LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:19 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:04 am The difference this time -- after the Biden DoJ came into office, they ran out the clock.

Sigh. I thought we were done, and you'd figured it out. Guess not.

Who the F is "they".

It's been Weiss calling the shots this entire time. For the 100th time: the ONLY way your conspiracy works, is if Weiss is "in on it", and tanked the case.

Please. Tell me you understand this, so we can move on.

They = the subject of the sentence. The Biden DoJ.
Weiss was not a Special Counsel. He was just another US Atty.
He answered to Garland via Monaco. Stop playing naive.
The whistleblowers told us about it.
You can't blame Barr, then give Garland a pass.
The SOL's expired (& more may) on Garland's watch.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:20 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:09 am Hey -- I've been telling you that Manfort got what he deserved.

Great. Now follow my "binary" logic:

How the F does that happen without an FBI investigation and a DoJ prosecution?

It doesn't. And with that? Your Deep State goes bye-bye. Because any reasonable person would look under a campaign's hood after hiring freaking Manafort.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 11:54 pm
obtw -- Manafort worked for the Ukrainian President, not Putin. Manafort didn't give Putin a Reset Button or promise to work closer with him after the election when he had more freedom.

Sure he did. Putin's just a nice neighborly guy who had nothing to do with Ukrainian elections.


What was wrong with Obama telling Putin that? (nothing. nothing at all). Obama should be your hero, OS. He's the ONE GUY who did what YOU are demanding we do with Ukraine, Crimea, and Putin: nothing, militarily.

Obama was playing chess, OS. And you ripped him for it.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:24 am -------------I was right...you're changing your story to try and blame a Dem for this mess. Sorry, your logic doesn't work.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:34 am Crossfire Hurricane was started because of Papadop's wine bar gossip with the Aussies & the FBI Honeypot Azra Turk, remember, at least that's what Mueller told us.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:40 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:24 am -------------I was right...you're changing your story to try and blame a Dem for this mess. Sorry, your logic doesn't work.

Fact -- the SOL ran out under a Dem Admin DoJ.

Fact -- A Dem Admin DoJ offered the plea deal which blew up upon initial contact with a Judge.

Fact -- Weiss worked for Garland & Monaco. He was not an INDEPENDENT Counsel.

I'm done now.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:48 am It's why I kept asking you: why did the FBI open a case on Hunter? Not the IRS...the FBI.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 1:06 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:48 am It's why I kept asking you: why did the FBI open a case on Hunter? Not the IRS...the FBI.

...the IRS referred the case to the FBI for a criminal investigation. The IRS WB's told us all about it.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 1:06 am I'm trying to end this.

Here's what the WB's tell us about Barr's tenure :

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-conten ... timony.pdf
Investigators were ready to proceed with overt actions in the summer of 2020, but DOJ officials slow walked requests for action
seemingly to get into the 60- to 90-day pre-election window when DOJ policy doesn’t allow
overt action on politically sensitive cases.

No mention of Barr. Just DoJ underlings. No indication the pre-90 day delays came from Barr.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am Weiss did what he was told.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am He needs to be asked, under oath, if he ever expressed concern to Monaco & Garland that the SOL for 2014-15 was going to expire. Depending on his answer, Monaco & Garland need to be asked the same question. There's no excuse for the SOL expiring on their watch.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am I say again. Barr is irrelevant. When he left office evidence was still coming in & there was still plenty of time within the SOL.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am Weiss did what he was told.

And like I said: if true? He's in on it, OS. And keeping it quiet. I keep saying over and over: it's IMPOSSIBLE for your conspiracy to happen without Weiss being "in on it", or being incompetent.
Like I said, Weiss does what he's told to do. He works for the AG & Deputy.

What would you put the odds of Weiss "doing what he was told", and bagging the case via direct order from Garland? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? Knowingly fixing a case, and not doing his sworn job?
Oh you're so dramatic. It's not fixing a case. It's just finding reasons to slow it down.

