Merrick Garland Calls Republicans’ Bluff With Hunter Biden Special Counsel

[aubiefifty 18,259]

Merrick Garland Calls Republicans’ Bluff With Hunter Biden Special Counsel

3k

Tori Otten

Fri, August 11, 2023 at 12:28 PM CDT

 

 

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that he has appointed a special counsel to oversee the investigation into Hunter Biden—but in doing so, he has annihilated several main Republican talking points.

Republicans have accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet on investigating the younger Biden for alleged tax fraud. They insist the department gave Biden a “sweetheart” plea deal and denied special counsel status to Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation.

So Garland has responded…by granting special counsel status to Weiss, whom he noted hadn’t even asked about it until this week.

“In a July 2023 letter to Congress, Mr. Weiss said that he had not to that point requested special counsel designation,” Garland told a press conference. “On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Weiss advised me that in his judgment, his investigation had reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel…I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint him as special counsel.”

 

It may seem like Garland and Weiss are caving to Republican demands, but in reality, they are obliterating them. By making Weiss special counsel, Garland has fully insulated the investigation from accusations of government interference. Garland will now be required to inform Congress if he or the president for some reason were to block the investigation or potential indictments in any way.

Garland and Weiss are also making clear that the latter only just requested special counsel status. Republicans have repeatedly cited testimony from two IRS agents, who insist that Weiss did not have final say on whether charges would be filed. One of the agents, Gary Shapley, also claimed Weiss said he had been blocked from pursuing charges in D.C.—where Hunter supposedly committed his most serious crimes—and that the Justice Department would not grant him special counsel status, which would have let him bring charges outside his jurisdiction.

Weiss has repeatedly smacked down Shapley’s claims, in the July letter Garland referred to and in a previous letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan. Weiss, a Trump appointee, said in the second letter that he would have been granted special counsel status “if it proved necessary.”

Apparently, that status proves necessary now (could it be because people won’t shut up about him not having special counsel status?). Weiss had negotiated Biden’s original plea deal, in which the much-embattled First Son would have pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges of tax evasion and participate in a pretrial program for a gun offense, allowing him to avoid jail time. Republicans, of course, hated that plea deal, and celebrated when it fell apart last month.

But for now, Republicans will have to find another talking point about Justice Department “corruption” stopping any investigation.

 

 

[Mikey 16,781]

Called their bluff? This is nothing but a ploy, an attempt that will fail. What the administration is after is preventing certain people from testifying before congress. So Garland appoints the guy who crafted Hunter's sweetheart deal as special counsel. Yep, the Biden tool who let the statute of limitations run out on tax evasion charges. The Biden family hopes that they won't be required to testify because there's an ongoing investigation. The wheels are coming of the bribery setup and desperation abounds.

Fear not, my fellow Americans. Just for starters, this person cannot serve as special counsel. The law states quite plainly that a special counsel "shall come from outside the government". Goofy Garland should have asked one of his legal advisors about this, since he apparently didn't know the law himself.

Oh what a tangled web they weave.....

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Called their bluff? This is nothing but a ploy, an attempt that will fail. What the administration is after is preventing certain people from testifying before congress. So Garland appoints the guy who crafted Hunter's sweetheart deal as special counsel. Yep, the Biden tool who let the statute of limitations run out on tax evasion charges. The Biden family hopes that they won't be required to testify because there's an ongoing investigation. The wheels are coming of the bribery setup and desperation abounds.

Fear not, my fellow Americans. Just for starters, this person cannot serve as special counsel. The law states quite plainly that a special counsel "shall come from outside the government". Goofy Garland should have asked one of his legal advisors about this, since he apparently didn't know the law himself.

Oh what a tangled web they weave.....

Technically no, it's not against the law. It's the same framework that Barr made John Durham special counsel over the Russiagate origins investigation.

But you are absolutely correct that this is meant to stifle the House GOP from getting Weiss to testify.

Also, Weiss is now moving the two misdemeanor charges from Delaware to either D.C. or California, likely to be D.C. So not only are they blocking Weiss from testifying, they're also pretty much judge shopping by moving the venue of the charges. Delaware judge Noreika is the one who nixed Biden's plea deal by questioning the diversion agreement. Weiss is going to keep the "investigation" going until next year probably and then re-try the diversion agreement with a D.C. judge who is much more likely to rubber stamp the plea deal.

[Mikey 16,781]

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Technically no, it's not against the law. It's the same framework that Barr made John Durham special counsel over the Russiagate origins investigation.

