Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[ggait]

Back up the bus there counselor. I had never heard of this judge and was not even aware a federal judge had to sign off on the deal until 2:00 pm this afternoon when I was driving home from a doctor's appointment.

Umm... Every plea bargain in every case in every court, for every charge from jaywalking through murder, requires the approval of a judge. Pretty amazing that you would not know that. Everyone else does.

As was discussed on here before, it was highly likely that the judge who would get assigned to Hunter's case was going to be a Trump appointee. And that was exactly what happened. And that judge is extremely likely to approve the plea deal in July. Because the plea deal is a harsher punishment than typical for these charges.

So, will there be "fresh hell" from this judge (as you posted)? No.

Will there be a need for a new special prosecutor to be appointed (as you posted)? No.

Will there be a rapture in the courtroom that will whisk Hunter up to the heavens (as you did not post)? Actually, maybe.

Stop tuning into whatever trash conspiracy theorist news sources that are constantly mis-informing you. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life buddy.

[cradleandshoot]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

Not a difficult problem to overcome. These 2 agents must know the names of the DoJ and FBI agents they dealt with. Invite these people to also testify in front of the committee. As of right now there is only one side of the story being told. If these IRS agents are lying who better to expose their treachery than the people they dealt with. As of this moment one side is not being honest about how the investigation was handled.

[Kismet]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

Not a difficult problem to overcome. These 2 agents must know the names of the DoJ and FBI agents they dealt with. Invite these people to also testify in front of the committee. As of right now there is only one side of the story being told. If these IRS agents are lying who better to expose their treachery than the people they dealt with. As of this moment one side is not being honest about how the investigation was handled.

Yeah, Funny - why wasn't that done? Doubt you'd need to put on a thinking cap to figure that one out.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

Not a difficult problem to overcome. These 2 agents must know the names of the DoJ and FBI agents they dealt with. Invite these people to also testify in front of the committee. As of right now there is only one side of the story being told. If these IRS agents are lying who better to expose their treachery than the people they dealt with. As of this moment one side is not being honest about how the investigation was handled.

Yeah, Funny - why wasn't that done? Doubt you'd need to put on a thinking cap to figure that one out.

Nobody thought to ask Cradle what to do?

[cradleandshoot]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

Not a difficult problem to overcome. These 2 agents must know the names of the DoJ and FBI agents they dealt with. Invite these people to also testify in front of the committee. As of right now there is only one side of the story being told. If these IRS agents are lying who better to expose their treachery than the people they dealt with. As of this moment one side is not being honest about how the investigation was handled.

Yeah, Funny - why wasn't that done? Doubt you'd need to put on a thinking cap to figure that one out.

Maybe the invitation was lost in the mail? The oversight could still be corrected. Merrick Garland should be chomping at the bit to clear his peoples reputation.

[cradleandshoot]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists.

Under oath in a congressional hearing not a court. DoJ would have to prosecute them which is highly unlikely and the GOPers on the committee would have to ask them to - none of this is going to happen because it is in the GOP politicians interest to keep this going regardless if the agents are lying or not. I'd maintain that they know this already. In addition, there is no additional evidence corroborating their story.

Not a difficult problem to overcome. These 2 agents must know the names of the DoJ and FBI agents they dealt with. Invite these people to also testify in front of the committee. As of right now there is only one side of the story being told. If these IRS agents are lying who better to expose their treachery than the people they dealt with. As of this moment one side is not being honest about how the investigation was handled.

Yeah, Funny - why wasn't that done? Doubt you'd need to put on a thinking cap to figure that one out.

Nobody thought to ask Cradle what to do?

You sound dumb.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

This begs the question to be asked ... Who was the deciding official?

[MDlaxfan76]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists. That then makes them prime candidates for being charged by the DOJ with perjury. Why would they do something like that?

Yes, lying Trump loyalists would indeed be a problem, but I'm not so sure that they would be "lying" with a statement that "DOJ" wasn't willing to prosecute what they wanted them to do, at that time. "standing in the way"...

What you seem to be missing is it was the Trump appointed, Bill Barr recommended and managed, prosecutor in Delaware who had the call to make...albeit what I read is that he'd have also needed the DC based prosecutor...also Trump and Barr managed...but it's the line prosecutors who make these calls, or are supposed to, unless their boss overrules...and the Boss is Barr in those years.

