This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Probably necessary after what the DOJ was trying to do re blanket immunity which was ultimately blocked by the Judge.
Independent Counsel circa 1998 and before. Special Counsel 1999 - the present.
Semantics. He's been on this case since 2018. He was appointed by Trump.
Last edited:
Interesting to see House Republicans turn on Trump appointed, Republican special counsel because he hasn't produced their desired outcome. Do an honest investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Trump appointed him in 2018 when he took this case. He signed off on Hunter's plea bargain. Then the DOJ appointed him as special counsel recently.
So Garland appointing someone who tried give Hunter blanket immunity only to be thwarted by the trial Judge? Another question: Aren’t these suppose to be independent special counsels? Weis works under Garland who works for Biden….correct? One of the requirements for special counsel is they come from outside of the federal government. How does that work? Perception doesn’t seem real good here.
Last edited:
We don't know what he will be charged with, and haven't seen the evidence they have against him. So why is judgement already being passed against the accused and against the prosecutor. Myself and the nation is still in the dark on what evidence they have on him. The judge that ruled against accepting the plea bargain was appointed by Trump as well. It could have been a politically influenced judgement for him to throw it out. Or he could have felt like it was in the best interest of the nation to see the evidence in court.(despite the potential lack of evidence for charges of a more serious nature)
In this high profile situation, I am fine with the plea bargain being struck down by the judge and the evidence being brought out in court. Normally I would accept the prosecutors judgement that the evidence didn't support anything but a light sentence, but this is not an ordinary situation.
My perception is that I'll wait for the trial before I start passing judgement. I don't know if they have any evidence of accepting bribes which is the most important thing here.(IMO) If they can't find evidence of that then the most serious thing they have on him is not paying the taxes,(IMO) which he has recently paid. If that's the case then I would have been fine with that plea deal that got thrown out by the judge.
Many, many people have gotten that kind of plea deal with evidence of not paying taxes until the courts have forced them to, with charges or threats of charges. It would be rare for him to pay those taxes and then go to jail for paying them late. It's his first offense with the weapons charges and drug offenses. So that is doubtful for sending him to prison as well. "Like the gun charge, the tax charges are rarely brought against first-time offenders and even more rarely result in jail time, Andrew Weissmann, a former FBI general counsel...tweeted Tuesday."
Hunter suffers here if he is not found guilty of the more serious possible charges of bribery. The court will likely give him a worse deal for the charges that they were going to give him in the plea deal. But that is a matter of looking out for the many vs the one.
If there is evidence of accepting bribes then I am not fine with that plea deal. Determining his guilt and determining the validity of that plea deal will take place during the trial.
You seem to be overlooking the point that an independent special counsel is to come from outside the federal government. There’s a reason for such a requirement. Weis works for Hunter’s dad. If there were ever a situation to appoint someone outside of the DOJ this would be the case.
The deal didn’t fall apart due to the sentence Weis recommended. It fell apart because Weis was willing to give Hunter immunity from crimes outside of the investigation which hadn’t yet been discovered or admitted. Something the Judge stated she had never heard of. Now the DOJ doesn’t have to worry about this.
The deal didn’t fall apart due to the sentence Weis recommended. It fell apart because Weis was willing to give Hunter immunity from crimes outside of the investigation which hadn’t yet been discovered or admitted. Something the Judge stated she had never heard of. Now the DOJ doesn’t have to worry about this.
I had meant to include a couple of important points about the blanket immunity and forgot to come back to it at the end. My apologies.
I definitely did not approve of giving him blanket immunity, that was ludicrous. I've seen it for witnesses and criminals in crime syndicates. But that was when they were giving evidence against their bosses. He wasn't giving evidence against anyone but himself that was going to be prosecuted, as far as I know.
But there are reports out there that Weiss requested this appointment. If true then that would be all the protection he needs.(IMO) Biden probably wouldn't have the balls to fire Weiss for appearances of tampering. Now Weiss has been freed of that threat with this appointment.
I doubt his appointment as the Federal Attorney of Delaware will be threatened for quite some time. By the time Biden would feel comfortable firing him from Attorney of Delaware this trial will be over and the next election will probably be over. I feel comfortable with an appointee of Trump who was let stay by Biden, as being independent enough.
If they had appointed someone else who wasn't under this administration, it would have delayed everything. That is infringing even more so on Hunter Biden's right to a speedy trial than it already has been. This thing has already been going on for 5 years. Also it would have caused the public stress. It is important for the public to know the results of this affair as quick as possible, in so far as how it could affect the government. This is time sensitive. The public needs a speedy trial in this instance.
Last edited:
Once again, appointed by Trump. If he truly did Ignore me, this is case in point for will power of ignoring on your own and not hitting the ignore button.
Isn’t the conflict that he works for Hunter’s father? Not to mention some of the accusations deal with foreign governments giving Hunter money to buy influence from his father. Again….there’s a reason why the independent counsel statute requires them to be….well…independent (come from outside the federal government). I can be initially hired by “X” but when “X” leaves and “Y” becomes my boss and my job is now dependent on “Y” guess where my interests now lie?
This is a very different situation than a federal judge who has to answer to no one and are lifetime appointments. Federal prosecutors have to keep their boss happy.
Last edited:
He was appointed by Trump which leads one to believe that Trump saw his general demeanor to be towards the Republican parties policies. Biden decided to let him stay on. Yes Biden was his boss was recently, but nobody has said anything equivocating belief's that he was paid off by Hunter/Joe.
Independent/Special counsels hired before Weiss have almost always worked within the governments of past administrations. For instance Starr worked under HW Bush, and Walsh was appointed by Eisenhower. Mueller and Comey had worked under Bush & Obama's administration.
