cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:52 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 6:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 5:46 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 4:21 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:35 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:12 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:30 pm
Seriously a Fan. The IRS agents testified under oath. They also were smart enough to document their investigation. What they testified to is being denied by the DoJ. Henceforth my deduction is someone is lying here. IRS agents have gone all in and showed their hand. DoJ is still scratching their ass because they don't know if they should call. I always love a good poker analogy.
House won't call everyone, Cradle.
I just told you that the whistleblower's IRS (where they're used to operating alone)......was MERGED with the DoJTax division by Bill Barr.
And that this has never happened in their career before. Isn't it possible that these agents don't have the full story?
And again....these agents were in DC, and the DoJ was in Delaware. Not exactly conducive to smooth communication between Departments.
And again, this is all directed by Bill Barr.
So I'm back to the same question for you and the Forum: why do you think the House isn't calling Rettig, Barr, Wray, or any of the people these IRS agents worked for?
They don't want you to hear the whole story, obviously. It's Partisan hearing, just like Jan 6th, cradle.
Don't you want to hear from Barr? I do. So......where is he?
I'm on record for wanting to hear from everyone involved in this. The DoJ could make that happen anytime they choose. Why should it take a subpoena to make that happen?
DOJ?
Barr doesn't work for the DOJ. He doesn't take orders from them.
But apparently he has met with the Special Prosecutor with regard to the Trump case, he's written a book, and he's all over TV.
But he hasn't been invited or subpoenaed by the House to come in and talk about anything relevant to Hunter...note, he did testify to the Jan 6 committee.
The question is what the House Republicans are waiting for in asking Barr to come in re Hunter...assuming they think he actually would be helpful to their show...a fan is suggesting that it's obvious, to him at least, that Barr would NOT to be helpful to their show, perhaps even expose it as nearly all nonsense...
But the DoJ works for the American people, at least in theory. I've said repeatedly to bring Barr forward and let him testify. Despite your attempts to obfuscate the truth someone is lying here. The IRS agents testified to what they encountered during the course of their investigation. They clearly and meticulously documented conversations they had certain DoJ members during the course of their investigations. If you can possibly stay focused long enough MD it's time for these individual DoJ folks to testify under oath. You ain't interested in that happening? You should be if your interested in knowing who is lying.
jeebus H, cradle.
The HOUSE GOP has the subpoena power. They need only invite or subpoena Barr IF they want to hear from him under oath...
That's all a fan has been saying...BUT THEY DON"T WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM...
The DOJ does not have such power over Barr, there is no litigation at hand requiring his testimony, and they are not supposed to be in the business of political grandstanding...SO...they can't subpoena him...
So, they have nothing to act on here.
Now, if the Dept officials currently in office were refusing to come in and testify under oath to matters in which there is no longer a live case, totally different matter...I'd be right with you.
But that's simply NOT the situation here.
Please pay more attention to reality.
And call your congress critters on the Committee to Investigate Hunter Biden if you want to hear Barr under oath.
That's who
could make it happen. And, heck, maybe they'll change their minds and think it's a good idea...
I live in the state of New York. My Congress critter is a Democrat.
Beejeebus MD, the committee may not WANT to but they know they HAVE too. Bill Barr said on Face the Nation yesterday he will testify. Nobody effing knows what Barr will say until he says it. My point remains unchanged MD a point you keep tapdancing around...Either these 2 IRS agents are jerking everybody's chain or there are folks over at the DoJ are not being honest. I would like to know WHO is doing the lying? IMO this committee needs to bring in every swinging Richard that was a part of the HB investigation and let them testify under oath. Someone is lying here MD and you don't appear to be all that fired up to find out who is lying. IMO Weiss is the person who has the ability to clarify the discrepancies going on here. There are a bunch of them.
Yes, Weiss can clear up the "discrepancies". And I would fully expect that he will do so when he's finished with this process of investigating and prosecution.
We thought that might be quite shortly, but the judge threw a monkey wrench into it by pushing them on the question of whether the plea agreement was truly locked down 100% and whether she had the authority to decide whether Hunter, in the future, had violated his probation.
From what I can glean, the second aspect is likely to throw that back into the executive branch and Hunter's going to need to swallow that it could be a vindictive new Admin which doesn't care at all about truth, just revenge. It would worry the heck out of me if I were him, but I'm not sure he has a choice. We'll see on that front, shortly.
the other part is whether the plea includes, or not, potential prosecution of crimes not yet fully investigated, or not even known...or whether this plea will cover all past misdeeds.
If it doesn't, and there's an actual ongoing investigation, then I would expect Weiss to refuse to talk to Congress about that ongoing investigation until over...that will be frustrating to you, no doubt, but that's what should happen if there's actually a live investigation.
Note that any point, the Biden Admin, through Garland, could have told Weiss it's over, or fired him, but they've left these decisions up to him. They could fire him now...but they haven't...my surmise is that they're choosing to stay hands off.
One thing I disagree with you about is your insistence that someone must be "lying". The IRS agents say they think they heard something they interpreted through their lens...Weiss says that interpretation is wrong...doesn't mean either is lying.
The more plausible explanation of the "discrepancies" (much better descriptor than 'lying') is that they misinterpreted Weiss, looking for an explanation as to why he wasn't willing to be more aggressive before 2020 and after 2020 that made sense to them other than they didn't have sufficient evidence, in Weiss' opinion, to justify more aggressive action.
Barr was talking about testifying in the case against Trump. He's previously testified to the Jan 6 Committee under oath, and he's met with the prosecution in this case as well. He's been pretty explicit in his book, and in the testimony we've seen he's very blunt. And he's currently being blunt on various news shows now...he'll undoubtedly be a strong witness for the prosecution in that case.
As to the Hunter matter, he comes across to me as more evasive...the newest thing I heard about why he didn't appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Hunter case before he left was that he didn't see any conflict of interest existing while he was there and he didn't think it fair to take that action, left it to the next AG of the Biden Admin (the acting AG pre Jan 21 didn't do it either). He said he thought that Garland should have appointed an SC...but obviously Garland felt there was sufficient separation and lack of conflict as he left in place the Trump appointed US Attorney handling it. Again, Weiss was the Trump appointee...and Garland had every right to get a new one. But Barr said he was looking forward to hearing Weiss at some point on his decision process...but post end of it.
But truly, if you have any desire to complain to someone about this, look at who the GOP Congress critters are on the relevant committees (you needn't be a constituent) and call and complain...the calls are logged and counted on each issue, regardless of whether a constituent or not...though they do note that difference. Start with Comer. Tell him you want to hear Brr under oath in front of their committee...side wager, they won't call him...