Garland appoints/elevates Wiess to Special Counsel Role

[Anonymous]

Welp, I won't be voting for Hunter Biden, now.

And in all seriousness, I am not sure what this changes other than the generation of a final report.

[Anonymous]

+1 Weiss has already said under oath that he de facto had all these privileges already.

[Anonymous]

Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

“Per Garland’s comments” I note that you don’t recognize that Weiss himself has told congress this as well?

Special counsels still testify before Congress when requested. Both Mueller and Durham did so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

“Per Garland’s comments” I note that you don’t recognize that Weiss himself has told congress this as well?

Special counsels still testify before Congress when requested. Both Mueller and Durham did so.

Not during the investigation.
And, multiple whistleblowers and witnesses have directly contradicted what Garland, and Weiss, have said.

[Anonymous]

Purpose: shut down Congressional investigation of Hunter's dealings. Meanwhile, statute of limitations clock is ticking.

Administration is playing chess with this. This is just another cover up.

[Anonymous]

Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.

[Anonymous]

I've said this about Bill Barr and Christopher Wray, so let me say it again...the person who appointed David Weiss should never work in government again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.

Yep. It's a sham. You would think Garland would know the rules:

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

Because the Congressional clowns alleged that Garland limited Weiss’s authority as some cover-up. Now they and you need to make up a new unsupported talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

The GOP has been asking for this since January. Now they got it, and are upset about it. This is another "dog catches car" moment.

[Anonymous]

1. Special counsel is supposed to be "outside" government. Weiss is not.
2. This is a day late and a dollar short.
Statute of limitations is almost up. Stall tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.

Yep. It's a sham. You would think Garland would know the rules:

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

Hmm, pray tell, what was Durham’s job right before he was appointed SC? And what other job did he have for the first 8 months of his SC tenure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question.....

If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?

More important questions....

Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.

Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?

Time will tell.........

“Per Garland’s comments” I note that you don’t recognize that Weiss himself has told congress this as well?

Special counsels still testify before Congress when requested. Both Mueller and Durham did so.

Not during the investigation.
And, multiple whistleblowers and witnesses have directly contradicted what Garland, and Weiss, have said.

The IRS witnesses leaked the investigation and have their own legal exposure, and Archer has not implicated anyone in any illegalities, but other than that, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.

You mean the way Durham was outside of government? Or Horowitz? You didn't complain about them, now , did you?