MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:59 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 12:37 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 amUnreal!... who said Weiss isn't involved, I certainly didn't. Go back and read again if you need to. Is this, you being reasonable a fan?
Ok, my man, this miscommunication is on you.
i asked you DIRECTLY if you believe that Weiss is "in on it". You laughed it off, instead of agreeing with it so that we can both move on, understanding each other's point.
Now here you are, yelling at me, pretending you didn't run away when you had the chance to understand each other's views...and be reasonable, as you are asking me to be. Notice I was overjoyed because I thought we were finally on the same page? And then instead of simply saying "agreed", and moving on? You laugh at me, implying I'm nutso.
Here it is:
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:48 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:45 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:37 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:34 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:21 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:58 pm
Garland is protecting Joe. Weiss takes his lead from Garland. Not much of a conspiracy, so again, sorry a fan.
That's great! You and OS want to put that stake in the ground finally? Awesome. You can't move it now.
This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.
I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.
We good now? On the same page?
Not really.
Ok. Then tell me how this conspiracy happens without Weiss. Reasonable question, tech.
Seems you edited my post... I'll try again:
Not really. How do you explain the mounting evidence against the Bidens (that includes the Big Guy of course)?
You 100% cool with all of that too?
Asked and answered above. Want me to cut and paste it? Okay.
This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.
I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.
What you are claiming can't happen without Weiss, Tech. And Weiss is hiding that Garland asked him to bag the case.
Ha ha a fan... OK, "you do you"!
Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.
Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?
tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am
And there you go with the FoxNews BS (again, by design to pi$$ people off?). Other news platforms/podcasts have been providing the same Biden corruption info well outside of FN. Not knowing that is just ignorance on your part. I listed a few of those platforms the other day.
The FoxNation quip is because both FoxNation others here want to pin whatever they are pinning on Garland and anyone they can find with a D by their name, INTENTIONALLY skipping over Weiss and Barr.
I'll say this for the 1,000th time: the whistleblowers told the House that
the problems started under Barr's watch, in 2020, and Weiss was the DoJ lead, appointed by Barr himself.
Posters here are ignoring this, and screaming "it's a Dem coverup!!!" And I will continue to make fun of this stupidity.....
I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff. Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.
+1 I love a Fan like a brother. This is one of those rare times I don't get where he is coming from. The only answers will come from testimony from Weiss, Barr and Garland preferably at the same time so they can set the record strait. That will never happen in an open session. That is the kind of stuff to be debated behind closed doors.
FTR Barr was considered a strait shooter until trump picked him for AG. The usual suspects on this forum then viciously berated him as a typical trump flunkie. Then they wonder why strait shooter Barr chose to let the case against HB be passed off to his predecessor. What would the usual suspects on this forum be whining and b****ing about if Barr had laid the hammer down on the HB case? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I disagree. Barr wasn't considered a "straight shooter" back in his first gig in office. And he certainly wasn't considered such when he was looking to be chosen this time around, "auditioning", and wrote a rather awful analysis of the "unitary" powers of the President...got him the job...and then he proceeded to really trash his reputation through a whole series of very partisan actions as AG. He hit the wall on how far he would go, to his credit, but IMO to his shame he waited for his book payment before starting to really go public with his objections to Trump's actions.
The point isn't whether Barr made a good or bad call, but rather that for this investigation to have uncovered damning evidence, he'd have known...and a decision to not prosecute, if there really was adequate such evidence, then he'd have been duty bound to encourage Weiss to bring that case. There's zero rationale, and entirely outside of prior demonstrated character, to have delayed it out of concern he might look partisan...if you have the evidence, it's not partisan...it's rule of law. And he certainly didn't avoid egregious partisan acts in that same time period.
I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.
a fan offered a rather flimsy, IMO, rationale why that might be possible, given that there's been no evidence that this is a guy who would risk his career to protect a Democratic politician, regardless of office...a fan suggests that maybe he's purposely making Joe 'look bad'...but why not then complain that he's been held up on his charging decision...come out and say it? Hey, maybe he will...but it's one of the most implausible explanations...
another might be that he and/or his family face death threats, or some other form of blackmail, (did he secretly take a bribe, molest a 14 yr old?) from the White House...yeah, that, too seems pretty implausible. Maybe in a novel...
So, this stuff is going to get mocked as partisan claptrap...unless there's a hard, credible evidence otherwise. And no one has brought such forward.