Reply to Garland appoints/elevates Wiess to Special Counsel Role

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Garland appoints/elevates Wiess to Special Counsel Role"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is almost comical watching people fall over themselves to say that someone that Trump appointed and who was *asked for by name* by the GOP to be appointed social counsel is all of a sudden a lackey of the Biden administration and is now unqualified to do the job. Maybe, just maybe this guy knows a little more about the situation than you do.

Garland did exactly what the right has been clamoring for.  So sit down. [/quote]
Yea, I'm confused why the Rs are upset about Weiss being appointed **[b]WHEN THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR HIM TO BE APPOINTED[/b]**.   I try not to get into the Rs heads too much these days, but this one is a real head scratcher.

Can a R explain why now Weiss is unfit when he was appointed by Trump and Rs wanted him?[/quote]

1.  They didn't. 
2.  A special prosecutor should have been appointed YEARS ago because of the conflict of interest.  We have Biden's DOJ investigating a member of Biden's family in which Biden himself could be implicated.  If this doesn't scream conflict of interest, I don't know what does. 
3.  It should have been someone from OUTSIDE the government BECAUSE of the conflict of interest. 
4.  Weiss has demonstrated through his actions... letting the statute of limitations lapse, agreeing to a sweetheart deal, not allowing investigators do a complete investigation.... that he should not continue in this role.  [/quote]

1) the GOP most certainly asked specifically for Weiss, whom trump appointed to investigate Hunter Biden.
2) Hunter Biden is a private citizen who doesn't warrant a special counsel. To date, there is not a single shred of evidence implicating Joe in any of Hunter's business dealings.
3) Durham was not outside the government and he was just fine with you. How is this any different?
4) Weiss is following the facts where they take him, which to date is a tax charge that usually ends up in penalties and interest, not a pleas deal, and a gun charge that the 5th circuit has ruled is unconstitutional. D

Face it, if there were facts that would lead to more and serious charges, we would see them. As someone who voted for Joe, i can plainly state that if Hunter did something illegal he should be charged and tried for it. Same with Jared, Ivanka, Donald etc.

[/quote]

1.  And, he has demonstrated he is not up to the job.
2.  You have to be joking.  This is Biden's DOJ investigating HIS son.  Conflict of interest.  I don't care if he is a private citizen. 
And, you have to be ignorant not to see the connections to Joe. 
3.  With Durham, there was no conflict of interest. 
4.  Weiss allowed the most serious tax charges go away per statute of limitations.  He is not following the facts.  These investigators were told - specifically - not to look at "the Big Guy" and they were not allowed to investigate leads they had.  They were specifically prevented.  
When the DOJ prosecutor was asked if there was any precedence for such a plea deal, they said no.  Because none exists.

[quote]Under Judge Maryellen Noreika’s questioning, DOJ prosecutor Leo Wise confirmed he was “not aware” of precedent for an agreement that agrees not to prosecute future crimes unrelated to the case or diverted charges, according to the hearing transcript.

Moreover, the judge saw from the beginning that the deal was unusual, noting early on that there are “some provisions in those agreements that are not standard and are different from what I normally see.”

“So have you ever seen — I think I just asked you this, but have you ever seen a Diversion Agreement where the agreement not to prosecute is so broad that it encompasses crimes in a different case?” the judge asked.

“No,” Wise replied. “And I would say, Your Honor, I don’t think it is broad in the sense that — ”

“We’re going to talk about that. You can sit down,” the judge interjected.[/quote]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/27/doj-hunter-biden-deal-precedent/[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics