LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:49 am Background from a, IMO, reliable source, published one month before the WBs testified, before Archer testified, and before bank records show evidence of $20M was paid to the Bidens.

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/13/hunter-biden-fbi/

"Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr, meanwhile, told Fox News that the investigation into the specific allegations contained in the FD-1023 was never closed. Rather, Barr said, the evidence was assessed not to be disinformation and forwarded on to the Delaware prosecutor probing Hunter Biden, an investigation that remains ongoing — frustratingly so for Barr. “I think it’s time to fish or cut bait and find out what actually happened in that investigation,” he said."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/09/ ... k-records/

"The tally of foreign money to the Biden family has hit at least $20 million, based on the third round of bank records the House Oversight and Accountability Committee released Wednesday—pointing to millions from oligarchs from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine."

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:30 am Sorry a fan but I don't see how anything I've posted is contrary to info you've posted above.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:30 am As for OS mocking you... only after you've pushed him to exasperation (perhaps by design).

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:41 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:30 am Sorry a fan but I don't see how anything I've posted is contrary to info you've posted above.

That's because it isn't.

This entire thread is about FoxNation, you, and OS claiming that Garland is to blame for a conspiracy to protect Hunter and Joe.

All that I am saying is that this is 100% impossible without Weiss going along, and that Barr would have to have uncovered this plot, and is now saying nothing about it....and the odds that this happened are close to zero.

That's what the discussion is about. And for reasons I cannot explain, you and OS refuse to admit that at the very least, it's IMPOSSIBLE for Garland to sandbag the case without Weiss being "in on the conspiracy".

I don't understand why you're both so freaking stubborn you can't admit that the guy in charge of prosecution is, you know, on the hook for his own prosecution.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 amUnreal!... who said Weiss isn't involved, I certainly didn't. Go back and read again if you need to. Is this, you being reasonable a fan?

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:45 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:34 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:21 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:58 pm Garland is protecting Joe. Weiss takes his lead from Garland. Not much of a conspiracy, so again, sorry a fan.

That's great! You and OS want to put that stake in the ground finally? Awesome. You can't move it now.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

We good now? On the same page?

Not really.

Ok. Then tell me how this conspiracy happens without Weiss. Reasonable question, tech.

Seems you edited my post... I'll try again:

Not really. How do you explain the mounting evidence against the Bidens (that includes the Big Guy of course)?

You 100% cool with all of that too?

Asked and answered above. Want me to cut and paste it? Okay.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

What you are claiming can't happen without Weiss, Tech. And Weiss is hiding that Garland asked him to bag the case.

Ha ha a fan... OK, "you do you"!

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am And there you go with the FoxNews BS (again, by design to pi$$ people off?). Other news platforms/podcasts have been providing the same Biden corruption info well outside of FN. Not knowing that is just ignorance on your part. I listed a few of those platforms the other day.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 12:37 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 amUnreal!... who said Weiss isn't involved, I certainly didn't. Go back and read again if you need to. Is this, you being reasonable a fan?

Ok, my man, this miscommunication is on you.

i asked you DIRECTLY if you believe that Weiss is "in on it". You laughed it off, instead of agreeing with it so that we can both move on, understanding each other's point.

Now here you are, yelling at me, pretending you didn't run away when you had the chance to understand each other's views...and be reasonable, as you are asking me to be. Notice I was overjoyed because I thought we were finally on the same page? And then instead of simply saying "agreed", and moving on? You laugh at me, implying I'm nutso.

Here it is:

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:45 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:34 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:21 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:58 pm Garland is protecting Joe. Weiss takes his lead from Garland. Not much of a conspiracy, so again, sorry a fan.

That's great! You and OS want to put that stake in the ground finally? Awesome. You can't move it now.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

We good now? On the same page?

Not really.

Ok. Then tell me how this conspiracy happens without Weiss. Reasonable question, tech.

Seems you edited my post... I'll try again:

Not really. How do you explain the mounting evidence against the Bidens (that includes the Big Guy of course)?

You 100% cool with all of that too?

Asked and answered above. Want me to cut and paste it? Okay.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

What you are claiming can't happen without Weiss, Tech. And Weiss is hiding that Garland asked him to bag the case.