I've laid out what I think is the most likely explanation for the line prosecutors' decision to hold off, absent interference from above (Barr/Trump). And why Barr/Trump would have held off, given that showed zero reluctance about other interference with prosecutions. Barr showed zero reluctance to do such, multiple times, in multiple decisions.

But that doesn't make those IRS guys liars...they may well be Trump supporting POS, but I don't think they're necessarily lying...simply angry they didn't get their way.

[cradleandshoot]

News

Policy

Business

Opinion

Events

Jobs

HILL TV
Newsletters

Search
TRENDING: KEVIN MCCARTHY 2024 ELECTIONS SPECIAL REPORT: CANCER SPONSORED: CONTENT FROM IASIC ON CANNABIS CONTENT FROM AT&T

Just In...
Watch live: Trump speaking at NH Federation of GOP Women
VIDEO - 4M AGO
A simple solution to save lives — and money — in the war on drugs
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - 4M AGO
Five teens killed when car lands in Florida retention pond
STATE WATCH - 15M 59S AGO
Hundreds of East Coast flights canceled due to severe weather
TRANSPORTATION - 20M 23S AGO
Florida’s largest police union endorses DeSantis over Trump
CAMPAIGN - 30M 20S AGO
Watch live: GOP presidential candidate Haley outlines U.S.-China policy
VIDEO - 34M AGO
Home prices rise for third straight month despite first annual decline since 2012
BUSINESS - 36M 27S AGO
Supreme Court hands defeat to North Carolina GOP in election law clash
COURT BATTLES - 38M 59S AGO
VIEW ALL
OPINION>CRIMINAL JUSTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Who is lying? Merrick Garland or the whistleblowers?
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/24/23 10:30 AM ET
SHARE
TWEET

“I’m not the deciding official.”

Those five words, allegedly from Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, shocked IRS and FBI investigators in a meeting on October 22, 2022. This is because, in refusing to appoint a special counsel, Attorney Garland Merrick Garland had repeatedly assured the public and Congress that Weiss had total authority over his investigation.


IRS supervisory agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. told Congress he was so dismayed by Weiss’s statement and other admissions that he memorialized them in a communication to other team members.

Shapley and another whistleblower detail what they describe as a pattern of interference with their investigation of Hunter Biden, including the denial of searches, lines of questioning, and even attempted indictments.

The only thing abundantly clear is that someone is lying. Either these whistleblowers are lying to Congress, or these Justice Department officials (including Garland) are lying.

This is part of the op-ed by Jonathan Turley

[cradleandshoot]

What holds up is they testified under oath. They have skin in the game. What is that called again when you lie under oath? The wild speculation comes into play if the judge refuses to sign off on the deal. If I can find the link I posted Jonathan Turley gave a very good rationale for why this case took so long. I'll try and find it.

You don't have to lie. I didn't hear what it is they think Hunter did that he wasn't prosecuted for.

Also, "foot dragging" is opinion. For example, It's my considered opinion that it's ABSURD to take 1 1/2 years to indict on a very simple case of not paying taxes for two years, and that the Trump-appointed IRS was taking their sweet time to come up with as much as possible on Hunter. Happy to say as much under oath.

Now what?

As for me? I'd LOVE to pull a Durham and turn all of these agents lives upside down in both the FBI and DoJ----ESPECIALLY these two whistleblowers-------and explain why the F they took a laughable 5 1/2 years weaponizing the IRS and FBI to try and get Joe Biden....and coming up with a couple piddly small time charges.

If they were protecting Joe? They would have come out with these same charges the day after the election. What they were obviously doing is either A. their jobs, and turning over every stone or, B. Trump appointees leading the FBI and DoJ were playing OS's "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" in an attempt to keep this in the news for YEARS, all while chasing after any connection with Joe Biden.

Either way? Please, by all means, let's investigate the investigators yet again.

Meanwhile, no one here can explain why 1 1/2 years isn't enough time to indict....if the idea here is that they're supposed to treat Hunter like a regular ol' citizen.

You're jousting with fools, a fan. It may be time to put down your lance.

1 1/2 years is fairly routine in simple cases like this. Once investigators have reached a recommendation to charge in tax cases, a taxpayer is generally entitled to three levels of attorney review, if requested - one at district counsel (the IRS legal team), one at tax justice (the DOJ- Tax Division attorneys) and one at the US Attorney's office for the district in which the prosecution will be held. Under the facts known to the public, I would qualify Hunter's tax case as fairly routine.

