Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[Kismet]

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?

Would you please cite a source and some detail about this EVIDENCE implicating Uncle Joe? thx

Ha ha... aren't you clever kismet!

Of course if you only read the NYT or WaPo or only tune into CNN and MSNBC you wouldn't know, would you. So far the left-leaning legacy media only presents criticism of the R's investigation and ignores the mounting evidence. If I were to post articles by right-leaning platforms you would dismiss those off hand in a nanosecond and in classic snarky fashion I'm sure.

I have listened to the WB's testimony and interviews with people like Bobulinski and Archer. If you haven't done so, I suggest you do. You might also try listening to independent news podcasts like The Hill Rising or Breaking Points. Both have covered (objectively IMO) and continue to cover the Biden's business dealings as new info becomes available. My guess is, until more evidence comes to light implicating the Big Guy, and/or until your favorite lefty outlets start to cover that, you'll continue to ignore. That's fine of course and certainly expected.

Heads up: Eric Schwerin to testify in early Sept.
https://www.anews.com.tr/americas/2023/ ... eign-deals

"EVIDENCE implicating Uncle Joe". As posted last week, I correctly referred to the mounting evidence as "circumstantial". I made the mistake yesterday of not including that important differentiation. To my knowledge there isn't direct evidence as of yet, but if the investigations are allowed to continue and Weiss/Garland don't figure out a way to stifle that effort, direct evidence and the truth will come out.

mdlax's mocking post to follow

thx for the clarifications - gratified to see that your source was not Joe Rogan.

I'm sure you will remind me when the media sources you claim I use to the exclusion of any you use actually report any tangible or otherwise admissible evidence in the case.

I'd also quibble with your description of "cicrumstantial" preferring perhaps "hearsay" maybe at this point in time.

[MDlaxfan76]

mdlax's mocking post to follow

Yes, that deserves a good mocking.

No "direct" evidence, just a bunch of partisan "circumstantial", uncorroborated, heck uncorroboratable, "evidence"...

But hey, sounds like something if we say "mounting"...better yet, lets wave some flags behind the stage as we say it...

And yeah, everyone on here is "ignoring" it (yet here we are) because "no one" is talking about it on lefty, fake news media like CNN and The Washington Post or New York Times...hoo boy, those guys don't take journalism seriously, they don't want the truth to come out, they can't handle the truth...Enemies of the State...

But you're right, until there's direct, corroborated evidence of a crime, the partisan claptrap outrage machine that you suck on so vociferously is going to be discounted...as usual.

And here's the difference: when there's actual such evidence, you won't find any of these supposed "liberals" on here claiming that Hunter and/or Joe shouldn't pay the price for any crime they committed.

Can't say that about how the MAGA folks on here react about Trump's crimes or those of all his cronies and acolytes.

[cradleandshoot]

What I'm asking you is to be reasonable: what are the odds that a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is going to hide felonies Hunter committed to protect Joe, risking his career to do so?

Per the WB's, he was being constrained by the DoJ. By then, that CoC was Monaco-->Garland.

So...he's been lying to Congress....

...or he was lying to the WB's. They, & others, took notes at the meeting. Do you not believe the WB's ?

Weiss still needs to come before the House & clear this up, for him to have any credibility as a SC.

I've already said that I think the WB's honestly believe they heard him, but that they misunderstood. Not a conscious mistake, but rather in their frustration about being told they didn't have enough to go faster, they heard excuses that weren't exactly as intended...that hard to hear news that they didn't have enough. He may well have implied that higher ups didn't think there was enough...meaning he flat didn't have enough...but that's not the same as saying he agreed that major felonies should be indicted and he wasn't being allowed to pull the trigger. He could well have said that he too was frustrated that the investigation hadn't delivered more...we're on the same side here...but not enough...

I doubt very much Weiss was lying to them and very much even more that he's been lying to Congress.

But hey, he's the Trump appointed guy, so who the heck knows...but it feels to me far more likely that what I'm gleaning is the closest to what's really been happening.

