treatment” from the DOJ. The two IRS agents said Weiss requested but was denied the authority to act independently as special counsel and that Weiss was prevented from bringing more serious charges against Hunter Biden in Washington, D.C., and California.

In response to an inquiry from Sen. Lindsey Graham about those whistleblower allegations, however, Weiss said they were not true.

“To clarify an apparent misperception and to avoid future confusion, I wish to make one point clear: in this case, I have not requested Special Counsel designation,” Weiss wrote, adding that he had “never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.”

(Graham also asked about allegations contained in an unverified report from an FBI informant who said a Ukrainian oligarch years ago bribed Hunter and Joe Biden. Weiss declined to comment because he said it was “relate[d] to an ongoing investigation.”)

Commenting on the contradictions between the accounts of the two IRS whistleblower and Weiss, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan made it clear whom he believed.

“Do you trust Biden’s DOJ to tell the truth?” Jordan asked.

Weiss is a member of Biden’s Department of Justice. But he’s a carryover from the previous administration, a Republican who was nominated for the position by Trump and kept by the Biden administration because he was in the midst of the Hunter Biden investigation. So is he a Trump guy? Or the Democrats’ guy? The answer is a little of both.

Weiss’ Appointment

It is typical for new presidents to replace U.S. attorneys appointed by their predecessor. For some administrations, the transition has been more immediate than others.

While Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama gradually replaced U.S. attorneys appointed by their predecessors, Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in early March 2017 asked all 46 of the remaining Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys to immediately submit their resignations.

One of them was Charles Oberly, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, a Democrat who was nominated by Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2010.

Oberly complied with the request for his resignation, allowing Trump to appoint a successor. The U.S. Code states clearly that the “President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.”

Due to the Senate advice and consent authority, “Senators can make recommendations,” Brandon Garrett, a professor at Duke University School of Law, told us via email. “But it is a presidential appointment, under the Constitution.”

However, Senate tradition put the Democratic senators from Delaware in a position to influence Trump’s selection.

“There is an old Senate tradition going back to when George Washington was president called ‘senatorial courtesy,’ in which home state senators get a virtual veto over executive appointees with jobs that exist entirely within their home state,” Ian Ostrander, a political science professor at Michigan State University, told us via email. “Senatorial courtesy is the tradition that led to the more familiar blue slips process for court appointments in the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Under the so-called blue-slip policy, in order to be presented to the Senate for a vote, a judge or U.S. attorney nominated by the president must get the signoff, or blue-slip approval, from home-state senators.

“Given the tradition, Trump is right that the two home state senators had a say in the approval of the US Attorney for Delaware in that the senators’ refusal to accept the nominee would have ended the nomination,” Ostrander said. “Knowing this, presidents (or more accurately their staff) will consult the relevant home state senators before making a nomination. Sometimes this leads to a suggestion from the senators that is accepted and nominated by a president.”

That’s apparently what happened with Oberly’s replacement, David Weiss, who once served as the acting and interim United States attorney for the District of Delaware.

According to the Associated Press, Carper and Coons in November 2017 “recommended Weiss to the White House for the job.” Carper at the time released a statement calling Weiss “an excellent choice for U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware,” noting Weiss’ 16 years in the office. Weiss, Carper said, “is highly respected in the law enforcement community, and I hope we can swiftly confirm him in the Senate.” Coons praised Weiss as “a career prosecutor and dedicated public servant, longtime Delawarean, and valued member of our law enforcement community. I want to thank the White House for working with Sen. Carper and me to present an excellent nominee for U.S. attorney.”

And, as a result, some Republicans have begun to portray Weiss as a Biden guy.

We reached out to both senators’ press offices for clarification on the role they played in selecting Weiss, but neither provided any public response.

On Fox Business on June 20, Mike Davis, founder of the conservative legal group The Article III Project, accused the DOJ, and Weiss specifically, of “covering up” Joe and Hunter Biden’s misdeeds.

“They say that this David Weiss was a Trump appointee,” Davis said. “I was the chief counsel for nominations when he went through the Senate process. Democrat home-state senators pick their U.S. Attorney in Delaware. They picked this guy, they enthusiastically supported this guy and it’s very clear why they did this.”

And as we said earlier, Trump also posted on social media that Carper and Coons “got to choose and/or approve” Weiss.

However, while Carper and Coons played a role in Weiss’ selection, it was Trump who ultimately nominated Weiss. Trump’s nomination announcement stated that Weiss, and seven other nominees, “share the President’s vision for ‘Making America Safe Again.’”

Ostrander said that while Trump is “partially correct” that Carper and Coons “had a say” in Weiss’ selection, “I would not go so far as to say that this provides home state senators with both the choice and approval of the nominee.” 

“Presidents don’t have to accept the senators’ suggestions as only the President has nominating power,” Ostrander said. “If Trump did not approve of David Weiss as U.S. Attorney, then he could simply have refused to nominate him. He could then have worked with the Delaware Senate delegation on finding a compromise candidate. U.S. Attorneys also serve at the pleasure of the president, which means that Trump could have demanded David Weiss’s resignation while he was still in office.”

Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden began in 2018 during Trump’s presidency. When Biden took office, the Biden administration asked for the resignation of all the U.S. attorneys appointed by Trump — except two.

One holdover was Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was tapped by Trump’s then-Attorney General Bill Barr as a special counsel to look into the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation. That investigation was ongoing when Trump left office, and Durham released his final report on May 12.

The other U.S. attorney kept by the Biden administration was Weiss, who was in the midst of the federal investigation of Hunter Biden.

During a Senate hearing on April 26, 2022, Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty asked U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland how the public could be confident the DOJ was conducting “serious investigation” of the president’s son.