IMO nothing is " routine" about the Hunter Biden tax case. They have been dog dikkin around for how long just debating his laptop and what may or may not be on it? Bill Barr had plenty of time to settle the issue and then the baton was passed on to Merrick Garland. If the case was slow rolled who was responsible and why?

If it was "slow-rolled" by Barr, why? Because the ability to accuse much more serious charges in public forums was more politically valuable than a prosecution of these lesser charges.

If it was slow-rolled by the Trump appointed prosecutor during Garland's time, then it is highly unlikely to have been because Garland wanted it slow for some political benefit...as the opposite is the case...getting this finished with lesser charges like this would have been politically beneficial to them...

The other explanation for all this, of course, is that the Trump appointed prosecutor wanted to be sure he'd gone down every back alley he could before wrapping the investigation up, and no one got in the way.

During the Barr era they wouldn't have done so because keeping it open was politically beneficial, so just sit back.

Under Garland, they want very much to draw a contrast between the Trump era of political interference in prosecutions and the Biden era of an independent DOJ.

The latter explanation is the most plausible IMO.

It is possible the slow roll was initiated by the DOJ. That was the implication made by the whistleblowers who testified UNDER OATH. You ask a great question why Bill Barr didn't follow through on this case. IMO he was afraid it would be portrayed as a political move to embarrass then candidate Joe Biden. He probably would have been correct. No flak to be had on Barr's part, hand the mess over to his predecessor. The only person who could explain his rationale is Bill Barr himself. What is being overlooked is that the 2 IRS agents testified under oath that it was the DOJ standing in the way of them completing their investigation. The question still remains given the testimony of the 2 agents is that somebody somewhere in the Hunter case is not telling the truth. That should bother everybody but apparently the 2 agents are lying trump loyalists. That then makes them prime candidates for being charged by the DOJ with perjury. Why would they do something like that?

Yes, lying Trump loyalists would indeed be a problem, but I'm not so sure that they would be "lying" with a statement that "DOJ" wasn't willing to prosecute what they wanted them to do, at that time. "standing in the way"...

What you seem to be missing is it was the Trump appointed, Bill Barr recommended and managed, prosecutor in Delaware who had the call to make...albeit what I read is that he'd have also needed the DC based prosecutor...also Trump and Barr managed...but it's the line prosecutors who make these calls, or are supposed to, unless their boss overrules...and the Boss is Barr in those years.

I've laid out what I think is the most likely explanation for the line prosecutors' decision to hold off, absent interference from above (Barr/Trump). And why Barr/Trump would have held off, given that showed zero reluctance about other interference with prosecutions. Barr showed zero reluctance to do such, multiple times, in multiple decisions.

But that doesn't make those IRS guys liars...they may well be Trump supporting POS, but I don't think they're necessarily lying...simply angry they didn't get their way.

Or they could be angry because the DOJ lied to them and hindered their investigation. Is that even a remote possibility? All it would take would be for David Weiss to explain what he meant by " I'm not the deciding authority" Then the next logical question would be then who was the deciding authority?

[ggait]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

[ggait]

By the way Cradle, USA Weiss himself confirmed in writing to Congress that he had full charging authority in all places.

So can we please just talk about Bigfoot instead? Please?

In a letter to Congress this month, David C. Weiss, the U.S. attorney from Delaware who charged Hunter Biden over his tax issues and a separate gun purchase, said he had “ultimate authority” over the case. Mr. Weiss was appointed by President Donald J. Trump and was kept on to complete the investigation under President Biden.

A Justice Department spokesman reiterated on Thursday that Mr. Weiss had “responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate,” and did not need any further approval to do so. The White House said President Biden had no involvement in the investigation and that it had been conducted “free from any political interference.”

[cradleandshoot]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

They are not my theories counselor. They relate back directly to the communications made to the IRS investigators and FBI on October 22, 2022 that the IRS investigator was so stunned by he " memorialized" them with other agents. There should be an E-mail trail that proves him correct or not. The discrepancies make it even more important that David Weiss clarify what he said on October 22, 2022 that he is back tracking on now.

[ggait]

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.

Weiss himself told Congress in writing he had full charging power.


Hey look over there -- that's Bigfoot!!!!!

[MDlaxfan76]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

They are not my theories counselor. They relate back directly to the communications made to the IRS investigators and FBI on October 22, 2022 that the IRS investigator was so stunned by he " memorialized" them with other agents. There should be an E-mail trail that proves him correct or not. The discrepancies make it even more important that David Weiss clarify what he said on October 22, 2022 that he is back tracking on now.

