Comer’s arrested 'star witness' touts past informant work in effort to skip jail

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) was dealt a major blow last week when David C. Weiss — special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice — announced that Alexander Smirnov had been indicted for lying to the FBI.

Comer and his allies had been touting Smirnov as the star witness in a House Oversight probe of President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Now, Smirnov is facing a federal criminal indictment.

Smirnov was arrested at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas and, and on Tuessday, his attorneys filed a motion for pre-trial release.

READ MORE:'Parade of embarrassments': House Republicans privately turn on Comer for impeachment dud

Tweeting a copy of the motion, X user Mueller, She Wrote posted, "NEW: The recently indicted top GOP witness lawyer argues that he should NOT be detained pending trial because Bill Barr's DoJ didn't find it necessary to indict him in 2020, so how dangerous can he be?"

The motion reads, "As alleged in the Indictment, Mr. Smirnov served as a confidential human source (“CHS”) for the FBI for several preceding years. Virtually all of the allegations recited in Count One, however, occurred in 2020 (see Ind. at 34, ¶57) and the alleged falsifications pertain to alleged acts taking place between 2015 and 2017. See id. at 34-35. Similarly, the alleged falsifications charged in Count Two pertain to alleged acts that took place in June 2020."

Smirnov's lawyers continue, "The fact that the Government knew about Mr. Smirnov's alleged conduct for years — yet took no steps to end his cooperation, seize his passports, or prosecute him for anything — should be kept firmly in mind when (as expected) the Government reverses course in this bail proceeding and suddenly protests that Mr. Smirnov now presents an 'extreme flight risk' who must be detained pending his initial appearance in the Central District of California. Any bail assertion that Mr. Smirnov suddenly presents an unmanageable 'flight risk' should, therefore, be considered in light of the Government's prior, nonchalant assessment of that very same risk."