One of the TV stations showed a page of the code. It did plainly state that the special counsel shall not come from inside the government. Now, what loopholes may exist to get around this I have no idea.

[DKW 86 7,910]

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Also, Weiss is now moving the two misdemeanor charges from Delaware to either D.C. or California, likely to be D.C. So not only are they blocking Weiss from testifying, they're also pretty much judge shopping by moving the venue of the charges. Delaware judge Noreika is the one who nixed Biden's plea deal by questioning the diversion agreement. Weiss is going to keep the "investigation" going until next year probably and then re-try the diversion agreement with a D.C. judge who is much more likely to rubber stamp the plea deal.

Sweetheart deal is ALL BUT GUARANTEED TO BE APPROVED. This is judge shopping. It is almost breathtaking seeing it in broad daylight. It is amazing watching some of my liberal friends cringing while reading about this. Some are just shaking their heads at the heavy-handedness of it all. None of them thinks Weiss will even get a subpoena. If he does, it will be to gather evidence that will then immediately turn up missing forever, a la Epstein's Videos. At least they are honest about this being nothing more than a really ballsy "Weiss-Washing" of the case...Their words not mine.

Edited August 12, 2023 by DKW 86

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Weiss should never have been trusted.  He is a Republican and, a Trump appointee. 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

Whiny little b*tches. I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were mostly grownups.

[DKW 86 7,910]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Whiny little b*tches. I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were mostly grownups.

Some of us just arent obedient, small-minded, lil worker drones. "No one seems to notice, no one seems to care..."

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,910]

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4149641-shoeless-joe-weiss-and-the-fixing-of-the-hunter-biden-game/

Roughly 100 years ago, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson admitted that, as a player for the Chicago White Sox, he and seven other teammates had intentionally lost the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds in 1919. When a kid stopped him outside of the grand jury room and asked “It ain’t true, is it, Joe?” Jackson responded “Yes, kid, I’m afraid it is.”

This is not a case of history repeating itself. After being confronted by allegations of a fixed investigation, Attorney General Merrick Garland just sent Shoeless Joe back into the game.

The appointment of Delaware David Weiss as the new special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden left many with the same disbelief as that kid in Chicago. This is, after all, the same Weiss who headed an investigation that was trashed by whistleblowers, who alleged that his investigation had been fixed from the outset.

It is the same Weiss who ran an investigation in which agents were allegedly prevented from asking about Joe Biden, obstructed in their efforts to pursue questions and compromised by tip offs to the Biden team on planned searches.

It was also the same Weiss who reportedly allowed the statute of limitations to run out on Hunter’s major tax offenses, even though he had the option to extend it.

It was the same Weiss who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal that brushed aside a felony gun charge.

It was the same Weiss who inked a widely panned “sweetheart” deal that caused a federal judge to balk and trash a sweeping immunity grant — language that even the prosecutor admitted he had never previously seen in a plea deal.

That is why many asked Garland to “say it ain’t so.”

The Weiss appointment definitively established Garland as a failure as attorney general. As someone who initially praised Garland’s appointment, I now see that he has repeatedly shown he lacks the strength and leadership to rise to these moments.

This is why the Justice Department is now less trusted by the public than it was under his predecessor, Bill Barr. During Barr’s tenure, Pew found that 54 percent of the public viewed the department favorably, and 70 percent had a favorable view of the FBI. Under Garland, the department’s favorability had declined to 49 percent as of March, before many of the recent failures. The FBI’s favorability has fallen by 18 points to just 52 percent.

Garland’s failure of leadership has undermined key cases. A Harvard-Harris poll this summer showed that 55 percent of the public view the Trump indictment as “politically motivated,” and 56 percent believe that it constitutes election interference.

Garland continues to do little to reverse that public perception, other than repeatedly refer to the motto of the Department. He offered the same mantra for years as some of us called for a special counsel appointment to investigate Biden corruption. The case for such an appointment has long been unassailable, but Garland refused to make the appointment, allowing years to pass with underlying crimes.

The immediate effect of this belated appointment will be to insulate Weiss and the Department from Congress as it prepares to interview Weiss and members of his team.

Yet if that was truly his purpose in doing this, Garland might have been too clever by half. First, since Garland did not appoint someone from outside of the Department (as envisioned under Section 600.3 of the statute).

Of course, Garland could insist that, although this appointment from inside the Justice Department violates the statute, Special Counsel John Durham was also selected from the department’s ranks. Yet that does not excuse the appointment of a prosecutor who has been accused of conflicts of interest and false statements — the very antithesis of a special counsel who is supposed to have “a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making.”