I believe that you are reading reports from those with some bias about the supposed claims of these IRS agents. WE don't know what they actually heard nor what their supposed contemporaneous notes suggest they heard specifically, but if Weiss did say something they interpreted that way, fairly (might well have misinterpreted), Weiss would have been telling them something he is lying now about to Congress...kinda unlikely, right?? Lying to Congress has some real repercussions...

More likely they misunderstood what they were told, read into what he said a meaning he didn't intend?
Or perhaps Weiss told them something that was intended to get them to just stop badgering him?

Feels more like the former, but hey, could have been the second.

Bottomline, the reality is he had full authority, as would be proper, and that's what he's saying now, under penalty of perjury.

He ain't saying anyone overruled him, which would have needed to have been Barr or Garland not an underling.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

They are not my theories counselor. They relate back directly to the communications made to the IRS investigators and FBI on October 22, 2022 that the IRS investigator was so stunned by he " memorialized" them with other agents. There should be an E-mail trail that proves him correct or not. The discrepancies make it even more important that David Weiss clarify what he said on October 22, 2022 that he is back tracking on now.

I believe that you are reading reports from those with some bias about the supposed claims of these IRS agents. WE don't know what they actually heard nor what their supposed contemporaneous notes suggest they heard specifically, but if Weiss did say something they interpreted that way, fairly (might well have misinterpreted), Weiss would have been telling them something he is lying now about to Congress...kinda unlikely, right?? Lying to Congress has some real repercussions...

More likely they misunderstood what they were told, read into what he said a meaning he didn't intend?
Or perhaps Weiss told them something that was intended to get them to just stop badgering him?

Feels more like the former, but hey, could have been the second.

Bottomline, the reality is he had full authority, as would be proper, and that's what he's saying now, under penalty of perjury.

He ain't saying anyone overruled him, which would have needed to have been Barr or Garland not an underling.

Take it for what you will but there were a number of agents and investigators at the October 22, 2022 that took notes that corroborate what Weiss said. There are rumblings of another group of whistleblowers willing to step forward. The only thing that has not changed is that one side is lying. The October 22, 2022 meeting has a number of agents and investigators that know what Weiss said to them. This issue is only going to grow bigger legs. Time will tell what the truth is. The quote these agents documented in their notes has no ambiguity in them at all. What needs to happen now is to determine who is lying.

[old salt]

Saudis were the first and only investor in Jared’s fund in mid 2021 when they put in the $2B. The anchor tenant.

UAE subsequently put in $200M. Qatar subsequently put in $200M. Those are called “subsequent” closings salty. They happened later and only after the Saudis went first.

As the Saudi investment board stated, the risk and investment of Jared’s fund was going to be mostly on them. If you knew anything about pe, you would know how effed up that is.

If Jared’s fund was such a good deal, how come no typical pe funders wanted to play? Where are the university endowments and pension funds? How come only me governments want play?

You continue to understate the value of the PE firm & the other-than-Saudi investment.
I posted the Reuters link reporting they had > $3 billion in investors @ Dec 2021.

The Saudis are far from the only investors. You also ignore the timing. The Saudi investment was made when Trump's prospects & Kushner's future influence were at their nadir. Trump had lost the election, was under fire for losing the Senate, contesting the election, facing impeachment & other litigation. Kushner disagreed with what Trump was doing after the election & headed overseas. He stated he was done with future govt service.
It's not surprising that MSB differed with the Saudi investment board, how many of them or their cousins had he put under house arrest when he came to power as the new power broker in the House of Saud ?

[Kismet]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

They are not my theories counselor. They relate back directly to the communications made to the IRS investigators and FBI on October 22, 2022 that the IRS investigator was so stunned by he " memorialized" them with other agents. There should be an E-mail trail that proves him correct or not. The discrepancies make it even more important that David Weiss clarify what he said on October 22, 2022 that he is back tracking on now.

I believe that you are reading reports from those with some bias about the supposed claims of these IRS agents. WE don't know what they actually heard nor what their supposed contemporaneous notes suggest they heard specifically, but if Weiss did say something they interpreted that way, fairly (might well have misinterpreted), Weiss would have been telling them something he is lying now about to Congress...kinda unlikely, right?? Lying to Congress has some real repercussions...

More likely they misunderstood what they were told, read into what he said a meaning he didn't intend?
Or perhaps Weiss told them something that was intended to get them to just stop badgering him?

Feels more like the former, but hey, could have been the second.

