Garland names special counsel in Hunter Biden investigation

a reply to: face23785

It doesn't disprove anything. Weiss thought he needed special counsel status to legitimize his authority. Garland had previously said he would grant Weiss special counsel status if he asked for it.

If Garland had turned down his request then you guys would be on here complaining about that.

a reply to: Threadbare

If Garland had turned down his request then you guys would be on here complaining about that.

That's not an "us" problem.

That's a trust problem. And the reasons for the decay of that trust are many and historical.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: face23785

It doesn't disprove anything. Weiss thought he needed special counsel status to legitimize his authority. Garland had previously said he would grant Weiss special counsel status if he asked for it.

If Garland had turned down his request then you guys would be on here complaining about that.

It does, in fact, disprove it. Weiss previously agreed with Garland's false claims that he had the authority he needed to prosecute anything anywhere. Those authorities were illegitimate now, by your words? Then you got lied to.

I know it's frustrating man, but you got played. Again, don't get mad at me, get mad at the people who made you embarrass yourself. Stop defending people who lied to you. You want this to look good for Democrats no matter what, but at some point you gotta face reality.

It is crazy to me to watch otherwise intelligent people willing to fall on the sword for a political party. Unfortunately we have a long history of corruption in this country, but the Biden case is turning into one of the most obvious ones we've ever had, certainly with the most public evidence we've ever had. And Biden isn't even that popular with Democrats according to polling, but they will go to bat for him night and day over that D next to his name.

You got legal pundits going on TV completely destroying their own credibility trying to twist themselves into knots to defend this. They're willing to sacrifice their professional status and look like complete amateurs who don't know anything about the law in order to try to save face for a political party.

It reminds me of this case where sexual assault victims of a prominent New York Democrat were told to keep quiet for the good of the party. Literally, they were told this guy is doing good work for the progressive cause, please don't take him down--in the middle of the #metoo craze, no less. And scarily, most of them complied. They helped cover up their own sexual assault cases for the party.

And they call Trumpers a cult. These people would sacrifice a child if they thought it would help win the Democrats an election.

a reply to: face23785

There's no indication that Garland told him he wouldn't be able to bring charges in any jurisdiction. Remember, it was Weiss that came to Garland asking to be named special counsel, not Garland telling him he would need to be special counsel to bring charges in another jurisdiction.

Weiss clearly thought the defense may attempt to challenge his authority, even though it was legitimate, and instead of allowing delays to occur he shut down that potential delaying tactic before the trial even started.

a reply to: Threadbare

There's no indication that Garland told him he wouldn't be able to bring charges in any jurisdiction.

......

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, held a closed-door executive session Thursday morning in which the committee reviewed multiple whistleblower reports about government misconduct inside the IRS and DOJ and held a press conference shortly thereafter.

Smith revealed that “Weiss tried to bring charges in the District of Columbia around March of 2022 and was denied" and that “Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January 2023.”

The House chairman said that “Weiss sought special counsel status from the DOJ in the spring of 2022" but again "was denied.”

Link

a reply to: JinMI

And Weiss has denied all of those claims multiple times.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

And Weiss has denied all of those claims multiple times.

Yet this move of Weiss to a special council confirms it.

You can't see it can you?

a reply to: JinMI

Or it's, as I suggested, an attempt to defuse a potential defense tactic. If Garland didn't allow Weiss to bring charges in other jurisdictions before or wouldn't allow him to be special counsel before, why allow it now?

a reply to: Threadbare

That might have made sense before Hunters previous day in court and a rather curious judge.....

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

No, it's because Delaware is not the correct venue for the trial as that is not where the crime was committed.

So why was he willing to plead guilty to them there… 🤔

a reply to: SwissMarked

Because it would've kept the whole thing from going to trial.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

Because it would've kept the whole thing from going to trial.

If only that were the entire story..........

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

Because it would've kept the whole thing from going to trial.

Yet when he plead “not guilty” the charges are dropped and judge shopped… gotcha… thanks for clarifying… 🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: SwissMarked

And if he brought the case to trial in Delaware and then it was thrown out for wrong venue you would be saying that he threw the case on purpose.

a reply to: Threadbare

Why would he bring a trial if the wrong venue was to be applied as a general rule?


Now you're just trying to tread water lol.

a reply to: JinMI

He wasn't going to trial before. If Hunter wasn't going to plead out then the tax charges would've been filed in the proper venue.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbare

Why would he bring a trial if the wrong venue was to be applied as a general rule?


Now you're just trying to tread water lol.

Yeah… seems to me there were two options here… be given a sweetheart deal for crimes committed plus any that he hasn’t been charged with yet… or have it tossed because of “improper venue”… which you’d think someone would have known about before hand… unless the fix was in… which at this point if you can’t see that’s the case… we’ll… terms and conditions keep me from replying how I’d like to… 🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

He wasn't going to trial before. If Hunter wasn't going to plead out then the tax charges would've been filed in the proper venue.

Right...that's why this:

And if he brought the case to trial in Delaware...

Makes zero sense.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

He wasn't going to trial before. If Hunter wasn't going to plead out then the tax charges would've been filed in the proper venue.

Where was he in possession of the firearm though… 🤔