Or the fact that might break your little heart is they actually heard what they heard. I bet that possibility never crossed your mind. You've achieved success yet again MD. You are solidly ensconced at the #1 spot among the usual suspects. I understand why you don't play poker your one dimensional perspective would not serve you very well.

It's the most generous, logical explanation. I tend to look for such rather than assuming that someone is lying through their teeth, someone who I don't know or have any other basis to assume dishonest.

Of course, someone could well be lying, but as that's not the sole rational explanation, it's not my default given no known prior history of such dishonesty.

For your hypothesis to be correct both agents misunderstood and were confused at the exact same time. They supposedly being the thorough government agents they are documented all of these concerns that they had at the time. They testified that Weiss informed them and other investigators he didn't have the authority he always had. It might be possible Weiss is the confused party here. IMO nothing changes, someone is lying or if we must be more gentle in our terminology. Someone is guilty of some serious misremembering of the facts. What I'm wondering now is if Weiss can testify in front of Congress under oath or would it be unacceptable for him to comment on an ongoing investigation? He might still be looking at other hunter misdeeds? Who knows what is happening in the background??

[tech37]

mdlax's mocking post to follow

Yes, that deserves a good mocking.

No "direct" evidence, just a bunch of partisan "circumstantial", uncorroborated, heck uncorroboratable, "evidence"...
As mentioned... follow the money mdlax... we'll see.

But hey, sounds like something if we say "mounting"...better yet, lets wave some flags behind the stage as we say it...
I'll wave the Ukraine flag just for you. How's your armchair proxy war with Russia going?

And yeah, everyone on here is "ignoring" it (yet here we are) because "no one" is talking about it on lefty, fake news media like CNN and The Washington Post or New York Times...hoo boy, those guys don't take journalism seriously, they don't want the truth to come out, they can't handle the truth...Enemies of the State...
Absolutely "ignoring" the, yes, "circumstantial" evidence. "Don't believe your lying eyes" mdlax

But you're right, until there's direct, corroborated evidence of a crime, the partisan claptrap outrage machine that you suck on so vociferously is going to be discounted...as usual.
"partisan claptrap outrage machine"... that goes for both sides or you denying that too? Seems to me you're quite a vociferous sucker yourself.

And here's the difference: when there's actual such evidence, you won't find any of these supposed "liberals" on here claiming that Hunter and/or Joe shouldn't pay the price for any crime they committed.
That's exactly what most of the non-liberals on here have said. If Trump has broken laws, arrest him and no one to my knowledge wants him to repeat as POTUS. Can you actually deny you haven't read those posts?

Personally I want both Trump and Biden GONE and gone for good.

[MDlaxfan76]

mdlax's mocking post to follow

Yes, that deserves a good mocking.

No "direct" evidence, just a bunch of partisan "circumstantial", uncorroborated, heck uncorroboratable, "evidence"...
As mentioned... follow the money mdlax... we'll see.

Absolutely, maybe we'll "see" in another 5 years of investigation. It simply doesn't make sense that Barr and Weiss have been in on a cover-up, or that there's some blindingly obvious major bribery been going on...and yet it didn't show up in Joe's bank account...but if it does, ok with me if Joe goes to jail.

But hey, sounds like something if we say "mounting"...better yet, lets wave some flags behind the stage as we say it...
I'll wave the Ukraine flag just for you. How's your armchair proxy war with Russia going?

Ohh my assessment of Putin's Russia remains the same. And darn heck of a lot more accurate assessment than all the apologists on here for them.

And yeah, everyone on here is "ignoring" it (yet here we are) because "no one" is talking about it on lefty, fake news media like CNN and The Washington Post or New York Times...hoo boy, those guys don't take journalism seriously, they don't want the truth to come out, they can't handle the truth...Enemies of the State...
Absolutely "ignoring" the, yes, "circumstantial" evidence. "Don't believe your lying eyes" mdlax

Nope, circumstantial and hearsay have very little credibility when they are so clearly being ginned up by people who have proven to be bald-faced liars. And yeah, I really do care which sources to consider by virtue of whether they admit and correct errors, or not. Your sources don't.