Second, there is the failure to expand Weiss’s mandate. Garland described that mandate as focusing again on Hunter Biden, and the Justice Department refused to respond to questions on the possible inclusion of his father in the investigation.

This was another opportunity to recognize the widespread distrust over the department and expressly allow the special counsel to include the corruption allegations involving both Hunter and the president. That would have supported calls for the House to delay further investigations.

As it stands, Garland has virtually ensured that Congress will pursue an impeachment inquiry as the only body seriously investigating the scandal.

The use of impeachment authority is the only effective way to overcome the roadblocks that the Justice Department is likely to throw up after this new appointment. Impeachment can work as constitutional Kryptonite. No court could seriously question the right and duty of Congress to get to the bottom of corruption allegations against the president without delay. Although Weiss can refuse to answer questions, Congress can use its impeachment authority to demand answers from fact witnesses, including Biden family members.

None of this means that Hunter Biden will be protected by Weiss from additional charges. He will likely pursue long dormant charges, such as Hunter’s being an unregistered foreign agent. He could also purpose felonies on the crimes detailed in the now-defunct plea bargain. In other words, he could show all of the aggression that was lacking in his prior work. 

NASA is sending humans to an asteroid: SpaceX will get them thereLarry Hogan devastated Maryland’s GOP — he won’t make No Labels relevant

The public, however, doesn’t seem to be buying the special counsel spin. The result is reinforcing rather than resolving the lack of trust in the Justice Department.

It could not be worse for the Justice Department as an institution. “Shoeless Joe” Weiss is back in the game, long after the public has left in disgust.

[AU9377 6,037]

On 8/12/2023 at 1:59 AM, Auburnfan91 said:

Technically no, it's not against the law. It's the same framework that Barr made John Durham special counsel over the Russiagate origins investigation.

But you are absolutely correct that this is meant to stifle the House GOP from getting Weiss to testify.

Also, Weiss is now moving the two misdemeanor charges from Delaware to either D.C. or California, likely to be D.C. So not only are they blocking Weiss from testifying, they're also pretty much judge shopping by moving the venue of the charges. Delaware judge Noreika is the one who nixed Biden's plea deal by questioning the diversion agreement. Weiss is going to keep the "investigation" going until next year probably and then re-try the diversion agreement with a D.C. judge who is much more likely to rubber stamp the plea deal.

He will testify at the end of the matter, like other special counsels have done in the past.  You do realize that Weiss had sent them dates that he was willing to testify in the fall and that Jim Jordan had been non committal on when and if he would be allowed to testify right?  As for the venue, that is speculation at this point.  We will wait and see.  That said, it is hardly the first time a prosecutor or defense attorney has gone venue shopping.

[AU9377 6,037]

46 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4149641-shoeless-joe-weiss-and-the-fixing-of-the-hunter-biden-game/

Roughly 100 years ago, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson admitted that, as a player for the Chicago White Sox, he and seven other teammates had intentionally lost the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds in 1919. When a kid stopped him outside of the grand jury room and asked “It ain’t true, is it, Joe?” Jackson responded “Yes, kid, I’m afraid it is.”

This is not a case of history repeating itself. After being confronted by allegations of a fixed investigation, Attorney General Merrick Garland just sent Shoeless Joe back into the game.

The appointment of Delaware David Weiss as the new special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden left many with the same disbelief as that kid in Chicago. This is, after all, the same Weiss who headed an investigation that was trashed by whistleblowers, who alleged that his investigation had been fixed from the outset.

It is the same Weiss who ran an investigation in which agents were allegedly prevented from asking about Joe Biden, obstructed in their efforts to pursue questions and compromised by tip offs to the Biden team on planned searches.

It was also the same Weiss who reportedly allowed the statute of limitations to run out on Hunter’s major tax offenses, even though he had the option to extend it.

It was the same Weiss who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal that brushed aside a felony gun charge.

It was the same Weiss who inked a widely panned “sweetheart” deal that caused a federal judge to balk and trash a sweeping immunity grant — language that even the prosecutor admitted he had never previously seen in a plea deal.

That is why many asked Garland to “say it ain’t so.”

The Weiss appointment definitively established Garland as a failure as attorney general. As someone who initially praised Garland’s appointment, I now see that he has repeatedly shown he lacks the strength and leadership to rise to these moments.

This is why the Justice Department is now less trusted by the public than it was under his predecessor, Bill Barr. During Barr’s tenure, Pew found that 54 percent of the public viewed the department favorably, and 70 percent had a favorable view of the FBI. Under Garland, the department’s favorability had declined to 49 percent as of March, before many of the recent failures. The FBI’s favorability has fallen by 18 points to just 52 percent.

