Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[a fan]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

This is a tactic similar to Donald and Rudy wanting Zelensky to announce, on TV, that the Bidens were being investigated. No interest in a credible investigation…..just wanted the idea of an investigation in the air so that it could be talked about “ad nauseam”…….wild speculation does enough damage.

Bingo. Gee, it sure is odd that you both understand my simple points with ease These two are gaslighting, and pretending I'm nutso...when in reality, my points have sunk in just fine.

i already told them why they aren't getting answers. It's because the House doesn't want to give them their answers. They want to let OS and Tech keep their TinFoilHats through the election season.

My favorite part of this entire conspiracy is the idiotic, moronic, drool-in-your-shoes claims that this mess that Barr and Weiss have handed us helps the Biden 2024 campaign.

No one is this freaking stupid, and certainly not tech and OS. They are full on gaslighting on this count, and know full well that with each passing day, Biden's election chances drop. Which, of course, is why the House has ZERO interest in clearing anything up. They want this to be like Benghazi...and will close the "investigation" in Nov 2024 if Biden loses.

But it will continue in 2025 if Biden wins. And every poster here knows it. Meanwhile? What's the plan for the Republican base.... working class, Tech and OS? Oh, that's right. The "plan" for the R party is more clickbait and feigned anger.

To quote Bill Barr: anger isn't a policy.

[ggait]

This is a tactic similar to Donald and Rudy wanting Zelensky to announce, on TV, that the Bidens were being investigated. No interest in a credible investigation…..just wanted the idea of an investigation in the air so that it could be talked about “ad nauseam”…….wild speculation does enough damage.

According to Rosen and Donaghue’s testimony, Trump told them to “just [have DOJ] say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

[youthathletics]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

[a fan]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

You're acting like this is a "gotcha". You've landed in the place that I told you about weeks ago: why do you think the House isn't calling Barr, Rettig, and Wray to the stand?

Keep right on gaslighting, though...whatever floats yer boat.

New question: if there are all these Red Flags on Joe Biden as Bill Barr claimed yesterday, why doesn't (R) Wray open a case? I wouldn't complain. Neither would any reasonable America. So....what's the excuse today?

The funny thing that you and the rest of the crew are missing is: every poster here is on your side. If there's dirt on Joe? Great. Charge him. The part we are mocking is: obviously there isn't dirt on Joe, and you guys don't care.

[youthathletics]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

You're acting like this is a "gotcha". You've landed in the place that I told you about weeks ago: why do you think the House isn't calling Barr, Rettig, and Wray to the stand?

Keep right on gaslighting, though...whatever floats yer boat.

New question: if there are all these Red Flags on Joe Biden as Bill Barr claimed yesterday, why doesn't (R) Wray open a case? I wouldn't complain. Neither would any reasonable America. So....what's the excuse today?

The funny thing that you and the rest of the crew are missing is: every poster here is on your side. If there's dirt on Joe? Great. Charge him. The part we are mocking is: obviously there isn't dirt on Joe, and you guys don't care.

You are missing one helluva big issue....afan. Historically, Republican officals/pols in office are big pu$$ie$, afraid of their own shadow and just glom on to narrative...then seldom act. Frankly, that answers you direct question.....oh, but I am sure there will another.

[Typical Lax Dad]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

You're acting like this is a "gotcha". You've landed in the place that I told you about weeks ago: why do you think the House isn't calling Barr, Rettig, and Wray to the stand?

Keep right on gaslighting, though...whatever floats yer boat.

New question: if there are all these Red Flags on Joe Biden as Bill Barr claimed yesterday, why doesn't (R) Wray open a case? I wouldn't complain. Neither would any reasonable America. So....what's the excuse today?

The funny thing that you and the rest of the crew are missing is: every poster here is on your side. If there's dirt on Joe? Great. Charge him. The part we are mocking is: obviously there isn't dirt on Joe, and you guys don't care.

Haven’t heard peep about Trump and his criminal enterprise from these fools…..one likes his policies the other likes that he’s “not a politician”…. Hypocrites.

[a fan]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

You're acting like this is a "gotcha". You've landed in the place that I told you about weeks ago: why do you think the House isn't calling Barr, Rettig, and Wray to the stand?

Keep right on gaslighting, though...whatever floats yer boat.

New question: if there are all these Red Flags on Joe Biden as Bill Barr claimed yesterday, why doesn't (R) Wray open a case? I wouldn't complain. Neither would any reasonable America. So....what's the excuse today?