But you're right, until there's direct, corroborated evidence of a crime, the partisan claptrap outrage machine that you suck on so vociferously is going to be discounted...as usual.
"partisan claptrap outrage machine"... that goes for both sides or you denying that too? Seems to me you're quite a vociferous sucker yourself.

Ohh, I said so earlier this AM...rage and fear are profitable. It happens on either side of the spectrum...the problem is that you buy into the notion that actual journalism isn't fair, rather its "fake news" that is liberally slanted. It ain't. And unfortunately you actually give credibility to garbage purveyors who keep getting caught baldfacedly lying, as their business model.


And here's the difference: when there's actual such evidence, you won't find any of these supposed "liberals" on here claiming that Hunter and/or Joe shouldn't pay the price for any crime they committed.
That's exactly what most of the non-liberals on here have said. If Trump has broken laws, arrest him and no one to my knowledge wants him to repeat as POTUS. Can you actually deny you haven't read those posts?

Personally I want both Trump and Biden GONE and gone for good.

Sure, I've read some of those views, yet I've also read the incessant defenses of Trump and his cronies as well. Same people as say they don't want him as the next President have denied reality for years...they just want some new MAGA standard bearer.

And the notion of equivalence between these guys is just ridiculous to me.

But frankly I'm not all that concerned with the participants on here...we all at least are exposing ourselves to alternate views...it's those who are not that concern me.

[tech37]

What I'm asking you is to be reasonable: what are the odds that a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is going to hide felonies Hunter committed to protect Joe, risking his career to do so?

Per the WB's, he was being constrained by the DoJ. By then, that CoC was Monaco-->Garland.

So...he's been lying to Congress....

...or he was lying to the WB's. They, & others, took notes at the meeting. Do you not believe the WB's ?

Weiss still needs to come before the House & clear this up, for him to have any credibility as a SC.

I've already said that I think the WB's honestly believe they heard him, but that they misunderstood. Not a conscious mistake, but rather in their frustration about being told they didn't have enough to go faster, they heard excuses that weren't exactly as intended...that hard to hear news that they didn't have enough. He may well have implied that higher ups didn't think there was enough...meaning he flat didn't have enough...but that's not the same as saying he agreed that major felonies should be indicted and he wasn't being allowed to pull the trigger. He could well have said that he too was frustrated that the investigation hadn't delivered more...we're on the same side here...but not enough...

I doubt very much Weiss was lying to them and very much even more that he's been lying to Congress.

But hey, he's the Trump appointed guy, so who the heck knows...but it feels to me far more likely that what I'm gleaning is the closest to what's really been happening.

Or the fact that might break your little heart is they actually heard what they heard. I bet that possibility never crossed your mind. You've achieved success yet again MD. You are solidly ensconced at the #1 spot among the usual suspects. I understand why you don't play poker your one dimensional perspective would not serve you very well.

It's the most generous, logical explanation. I tend to look for such rather than assuming that someone is lying through their teeth, someone who I don't know or have any other basis to assume dishonest.

Of course, someone could well be lying, but as that's not the sole rational explanation, it's not my default given no known prior history of such dishonesty.

For your hypothesis to be correct both agents misunderstood and were confused at the exact same time. They supposedly being the thorough government agents they are documented all of these concerns that they had at the time. They testified that Weiss informed them and other investigators he didn't have the authority he always had. It might be possible Weiss is the confused party here. IMO nothing changes, someone is lying or if we must be more gentle in our terminology. Someone is guilty of some serious misremembering of the facts. What I'm wondering now is if Weiss can testify in front of Congress under oath or would it be unacceptable for him to comment on an ongoing investigation? He might still be looking at other hunter misdeeds? Who knows what is happening in the background??

If that's not conspiratorial thinking by mdlax, I don't know what is.

