I recently wrote a column entitled “Who is Lying? Merrick Garland or the Whistleblowers?” after the allegations of IRS whistleblowers and the categorical denial of Attorney General Merrick Garland on the Hunter Biden investigation. I noted that it would not be a difficult question to answer given the highly specific account of the whistleblowers of meetings, including witnesses. Now the New York Times has confirmed one of the key allegations. While the newspaper buried the major fact in the 21st paragraph of the story, it confirmed that U.S. Attorney David Weiss did attempt to bring additional charges in California and D.C. but was blocked.
Many have observed that the placement of the disclosure in the Times is a classic example of “burying the lede.” If this were Bill Barr, the confirmation of the story would have been a banner headline. Instead, the confirmation is found in with the baggage 21 cars down the train. That is where you will find this bombshell:
“But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony. A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.”
If the New York Times is confirming that the “episode” was the repeated blocking of Weiss, Garland stands contradicted in statements that he has made for months, including just days ago. Garland appeared irate at the suggestion that Weiss was denied any opportunity to bring charges anywhere:
He stated
“As I said at the outset, Mr. Weiss, who was appointed by President Trump as the U.S Attorney in Delaware and assigned this matter during the previous administration, would be permitted to continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to… I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution, given that he has this authority.”
He also denied the allegation that Weiss asked for special counsel status.
I am not sure what is worse: that Garland was clueless or duplicitous. Despite my support for his nomination, Garland has not been a success at Justice. Indeed, from the start, he seemed to shrink from view.
There is also a danger of willful blindness on the part of Garland in avoiding such knowledge as underlings undermined Weiss. We simply do not know, but we need to know.
In speaking with people at Justice, Garland does not appear to be a hands-on manager in the model of Bill Barr. While he cannot be called a figurehead, he is certainly not someone who conveys operational or active control of the department.
If Weiss was refused the ability to charge in two other jurisdictions, the key question is whether he did in fact ask for special counsel status. If so, Garland could be facing serious consequences, even an impeachment effort.
The coverage by the New York Times suggests that the media may be forced to cover this story albeit reluctantly. For Democratic members, it is now becoming even more embarrassing. Democrats unanimously opposed the release of the recent evidence and have opposed efforts to investigate the Biden corruption scandal.
Saul Garland?
If you’re running a department that is actively investigating your boss and his kid, do you ignore the investigation or do you follow it closely? This administration is full of corrupt liars.
“I didn’t know.”
” Congress cannot get the names of those who blocked the investigation. Inquiries have been met with delays and demands for answers have not been forthcoming. Now, five years later, a whistleblower has come forward. Is the whistleblower credible ? He has been attacked and is no longer employed at DOJ.”
All we have are more questions. Garland is up for SCOTUS appointment again, and Mitch McConel cannot be reached for comment.
OUR FUTURE IS CLEAR.
Merrick Garland may not be “hands on” with routine day-to-day operations at the DOJ, but he is damn sure “hands-on” with all things Biden that’s for sure. He’s batting 1000 keeping his boys out of prison. Best mob lawyer in history !! Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Speaking of burying the ledge, your headline should be – garland lied. There is no question.
Fascist aren’t even hiding their crimes
DOJ, FBI, DC are 100% corrupt for Democrats
cut 50% of federal government, move 75% OUT of DC
“. . . in any district in which [Weiss] wanted to . . .” (Garland)
Perhaps what he meant was: “In any district” not controlled by a D prosecutor.
I note Mr Anonymous says Weiss could have appealed to Mr. Garland but that is not mentioned.
I could predict that conversation would be Weiss- “I want to appeal to Mr Garland for authority to charge Hunter Biden”. Mr. Garland’s office- “Were you not refused authority by the California Office and the Delaware Office to charge Mr. Biden?” Weiss-“Yes, that is true”. Mr Garland’s office- “ We then we have nothing additional to say at this time”. Mr. Garland could be said to technically not be refusing the charging. I mean these are attorneys and their whole living is splitting hairs and determining what the definition of “is” is.
2nd- I want to commend the professor for getting 21 paragraphs into any NY Times story.
Your speculation runs contrary to Garland’s position.