The funny thing that you and the rest of the crew are missing is: every poster here is on your side. If there's dirt on Joe? Great. Charge him. The part we are mocking is: obviously there isn't dirt on Joe, and you guys don't care.

You are missing one helluva big issue....afan. Historically, Republican officals/pols in office are big pu$$ie$, afraid of their own shadow and just glom on to narrative...then seldom act. Frankly, that answers you direct question.....oh, but I am sure there will another.

So yet another excuse. Neat. So we're back to "no matter what, this is a conspiracy".

Bill Barr is soft? And that's why he didn't open a case on Joe Biden? That's your new theory? Cool-io!!

Congrats, you have now landed in with the Flat Earthers. I hear their conventions are fun. Bring me a souvenir, please!

[MDlaxfan76]

This is a tactic similar to Donald and Rudy wanting Zelensky to announce, on TV, that the Bidens were being investigated. No interest in a credible investigation…..just wanted the idea of an investigation in the air so that it could be talked about “ad nauseam”…….wild speculation does enough damage.

According to Rosen and Donaghue’s testimony, Trump told them to “just [have DOJ] say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

Ahh, but quoting youth: "Republican officals/pols in office are big pu$$ie$, afraid of their own shadow and just glom on to narrative...then seldom act."

I guess that's what happened!
Not integrity or fear of breaking the law...

Just "big pu$$ie$"

[MDlaxfan76]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

of course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.

Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?

[MDlaxfan76]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

of course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.

Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?

However, I've been quite clear that I think the best explanation is the whistle blowers were frustrated that the sorts of evidence they produced was not compelling to the prosecutors and read into their exchanges reasons for not getting the enthusiasm they wanted that were not accurate. Not lies, just wrong. Conflicts between investigators and prosecutors are common.

Likewise, I don't think Weiss lied to Congress in his two letters to them. Nor did Garland in his testimony.

I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.

But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO

I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.

However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...

[Typical Lax Dad]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

of course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.

Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?

However, I've been quite clear that I think the best explanation is the whistle blowers were frustrated that the sorts of evidence they produced was not compelling to the prosecutors and read into their exchanges reasons for not getting the enthusiasm they wanted that were not accurate. Not lies, just wrong. Conflicts between investigators and prosecutors are common.

Likewise, I don't think Weiss lied to Congress in his two letters to them. Nor did Garland in his testimony.

I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.

But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO

I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.

However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...

Sounds like they may have been biased against Biden. Old Salt must be up in arms about this.

[a fan]

I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.

The part that he is flat out lying about is his stoopid, moronic claim that "Republicans are prosecuted more aggressively than Dems".

Because if that's true? Who the F does Barr and FoxNation think is to blame for that, when it comes to this case?

Head of FBI: Wray (R)
Head of DoJ: Barr (R)
Head of IRS: Rettig (R)

This was a 100% Republican investigation for two full years. And they had probable cause to open a case on Joe Biden, and didn't?

Who's F'ing fault is that? That's right: TeamTinFoil wants to say "it was Hillarys' fault!!!!"

If you can't tell, I have zero tolerance for this epic gaslighting and feigned stupidity.

Yeah. Anything is possible. We know. But geez, that's not what you guys are claiming with the "follow the money", and "they are helping (snicker) Joe Biden".

But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO

We've been saying that for months now.

I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.

However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...

I think people are forgetting how long ago Joe was VP. The R's had four full years to investigate that until the cows came home. No excuses....four years. They have come up with nothing. I trust that outcome.

Nothing would make me happier......and I think I speak for most here......then to see Trump and Biden eliminated from the 2024 election because of provable corruption. Fresh faces, new ideas.

If the R's ran a functioning adult like Romney or Kasich, who actually want to govern? They'd CRUSH Biden in 2024.

We all know that the R's are engulfed with TeamTinFoil, so there's no way we'll get an adult R nominee any time soon.

[youthathletics]

Nothing would make me happier......and I think I speak for most here......then to see Trump and Biden eliminated from the 2024 election because of provable corruption. Fresh faces, new ideas.

This...yes, this, this is what both sides are continually doing to gain an edge come elections cycle. And this is why there will continually be this internecine political warfare....so much so, that your backseat driving against what the r's and d's did not do becomes otiose. Your frustrations with their behavior, turns outwardly against us that continue to play the game with them. We are all primarily arguing hypotheticals, some more stentorian than others.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nothing would make me happier......and I think I speak for most here......then to see Trump and Biden eliminated from the 2024 election because of provable corruption. Fresh faces, new ideas.