Garland’s failure of leadership has undermined key cases. A Harvard-Harris poll this summer showed that 55 percent of the public view the Trump indictment as “politically motivated,” and 56 percent believe that it constitutes election interference.

Garland continues to do little to reverse that public perception, other than repeatedly refer to the motto of the Department. He offered the same mantra for years as some of us called for a special counsel appointment to investigate Biden corruption. The case for such an appointment has long been unassailable, but Garland refused to make the appointment, allowing years to pass with underlying crimes.

The immediate effect of this belated appointment will be to insulate Weiss and the Department from Congress as it prepares to interview Weiss and members of his team.

Yet if that was truly his purpose in doing this, Garland might have been too clever by half. First, since Garland did not appoint someone from outside of the Department (as envisioned under Section 600.3 of the statute).

Of course, Garland could insist that, although this appointment from inside the Justice Department violates the statute, Special Counsel John Durham was also selected from the department’s ranks. Yet that does not excuse the appointment of a prosecutor who has been accused of conflicts of interest and false statements — the very antithesis of a special counsel who is supposed to have “a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making.”

Second, there is the failure to expand Weiss’s mandate. Garland described that mandate as focusing again on Hunter Biden, and the Justice Department refused to respond to questions on the possible inclusion of his father in the investigation.

This was another opportunity to recognize the widespread distrust over the department and expressly allow the special counsel to include the corruption allegations involving both Hunter and the president. That would have supported calls for the House to delay further investigations.

As it stands, Garland has virtually ensured that Congress will pursue an impeachment inquiry as the only body seriously investigating the scandal.

The use of impeachment authority is the only effective way to overcome the roadblocks that the Justice Department is likely to throw up after this new appointment. Impeachment can work as constitutional Kryptonite. No court could seriously question the right and duty of Congress to get to the bottom of corruption allegations against the president without delay. Although Weiss can refuse to answer questions, Congress can use its impeachment authority to demand answers from fact witnesses, including Biden family members.

None of this means that Hunter Biden will be protected by Weiss from additional charges. He will likely pursue long dormant charges, such as Hunter’s being an unregistered foreign agent. He could also purpose felonies on the crimes detailed in the now-defunct plea bargain. In other words, he could show all of the aggression that was lacking in his prior work. 

NASA is sending humans to an asteroid: SpaceX will get them thereLarry Hogan devastated Maryland’s GOP — he won’t make No Labels relevant

The public, however, doesn’t seem to be buying the special counsel spin. The result is reinforcing rather than resolving the lack of trust in the Justice Department.

It could not be worse for the Justice Department as an institution. “Shoeless Joe” Weiss is back in the game, long after the public has left in disgust.

These are the kind of nonsensical assumptions that ignore facts.  The Republicans will look like the fools they are if they begin impeachment hearings looking for a crime to impeach a President.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He will testify at the end of the matter, like other special counsels have done in the past.  You do realize that Weiss had sent them dates that he was willing to testify in the fall and that Jim Jordan had been non committal on when and if he would be allowed to testify right?  As for the venue, that is speculation at this point.  We will wait and see.  That said, it is hardly the first time a prosecutor or defense attorney has gone venue shopping.

If he was set on testifying he wouldn't have requested special counsel authority because he knows if he's given special counsel authority that he's won't have to testify this fall.

You know what changed between Weiss sending those dates and now? Hunter's plea deal, which Weiss's office approved of, was turned down because of judge Noreika questioning the immunity part of the diversion agreement.

Why didn't Weiss ask for special counsel authority earlier, which according to the IRS whistleblowers he did request it last year but was denied, if he wanted to send the charges to a different venue?

The IRS whistleblowers claims have merit.

[AU9377 6,037]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

If he was set on testifying he wouldn't have requested special counsel authority because he knows if he's given special counsel authority that he's won't have to testify this fall.

You know what changed between Weiss sending those dates and now? Hunter's plea deal, which Weiss's office approved of, was turned down because of judge Noreika questioning the immunity part of the diversion agreement.

Why didn't Weiss ask for special counsel authority earlier, which according to the IRS whistleblowers he did request it last year but was denied, if he wanted to send the charges to a different venue?

The IRS whistleblowers claims have merit.

Her questioning of the immunity part of the diversion agreement was her doing her job.  She wasn't questioning the charges, but she was making certain that both parties were in agreement.  The immunity language should have been in the first part of the plea, which dealt with tax evasion.  She was doing what most judges do when they are looking out for the defendant and want to ensure that the plea covers everything they understood it to contain when they came to court.