Ha ha a fan... OK, "you do you"!

Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.

Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am And there you go with the FoxNews BS (again, by design to pi$$ people off?). Other news platforms/podcasts have been providing the same Biden corruption info well outside of FN. Not knowing that is just ignorance on your part. I listed a few of those platforms the other day.

The FoxNation quip is because both FoxNation others here want to pin whatever they are pinning on Garland and anyone they can find with a D by their name, INTENTIONALLY skipping over Weiss and Barr.

I'll say this for the 1,000th time: the whistleblowers told the House that the problems started under Barr's watch, in 2020, and Weiss was the DoJ lead, appointed by Barr himself.

Posters here are ignoring this, and screaming "it's a Dem coverup!!!" And I will continue to make fun of this stupidity.....

I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff. Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:18 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.

No, sir. I explained this several times to the forum now. This "mounting evidence" you refer to comes as a result of the investigation itself.

What you are doing is reading the transcripts from the 9/11 commission and telling me "boy, a fan, we really need to open an investigation into this particular allegation".

I'm running out of analogies to help you and YA understand that. The "mounting evidence' was pulled from warrants executed while Barr was in office, four years ago. It's old news, and Barr and Weiss already ran those leads down.
Oh boy, I tried explaining. OK, your logic I guess...we'll see.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?

See....you're doing it again, where if a I guess wrong as to "why on Earth...." you tell me "I never said that".

And if I read between the lines as you are asking me to do here? You get upset. Two choices: either be direct, or don't get mad when I "guess wrong".
I'm neither upset nor mad... no idea where you're getting that. As I said, I thought it was funny. You on the other hand seem spooled up. Sorry, just an observation.

I'm THRILLED you agree that you think Weiss is in on it. What's his motivation? One I could give is: to drag this case on for 5+ years, and give Hunter a softer sentence to hit Joe. Makes perfect logical sense for a Trump appointee to do that.
Great. Thanks for your opinion.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff.

I'm spooled up, as you put it, because right wing America does NOT agree with you the Weiss is "in on it".....and they also ignore that the whistleblower complains STARTED with Barr's work.

And they also ignore that the whistleblowers main complain...the big one....is that Barr moved the DoJ investigation to Delaware, and put Weiss in charge. That's alllllllll Bill Barr. No Barr? Weiss never happens. And I'd wager that until I told you this, you didn't know.
Yes, yes, you've been telling me/us.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.

I'm perfectly relaxed. As I told you-----this argument is about Weiss and Barr's role. So long as we're on the same page there......which you are telling me that you are? This conversation is over for me.
Oh yes, it's over.

I have mocked OS and others repeatedly asking "why do you think the House hasn't called Wray, Barr, and Rettig to testify to the management of their departments in this case".

By all means, put him on the stand. And I hope the Dems have someone who is smart asking them questions.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 12:37 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 amUnreal!... who said Weiss isn't involved, I certainly didn't. Go back and read again if you need to. Is this, you being reasonable a fan?

Ok, my man, this miscommunication is on you.

i asked you DIRECTLY if you believe that Weiss is "in on it". You laughed it off, instead of agreeing with it so that we can both move on, understanding each other's point.

Now here you are, yelling at me, pretending you didn't run away when you had the chance to understand each other's views...and be reasonable, as you are asking me to be. Notice I was overjoyed because I thought we were finally on the same page? And then instead of simply saying "agreed", and moving on? You laugh at me, implying I'm nutso.

Here it is:

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:45 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:34 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:21 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:58 pm Garland is protecting Joe. Weiss takes his lead from Garland. Not much of a conspiracy, so again, sorry a fan.

That's great! You and OS want to put that stake in the ground finally? Awesome. You can't move it now.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

We good now? On the same page?

Not really.

Ok. Then tell me how this conspiracy happens without Weiss. Reasonable question, tech.

Seems you edited my post... I'll try again:

Not really. How do you explain the mounting evidence against the Bidens (that includes the Big Guy of course)?

You 100% cool with all of that too?

Asked and answered above. Want me to cut and paste it? Okay.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

What you are claiming can't happen without Weiss, Tech. And Weiss is hiding that Garland asked him to bag the case.

