And it bears repeating that republicans were calling for Weiss to be appointed special counsel. This yet another example of moving the goalposts. Regarding impeachment we all should know by now that impeachment is a political and not criminal exercise. The definitions of high crimes and misdemeanors is really what a majority of the House thinks it is. If Biden is impeached over what we have now it’s going to be DOA in the Senate. It will be widely viewed by the American electorate as completely political and like the Clinton Impeachment possibly cost Republicans at the polls. I think McCarthy knows this and at the moment I doubt he could even get a majority of the House to vote for impeachment. He’s slow walking this as much as he what some of y’all accuse the DOJ of doing. He’s doing just enough to try to keep the Jim Jordan’s and MTG’s of his caucus in line without losing his more moderate members.
Difference is that in the DOJ's investigation there are hard links and actual witnesses, and Trump will have to be convicted by a jury - a jury has already deemed the charges have merit. None of that is true with this Joe Biden - Hunter junk. No matter what the White House or admin does, they will be in the wrong in the eyes of conservatives. Even House Republicans know there is nothing yet they are pressured by the Trumpsters to have an impeachment inquiry - something they know will turn up nothing. But their base is rabid.
Do you sincerely think that Trump would've allowed a democratic prosecutor to investigate his kids if he had the power to fire them? Honesly? This is the same man that fired comey bcz of his ego. We're supposed to believe that the DOJ is corrupt and Weiss isn't to be trusted when he's literally been a lifelong republican. It's just nothing but conspiracies from these people.
related Stop the ‘Special Counsel’ Shenanigans The AG shouldn’t be allowed to deceive the public into believing a prosecutor is independent if that prosecutor doesn’t qualify for the label. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/stop-the-special-counsel-shenanigans/ excerpt: This brings us to special counsels. We’ve had plenty of trial-and-error with the misnomer “independent prosecutor” in the past half-century. The ad hoc Watergate special prosecutor gave way to the statutory independent counsel construct that Justice Scalia deconstructed in Morrison. I wish I could tell you that it was the nonpareil jurist’s wisdom that ended that misbegotten experiment, but it wasn’t; it was the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal — which is to say, it was the realization by Democrats that their administrations, too, could be ruined by prosecutors who were beyond the president’s control. Thus was the special-counsel statute allowed to lapse at the turn of the century. Now we have the special counsel who is a creature of regulations written to be ignored. Don’t take my word for it. Just read the tenth and final special-counsel reg, §600.10, wryly entitled “No Creation of Rights”: The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative. Translation: If we here at the Justice Department ignore these high-minded rules instructing how we must handle conflicts of interest in politically fraught investigations, too damn bad — there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Obnoxious, sure, but it’s what we should expect. After all, the purpose of these rules is to create a misimpression that it is possible, constitutionally and practically speaking, to enable a federal prosecutor to operate outside the supervision and control of the Justice Department and the executive branch. Of course, it’s not. So the first nine rules outline a vision of a prosecutor brought in from outside the government who conducts a politically charged investigation with minimal interference from Main Justice, and then — recognizing that there could be many undesirable ramifications from such an arrangement — the tenth rule elucidates that the first nine rules are not really rules at all. Part of what makes a rule a rule, after all, is that it is enforceable — bad consequences follow if it is broken. That’s not the case with the special-counsel rules. They are merely suggestions. And that would be fine if the Justice Department leveled with us. But it doesn’t. When attorneys general appoint a special counsel, they invariably tell us that the appointment ensures that the special counsel will be independent, will investigate without any interference from the conflicted DOJ — even as, in Merrick Garland’s case, the attorney general (a) is well aware that the regs provide no such assurance and (b) is flagrantly flouting the regs as he cites them. Under those regs, David Weiss is not eligible to be a special counsel. Period. The qualifications provision (§600.3) is explicit and unambiguous on this point: 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. Weiss is the Delaware U.S. attorney. While Garland likes to con the country about Weiss’s independence from the Biden Justice Department by crowing that he is “a Trump appointee,” Weiss was actually made the acting Delaware U.S. attorney at the start of President Obama’s first term, and was a top official in that district U.S. attorney’s office throughout the Obama–Biden administration — years during which he worked closely with then-vice president Biden’s now-deceased son Beau (who was Delaware’s attorney general). President Trump kept Weiss because, with Senate Democrats having declared jihad against Trump nominations, he needed some easy confirmations. Not much caring who was the