“Because we put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee from the previous administration, who’s the United States attorney for the District of Delaware,” Garland said, “and because you have me as the attorney general, who is committed to the independence of the Justice Department from any influence from the White House in criminal matters.”

Garland assured Hagerty that there would “not be interference of any political or improper kind” regarding Weiss’ investigation. In a press conference on June 23, Garland reiterated that Weiss was given complete authority “to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to.”

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna echoed those sentiments on ABC News’ “This Week” on July 2, saying, “I mean, let’s just review the facts here. You had President Trump appoint a U.S. attorney in Delaware. And President Biden had the ability to fire that U.S. attorney if he wanted, as is customary, that new president comes in they remove all the U.S. attorneys. President Biden didn’t fire the U.S. attorney, he had his past opponent’s appointee have total power over making a decision on Hunter Biden.”

The fact is that Carper, Coons and Trump had a hand in the selection of Weiss. It’s misleading to portray Weiss entirely as the Democrats’ choice — presumably they would have preferred a Democrat. But the blue-slip process does allow home-state senators to exert some influence on a president’s selection. Nonetheless, the president — according to the Constitution — ultimately decides whom to appoint.

Clarification, July 14: We changed the wording in the first paragraph to be clear that Trump had appointed Weiss when Trump was president.


Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post Trump Appointed Weiss with Democrats’ Blessing appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Related articles

Headlines for February 2, 2026

Federal Judge Denies Request by Minnesota Officials to Temporarily...

The FBI elections raid was political theater — but something far more sinister too



If you thought that President Donald Trump and Georgia Republican candidates for higher office have left the 2020 election in the rearview mirror, think again.

Federal agents on Wednesday were seen seizing records from Fulton County’s election center warehouse as the president continues echoing false claims surrounding his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department have not provided a reason for the raid, but a U.S. magistrate judge signed off on a warrant allowing agents to access a trove of information from ballots to voter rolls.

It doesn’t appear that county or state officials had advanced notice of Wednesday’s raid at the 600,000-square-foot facility in Union City, which is used as a polling place, a site for county election board meetings and a storage facility for ballots and information about Fulton voters.

Concerns about election security are not new in Georgia’s most populous county, which includes Atlanta and routinely gives overwhelming support to Democratic presidential and statewide candidates. But this week’s raid is a major escalation in a years-long battle over election integrity — one that appears to be emerging as more of a political litmus test.

“This is a blatant attempt to distract from the Trump-authorized state violence that killed multiple Americans in Minnesota,” said Democrat Dana Barrett, a Fulton County commissioner who is also running for Secretary of State.

“Sending 25 FBI agents to raid our Fulton County elections office is political theater and part of a concerted effort to take over elections in swing districts across the country.”

The raid comes as the 2026 Republican primary for governor, which features many of the same Republicans who sparred over that year’s election results, is starting to heat up. Both Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Attorney General Chris Carr have repeatedly vouched for Georgia’s 2020 tally and refused to join any attempts to subvert it, putting them on a collision course with MAGA world over their loyalty to President Donald Trump as they campaign for the state’s top job.

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who is running with the president’s endorsement, praised Wednesday’s raid and offered us a preview of what we will likely soon see in his doom-and-gloom campaign commercials.

“Fulton County Elections couldn’t run a bake sale,” Jones said on social media Wednesday. “And unfortunately, our Secretary of State hasn’t fixed the corruption and our Attorney General hasn’t prosecuted it.”

In the months and weeks leading up to the November 2020 vote, Trump’s repeated warnings of potential nefarious activity in that year’s election became part of his rhetoric. Georgia would emerge as the epicenter of the president’s claims of election fraud, even after multiple hand recounts and lawsuits confirmed Biden’s ultimate victory.

His allies in the state Legislature urged leaders to call a special session to reallocate Georgia’s 16 electoral votes. Some Republicans, including Jones, signed a certificate designating themselves as the “electors” who officially vote for president and vice president. And Trump’s January 2021 phone call to Raffensperger, where he urged the secretary to “find” enough votes to erase his defeat, was at the heart of Fulton County’s election racketeering case against Trump and his allies.

The case was dismissed late last year.

Nevertheless, Trump’s claims of fraud have become a key pillar in his party’s political identity: More than half of Republicans in Congress still objected to the certification of Trump’s defeat in the hours following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. A 2024 national poll from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that roughly three in ten voters still had questions about the validity of Biden’s win three years prior, a glaring sign of just how mainstream that belief has become among the general public.

Six years later, Trump’s return to the White House hasn’t helped him move on. He continues to say in remarks and at campaign events that he carried the Peach State “three times.” His now-infamous Fulton County mugshot hangs right outside the Oval Office. And he warned of prosecutions against election officials during a speech in Davos this month.

“[Russia’s war with Ukraine] should have never started and it wouldn’t have started if the 2020 U.S. presidential election weren’t rigged. It was a rigged election,” Trump said. “Everybody now knows that. They found out. People will soon be prosecuted for what they did. That’s probably breaking news.”

It’s clear that the past is still very much shaping the present in Georgia Republican politics. This week’s federal raid on the Fulton elections center just adds more fuel to old grudge matches, and a politician’s role in the 2020 election could ultimately determine their political standing.

For candidates like Carr and Raffensperger, the primary could be a test of whether or not there is a political price to pay for defending Georgia’s election results against the barrage of attacks and conspiracy theories. And for Jones, it’s a test of whether election denialism is still an effective political attack for MAGA-aligned candidates to use.

  • Niles Francis recently graduated from Georgia Southern University with a degree in political science and journalism. He has spent the last few years observing and writing about the political maneuvering at Georgia’s state Capitol and regularly publishes updates in a Substack newsletter called Peach State Politics. He is currently studying to earn a graduate degree and is eager to cover another exciting political year in the battleground state where he was born and raised.