IRS Whistleblowers and Devon Archer - House Oversight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal back on

Wrong... NO PLEA DEAL. Hunter Biden just pleaded "NOT guilty" in Delaware court after federal judge refuses to rubber-stamp sweetheart deal, tells prosecutors and defense lawyers she can neither accept nor deny his guilty plea at this point due to ambiguities.

Cue the "Trump appointed judge" bashing.

.... who is a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plea deal was not accepted.

Judge did not accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause.

That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal back on

Wrong... NO PLEA DEAL. Hunter Biden just pleaded "NOT guilty" in Delaware court after federal judge refuses to rubber-stamp sweetheart deal, tells prosecutors and defense lawyers she can neither accept nor deny his guilty plea at this point due to ambiguities.

Cue the "Trump appointed judge" bashing.

Yup

[Anonymous]

Weiss is going to be forced to drop the charges now. No way he can prosecute with the investigators on record saying they refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weiss is going to be forced to drop the charges now. No way he can prosecute with the investigators on record saying they refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

Actually, Merrick Garland should appoint a special prosecutor as he should have done from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plea deal was not accepted.

Judge did not accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause.

That makes no sense.

It absolutely does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plea deal was not accepted.

Judge did not accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause.

That makes no sense.

It absolutely does.

What’s the source for this claim that the judge didn’t accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plea deal was not accepted.

Judge did not accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause.

That makes no sense.

It absolutely does.

What’s the source for this claim that the judge didn’t accept the constitutionality of the diversion clause?

The judges statement about something being unconstitutional actually seems to be about the gun crime. That is, she thinks the law criminalizing possession by an affect is unconstitutional under Bruen. Ha!

[Anonymous]

I'm sure this proves...something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alexander Mackler served:

- As press secretary to Sen. Joe Biden.
- As legal counsel to VP Joe Biden.
- As campaign manager for Beau Biden’s successful Delaware AG campaign
- On the Biden-Harris transition team
- As Hunter Biden's personal confidant
and... SHOCK:
- IN U.S. ATTORNEY WEISS'S DELAWARE OFFICE WHILE WHISTLEBLOWERS CHARGE THE DOJ WAS SABOTAGING THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

FIX WAS IN: While supposedly prosecuting Hunter Biden, Delaware prosecutor Alex Mackler shows up in Oct. 16, 2018, message on Hunter’s laptop:

“[W]as wondering how life is on your end. Last you told me you were out in LA. Gimme a call sometime we can catch up. Love you brother”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weiss is going to be forced to drop the charges now. No way he can prosecute with the investigators on record saying they refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

This. The House GOP totally screwed the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weiss is going to be forced to drop the charges now. No way he can prosecute with the investigators on record saying they refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

Actually, Merrick Garland should appoint a special prosecutor as he should have done from the beginning.

Why? If Barr couldn't prosecute anything and didn't think it was worth pursuing, what has changed? The FBI and DOJ have known the facts since at least 2019.

[Anonymous]

It's now completely unacceptable for AG Garland to not make US Attorney Weiss of Delaware available until October for sworn testimony before House oversight committees. His testimony is imperative!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's now completely unacceptable for AG Garland to not make US Attorney Weiss of Delaware available until October for sworn testimony before House oversight committees. His testimony is imperative!

Nothing will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weiss is going to be forced to drop the charges now. No way he can prosecute with the investigators on record saying they refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

Actually, Merrick Garland should appoint a special prosecutor as he should have done from the beginning.

Why? If Barr couldn't prosecute anything and didn't think it was worth pursuing, what has changed? The FBI and DOJ have known the facts since at least 2019.

What has changed? The president.

Biden's DOJ cannot be relied on to investigate and prosecute a case involving the president's son. And, then there is the possibility that the president himself may be implicated.