And this means that Garland is "in on it", too. Two men, risking their careers to protect Hunter from ponying up a few extra hundred K?
They're not risking anything. They'll have plausible rationalizations.

That's your story? No, That's your story.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am He needs to be asked, under oath, if he ever expressed concern to Monaco & Garland that the SOL for 2014-15 was going to expire. Depending on his answer, Monaco & Garland need to be asked the same question. There's no excuse for the SOL expiring on their watch.

You're REALLY not curious why the House hasn't asked these very simple questions?
They're getting to it. They just finished with the WhistleBlowers which raised the questions which now need to be asked. The plea deal just blew up. This is one of the reasons to appoint a SC. They can now say they can't comment on an ongoing SC investigation.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am I say again. Barr is irrelevant. When he left office evidence was still coming in & there was still plenty of time within the SOL.

You have no idea if he's relevant or not. YOU are the one making wild claims with no evidence.
I've heard 3 interviews with Barr on tv. He said there was plenty of time to finish the investigation after the election.

in order for Barr to be irrelevant? They need to find a big, fat nothing in Cradles' "follow the money" to Ukraine. Because Barr had that report, OS.
The FD-1023 wasn't verified by the FBI until Aug 2020, then it was sent to the DE US Atty office. Not time to complete the investigation & get it before a Grand Jury before Barr departed.

So either nothing was in it, which doesn't help your case......or Barr saw massive felonies, and did nothing about them.
With your wisdom of hindsight, you attribute mystic abilities to Barr to see into the future & know about things that haven't happened yet.
In last week's tv interview Barr says he doesn't know, but he'd like to find out.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-n ... 023-08-06/ *

You call it "binary"....I call it "thinking through wild claims, and think like an adult who was trained how to think".
Wild claims ? Why did the SOL expire & the plea deal blow up ? We'll see.

* MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden.

On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said: "I think it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department."

This is the Hunter Biden investigation.

"And, to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel."

Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, because the -- the --

MAJOR GARRETT: No, which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, when I was the attorney -- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interests.

I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict, it would be Garland's, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary.

I felt, if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably or the administration would have just canceled the investigation. And I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place.

But, once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done, and was being done fairly. And I did --

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has -- has been conducted?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I did agree with the -- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there's not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously.

And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he's done.

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Yes. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden? And, if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: OK, well, remember, one thing I stress is, those are two different questions, right?

And things can be shameful without being illegal. And I -- yes, I thought - - I think it's grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I -- I think it's legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that's one of the things I'm concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You're concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I don't know. I would like to hear about it.

I mean, some of the whistle-blowers raised concerns, in my mind. There's reasons -- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy. But, after the election, I don't see reasons for deferring investigative steps.

And, apparently, someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics, you know, after the election? That it was the president-elect's son? That's not a reason not to investigate.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 3:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am Weiss did what he was told.

And like I said: if true? He's in on it, OS. And keeping it quiet. I keep saying over and over: it's IMPOSSIBLE for your conspiracy to happen without Weiss being "in on it", or being incompetent.
Like I said, Weiss does what he's told to do. He works for the AG & Deputy.
Utter nonsense, invented from whole cloth. If this is the game you're playing----do it correctly. They all work for the President. Which means with your silly game, they did what Trump told them to do, and then what Joe told them to do. Even though you have zero evidence of this,let's play your TinFoil game correctly, at the very least
What would you put the odds of Weiss "doing what he was told", and bagging the case via direct order from Garland? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? Knowingly fixing a case, and not doing his sworn job?
Oh you're so dramatic. It's not fixing a case. It's just finding reasons to slow it down.
Why? To what end? I told you this before: in what world does it help Hunter to investigate for 5 years instead of 2? In what world is it better for Joe Biden for this news to come out in 2023, during the campaign season, instead of 2021, when no one cares?
And this means that Garland is "in on it", too. Two men, risking their careers to protect Hunter from ponying up a few extra hundred K?
They're not risking anything. They'll have plausible rationalizations.