This...yes, this, this is what both sides are continually doing to gain an edge come elections cycle. And this is why there will continually be this internecine political warfare....so much so, that your backseat driving against what the r's and d's did not do becomes otiose. Your frustrations with their behavior, turns outwardly against us that continue to play the game with them. We are all primarily arguing hypotheticals, some more stentorian than others.

otiose and stentorian, that's some serious word wealth you are spouting, you elitist you...

Here's the thing that has me perplexed, or maybe just PO'd, though, about your "both sides" argument...Trump really IS a proven lying, cheating, con man...in all parts of his life and over decades...and yet, the one "side" that is a huge swath of America is in complete denial of this reality.

On the other hand, while sure, some were in denial about Hillary's slipperiness and her and Bill's personal profiteering, a heck of a lot of folks weren't in denial on 'her side'; big chunks of Dems and swing voters saw her imperfections pretty clearly...and we simply don't have remotely the same sort of actual basis to think so poorly of Biden as the other "side" wants us to think...not perfect, but wow, not remotely in the same ballpark

So, "both sides" just doesn't cut it...

[a fan]

Nothing would make me happier......and I think I speak for most here......then to see Trump and Biden eliminated from the 2024 election because of provable corruption. Fresh faces, new ideas.

This...yes, this, this is what both sides are continually doing to gain an edge come elections cycle. And this is why there will continually be this internecine political warfare....so much so, that your backseat driving against what the r's and d's did not do becomes otiose. Your frustrations with their behavior, turns outwardly against us that continue to play the game with them. We are all primarily arguing hypotheticals, some more stentorian than others.

It's why I say that if we were all having beers at a big table........folks might bring up Hunter for a moment, but then move on to far more important issues.

As you know, I'm frustrated at the TeamTinFoil turn that has gutted the Republican party. And I'm human, so I let that frustration out at the Forum sometimes. I HATE that 12 years after the sh*tshow that was Hillary v. Trump......in 2024, we have LOST ground as a country.

It's one HUGE reason I left the liberals of the 90's------they, too, were filled with nonsense conspiracies, and were far more interested in patting themselves on the back than they were interested in solving problems. Which is why I turned to centrism, and R's and D's who actually governed, finding the middle way. Gingrich and Bill are the very last examples of that.

Well that, and R's D's, and Covid at the Federal level....where they stepped up during a global emergency, and got us through, and gave the world the first vaccines. Wasn't perfect....but it was 1000% better than any of the suggestion they Monday Morning quarterbacks offered.

[a fan]

On the other hand, while sure, some were in denial about Hillary's slipperiness and her and Bill's personal profiteering, a heck of a lot of folks weren't in denial on 'her side'; big chunks of Dems and swing voters saw her imperfections pretty clearly...and we simply don't have remotely the same sort of actual basis to think so poorly of Biden as the other "side" wants us to think...not perfect, but wow, not remotely in the same ballpark

So, "both sides" just doesn't cut it...

That's true, but I think what he's saying here is that Biden is no prize, and 30 years ago, people would have demanded that Biden resign if they found out his son had a no show BS job in the very country that VP Biden was supposed to be cleaning up.

We have lowered the bar, and lowered the bar, and lowered the bar.

The real complaint you're making here is that those who defended Trump (yes, YA was one of them) have no standing to criticize unethical behavior.

That? I agree with. Sorry YA.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nothing would make me happier......and I think I speak for most here......then to see Trump and Biden eliminated from the 2024 election because of provable corruption. Fresh faces, new ideas.

This...yes, this, this is what both sides are continually doing to gain an edge come elections cycle. And this is why there will continually be this internecine political warfare....so much so, that your backseat driving against what the r's and d's did not do becomes otiose. Your frustrations with their behavior, turns outwardly against us that continue to play the game with them. We are all primarily arguing hypotheticals, some more stentorian than others.

It's why I say that if we were all having beers at a big table........folks might bring up Hunter for a moment, but then move on to far more important issues.

As you know, I'm frustrated at the TeamTinFoil turn that has gutted the Republican party. And I'm human, so I let that frustration out at the Forum sometimes. I HATE that 12 years after the sh*tshow that was Hillary v. Trump......in 2024, we have LOST ground as a country.