U.S. attorney in sleepy Delaware, he nominated the Obama “acting” holdover, who had the enthusiastic support of the state’s two Democratic senators — Biden allies Tom Carper and Chris Coons (either of who could have blocked a nominee to whom he objected). In an era when many Trump appointees had to cobble together enough support to withstand a few dozen Democratic nays, Weiss sailed through on a voice vote. He’s their kinda guy. Regarding Garland’s faux special-counsel appointment two weeks ago, then, it’s insufficient to observe that Weiss was not an attorney “from outside the United States Government”; he had been a high-ranking Justice Department official in Joe Biden’s home district for some 14 years, including throughout Biden’s tenures as vice-president and president. Not just that. Even as the AG bestowed the risibly exalted title of “special counsel” on Weiss (and how many times in the last two weeks have you heard journos say that Garland has “elevated” Weiss to the position, even though U.S. attorneys — presidential appointees — outrank special counsels), Garland took pains to say that Weiss would be continuing in his post as Delaware U.S. attorney. So he’ll not only remain a high-ranking Biden Justice Department official as he pretends to investigate the Bidens. It will also be impossible for him to comply with the reg’s condition that he make the Biden investigation his highest priority — to the exclusion of all else if necessary — because the president has already made enforcing the federal law in Delaware his top priority. More to the point, the “attorney from outside the U.S. government” credential is not a small detail. What drives the need for a special counsel is the Justice Department’s conflict of interest. What makes the counsel special is that he, at least at the start, is not plagued by the Justice Department’s conflict, having been brought in from outside. To be sure, a special counsel becomes plagued by the DOJ’s conflict the moment his appointment begins, because there is no such thing as a federal prosecutor independent of the Justice Department — all federal prosecutors, special counsels included, report to the attorney general, must follow Justice Department guidelines, exercise the president’s power, and may be fired by the president at will. (A special counsel may be fired by the attorney general for cause.) It makes an utter mockery of the special-counsel construct to confer the title on a high-ranking official of the conflicted DOJ who has been assured that he will remain a high-ranking official of the conflicted DOJ even as, in his spare time, he feigns the doing of special-counsel stuff. In Weiss’s case, the mockery is unparalleled: He has spent five years destroying the Biden investigation by not filing an indictment and thus letting the statute of limitations eviscerate potential charges; but he has obviously done that because it provides him job security. As the only Trump-appointed U.S. attorney (at least nominally) not fired when Biden’s term started, he was supposedly kept on to “run the investigation,” but the truth of that arrangement is that as long as the investigation never turns into serious charges, Weiss can keep his job. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times in the last two weeks: Why didn’t you speak up when Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham, then the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, as special counsel on Russiagate? Answer: I did — you can look it up. Look, I’m a Barr fan and I don’t like special counsels — they should never be appointed unless it’s absolutely necessary, like when the president is implicated in potential crimes. But I’m a stickler on this sort of stuff, and I had made a big deal over what I still believe was the impropriety of then-deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s special-counsel appointment of Bob Mueller to investigate then-president Trump. Mueller was brought in from outside the government, but for a matter that did not fulfill another important special-counsel precondition: grounds to believe a criminal investigation is warranted. more
conclusion With that said, though, Barr’s October 19, 2020, appointment of Durhamcan be rationalized in a way that Garland’s appointment of Weiss cannot. Assuming Biden won, as the polls suggested he would, Durham was about to be fired as Connecticut U.S. attorney; he would have been purged just like the other Trump-appointed holdovers (other than Weiss, of course). So while Durham was not brought in from outside the government, he would have been outside the government were it not for the investigation — he was not going to be a high-ranking Biden DOJ official, and his government employment was going to end the moment he closed his investigation. Further, Barr had already made clear that Biden was not a subject of Durham’s investigation. But the bottom line is clear: There was nothing improper about Barr’s appointment of Durham to run the Russiagate probe, just like there was nothing improper about Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to run the Trump/Russia probe (a counterintelligence case, not a criminal case), and just like there is nothing improper about Garland’s assignment of Weiss to what passes for the Biden investigation. Attorneys general have broad authority to assign any federal prosecutor to handle any investigation or prosecution (at least as long as the matter in question does not pose a conflict for the assigned prosecutor). And if an AG decides to hire an attorney from outside the government to handle a criminal