[tech37]

Ohh, I said so earlier this AM...rage and fear are profitable. It happens on either side of the spectrum...the problem is that you buy into the notion that actual journalism isn't fair, rather its "fake news" that is liberally slanted. It ain't. And unfortunately you actually give credibility to garbage purveyors who keep getting caught baldfacedly lying, as their business model.

"It ain't" ? I can clearly see and admit it happens on both sides... so who's the "partisan" here?

[MDlaxfan76]

What I'm asking you is to be reasonable: what are the odds that a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is going to hide felonies Hunter committed to protect Joe, risking his career to do so?

Per the WB's, he was being constrained by the DoJ. By then, that CoC was Monaco-->Garland.

So...he's been lying to Congress....

...or he was lying to the WB's. They, & others, took notes at the meeting. Do you not believe the WB's ?

Weiss still needs to come before the House & clear this up, for him to have any credibility as a SC.

I've already said that I think the WB's honestly believe they heard him, but that they misunderstood. Not a conscious mistake, but rather in their frustration about being told they didn't have enough to go faster, they heard excuses that weren't exactly as intended...that hard to hear news that they didn't have enough. He may well have implied that higher ups didn't think there was enough...meaning he flat didn't have enough...but that's not the same as saying he agreed that major felonies should be indicted and he wasn't being allowed to pull the trigger. He could well have said that he too was frustrated that the investigation hadn't delivered more...we're on the same side here...but not enough...

I doubt very much Weiss was lying to them and very much even more that he's been lying to Congress.

But hey, he's the Trump appointed guy, so who the heck knows...but it feels to me far more likely that what I'm gleaning is the closest to what's really been happening.

Or the fact that might break your little heart is they actually heard what they heard. I bet that possibility never crossed your mind. You've achieved success yet again MD. You are solidly ensconced at the #1 spot among the usual suspects. I understand why you don't play poker your one dimensional perspective would not serve you very well.

It's the most generous, logical explanation. I tend to look for such rather than assuming that someone is lying through their teeth, someone who I don't know or have any other basis to assume dishonest.

Of course, someone could well be lying, but as that's not the sole rational explanation, it's not my default given no known prior history of such dishonesty.

For your hypothesis to be correct both agents misunderstood and were confused at the exact same time. They supposedly being the thorough government agents they are documented all of these concerns that they had at the time. They testified that Weiss informed them and other investigators he didn't have the authority he always had. It might be possible Weiss is the confused party here. IMO nothing changes, someone is lying or if we must be more gentle in our terminology. Someone is guilty of some serious misremembering of the facts. What I'm wondering now is if Weiss can testify in front of Congress under oath or would it be unacceptable for him to comment on an ongoing investigation? He might still be looking at other hunter misdeeds? Who knows what is happening in the background??

No, they undoubtedly discussed what they heard, what they were trying to achieve before and after this whole period. I'm leaning to trusting them that this is how they understood Weiss. But I also think that it's entirely natural that they were frustrated at the answers they were getting and pushed for Weiss to commit to more...and I think it's entirely within possibility that he said that he needed more to take it to higher ups, that he wouldn't have a case to make that would satisfy others, that they needed more probable cause...that tension exists between prosecutors and investigators frequently.

And I have no idea who is to blame for the misunderstanding that seems to have occurred. Maybe Weiss said things poorly, maybe the IRS agents wanted him to say something different and they were 'reading between the lines' too much...have no idea.

But I doubt that the agents are knowingly lying to Congress or that Weiss' statements in writing to Congress are lies...both are serious crimes and I doubt that's what is happening.

But yeah, as Special Prosecutor, Weiss MUST report to Garland in writing the reasoning behind his various decisions, once he's finished with the case.

He should not do so while still investigating and we shouldn't want him to break that protocol.

But if he feels it's in the public interest to go public sooner, play whistleblower himself, he can resign as SC and go testify. I'd expect Garland to appoint another SC at that point, so as to insulate them from additional claims of interference by the AG or White House.