That's your story? No, That's your story.
You bob and weave with what your story is, because you can't make the logic hold for any of your stories. It makes no sense to slow the investigation....because that doesn't help Hunter. It DOES make sense to slow the investigation to allow Weiss to dig up anything he can possibly find on Hunter. To take all the time in the world to find more felonies. THAT makes sense. How do you not understand this?

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am He needs to be asked, under oath, if he ever expressed concern to Monaco & Garland that the SOL for 2014-15 was going to expire. Depending on his answer, Monaco & Garland need to be asked the same question. There's no excuse for the SOL expiring on their watch.

You're REALLY not curious why the House hasn't asked these very simple questions?
They're getting to it. They just finished with the WhistleBlowers which raised the questions which now need to be asked. The plea deal just blew up. This is one of the reasons to appoint a SC. They can now say they can't comment on an ongoing SC investigation.They can ask Rettig and Barr all the questions they want. They're out of government service.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am I say again. Barr is irrelevant. When he left office evidence was still coming in & there was still plenty of time within the SOL.

You have no idea if he's relevant or not. YOU are the one making wild claims with no evidence.
I've heard 3 interviews with Barr on tv. He said there was plenty of time to finish the investigation after the election.

in order for Barr to be irrelevant? They need to find a big, fat nothing in Cradles' "follow the money" to Ukraine. Because Barr had that report, OS.
The FD-1023 wasn't verified by the FBI until Aug 2020, then it was sent to the DE US Atty office. Not time to complete the investigation & get it before a Grand Jury before Barr departed.

So either nothing was in it, which doesn't help your case......or Barr saw massive felonies, and did nothing about them.
With your wisdom of hindsight, you attribute mystic abilities to Barr to see into the future & know about things that haven't happened yet.
In last week's tv interview Barr says he doesn't know, but he'd like to find out.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-n ... 023-08-06/ *

You call it "binary"....I call it "thinking through wild claims, and think like an adult who was trained how to think".
Wild claims ? Why did the SOL expire & the plea deal blow up ? We'll see.

* MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden.

On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said: "I think it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department."

This is the Hunter Biden investigation.

"And, to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel."

Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, because the -- the --

MAJOR GARRETT: No, which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, when I was the attorney -- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interests.

I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict, it would be Garland's, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary.

I felt, if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably or the administration would have just canceled the investigation. And I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place.

But, once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done, and was being done fairly. And I did --

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has -- has been conducted?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I did agree with the -- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there's not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously.

And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he's done.

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Yes. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden? And, if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: OK, well, remember, one thing I stress is, those are two different questions, right?

And things can be shameful without being illegal. And I -- yes, I thought - - I think it's grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I -- I think it's legitimate. There you go. That tells you that Barr found nothing. He didn't find the massive smoking gun corruption that led to Joe in Ukraine. THAT is what was in that Aug 2020 report, OS. And there was nothing in it, or Barr would be answering this question ENTIRELY differently. He knows this is a nothingburger Tax case, without the big stuff you and your fellow Republicans are so sure is there. You wouldn't whine for a few hundred pages if all you thought they did was "slow the case down"....when you obviously now know that slowing the case down HURTS Joe Biden.It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that's one of the things I'm concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You're concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I don't know. I would like to hear about it.

I mean, some of the whistle-blowers raised concerns, in my mind. There's reasons -- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy. But, after the election, I don't see reasons for deferring investigative steps.

And, apparently, someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics, you know, after the election? That it was the president-elect's son? That's not a reason not to investigate.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:51 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 3:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am Weiss did what he was told.