or counterintelligence case, he’s got authority to do that, too. The AG just should not be permitted to confer the title “special counsel” on such an attorney unless the AG certifies to Congress that the appointment complies with the special-counsel regulations (excluding the aforementioned §600.10 — the rule that guts the rest of the rules). If the AG can’t or won’t make that certification, Congress should defund such a “special counsel’s” investigation. In terms of structure, the current special-counsel regulations are probably the best we can do. They accommodate the remorseless reality that, despite our desire for independence, a special counsel does work for the conflicted Justice Department and for the president who may be under investigation. Yet, the regs also seek to promote a degree of detachment that is not necessarily illusory: They require that a competent lawyer (presumably, a former prosecutor steeped in the DOJ’s policies and practices) be brought in from the outside. That’s probably the best we can hope for, though it is hardly a perfect solution. After all, the AG could bring in from outside the government a partisan hack who happens to have been a federal prosecutor in the past, and who could be expected to protect a president of his party at the expense of an investigation. But that brings us back to the bottom line — it’s ultimately about people, not processes. If an AG appoints a scrupulous, able lawyer who has the respect of the profession, the bench, and both sides of the political aisle — and there are many such attorneys — an investigation can have credibility, even amidst a Justice Department conflict of interest. The personal gravitas of such a special counsel can make it politically impossible for even a president who is worried about an investigation to fire the special counsel or obstruct the investigation. On the other hand, if the AG does not appoint that kind of a lawyer, then it probably doesn’t matter what the rules say or whether they are complied with; the investigation is going nowhere anyway. But in any event, Congress should not allow the “special counsel” designation to be conferred fraudulently. If the AG is going assign a politically fraught case to an official of the conflicted Justice Department — especially an official such as David Weiss, who has already had the case for five years and has undermined it exactly the way you’d figure a pervasively conflicted prosecutor from a pervasively conflicted Justice Department would undermine it — then the AG shouldn’t be allowed to deceive the public by labeling the arrangement a “special counsel” probe. more at the above link
The whole situation was described in a vid I posted in an earlier clip. The main bit is ten mins on from where I started the timestamp. They use impeachment to bubble up evidence Weiss sat on (half of which has expired from the statute of limitations) for people/partisans to consume. This deepens political trenches and could potentially legitimize/desensitize voters to Trump's violations. It could lead to an inevitable Constitutional Crisis. The phrasing makes it sound like a Republican scheme, and would if Weiss did his original job/mandate to the spirit. His official investigation and slow walk actually impeded the public discovery process, and the plea deal was very suspect when you consider how Special Prosecutors (which he wasn't then) operated. Dems OTOH, knew that Trump is the best predictable matchup for Biden. They calculated this at the expense of national sanity. I'm not going to paraphrase the entire ten min "bit" because 1) if one is "too busy" to watch at 1-1.5x, then they should be "too busy" to invest months and responses in this thread, and 2) some one will inevitably snip one sentence from here and try to unravel everything in their glorious or lazy attempt to refute what is already public record...
There's alot of crappy small towns in America. Would I be surprised if you're some prosecutor in a town with a population of 1200? I guess not, but dealing with stop sign violations doesn't make one any special. It's like claiming you're a professional basketball player cuz you're on the bench for some G league basketball team. I guess technically you're a "professional athlete" in the same sense of you being a prosecutor. You lost all credibility with your conspiracies
You are leaving out exactly why this statute was created under the Clinton admin. The independent prosecutor went rogue in Ken Starr, and was widely viewed as having too much independent power with too few checks and balances. The Special Counsel guidelines were written to be closer to the AG, and main Justice, but with one important caveat. If the SC and the AG disagree in any meaningful way, this provision directs the SC to inform Congress, who then would take action to either go public or impeach the AG if their management of the SC was improper, or corrupt. You are fundamentally misrepresenting the SC guidelines, and it's intention. It's intention was that it was written to PURPOSEFULLY be closer to the AG and main Justice, but have an important backstop in case there was political interference. And guess what.... ... The Bush admin, the Obama admin, and the Trump admin could have changed this DOJ provision at any point, but obviously BOTH PARTIES thought it struck and balance, and was fair to BOTH PARTIES when they were in power. If MAGA faithful, and their cleric Trump thought this provision was soo ******* awful, why didn't they have Jeff Sessions rewrite the provision to bring back the Ken Starr era Independent Prosecutor provision?