Bottomline, the reality is he had full authority, as would be proper, and that's what he's saying now, under penalty of perjury.

He ain't saying anyone overruled him, which would have needed to have been Barr or Garland not an underling.

Take it for what you will but there were a number of agents and investigators at the October 22, 2022 that took notes that corroborate what Weiss said. There are rumblings of another group of whistleblowers willing to step forward. The only thing that has not changed is that one side is lying. The October 22, 2022 meeting has a number of agents and investigators that know what Weiss said to them. This issue is only going to grow bigger legs. Time will tell what the truth is. The quote these agents documented in their notes has no ambiguity in them at all. What needs to happen now is to determine who is lying.

Sorry but the case will most certainly close when the plea deal is approved by the judge and the plea officially entered in court.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a direct quote from David Weiss in regards to his investigation of Hunter Biden

" I'm not the deciding official"

This was after the AG assured Congress that Weiss had complete authority.

Please just STOP posting complete baseless bull shirt.

Weiss is the US Atty in Delaware. He decides if Hunter gets charged in DE. And he did that. Period. Full stop.

Weiss, sitting in DE, also says that he could charge in other places too. And even if there was a doubt about that (there is not) under typical procedures, the USA in DE would coordinate with the USAs in those other jurisdictions if he wanted to file charges there. #federalism #procedures. FYI, the rules are different with a special counsel (like Jack Smith) versus a distirct-based prosecutor like Weiss.

Weiss and Garland both say Weiss could file charges anywhere in the country.

Facts are this. If Weiss wanted to charge Hunter somewhwere beyond DE, he could have pursued that. Period. Full stop.

He could do that directly or by by coordinating with other federal districts. #typical; #SOP.

Has Weiss in any manner indicated he was interested in charging Hunter outside of DE? No. Is there any evidence that Weiss was shut down from pursuing any charges against Hunter. No.

So how about you STFU about your idiotic Deep State/Hunter conspiracy theories. And let's talk about something more realistic and fact based. When's the last time someone saw Bigfoot?

They are not my theories counselor. They relate back directly to the communications made to the IRS investigators and FBI on October 22, 2022 that the IRS investigator was so stunned by he " memorialized" them with other agents. There should be an E-mail trail that proves him correct or not. The discrepancies make it even more important that David Weiss clarify what he said on October 22, 2022 that he is back tracking on now.

I believe that you are reading reports from those with some bias about the supposed claims of these IRS agents. WE don't know what they actually heard nor what their supposed contemporaneous notes suggest they heard specifically, but if Weiss did say something they interpreted that way, fairly (might well have misinterpreted), Weiss would have been telling them something he is lying now about to Congress...kinda unlikely, right?? Lying to Congress has some real repercussions...

More likely they misunderstood what they were told, read into what he said a meaning he didn't intend?
Or perhaps Weiss told them something that was intended to get them to just stop badgering him?

Feels more like the former, but hey, could have been the second.

Bottomline, the reality is he had full authority, as would be proper, and that's what he's saying now, under penalty of perjury.

He ain't saying anyone overruled him, which would have needed to have been Barr or Garland not an underling.

Take it for what you will but there were a number of agents and investigators at the October 22, 2022 that took notes that corroborate what Weiss said. There are rumblings of another group of whistleblowers willing to step forward. The only thing that has not changed is that one side is lying. The October 22, 2022 meeting has a number of agents and investigators that know what Weiss said to them. This issue is only going to grow bigger legs. Time will tell what the truth is. The quote these agents documented in their notes has no ambiguity in them at all. What needs to happen now is to determine who is lying.

Sorry but the case will most certainly close when the plea deal is approved by the judge and the plea officially entered in court.

That is unless the judge puts the breaks on it until some of this hinky stuff is sorted out. Find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. That would be a prudent move at this point.

[ggait]

That is unless the judge puts the breaks on it until some of this hinky stuff is sorted out. Find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. That would be a prudent move at this point.

What a forking stubborn maroon.

Until today, Cradle didn't even know that judges have to approve plea deals. And now you are a freaking expert on this?

This is not going to happen dude.

I will repeat my offer to you. 5-1 odds; unlimited dollars. I'm going that the judge will approve the plea deal in July as planned. With zero "hinky stuff." With zero new special counsel. With no "fresh hell."

Blocking you now. But I'll be back in July to remind everyone how stupid your conspiracies were.

SMH

Bigfoot! Bigfoot! Bigfoot!