And like I said: if true? He's in on it, OS. And keeping it quiet. I keep saying over and over: it's IMPOSSIBLE for your conspiracy to happen without Weiss being "in on it", or being incompetent.
Like I said, Weiss does what he's told to do. He works for the AG & Deputy.
Utter nonsense, invented from whole cloth. If this is the game you're playing----do it correctly. They all work for the President. Which means with your silly game, they did what Trump told them to do, and then what Joe told them to do. Even though you have zero evidence of this,let's play your TinFoil game correctly, at the very least
What would you put the odds of Weiss "doing what he was told", and bagging the case via direct order from Garland? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? Knowingly fixing a case, and not doing his sworn job?
Oh you're so dramatic. It's not fixing a case. It's just finding reasons to slow it down.
Why? To what end? I told you this before: in what world does it help Hunter to investigate for 5 years instead of 2? In what world is it better for Joe Biden for this news to come out in 2023, during the campaign season, instead of 2021, when no one cares?
And this means that Garland is "in on it", too. Two men, risking their careers to protect Hunter from ponying up a few extra hundred K?
They're not risking anything. They'll have plausible rationalizations.

That's your story? No, That's your story.
You bob and weave with what your story is, because you can't make the logic hold for any of your stories. It makes no sense to slow the investigation....because that doesn't help Hunter. It DOES make sense to slow the investigation to allow Weiss to dig up anything he can possibly find on Hunter. To take all the time in the world to find more felonies. THAT makes sense. How do you not understand this?

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am He needs to be asked, under oath, if he ever expressed concern to Monaco & Garland that the SOL for 2014-15 was going to expire. Depending on his answer, Monaco & Garland need to be asked the same question. There's no excuse for the SOL expiring on their watch.

You're REALLY not curious why the House hasn't asked these very simple questions?
They're getting to it. They just finished with the WhistleBlowers which raised the questions which now need to be asked. The plea deal just blew up. This is one of the reasons to appoint a SC. They can now say they can't comment on an ongoing SC investigation.They can ask Rettig and Barr all the questions they want. They're out of government service.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am I say again. Barr is irrelevant. When he left office evidence was still coming in & there was still plenty of time within the SOL.

You have no idea if he's relevant or not. YOU are the one making wild claims with no evidence.
I've heard 3 interviews with Barr on tv. He said there was plenty of time to finish the investigation after the election.

in order for Barr to be irrelevant? They need to find a big, fat nothing in Cradles' "follow the money" to Ukraine. Because Barr had that report, OS.
The FD-1023 wasn't verified by the FBI until Aug 2020, then it was sent to the DE US Atty office. Not time to complete the investigation & get it before a Grand Jury before Barr departed.

So either nothing was in it, which doesn't help your case......or Barr saw massive felonies, and did nothing about them.
With your wisdom of hindsight, you attribute mystic abilities to Barr to see into the future & know about things that haven't happened yet.
In last week's tv interview Barr says he doesn't know, but he'd like to find out.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-n ... 023-08-06/ *

You call it "binary"....I call it "thinking through wild claims, and think like an adult who was trained how to think".
Wild claims ? Why did the SOL expire & the plea deal blow up ? We'll see.

* MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden.

On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said: "I think it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department."

This is the Hunter Biden investigation.

"And, to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel."

Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, because the -- the --

MAJOR GARRETT: No, which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, when I was the attorney -- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interests.

I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict, it would be Garland's, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary.

I felt, if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably or the administration would have just canceled the investigation. And I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place.

But, once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done, and was being done fairly. And I did --

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has -- has been conducted?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I did agree with the -- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there's not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously.

And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he's done.

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Yes. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden? And, if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: OK, well, remember, one thing I stress is, those are two different questions, right?

And things can be shameful without being illegal. And I -- yes, I thought - - I think it's grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I -- I think it's legitimate. There you go. That tells you that Barr found nothing. He didn't find the massive smoking gun corruption that led to Joe in Ukraine. THAT is what was in that Aug 2020 report, OS. And there was nothing in it, or Barr would be answering this question ENTIRELY differently. He knows this is a nothingburger Tax case, without the big stuff you and your fellow Republicans are so sure is there. You wouldn't whine for a few hundred pages if all you thought they did was "slow the case down"....when you obviously now know that slowing the case down HURTS Joe Biden.It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that's one of the things I'm concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You're concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I don't know. I would like to hear about it.