But sounds to me like they'll get to a new plea agreement for what he thinks he can reasonably get and Hunter will need to decide whether to accept it or go to court. Gotta remember that going to court could well result in leniency on sentencing given his restitution and shortness of time with the gun and never using it in any bad way. Might be an ok answer for what he admits he did.

But don't expect right wing partisans to let it end.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ohh, I said so earlier this AM...rage and fear are profitable. It happens on either side of the spectrum...the problem is that you buy into the notion that actual journalism isn't fair, rather its "fake news" that is liberally slanted. It ain't. And unfortunately you actually give credibility to garbage purveyors who keep getting caught baldfacedly lying, as their business model.

"It ain't" ? I can clearly see and admit it happens on both sides... so who's the "partisan" here?

Mistakes happen, yes.
Admitting to them does not happen in some supposed "media". But in any actual journalism, they admit error and correct it. They don't purposely lie, and if someone is caught doing so it typically ends their career...as it should.

That does not happen with "media" with no such compunctions.

It's simply a different business model. One is all about clicks and outrage, the other is about generating trust...both are designed to create viewership, and money, but one is purposely willing to be dishonest, the other works at not.

And this needn't have any partisan slant. The WSJ regular pages and the NYT regular pages are both excellent examples of journalism. They have different opinion and editorial, yet both rely on credibility for viewership.

MSNBC and Fox are both slanted. One, Fox, has been proven to cover-up lies, to purposely tell them for profit. The other has not had such a black mark, or many black marks, but is so consumed by the opinion aspects as to be quite incomplete coverage of the actual news. OAN and NewsMax have no analog as far as I have found on cable, but maybe they're out there in the ether.

[MDlaxfan76]

What I'm asking you is to be reasonable: what are the odds that a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is going to hide felonies Hunter committed to protect Joe, risking his career to do so?

Per the WB's, he was being constrained by the DoJ. By then, that CoC was Monaco-->Garland.

So...he's been lying to Congress....

...or he was lying to the WB's. They, & others, took notes at the meeting. Do you not believe the WB's ?

Weiss still needs to come before the House & clear this up, for him to have any credibility as a SC.

I've already said that I think the WB's honestly believe they heard him, but that they misunderstood. Not a conscious mistake, but rather in their frustration about being told they didn't have enough to go faster, they heard excuses that weren't exactly as intended...that hard to hear news that they didn't have enough. He may well have implied that higher ups didn't think there was enough...meaning he flat didn't have enough...but that's not the same as saying he agreed that major felonies should be indicted and he wasn't being allowed to pull the trigger. He could well have said that he too was frustrated that the investigation hadn't delivered more...we're on the same side here...but not enough...

I doubt very much Weiss was lying to them and very much even more that he's been lying to Congress.

But hey, he's the Trump appointed guy, so who the heck knows...but it feels to me far more likely that what I'm gleaning is the closest to what's really been happening.

Or the fact that might break your little heart is they actually heard what they heard. I bet that possibility never crossed your mind. You've achieved success yet again MD. You are solidly ensconced at the #1 spot among the usual suspects. I understand why you don't play poker your one dimensional perspective would not serve you very well.

It's the most generous, logical explanation. I tend to look for such rather than assuming that someone is lying through their teeth, someone who I don't know or have any other basis to assume dishonest.

Of course, someone could well be lying, but as that's not the sole rational explanation, it's not my default given no known prior history of such dishonesty.

For your hypothesis to be correct both agents misunderstood and were confused at the exact same time. They supposedly being the thorough government agents they are documented all of these concerns that they had at the time. They testified that Weiss informed them and other investigators he didn't have the authority he always had. It might be possible Weiss is the confused party here. IMO nothing changes, someone is lying or if we must be more gentle in our terminology. Someone is guilty of some serious misremembering of the facts. What I'm wondering now is if Weiss can testify in front of Congress under oath or would it be unacceptable for him to comment on an ongoing investigation? He might still be looking at other hunter misdeeds? Who knows what is happening in the background??

