As we noted, there were reports that the Hunter Biden case had reached a “critical stage” and the U.S. Attorney’s Office was considering whether to charge him, according to both CNN and Fox News sources.

But former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman is raising questions about the reports that are coming out, including about the grand jury

With the grand jury reportedly disbanding, the case may now be in the hands of government prosecutors to make the next move, which former U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman told “The Story” leaves a very strange dynamic:

“None of this adds up. None of it makes sense. Indictments should have been brought when you first started calling witnesses and close thereto, that’s standard,” he said.

“The fact that a grand jury is now terminating here fairly soon or has terminated, in essence, you have to start all over. If the new grand jury gets empaneled, you have to re-present all the evidence that you may have presented.”

Tolman said that normally charges or the threat thereof would be brought before the termination of the first grand jury. [….]

“[I]t’s not adding up. It’s certainly not what I would have done. And it’s not what the majority of my colleagues who served as U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys would have done in this case,” he said.

Unless you’re not going to charge him and you’re just buying time. Tolman was concerned about funny business as well.

“Anybody who wanted to seek justice in this case would have charged Hunter Biden very quickly,” Tolman said.

“You would have threatened distribution of narcotics and possession of firearms – which carry lengthy prison sentences,” he said, adding prosecutors could have also elected to press him as a “source” if they wanted to investigate allegations Joe Biden was aware of or involved in his son’s foreign business dealings – which the White House denies.

“I mean, this is so simple and so basic that the only conclusion I can make is political games are being played and have from the very beginning,” Tolman said.

Tolman observed that there was a trove of evidence that could be plumbed, “There’s just so much that this is the equivalent of a softball being floated and you have an extremely large bat.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley raised the big question — Joe Biden.

…It is also curious how you get to a “critical stage” in the Grand Jury on such charges without hearing testimony from the person referenced as “the big guy” who would receive a ten percent cut and Hunter’s uncle who helped in some of these dealings.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 20, 2022

…That is the type of evidence that would establish a conspiracy or broader criminal enterprise. The concern is that a narrow criminal case could be brought that avoid such implications and allows for a plea bargain…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 20, 2022

…Finally, if you are investigating a FARA violation in lobbying for foreign interests, wouldn’t the grand jury want to hear from the object of that lobbying, Joe Biden? Emails repeatedly show Hunter referencing his father to clients in this influence peddling scheme.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 21, 2022

Most prosecutors would be looking to go after the bigger crime and/or the bigger fish and certainly one of the biggest questions here would be the allegations of influence peddling. There had been reports that the grand jury was looking into other issues besides taxes and the gun question. As we reported, they asked a witness to identify who the “big guy” was, which would indicate they were looking into the Chinese connections.

But that’s a legitimate concern that both Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and now Turley are raising that they might ultimately just try to get a narrow plea agreement on Hunter regarding the gun or his taxes that doesn’t hit on the bigger issues. Ron Johnson has also been raising the question of cover-up, saying the Biden Administration isn’t turning over the documents being requested on SARs regarding Hunter Biden. But if they had a narrow plea agreement, then the Democrats could take that and say, “See? There was nothing bigger,” when indeed, there’s a ton there to investigate. That could very well fit the facts we’re currently seeing. But once again, that would scream swamp, two different systems, and a complete failure of justice in this matter.