It's one HUGE reason I left the liberals of the 90's------they, too, were filled with nonsense conspiracies, and were far more interested in patting themselves on the back than they were interested in solving problems. Which is why I turned to centrism, and R's and D's who actually governed, finding the middle way. Gingrich and Bill are the very last examples of that.

Well that, and R's D's, and Covid at the Federal level....where they stepped up during a global emergency, and got us through, and gave the world the first vaccines. Wasn't perfect....but it was 1000% better than any of the suggestion they Monday Morning quarterbacks offered.

To be fair, there was rallying in the wake of 9-11, though temporary, and there was a heck of a lot bi-partisan working together in the face of the financial meltdown in 2008. Similar to Covid coming together (putting aside the stupid stuff spouted from the WH at times).

But I agree with you about what has happened over the last 10+ years.

[MDlaxfan76]

On the other hand, while sure, some were in denial about Hillary's slipperiness and her and Bill's personal profiteering, a heck of a lot of folks weren't in denial on 'her side'; big chunks of Dems and swing voters saw her imperfections pretty clearly...and we simply don't have remotely the same sort of actual basis to think so poorly of Biden as the other "side" wants us to think...not perfect, but wow, not remotely in the same ballpark

So, "both sides" just doesn't cut it...

That's true, but I think what he's saying here is that Biden is no prize, and 30 years ago, people would have demanded that Biden resign if they found out his son had a no show BS job in the very country that VP Biden was supposed to be cleaning up.

We have lowered the bar, and lowered the bar, and lowered the bar.

The real complaint you're making here is that those who defended Trump (yes, YA was one of them) have no standing to criticize unethical behavior.

That? I agree with. Sorry YA.

Agreed on both points.

It should be a big deal that Biden didn't somehow control his son with regard to exposing the US government to suspicion of being open to bribery. Or at least more clearly disassociate himself from son's activities. While I don't think Biden likely actually participated in any change in policy due to Hunter's involvement, nor did Joe take any such bribes, the reality is that it was just not ok to let the impression be given.

It may well be that Joe's reluctance to run for POTUS was in part because he wanted to leave all of that behind, knowing it would be a problem at the least for Hunter. And maybe that was only overcome by it being so small in comparison to the exigency of defeating Trump, whose issues were 1000X of Biden's reality.

And he may still feel like it's better that he make sure Trump's defeated, regardless of having to endure the further scrutiny.

I can't get inside his head on that.

Personally, I'd have rather Joe had declared victory last fall or winter in getting the country back onto sound footing and opened it up to new blood. I would have not endorsed Kamala, but rather said that while she has his full confidence, a robust campaign would benefit whoever emerged as the standard bearer going forward.

But yeah, the hypocrisy is off the hook.

[cradleandshoot]

tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.

Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.

The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.

Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.

Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?

The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.

They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.

You don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.

of course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.

Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?

However, I've been quite clear that I think the best explanation is the whistle blowers were frustrated that the sorts of evidence they produced was not compelling to the prosecutors and read into their exchanges reasons for not getting the enthusiasm they wanted that were not accurate. Not lies, just wrong. Conflicts between investigators and prosecutors are common.

Likewise, I don't think Weiss lied to Congress in his two letters to them. Nor did Garland in his testimony.

I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.

But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO

I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.

However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...

When did Barr graduate to your level of a "slippery one"? Richard Nixon was always one of the " slippery ones" Yet as a dumb teenage skull full of mush you supported him. Where did you gain this infinite wisdom from your foolish support for Richard Nixon and your newfound contempt for Bill Barr? IMO a guy like you that supported Richard Nixon back in the day has a credibility problem you can't possibly overcome. I'm anxiously awaiting your bullchit excuse, I've already read it before but an encore performance is worth reading one more time. In the land that I grew up in being a Nixon supporter was even more despicable that being a WNC. FTR I'm not being mean to you. I'm just pointing out that any person who was a Nixon accolade back in the day has his own personal demons to deal with.

[a fan]

To be fair, there was rallying in the wake of 9-11, though temporary, and there was a heck of a lot bi-partisan working together in the face of the financial meltdown in 2008. Similar to Covid coming together (putting aside the stupid stuff spouted from the WH at times).

But I agree with you about what has happened over the last 10+ years.

Oh, you're 1000% right....I forgot about 9/11 and 08. You're right, my bad.

I STILL can't watch Bush throw out that first pitch at a Yankees game without getting the chills. I was 100% behind that man......until.....