From the same NYT article:
“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters last Friday, referring to whether Mr. Weiss had sought special counsel status.”
So no this is not what happened.
“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters last Friday,
This story is examining the lies of Garland.
Your response is to quote Garland claiming he has not lied.
” While the newspaper buried the major fact in the 21st paragraph of the story,”
I’m surprised they placed that information that high up in the story
Breaking Bombshell: FBI Whistleblower Says January 6th was an Administrative State Trap
48,611 views
Jun 27, 2023
18
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=649b96655b1b9f7bcaa17156
Jan 6th was Democrats’ Reichstag Fire. Democrats are 1930’s German National Socialists…that is obvious. Fight now or else!
On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down. The Nazi leadership and its coalition partners used the fire to claim that Communists were planning a violent uprising. They claimed that emergency legislation was needed to prevent this. The resulting act, commonly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolished a number of constitutional protections and paved the way for Nazi dictatorship.
John N Mitchell, 67th Attorney General of the United States was convicted for obstruction of justice, conspiracy and perjury and went to prison for his part in the Watergate coverup.
These are serious allegations and bring with them consequences. They must be soberly addressed and investigated by congress.
I remember the day a group of republican senators and congressmen walked up the driveway to the whitehouse to ask Richard Nixon to resign. You will.never see these corrupt dims do anything like that. Probably because they would all have to leave.
Re: “For Democratic members, it is now becoming even more embarrassing. Democrats unanimously opposed the release of the recent evidence and have opposed efforts to investigate the Biden corruption scandal.”
The Democrats are not embarrassed, because they don’t have that capacity. Rather they are ruthlessly indifferent because the lapdog MSM marches with them in lockstep. As George Costanza once wryly noted, “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.” When every Democrat and the MSM believe it in collusion it is all over but the crying for even the millions of politically independent Americans who want the Truth.
There is no one more greedy, hate filled, lying, cheating, hypocrite than a Democrat
No Professor Turley…..We MUST KNOW whether AG Garland is simply blind to the truth or is flat out lying.
The truth is Weiss did not have the authority AG Garland has been claiming in public and on the record…..which by any standard clearly etches into stone the fact that what Garland is claiming absolutely is not true.
The only question is why does Garland persist in sticking to an account that even he knows is bogus to the bone.
Then we must move on to the usual investigators chore in sorting out the truth about an event or situation…..the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW Hunter was given the Plea Bargain he received which is an insult to the intelligence of even a Village Idiot.
Above all….everyone involved in the granting of that Plea Bargain must be identified, indicted, and prosecuted along with everyone that obstructed or corrupted delayed the investigation, indictments, and prosecution of the Biden Family.
Finally…..Joe Biden must be Impeached right along with Garland, Mayorokas, Wray, and every member of the Biden Cabinet.
To have a system of justice that is fair to all of us….every participant in this conspiracy including the media, the intelligence community, law enforcement, and Congress must be brought before the appropriate tribunals and be prosecuted for their crimes.
Either the establishment does it…..or someday it shall be the People that do it….and no one should.want that to happen or have to happen to remove this cancer from our society.
We should all thank God for courageous people like the Whistleblowers who are willing to take a stand and tell the God’s honest truth to us all at great risk and cost to themselves.
We need far more of them in all segments of the Federal Government.
“To have a system of justice that is fair to all of us…Either the establishment does it…..or someday it shall be the People that do it…”
Indeed, if our so-called betters wish to play scorched-earth against their own constituents, there should be no shocked faces when The People start playing scorched-earth right back.
Well, to answer the title question you first need to know if Garland’s lips were moving?
Nothing to see here, move along little girl.
Both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are “political” in nature. Maybe one much needed reform would to make the DOJ part of the non-political Judicial Branch.
Maybe the real question is should the DOJ have a constitutional “judicial review” mission or an executive branch mission? America has the largest prison population per capita on Earth and a two tiered justice system. Maybe the entire design is wrong?
The design is fine. A congressional committee can get all of the witnesses on the record and force a resignation or an impeachment. Prof. Turley called Garland “unimpeachable” last year and now refers to “an impeachment effort.” The question is whether that can happen before the election.