The reason that Weiss did not include it in the tax section of the plea is likely due to indecision regarding whether or not to charge a violation of FARA.  The judge also questioned the constitutionality of the gun charge itself.  In fact, she asked the parties to brief her on the gun charge and diversion agreement within 30 days.

What right wing media doesn't want to explain is that the IRS agents could have testified to what they believed to be the facts surrounding the investigation from their perspective and not have all of the information at their disposal.  No IRS agent makes a decision on what to charge and who to charge.  That isn't their job.  They also don't have information that is gathered by other agencies, like the FBI and DOJ.  In other words, their information is limited to the results of their investigation and is often not the complete picture.  It isn't uncommon for there to be disagreements between investigators and prosecutors.  In fact, it is commonplace.

We don't know that Weiss wants to file anything in another venue.  That is pure speculation at this point.  It is certainly possible, but until he states his intention to do that, we don't know.  I'm pretty sure that Weiss is tired of reading about how incompetent he is and that he doesn't have the authority he has stated that he has.  He requested this appointment to settle that question.  There is no argument that he lacks any authority to charge what he wants where he wants.

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by AU9377

[DKW 86 7,910]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

These are the kind of nonsensical assumptions that ignore facts.  The Republicans will look like the fools they are if they begin impeachment hearings looking for a crime to impeach a President.

You are so funny. Do you recall the last two impeachments that never had any chance? 

[AU9377 6,037]

38 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You are so funny. Do you recall the last two impeachments that never had any chance? 

The failure of the GOP to hold the President accountable for his actions does not make the impeachments failures.  Personally, I thought that the second shouldn't have been filed, even though we now know that his actions were criminal.  The first was proven beyond any doubt as to the actions of Trump.  What was proven was much more serious than any cover up that resulted from the break in at the Watergate. 

In both instances, there was an act by the President that warranted action.  In this situation, we have a group of Republicans that want to impeach without knowing of an act that is worthy of impeachment.  That is the difference.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

https://www.aufamily.com/topic/187963-the-stuff-hunter-biden-didnt-get-indicted-for/

Quote

On 7/7/2023 at 4:49 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

Has the Tax Division denied sending or presenting a memo to the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C.?

David Weiss, Matthew Graves, and Merrick Garland can deny claims all they want, if there was a memo from the Tax Division sent to the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. recommending charges for Hunter Biden's taxes in 2014 and 2015 then all their denials will be proven false.

Weiss has a lot to explain. He allowed the 2014 and 2015 statute of limitations to expire. There was a DOJ Tax Division prosecution memo presented to the US Attorney's office in D.C. in March 2022 that supported charges which included 2014 and 2015. Weiss's June 30 letter to Jim Jordan denied that he couldn't bring charges, so why didn't he?

Trying to give the benefit of the doubt to Weiss, if he allowed 2014 and 2015 SOL to expire, why would he now ask to be special counsel and even attempt to change venue on any tax charges when he could have done so last year when the DOJ Tax Division presented the memo in D.C. for all the tax charges?

The House Judiciary committee should subpoena to obtain the March 2022 DOJ Tax Division memo on Hunter Biden that was turned down.

[DKW 86 7,910]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:45 PM, AU9377 said:

The failure of the GOP to hold the President accountable for his actions does not make the impeachments failures.  Personally, I thought that the second shouldn't have been filed, even though we now know that his actions were criminal.  The first was proven beyond any doubt as to the actions of Trump.  What was proven was much more serious than any cover up that resulted from the break in at the Watergate. 

In both instances, there was an act by the President that warranted action.  In this situation, we have a group of Republicans that want to impeach without knowing of an act that is worthy of impeachment.  That is the difference.

Opinions may vary but at no time was either impeachment going to go anywhere. 

[homersapien 12,245]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Opinions may vary but at no time was either impeachment going to go anywhere. 

And why is that?

[AU9377 6,037]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Opinions may vary but at no time was either impeachment going to go anywhere. 

By that, you mean the removal of the President.  Of course, one of the ramifications of that will be that any impeachment of Biden will go nowhere as well?  Or, will the Democrats actually listen if real evidence of wrongdoing (which has yet to be shown) is actually presented?

Edited August 15, 2023 by AU9377

[DKW 86 7,910]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

And why is that?

Lack of evidence? That would seem to be the first thing for most legal actions. 

[homersapien 12,245]

On 8/15/2023 at 4:37 PM, DKW 86 said:

Lack of evidence? That would seem to be the first thing for most legal actions. 

You don't see the irony do you?