If that's not conspiratorial thinking by mdlax, I don't know what is.

what, a conspiracy to tell the truth?
I just don't see any reason to think the IRS agents or Weiss is knowingly lying.
Doesn't make sense to me...and it's certainly not the sole explanation.

So, until we find out otherwise, for sure, I'll hold judgment one way or the other.

[a fan]

As mentioned... follow the money mdlax... we'll see.

You are personally getting this information from the House for the first time, Tech.

You're jumping to the conclusion that Bill Barr, Wray, Retting (IRS) and their teams didn't investigate any of these things, and did nothing for the last five years.

Where are you getting that idea? They ALREADY followed the money. That's what they spent the last five years doing.

[old salt]

Salty — Weiss has said repeatedly that he will testify before congress.

But, duh obvi, he cannot testify during a pending case and an ongoing investigation. How forking troll stupid are you dude?

Now that he is an sc, Weiss is required to deliver a report. Just like Durham and mueller. And he no doubt will testify after his report is delivered. Just like Durham and mueller.

So please just stfu, ok. You are embarrassing and obviously drunk on the Maga Qanon kool aid.

Painfully, a lot of America is. Crazy times.
Interestingly, they prefer crazy to reality.

They want to believe flat out lies and self-affirming, mind-numbingly stupid conspiracies, and so they do. And no amount of facts and logic dissuade them.

I can forgive stupid, but it's those who should know better, and perhaps really do know better deep down, who are most disturbing. They're in it for the jollies or other rewards of manipulating others.

Of course, this isn't reserved for those on the right, there are certainly those on the left who manipulate others for their gain as well. Rage and fear is profitable.

Sure. Defame the messenger & keep your head in the sand, ignoring emerging evidence, just like you did with the Steele dossier & the larger HRC/DNC/Fusion GPS Russian disinformation op. This is not simply about poor addict Hunter's mistakes. Hunter's emerging texts & emails are not fake Russian disinformation from a compromised laptop or the cloud. It's about funneling money, for years, to Pop Joe & the rest of the family without paying taxes on it or claiming it under the FARA. Show the House the money trail & the tax filings, if there's nothing to hide.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Salty — Weiss has said repeatedly that he will testify before congress.

But, duh obvi, he cannot testify during a pending case and an ongoing investigation. How forking troll stupid are you dude?

Now that he is an sc, Weiss is required to deliver a report. Just like Durham and mueller. And he no doubt will testify after his report is delivered. Just like Durham and mueller.

So please just stfu, ok. You are embarrassing and obviously drunk on the Maga Qanon kool aid.

Painfully, a lot of America is. Crazy times.
Interestingly, they prefer crazy to reality.

They want to believe flat out lies and self-affirming, mind-numbingly stupid conspiracies, and so they do. And no amount of facts and logic dissuade them.

I can forgive stupid, but it's those who should know better, and perhaps really do know better deep down, who are most disturbing. They're in it for the jollies or other rewards of manipulating others.

Of course, this isn't reserved for those on the right, there are certainly those on the left who manipulate others for their gain as well. Rage and fear is profitable.

Sure. Defame the messenger & keep your head in the sand, ignoring emerging evidence, just like you did with the Steele dossier & the larger HRC/DNC/Fusion GPS Russian disinformation op. This is not simply about poor addict Hunter's mistakes. Hunter's emerging texts & emails are not fake Russian disinformation from a compromised laptop or the cloud. It's about funneling money, for years, to Pop Joe & the rest of the family without paying taxes on it or claiming it under the FARA. Show the House the money trail & the tax filings, if there's nothing to hide.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/18/11297567 ... o-aquitted

You still haven’t had much to say about your leader.

[youthathletics]

This place is getting sickening with the gaslighting and name calling....and oddly by the the very same people who have been so upset at our last POTUS who used much the same tactics.

