Jim Daws, "Special counsel in Biden investigation is a sweet pick for Hunter"
In a move that should come as a surprise to no one, Merrick Garland has appointed, as special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the one man who can most be counted on to continue covering up for the Biden family crimes. That man is David Weiss.
This is the self-same David Weiss who allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on Hunter Biden's most serious crimes, while offering him a plea deal so broad, so lenient, and for crimes so minor that the prosecutor Weiss sent to court had to admit to an astonished judge that there was no legal precedent for it. To her credit, the judge rejected that sweetheart plea deal out of hand.
That would be the David Weiss whose office IRS investigators-turned-whistleblowers testified prevented them from even interviewing Hunter or executing search warrants to collect evidence of his crimes — and the same David Weiss who blocked those IRS investigators from using the mountains of evidence contained on Hunter's infamous laptop from hell.
Yes, David Weiss, who, five years after the beginning of this sham investigation, has not indicted Hunter Biden for anything — while the statute of limitations on his serial and thoroughly documented felonies continue to slip away. Those crimes would have earned any Republican a pre-dawn arrest by a heavily armed SWAT team with news media in tow.
I say that it should surprise no one, because at this point, there is no act so blatant, so brazen, or so lawless that Joe Biden's DOJ, led by Merrick Garland, will not stoop to it. This is the same weaponized DOJ that is targeting Biden's main political opponent for re-election in 2024.
Besides having proven himself as nothing more than a protector of the Bidens, David Weiss isn't even legally eligible for this appointment — at least according to a plain reading of the special counsel statute, which states that "the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government."
All this is to conclude that David Weiss has proven that his only intention is to immunize Hunter Biden with the lowest possible charges and shield any evidence from implicating Joe BIden.
All of this has been done to continue stonewalling and prevent House Republicans from subpoenaing Hunter and Jim to testify about that $20 million that flowed into the Biden family coffers. Ongoing investigation, don't you know.
We can't be surprised, but we should all be ashamed of what our Department of Justice, under Joe Biden, has become. Calling this banana republic justice is an insult to banana republics.
We also should not be surprised if and when the Democrat prosecutor in Atlanta, following the Biden DOJ's well established pattern, indicts Donald Trump next week for legally contesting the 2020 presidential election — something the Democrats themselves did in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
21 comments:
This is the same David Weiss who was nominated by donald tRump while he was president.
Would the Senate have confirmed an actual Trump choice?
Weiss was his choice.
He knew him?
donald tRump: I only hire the best people.
He didn't hire him. He was already working for the government.
He (Weiss) returned to the Delaware U.S. Attorney's office as First Assistant U.S. Attorney in 2007.[2]
Weiss was serving as acting U.S. Attorney for Delaware when he was nominated to the permanent position by then-president Donald Trump. On February 15, 2018, his nomination to be the United States Attorney was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote. He was sworn in on February 22, 2018
Voice vote is code for "the deep state really REALLY likes you"
“David Weiss was picked by the two Democrat Senators from Delaware under ‘Blue Slip,’” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “He would not have been picked by me.”
...in other words, he was picked by Joe Biden.
Trump nominated him. Joe Biden confirmed (hired) him.
dotard donald: “He would not have been picked by me”.
So why didn't he pick someone else?
Minus: Joe Biden confirmed (hired) him.
As a private citizen? How'd he circumvent 28 U.S. Code § 541?
The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district. Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years.
Minus (quoting dotard donald): David Weiss was picked by the two Democrat Senators from Delaware under "Blue Slip".
Fackcheck.org: It's true that Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both Democrats, played a part in selecting Weiss, because of a longstanding Senate policy that allows home-state senators to sign off on presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys.
But Weiss is a registered Republican ... who was ultimately nominated by Trump and approved unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike in a voice vote.
Minus: Voice vote is code for "the deep state really REALLY likes you".
Or so your delusions tell you. tRump was president at the time. tRump nominated him. Why would he nominate someone the "deep state" really likes?
"He would not have been picked by me" = Lie. He DID pick him.
"Appoint" isn't "hire". If it were, the appointments wouldn't be required to be confirmed. The confirming agency is the "hiring" agency. Trump was just the headhunter.
You don't like stupid distinctions? Then stop making them in 99% of your arguments.
You want it to stop making (up?) arguments? :-))))
Better suggest to it to stop breathing. ;-P
;)
Minus: You don't like stupid distinctions? Then stop making them in 99% of your arguments.
"Advise and consent". A lot of government hiring by the president is done this way. Doesn't make it not hiring. Doesn't make it a "stupid distinction".
Example of where I have done this? If I do this so often it should be easy to give ONE.
Qtard: You want it to stop making (up?) arguments? Better suggest to it to stop breathing.
Not "made up". Appointment by "advise and consent" is hiring. That donald tRump said "I hire the best people" is not "made up".
An example of a "made up" argument? That the findings of experts can be discounted simply by calling the expert "somebody somebody". And saying their findings (made after examining the evidence) is "something something".
Made up. Also idiotic. Experts can be disagreed with. But the correct way to do this is to quote another expert. But Qtard doesn't even bother. The idiot thinks ad hominem and using logically fallacious arguments is the correct way to debate. Leads to "understanding".
\\An example of a "made up" argument? That the findings of experts can be discounted simply by calling the expert "somebody somebody". And saying their findings (made after examining the evidence) is "something something".
Yep.
Calling somebody-somebodies who saying something-something an "expert"...
like that CNN reporter... which was unable to meet criterios of news reporter EVEN -- provide RAW facts, not retelling with its own words... to twist unconvinient real world truth into propaganda narrative.
Yep. That is what "making up facts" pretty much is.
SAME. Like liliPut making up "fact" of "Ukraine's government is full of nazis... and therefore it need to be deNazified"...
on the base of propaganda narrative Demn media spreading, thjat "there are Nazis in Azov brigade in Ukraine"... just by omiting, editing out that "in Azov brigade"... as Derpy frequently do too...
\\Made up. Also idiotic. Experts can be disagreed with. But the correct way to do this is to quote another expert.
Naaaah.
There is NOT THAT MANY True Experts... to answer to all kinds of idiots... posing as experts, or beliving that some othger idiot is an expertt... because it likes, or "believes in facts"... in what it babbling.
\\The idiot thinks ad hominem and using logically fallacious arguments is the correct way to debate.
"fallacious arguments"Derpy the Idiot cannot rebut with Logic?
Because Derpy the Idiot dunno about Logic? Thinks it "b_l_ack magic"? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
I find Qtard's comment above to be gibberish nonsense -- not deserving my answer.
Pleading guilty, De-Ru-Pi? Being idiot. Not able to devise OWN backbites. ONLY able to REPEAT after much smarter opponent. ;-P
Mocking by repeating after much dumber opponent.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Yep.
Derping. :-))))))))))))))))))
Google: What does Derp mean slang? Noun. derp (plural derps) (slang) A person who acts stupidly or foolishly; a person who derps. (slang) A stupid mistake, stupidity.
Yet another word the derp Qtard does not know the definition of.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Google: What does Derp mean slang? Noun. derp (plural derps) (slang) A person who acts stupidly or foolishly; a person who derps. (slang) A stupid mistake, stupidity.
Yet another word the derp Qtard does not know the definition of.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Go frolick more... my little piggy. ;-P
Go show us how you like your own shit. To lay in it. To spread it around.
Post a Comment