Ha ha a fan... OK, "you do you"!

Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.

Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am And there you go with the FoxNews BS (again, by design to pi$$ people off?). Other news platforms/podcasts have been providing the same Biden corruption info well outside of FN. Not knowing that is just ignorance on your part. I listed a few of those platforms the other day.

The FoxNation quip is because both FoxNation others here want to pin whatever they are pinning on Garland and anyone they can find with a D by their name, INTENTIONALLY skipping over Weiss and Barr.

I'll say this for the 1,000th time: the whistleblowers told the House that the problems started under Barr's watch, in 2020, and Weiss was the DoJ lead, appointed by Barr himself.

Posters here are ignoring this, and screaming "it's a Dem coverup!!!" And I will continue to make fun of this stupidity.....

I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff. Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:38 pm Oh boy, I tried explaining.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:59 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:44 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 12:37 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 amUnreal!... who said Weiss isn't involved, I certainly didn't. Go back and read again if you need to. Is this, you being reasonable a fan?

Ok, my man, this miscommunication is on you.

i asked you DIRECTLY if you believe that Weiss is "in on it". You laughed it off, instead of agreeing with it so that we can both move on, understanding each other's point.

Now here you are, yelling at me, pretending you didn't run away when you had the chance to understand each other's views...and be reasonable, as you are asking me to be. Notice I was overjoyed because I thought we were finally on the same page? And then instead of simply saying "agreed", and moving on? You laugh at me, implying I'm nutso.

Here it is:

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:48 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:45 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:34 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:21 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:58 pm Garland is protecting Joe. Weiss takes his lead from Garland. Not much of a conspiracy, so again, sorry a fan.

That's great! You and OS want to put that stake in the ground finally? Awesome. You can't move it now.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

We good now? On the same page?

Not really.

Ok. Then tell me how this conspiracy happens without Weiss. Reasonable question, tech.

Seems you edited my post... I'll try again:

Not really. How do you explain the mounting evidence against the Bidens (that includes the Big Guy of course)?

You 100% cool with all of that too?

Asked and answered above. Want me to cut and paste it? Okay.

This means Weiss is "in on it". Which is EXACTLY what I've been telling OS, despite his many protests. This conspiracy of yours cannot happen without Weiss.

I'm 100% cool with this theory. I think it's nuts, but it is not logically impossible like the other half-wit theories being thrown around.

What you are claiming can't happen without Weiss, Tech. And Weiss is hiding that Garland asked him to bag the case.

Ha ha a fan... OK, "you do you"!

Ha! The mix up for you is when you edited my post to just say, "Not really". When I said "Not really", I wasn't referring to Weiss. I thought we were past Weiss based on your reply. I wanted you to explain the mounting "circumstantial" evidence against the Bidens that you seemed to be laughing off. You edited that portion of my post specifically asking that question. That's on you a fan and actually sort of funny.

Of course I think Weiss is "in on it" as you like to say. Why on earth do you think I spent the effort to try to convince you that Weiss could be a Trump appointee and also be anti-Trump?

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:49 am And there you go with the FoxNews BS (again, by design to pi$$ people off?). Other news platforms/podcasts have been providing the same Biden corruption info well outside of FN. Not knowing that is just ignorance on your part. I listed a few of those platforms the other day.

The FoxNation quip is because both FoxNation others here want to pin whatever they are pinning on Garland and anyone they can find with a D by their name, INTENTIONALLY skipping over Weiss and Barr.

I'll say this for the 1,000th time: the whistleblowers told the House that the problems started under Barr's watch, in 2020, and Weiss was the DoJ lead, appointed by Barr himself.

Posters here are ignoring this, and screaming "it's a Dem coverup!!!" And I will continue to make fun of this stupidity.....

I don't think anyone is "ignoring" it. You're really spooled up over this Barr/Weiss/Biden stuff. Why not just relax and wait to see if Barr testifies? As I said, "I hope he does, IMO he's a rare straight shooter." Maybe you missed that too.

