Although it will not make any difference insofar as the Republican politicians and the right-media are concerned Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel to avoid the appearance of interference even though Weiss was originally appointed as the US Attorney for Delaware by Donald Trump and began investigating Hunter when Trump was still in office.
No worries River. Comments like that illustrate the bubble that the extreme right occupies. The posters literally drew the comparisons in this and the many other threads posted about Hunter Biden. When one can’t see the difference between waving around war plans for Iran in front of those who don’t have clearances or keeping nuclear secrets in the bathroom of a club or attempting to submit fake electors to defeat a valid election or asking the Gerogia Secretary of State to find 11,000 more votes and Hinter Biden’s tax and business issues, they become talking points.
I think so. What is the purpose of having a discussion forum if you're simply going to parrot talking points verbatim and repetitiously? "This has nothing to do with Joe Biden" has probably been posted by @duchen 100 times in the past week. Clearly it has something to do with Joe Biden or we wouldn't have a special counsel. Even if Weiss exonerates both Hunter and Joe Biden, obviously the investigation still had something to do with Joe Biden. So aside from regurgitating the same talking points 100 times, it's also disingenuous and dishonest.
So, it does have something to do with Joe Biden, because it's about Joe Biden's son? But it doesn't have anything to do with Joe Biden? Hmmm. Interesting dilemma. The truth is you really don't know at this point if the special counsel involves Joe Biden directly or not. A special counsel's investigation can take them anywhere. If some of the allegations being made are true, it's very possible a special counsel could stumble upon that link and implicate Joe Biden. Nobody can say for 100% certainty whether or not Joe Biden will be implicated. Two weeks ago, Hunter had a plea deal and Weiss' investigation was done. It's probably prudent to hold your fire on this one until the process plays out, considering how things haven't aged well with Hunter's investigation. Obviously, it has a possibility of implicating Joe Biden or else a special counsel would be highly unnecessary. But it's awfully difficult to maintain the public trust when said special counsel just had a plea deal tossed by a judge who felt insulted after learning the details of it.
Regurgitating same talking points over and over. Going off topic. The majority of your post has nothing to do with the thread topic. Nor did anyone in the thread draw any comparisons to Trump. You're simply regurgitating the same talking points and attempting to steer the thread off topic. What Trump did or didn't do has zero to do with the Hunter Biden investigations. Quit attempting to hijack every thread and change the topic. The topic is Hunter Biden.
From the article where you cite she was pissed and insulted: At times, Noreika appeared almost upset that she believed she was being asked to act as a "rubber stamp" for the deal.
I replied to the posts in this thread by right wingers addressing the effect this is going to have in the election. And the post that said that this is going to make it harder for the Dems to focus on Trump’s indictments. Fair comment. The difficulty you are having is that you can’t see outside your bubble. And they aren’t talking points. They are reality outside the bubble.
Judges have to check their emotions and keep their composure to keep their jobs, so anytime one is visibly annoyed or upset, you can probably multiply that times 10 as to how they really feel about it. Also, if a judge ever tells you that it feels like you just want her to "rubber stamp" something, that's a nice professional way of a judge asking you "do you think I'm an idiot?" If a judge thinks you've asked her to rubber stamp a deal, they're insulted.
Should be rather obvious that the purpose of Congressional investigations is to create the illusion that somehow Joe Biden was receiving payments from Ukrainian and/or Chinese sources not unlike the big lie that Trump really won the election and that it was stolen from him through massive voter fraud. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it especially those already predisposed to believe the false narrative and receive their "news" from a very limited number of sources. Maybe the investigations will reveal in more detail how Hunter was able to monetize the family name. While not completely beyond the realm of possibility that James Comer or Jim Jordan will find that Joe Biden was on the take is roughly equivalent to winning a Power Ball or Mega Millions lottery.
I've read the same talking points almost verbatim from other sources, so you're not fooling anyone. I'm guessing if you were posting here in 2016, you probably said the DNC emails and Hillary's emails weren't going to matter either. That we've gone from plea deal to special counsel investigation in a span of two weeks and during that two weeks we had IRS whistleblowers tells me there's probably more to this story and neither one of us know exactly what will be turned up. I suspect it won't be much, considering the special counsel is compromised, but nobody knows. That's the whole point.
No. The potential to implicate Biden is not why Weiss was given special counsel authority. It is because the plea collapsed and the presidents son is going to be charged and tried. The relationship is enough to support a special counsel. I am unconcerned about the investigation leading to Joe Biden because no credible witness has come forward in 4 years to implicate Joe in anything. They even have Hunter’s laptop. And even the GOP reps keep referring to the “Biden Family.” No matter how many times you speculate, you can’t identify the business deal, official action or crime Joe Biden was involved in. All there is is your breathless speculation.
Hilary Clinton was running for president. Trump wasn’t indicted in 2016 in very serious charges. And Hunter isn’t running for president. And the IRS “whistleblower” didn’t say anything about Joe Biden. And Archer said they didn’t talk business with Hoe. Those are facts. Not talking points. And facts matter. They don’t go away by labeling them “taking points.”
More lies. The special counsel was appointed because the IRS whistleblowers revealed a DOJ coverup and if DOJ is providing cover, there's a reason they're doing so. Some of us don't have our heads so far up Biden's ass that we can see that. I agree the plea deal blow up, which you lied about yesterday and said the judge didn't throw it out, has implications as well. But the IRS whistleblowers obviously have no incentive to blow that whistle if there isn't impropriety there. But this is really just a forum where Gator grads, fans, alum can shoot the breeze about politics. We don't have to put up these false pretenses and perpetuate a narrative. Obviously Hunter hasn't been able to explain the payments and why they were not included on his tax returns. Weiss tried to push through a plea deal which gave Hunter immunity and got caught. He cannot serve as an impartial special counsel, knowing this information.
It's been pointed out here before that there doesn't have to be a smoking gun trail linking Joe Biden to the payments for Joe Biden to be implicated. Criminals use buffers and go betweens all the time in money laundering and bribery schemes. The Michael Corleone defense isn't going to work. Especially when Hunter is constantly referring to the "big guy" and even said half of his receivables go to Joe. They clearly don't have "all the evidence" or the IRS whistleblowers wouldn't be compelled to come forward, nor would Weiss feel compelled to ask for special counsel status. An investigator doesn't ask for additional investigative authority if he has all the evidence.
The article says ALMOST UPSET from which you divine she was pissed and insulted. You have called other posters on here "liars" for much less exaggeration than this - but due to your omniscience regarding judicial emotions you must be right in your own head. I'm going to pronounce with just as much certainty that she was frustrated. Frustrated that an imprecise document was before her - one that caused one side to believe something while the other side believed the opposite and resulted in a waste of time for her, the court, and all involved in such a high profile proceeding.
Feel free to explain a scenario to me where a judge would tell you she felt like you just wanted her to rubber stamp an agreement and isn't unhappy about it. You do understand when that comes from a federal judge to a US attorney, that's not a positive development, right? US attorneys typically enjoy a great deal of latitude and rarely lose in federal court. With any sort of rebuke from the bench about a "rubber stamp" that's delivered to a US attorney, it has to be egregious to even get to that point. IOW, I stand by my assessment. Federal judges don't rebuke US attorneys often like that. It impugns the US attorney's credibility, which is obviously a liability in future cases for the government.
Sure. The document was not clear to her as the terms were not clear to either legal side such that she wasn’t going to just rubber-stamp it without its meaning being understood by all.