[cradleandshoot]

What I'm asking you is to be reasonable: what are the odds that a lifelong Republican and Trump appointee is going to hide felonies Hunter committed to protect Joe, risking his career to do so?

Per the WB's, he was being constrained by the DoJ. By then, that CoC was Monaco-->Garland.

So...he's been lying to Congress....

...or he was lying to the WB's. They, & others, took notes at the meeting. Do you not believe the WB's ?

Weiss still needs to come before the House & clear this up, for him to have any credibility as a SC.

I've already said that I think the WB's honestly believe they heard him, but that they misunderstood. Not a conscious mistake, but rather in their frustration about being told they didn't have enough to go faster, they heard excuses that weren't exactly as intended...that hard to hear news that they didn't have enough. He may well have implied that higher ups didn't think there was enough...meaning he flat didn't have enough...but that's not the same as saying he agreed that major felonies should be indicted and he wasn't being allowed to pull the trigger. He could well have said that he too was frustrated that the investigation hadn't delivered more...we're on the same side here...but not enough...

I doubt very much Weiss was lying to them and very much even more that he's been lying to Congress.

But hey, he's the Trump appointed guy, so who the heck knows...but it feels to me far more likely that what I'm gleaning is the closest to what's really been happening.

Or the fact that might break your little heart is they actually heard what they heard. I bet that possibility never crossed your mind. You've achieved success yet again MD. You are solidly ensconced at the #1 spot among the usual suspects. I understand why you don't play poker your one dimensional perspective would not serve you very well.

It's the most generous, logical explanation. I tend to look for such rather than assuming that someone is lying through their teeth, someone who I don't know or have any other basis to assume dishonest.

Of course, someone could well be lying, but as that's not the sole rational explanation, it's not my default given no known prior history of such dishonesty.

For your hypothesis to be correct both agents misunderstood and were confused at the exact same time. They supposedly being the thorough government agents they are documented all of these concerns that they had at the time. They testified that Weiss informed them and other investigators he didn't have the authority he always had. It might be possible Weiss is the confused party here. IMO nothing changes, someone is lying or if we must be more gentle in our terminology. Someone is guilty of some serious misremembering of the facts. What I'm wondering now is if Weiss can testify in front of Congress under oath or would it be unacceptable for him to comment on an ongoing investigation? He might still be looking at other hunter misdeeds? Who knows what is happening in the background??

No, they undoubtedly discussed what they heard, what they were trying to achieve before and after this whole period. I'm leaning to trusting them that this is how they understood Weiss. But I also think that it's entirely natural that they were frustrated at the answers they were getting and pushed for Weiss to commit to more...and I think it's entirely within possibility that he said that he needed more to take it to higher ups, that he wouldn't have a case to make that would satisfy others, that they needed more probable cause...that tension exists between prosecutors and investigators frequently.

And I have no idea who is to blame for the misunderstanding that seems to have occurred. Maybe Weiss said things poorly, maybe the IRS agents wanted him to say something different and they were 'reading between the lines' too much...have no idea.

But I doubt that the agents are knowingly lying to Congress or that Weiss' statements in writing to Congress are lies...both are serious crimes and I doubt that's what is happening.

But yeah, as Special Prosecutor, Weiss MUST report to Garland in writing the reasoning behind his various decisions, once he's finished with the case.

He should not do so while still investigating and we shouldn't want him to break that protocol.

But if he feels it's in the public interest to go public sooner, play whistleblower himself, he can resign as SC and go testify. I'd expect Garland to appoint another SC at that point, so as to insulate them from additional claims of interference by the AG or White House.

But sounds to me like they'll get to a new plea agreement for what he thinks he can reasonably get and Hunter will need to decide whether to accept it or go to court. Gotta remember that going to court could well result in leniency on sentencing given his restitution and shortness of time with the gun and never using it in any bad way. Might be an ok answer for what he admits he did.

But don't expect right wing partisans to let it end.