I mean, some of the whistle-blowers raised concerns, in my mind. There's reasons -- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy. But, after the election, I don't see reasons for deferring investigative steps.

And, apparently, someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics, you know, after the election? That it was the president-elect's son? That's not a reason not to investigate.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:37 pm
https://i.imgur.com/dtMHWjx.png



Be careful as to what you ask for in life!

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 1:08 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:37 pm
https://i.imgur.com/dtMHWjx.png



Be careful as to what you ask for in life!

This is the perfect illustration of what I meant by TeamTinFoil screaming CONSPIRACY no matter what you do.

Take too long? Oh, you're dragging it out.

Go too quick? Oh, you're rushing it, and ignoring evidence.

No matter what, it's a conspiracy. And Americans are too dumb, or too far down the partisan rabbit hole to understand, let alone notice that this is what they are doing....

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:51 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 3:46 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am Weiss did what he was told.

And like I said: if true? He's in on it, OS. And keeping it quiet. I keep saying over and over: it's IMPOSSIBLE for your conspiracy to happen without Weiss being "in on it", or being incompetent.
Like I said, Weiss does what he's told to do. He works for the AG & Deputy.
Utter nonsense, invented from whole cloth. If this is the game you're playing----do it correctly. They all work for the President. Which means with your silly game, they did what Trump told them to do, and then what Joe told them to do. Even though you have zero evidence of this,let's play your TinFoil game correctly, at the very least I keep telling you -- I'm not playing your silly game. It's obvious you've never been a member of a large, multi-layered bureaucracy if you think the guy at the top can micro-manage every detail, especially when you have policy, guidelines, & potential leakers & whistle blowers watching your every move.
What would you put the odds of Weiss "doing what he was told", and bagging the case via direct order from Garland? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? Knowingly fixing a case, and not doing his sworn job?
Oh you're so dramatic. It's not fixing a case. It's just finding reasons to slow it down.
Why? To what end? I told you this before: in what world does it help Hunter to investigate for 5 years instead of 2? In what world is it better for Joe Biden for this news to come out in 2023, during the campaign season, instead of 2021, when no one cares? To let the SOL run & prevent an investigation of 2 of the highest foreign earning years, 2014-15, where some of the sleaziest stuff is buried, which is exactly what happened.
And this means that Garland is "in on it", too. Two men, risking their careers to protect Hunter from ponying up a few extra hundred K?
They're not risking anything. They'll have plausible rationalizations.

That's your story? No, That's your story.
You bob and weave with what your story is, because you can't make the logic hold for any of your stories. It makes no sense to slow the investigation....because that doesn't help Hunter. It DOES make sense to slow the investigation to allow Weiss to dig up anything he can possibly find on Hunter. To take all the time in the world to find more felonies. THAT makes sense. How do you not understand this?
How do you not understand the SOL. If it has run, there's no justification to investigate further & Hunter skates for those years.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am He needs to be asked, under oath, if he ever expressed concern to Monaco & Garland that the SOL for 2014-15 was going to expire. Depending on his answer, Monaco & Garland need to be asked the same question. There's no excuse for the SOL expiring on their watch.

You're REALLY not curious why the House hasn't asked these very simple questions?
They're getting to it. They just finished with the WhistleBlowers which raised the questions which now need to be asked. The plea deal just blew up. This is one of the reasons to appoint a SC. They can now say they can't comment on an ongoing SC investigation.They can ask Rettig and Barr all the questions they want. They're out of government service.
Barr said he can't answer (wink, wink) when asked if he's talked to investigators since he left office & said he's happy to testify if asked.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:06 am I say again. Barr is irrelevant. When he left office evidence was still coming in & there was still plenty of time within the SOL.