Well, I have made no secret of the fact that I am in Stockton, CA. Current population is 320,800. Nearly a million in the county. You were a witness one time though, so you probably are more well versed in the law. So, is that a yes or no on the bet? I don't know how you do things in the place where the most learned legal scholars are medical equipment salesmen, but here we don't even have prosecutors handle stop sign violations, the cop just shows up and testifies to the traffic court commissioner without a DA present.
that's a lot of weather reports National Archives has 5,400 Biden emails in which he uses fake names to dish government info to Hunter, others as VP: suit https://nypost.com/2023/08/28/national-archives-admits-it-has-5400-biden-pseudonym-emails/
If you spend more than 1 minute reading the click bait title you would know that not a single email contained any sensitive info or anything that wasn't public. In 2015 the CIA had told the state Department that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the elections and be careful on all communications. A republican senate committe found Russians did hack into our 2016 elections. I'm not being a braindead moron like you and claiming trump was behind it without any evidence. Why is it some huge news that the vice president was careful in talking to his son? Find me a single classified detail that biden shared with his son and then get back to me. Biden wasn't the dumbass moron who had nuclear sensitive documents in his bathroom while hosting saudi tournaments at the residence
Find me a single email out of those 5400 emails in which Biden leaked anything sensitive? You folks do know that NARA only had documents that are turned over to them right? Whatever documents NARA has its because biden GAVE IT TO THEM Again I was the main defendant that helped build the entire case over 4 years. To this day I hold the record for the largest whistleblower suit out of Houston history. What record do you hold pal? The case I build help lead to over 40 felony arrests and disbarred numerous doctors. I stand by what I said that I have much more experience than you even if it might not be alot
dude, I was very careful to speculate that all they talked about in those 5400 emails was the weather
related https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...sed-secret-addresses-for-over-5400-emails.php National Archives: Biden used secret addresses for over 5,400 emails by Elizabeth Stauffer AUGUST 29, 2023 A search conducted by the National Archives and Records Administration turned up nearly 5,400 records containing one of three pseudonymous email accounts President Joe Biden had used during his vice presidency. Those email addresses include: robinware456@gmail.com, JRBWare@gmail.com, and Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov. NARA was responding to a June 2022 Freedom of Information Act request from the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a nonprofit constitutional legal group. In a June 28, 2022 letter to SLF, NARA wrote: “We have performed a search of our collection for Vice Presidential records related to your request and have identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request.” Since that letter written 14 months ago, SLF has heard nothing from NARA. This prompted the group to file a lawsuit against the agency on Monday to obtain the records alluded to in NARA’s initial response. According to a website announcement of this legal action, SLF noted they filed their first request for Biden’s emails in 2021: NARA responded that because it did not take custody of then-vice president’s records until January 20, 2017, the emails could not be made public until January 20, 2022. In 2022, SLF renewed its request with a second FOIA request that is at the heart of SLF’s lawsuit. NARA has failed to produce a single one of these emails. SLF also mentions that earlier this month, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer “demanded NARA turn over unredacted copies of these emails, among others.” The statement quotes Kimberly Hermann, the group’s general counsel: All too often, public officials abuse their power by using it for their personal or political benefit. When they do, many seek to hide it. The only way to preserve governmental integrity is for NARA to release Biden’s nearly 5,400 emails to SLF and thus the public. The American public deserves to know what is in them. Hunter Biden’s laptop has certainly been the gift that keeps on giving, hasn’t it? I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Joe Biden learned that his son’s abandoned laptop had been handed over to the New York Post!
You do know NARA already handed over the documents to FBI and us attorney literally months ago right? You're like 10 months slow here
"Two of those emails were sent from then-Biden aide John Flynn to the then-vice president on May 27, 2016, and June 15, 2016. Hunter Biden was a CC'd recipient of those two emails" https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-5400-pseudonym-emails-what-we-know-national-archives-1822952 Were you ever going mention that out of those 5700 documents many of them simply include biden in the message and it was written by other staff members? Again its not a "new story" because NARA already turndd over these documents to the FBI. Whats your point exactly? The trump fbi is corrupt?