Weiss has worked under Trump and Biden's administrations. Why would anyone assume that because he stayed on during Biden's administration after working for Trump, that his loyalty became suddenly towards Biden. The appointment to Special Counsel will give him cover to do things that would be for the good of the country, not feeling the pressure to be working for either Trump or Biden.
I think that if this had been related to any president besides Trump or Biden, neither party would throw up much of a fuss over his appointment as special counsel for instance over Reagan or B. Clinton or Hillary. My thinking is that the fuss would come from both parties because it has become so fraught with disagreement over any special counsel. If he had been put in charge as special counsel over Trump and the classified documents, the Democrats would have thrown a fit because he was a Trump appointee.
Unless I see something pointing towards bias that hasn't been brought up yet I believe it will be fine. I am of the opinion he will be a decent prosecutor for the case over Hunter now that he has been given the freedom to not be fired by Biden. I don't like that he approved the blanket immunity, but he should be free of that now, with his appointment. I'm sure he realizes that it is not going to go over with the public anyway.(immunity) My only picadillo with him would be over that blanket immunity, not the pleading it down to misdemeanors.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. 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.Starr, Mueller and Walsh had all left their government positions at the time of their appointments. The regulation states "The Special Counsel SHALL be selected from outside the government. Not may be, but shall be. Weiss is not eligible to serve as Special Counsel as he is currently in the government.
Yeah, it makes me wonder if the fits thrown by the Republicans were for appearances only.
It wouldn't be that hard for the Republicans to disallow his appointment, and demand another appointment outside the current administration. The regulations would force the Democrats to have Garland make another appointment.
Pubs don’t control the Senate so they can’t “disallow” the appointment. I’m actually unsure what the process might be. Falls back on Garland or Biden
Last edited:
I would think they wouldn't have to have a majority, and just make an official complaint that it was breaking the rules. Wouldn't think it was down to the administration that made the appointment either. Would seem to defeat the purpose of having the regulations in the first place. But I have no idea how they address an improper appointment of Special Counsel.
One issue that I haven't seen addressed is that the Republicans opened the door for this with Barr's appointment of John Durham. He was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Mueller and would be able to continue the investigation beyond the election. As far as I know he was still a US Attorney for Connecticut who was appointed by Trump, and still under the DOJ. He was not allowed to continue as US Attorney for Connecticut by Biden, but he continued as Special Counsel until earlier this year. So that rule has already been broken by the Republicans. Along come the Democrats to do something similar.
Last edited:
From what was posted, this choice appears disappointing. A long delay by a new guy starting over might be an excuse given he is a Trump appointed attorney, but even so the outcome won't be as definitive as it should be.
To extend it to year 7 or even 8. It needs to be finished quickly. Fresh eyes doesn't portend a quick finish. It needs to be on the home stretch or done within a year. Fresh eyes is a 6mo or 9mo delay.
I'd settle for people keeping this in perspective. There has been zero evidence provided that Pres. Biden had anything to do with this, so it's a relatively minor issue affecting someone who had never had any role in the administration, ever held elected office, never been an advisor or ever been elected to anything. Meanwhile Hunter's issues are being used to divert atteniton from January 6 and Georgia as well as how the Trump's kids who have been advisors, policy makers, and negotiators who have taken in literally billions (Saudi in investments) and tens of millions (property bailouts and trademarks from China).
Anyway, Hunter's deal is going on, so investigate it impartially and thoroughly and get it over with, but given our political polarization and years of attacks on American institutions, no result, no matter how impartial, is going to be widely accepted.
Anyway, Hunter's deal is going on, so investigate it impartially and thoroughly and get it over with, but given our political polarization and years of attacks on American institutions, no result, no matter how impartial, is going to be widely accepted.
Last edited:
SIAP posted but the judge was nominated by Trump but such nominations do not occur without the agreement of both senators in that state — both hard left Democrats — and the vote of the full Senate. The judge has a close personal relationship with one of those senators and a history of political donations to democrat candidates and causes, as I understand it.
I have no reason to believe the judge cannot be impartial, but none of you should presume that this judge, or any judge, is either more or less impartial simply because President Trump nominated them to be an Article III judge.
I have no reason to believe the judge cannot be impartial, but none of you should presume that this judge, or any judge, is either more or less impartial simply because President Trump nominated them to be an Article III judge.
Don’t typically believe Twitter but unless the copy of the letter is fake I found it rather compelling.
Thats a new one. he also went by "Peter Henderson", a KGB mole in the Tom Clancy books.
Last edited:
I’m sorry, I didn’t know we were talking about your views on segregation.
Or is that your defense for banning women from the military?
It seems awfully like conservatives just love to ban people and things left and right.
When I was a kid it was Conservative Christian parents banning Halloween. Fox news never mentioned the war on that holiday lol.
Interesting coming from someone who supported censoring and banning the speech of those who suggested Covid originated in a Chinese lab yet you want adults with penises in girls bathrooms 🤷♂️. I’ve never quite understood why some care more about a 35 year old “male” being uncomfortable than an 8 year old girl.
Last edited:
I suggested banning speech that said a deadly pandemic was not a deadly pandemic and that people shouldn’t abide by best scientific practices because they felt they had the right to endanger their fellow citizen.
I never cared if people erroneously said that it was an attack by the Chinese government.
As far as bathrooms go.… I think the 8 year old girls are going to be more comfortable around drag queens than 8 year old boys are. Second bonus…there are no urinals in women’s bathrooms. So no one should be seeing anyone’s genitalia anyway.