You have no idea if he's relevant or not. YOU are the one making wild claims with no evidence.
I've heard 3 interviews with Barr on tv. He said there was plenty of time to finish the investigation after the election.

in order for Barr to be irrelevant? They need to find a big, fat nothing in Cradles' "follow the money" to Ukraine. Because Barr had that report, OS.
The FD-1023 wasn't verified by the FBI until Aug 2020, then it was sent to the DE US Atty office. Not time to complete the investigation & get it before a Grand Jury before Barr departed.

So either nothing was in it, which doesn't help your case......or Barr saw massive felonies, and did nothing about them.
With your wisdom of hindsight, you attribute mystic abilities to Barr to see into the future & know about things that haven't happened yet.
In last week's tv interview Barr says he doesn't know, but he'd like to find out.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-n ... 023-08-06/ *

You call it "binary"....I call it "thinking through wild claims, and think like an adult who was trained how to think".
Wild claims ? Why did the SOL expire & the plea deal blow up ? We'll see.

* MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden.

On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said: "I think it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department."

This is the Hunter Biden investigation.

"And, to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel."

Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, because the -- the --

MAJOR GARRETT: No, which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, when I was the attorney -- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interests.

I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict, it would be Garland's, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary.

I felt, if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably or the administration would have just canceled the investigation. And I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place.

But, once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done, and was being done fairly. And I did --

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has -- has been conducted?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I did agree with the -- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there's not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously.

And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he's done.

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Yes. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden? And, if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: OK, well, remember, one thing I stress is, those are two different questions, right?

And things can be shameful without being illegal. And I -- yes, - I think it's grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I -- I think it's legitimate. There you go. That tells you that Barr found nothing. They were still investigating. He didn't find the massive smoking gun corruption that led to Joe in Ukraine. THAT is what was in that Aug 2020 report, OS. And there was nothing in it, or Barr would be answering this question ENTIRELY differently. He knows this is a nothingburger Tax case, without the big stuff you and your fellow Republicans are so sure is there. You wouldn't whine for a few hundred pages if all you thought they did was "slow the case down"....when you obviously now know that slowing the case down HURTS Joe Biden. Keep reading. They hadn't finished investigating yet. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that's one of the things I'm concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You're concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I don't know. I would like to hear about it.

I mean, some of the whistle-blowers raised concerns, in my mind. There's reasons -- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy. But, after the election, I don't see reasons for deferring investigative steps.

And, apparently, someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics, you know, after the election? That it was the president-elect's son? That's not a reason not to investigate.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 5:26 pm I keep telling you -- I'm not playing your silly game. It's obvious you've never been a member of a large, multi-layered bureaucracy if you think the guy at the top can micro-manage every detail, especially when you have policy, guidelines, & potential leakers & whistle blowers watching your every move.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 1:08 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:37 pm
https://i.imgur.com/dtMHWjx.png



Be careful as to what you ask for in life!

This is the perfect illustration of what I meant by TeamTinFoil screaming CONSPIRACY no matter what you do.

Take too long? Oh, you're dragging it out.

Go too quick? Oh, you're rushing it, and ignoring evidence.

No matter what, it's a conspiracy. And Americans are too dumb, or too far down the partisan rabbit hole to understand, let alone notice that this is what they are doing....

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 5:47 pm As Barr points out, it became a conflict of interest when the Admins changed & Garland became AG. That's when Weiss should have been made a SC. Then he could have indicted in CA & DC without the concurrence of the US Atty's there & he would not have to answer to Monaco & Garland.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 5:26 pm I keep telling you -- I'm not playing your silly game. It's obvious you've never been a member of a large, multi-layered bureaucracy if you think the guy at the top can micro-manage every detail, especially when you have policy, guidelines, & potential leakers & whistle blowers watching your every move.