I understand where your trying to go with this now. It was just a misunderstanding. Those stupid agents must be MAGA Republicans. I will hand it to you MD you are the creme del a creme of the usual suspects. Bravo old chap bravo. I would nominate you as featured speaker at the Republican National Convention. Your party REALLY needs to understand your perspective. How has it taken so long for your party to recognize your unabashed brilliance? I just don't get it?

[NattyBohChamps04]

This is not simply about poor addict Hunter's mistakes. Hunter's emerging texts & emails are not fake Russian disinformation from a compromised laptop or the cloud. It's about funneling money, for years, to Pop Joe & the rest of the family without paying taxes on it or claiming it under the FARA. Show the House the money trail & the tax filings, if there's nothing to hide.

Paying an AT&T bill? And none of that could be hyperbole about his salary, right?

IRS conducted audits on Bidens, House passes requirement for mandatory IRS audit of president

The IRS has conducted audits on the federal income taxes of President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden for the last two years, one of which required the first couple to pay slightly more than originally owed.

Do people not think the Hunter investigation has been looking at where any money went? The years long investigations?

[Typical Lax Dad]

This place is getting sickening with the gaslighting and name calling....and oddly by the the very same people who have been so upset at our last POTUS who used much the same tactics.

You pointing out a hypocrite?

[cradleandshoot]

This is not simply about poor addict Hunter's mistakes. Hunter's emerging texts & emails are not fake Russian disinformation from a compromised laptop or the cloud. It's about funneling money, for years, to Pop Joe & the rest of the family without paying taxes on it or claiming it under the FARA. Show the House the money trail & the tax filings, if there's nothing to hide.

Paying an AT&T bill? And none of that could be hyperbole about his salary, right?

IRS conducted audits on Bidens, House passes requirement for mandatory IRS audit of president

The IRS has conducted audits on the federal income taxes of President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden for the last two years, one of which required the first couple to pay slightly more than originally owed.

Do people not think the Hunter investigation has been looking at where any money went? The years long investigations?

Maybe the IRS needs to expand their investigation to the entire Biden crime syndicate. Explain to me why Burisma was paying all that money to a guy whose leader described Hunter as dumber than his dog?What the flip was Hunter Biden bringing to the table? Wait, I forgot, his old man was VPOTUS. That is worth at least 83 thousand a month and you don't even have to show up to work. We know where Hunters 83 thousand a month went...right up his nose and injected in his veins.

[a fan]

Hunter's emerging texts & emails are not fake Russian disinformation from a compromised laptop or the cloud. It's about funneling money, for years, to Pop Joe & the rest of the family without paying taxes on it or claiming it under the FARA. Show the House the money trail & the tax filings, if there's nothing to hide.

I can't tell if you and tech are this....out of it....or what. You can't possibly be this far gone.

Guys: how the F do you think the Whistleblowers got Hunter's texts? Who do you think pulled a warrant to get them? And what do you think Barr, Wray, and Rettig did after they got them?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Maybe the IRS needs to expand their investigation to the entire Biden crime syndicate. Explain to me why Burisma was paying all that money to a guy whose leader described Hunter as dumber than his dog?What the flip was Hunter Biden bringing to the table? Wait, I forgot, his old man was VPOTUS. That is worth at least 83 thousand a month and you don't even have to show up to work. We know where Hunters 83 thousand a month went...right up his nose and injected in his veins.

And?

I love that you keep calling Joe a criminal and it's now a "syndicate" with zero evidence of anyone other than Hunter doing stupid stuff. I guess it's par for the course with the years of the Clinton "syndicate" too.

Burisma can pay whoever whatever it wants, especially if they think it's gonna benefit them in some way. That's how capitalism and cronyism works. But if you've got any evidence Joe did anything illegal, hand it over or get off the pot. They've been looking into it for 5 years now... Bupkis as far as Joe is concerned.

If Joe did anything illegal, throw the book at him. Until then, your "syndicate" labels are worthless. But it's easy and sad to see how people fall for all the "syndicate" conspiracy talk.