+1 I love a Fan like a brother. This is one of those rare times I don't get where he is coming from. The only answers will come from testimony from Weiss, Barr and Garland preferably at the same time so they can set the record strait. That will never happen in an open session. That is the kind of stuff to be debated behind closed doors.
FTR Barr was considered a strait shooter until trump picked him for AG. The usual suspects on this forum then viciously berated him as a typical trump flunkie. Then they wonder why strait shooter Barr chose to let the case against HB be passed off to his predecessor. What would the usual suspects on this forum be whining and b****ing about if Barr had laid the hammer down on the HB case? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm a fan offered a rather flimsy, IMO, rationale why that might be possible, given that there's been no evidence that this is a guy who would risk his career to protect a Democratic politician, regardless of office...a fan suggests that maybe he's purposely making Joe 'look bad'...but why not then complain that he's been held up on his charging decision...come out and say it?

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

What I actually said, post WB testimony, is that Weiss had taken his leads from Garland and I would bet it was Garland who lied about Weiss's jurisdiction when Garland testified.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

What I actually said, post WB testimony, is that Weiss had taken his leads from Garland and I would bet it was Garland who lied about Weiss's jurisdiction when Garland testified. If it makes you feel good calling that right-wing, go for it.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm a fan offered a rather flimsy, IMO, rationale why that might be possible, given that there's been no evidence that this is a guy who would risk his career to protect a Democratic politician, regardless of office...a fan suggests that maybe he's purposely making Joe 'look bad'...but why not then complain that he's been held up on his charging decision...come out and say it?

I already wrote that I don't believe it.

I think Weiss is on the level. I think that Barr is on the level. I think the investigation lasted five years to make sure Joe wasn't crooked. I'm 100% cool with that, and want our leaders held to account.

My overarching point on all of this is that as usual, TeamTinFoil haven't thought their conspiracy through. They START with the idea that the investigation is corrupt, and work their way backwards, ignoring anything that puts a damper on the party.

So, for example, they tell us that this is about helping Joe Biden. And I point out that the obvious way to help Joe is to run a half assed investigation, and finish it in 2021 when no one is looking.

OR, to REALLY help Joe? Throw Hunter in Jail for four years, using every charge you can come up with.....Joe hold a press conference saying "no one is above the law". This RUINS all of the Deep Stater's claims, and make Trump look REALLLLY bad by comparison. He'd pick up TONS of votes with this.

The WORST outcome for Joe is what we have now: a ridiculously dragged out 5 year long investigation where everyone is screaming that Weiss is corrupt, and is "protecting Joe". A worse outcome doesn't exist, given that Barr and Weiss didn't find dirt on Joe.

These are all simple, reasonable points that anyone who isn't just off the farm looney tunes would accept. In NO WAY does what happened help Joe.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:10 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

What I actually said, post WB testimony, is that Weiss had taken his leads from Garland and I would bet it was Garland who lied about Weiss's jurisdiction when Garland testified.

That's swell. That STILL makes it so that Weiss is "in on it".

Once you digest that, you understand why I think you're all crispy crackers for claiming conspiracy, because this means that two men risked their careers and reputations to (drumroll) drag out an investigation for 5 years, hurting Joe Biden, and making him appear corrupt.

If that makes sense to you? Great. Agree to disagree.

I think Barr, Garland, Weiss, Rettig, the whistleblowers, and Wray are all on the level. Just like any reasonable person would think, given who appointed them, what party they are in, and how this whole mess royally F'ed the Biden 2024 campaign....making Trump appear to be right about his Deep State to millions of people who can't think clearly.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:12 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:48 pm I see that tech is now agreeing that for all these right-wing theories to hold water, Weiss must be "in on it", in on the cover-up, too. Indeed, most importantly, he has to be lying to Congress.

What I actually said, post WB testimony, is that Weiss had taken his leads from Garland and I would bet it was Garland who lied about Weiss's jurisdiction when Garland testified. If it makes you feel good calling that right-wing, go for it.

yes, but it would be both Garland and Weiss lying to Congress as Weiss has written to Congress directly, which has the same weight and penalties as testifying.

and yes, "right-wing" is who is promoting this claptrap so loudly...but sure, there are conspiracy theory enthusiasts of all stripes who will believe whatever makes the least sense, just for drill. If it makes you feel better to think of yourself in the latter group, ok with me.

Me, I'll wait for some hard, credible evidence...and will have no compunction about calling for accountability at that time.