The Watergate scandal took over a year to develop, including congressional testimony that revealed White House tapes and a subsequent SCOTUS decision and ultimately led to multiple resignations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/irs-official-justice-dept-hunter-biden.html
Please read the actual NYT story and not the cherry picked Fox article quoting it.
The paragraphs following the quote clearly show that Weiss could bring charges in two distinct ways: (1) with the approval of the US attorneys; or (2) without their approval by appealing to Garland directly.
The NYT clearly stated that the first method may have been rejected (note however their “confirmation” only apply to the CA rejection) but that they had no evidence that Weiss pursued the second method.
From the NYT article:
“If Mr. Weiss wanted to move ahead without their approval, he could have brought the issue to Mr. Garland’s attention, and the attorney general could then appoint him “special attorney,” which would allow him to bypass the standard chain of command. There is no indication that Mr. Weiss appealed for help from Mr. Garland or his top deputies — or that he even communicated about the case with anyone in leadership beyond the department’s top career official at headquarters.”
Professor Turley, while it is fair to question the strength of the claims of each individual involved in this matter, it is not fair to mislead your readers by making a claim about NYT reporting that is facially incorrect. There is no excuse for claiming the NYT “confirmed” that Weiss was blocked because the article clearly stated otherwise. If there are two methods of getting something done, and Weiss only pursued one method, then he was not “blocked”.
God, aninny learn to read. That’s exactly what JT said and why he asked in the piece if Weiss requested SC status FROM GARLAND. We can take your ignorance but your outright lying is beyond the pale..
This is not what JT said. Incorrect.
NYT has not independently confirmed that Garland rejected a request for SC status. So how could JT then claim that NYT has confirmed that Weiss was blocked from pursuing charges? That’s an error of basic reading comprehension bro.
aninny:
Oh please, even an ESL reader understands JT was reporting that Weiss was blocked by not being the ultimate decider as Garland said he was when he described Weiss’ unfettered power to pursue the charges wherever the evidence led. Sure he could have requested SC status and probably did but the point is that Garland is a liar and you’re a pretty shameless obscurantist.
Thank you.
This run-on sentence is difficult to understand. I have no idea what “blocked by not being the ultimate decider as Garland said he was” means, but it surely isn’t relevant. Garland has said he could have gone the SC route but did not. Weiss claims he did. That is a dispute of fact, which NYT has not confirmed for either Garland or Weiss.
JT reported that NYT independently “confirmed” Weiss was “blocked” from pursuing additional charges. This is categorically untrue based on the actual text of the NYT article. No NYT confirmation applied to the SC route. Full stop.
Garland very well may be a liar. But that is not the point of the post. The issue here is with Turley’s misleading summary of NYT reporting. Do you see the difference between these two points? Turley’s objective is to pin the non-Fox media as burying the smoking gun in support of Weiss over Garland, but that is not what happened here because it wasn’t a smoking gun.
Wiess made the request to gain special counsel powers Garland ignored the request. Garland can say he never turned him down. But Garland never responded to the request.
You have been lied to for 6+ years….yet you still quote the DoJ like they are incapable of telling a lie.
From the same NYT article:
“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters last Friday, referring to whether Mr. Weiss had sought special counsel status.”
So there still remains a question of fact regarding whether a request to Garland was made. This should be easily documented and therefore easy to confirm.
Nevertheless, my point regarding Turley’s failure to accurately depict reporting from NYT is a separate issue.
“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters<
Garland has been caught lying repeatedly. That means if you need evidece to support Garland….you quote Garland….Yep, you really did that.
“Mr. Weiss never made that request,” Mr. Garland told reporters last Friday, referring to whether Mr. Weiss had sought special counsel status.”
**********************
Circle meet reasoning and the result was aninny.
What is circular about this?
Iowan claimed that Garland can claim he never “turned him down.” But, Garland is already claiming that no request was ever made. How could he claim he never turned him down if he is already saying no request was ever made for him to turn down?
Do your circles tend to look like straight lines?
All of the related communications between Weiss, federal prosecutors in other jurisdictions and Garland are most certainly documented. The House should simply subpoena those documents and the people who wrote them and then let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps. But that is not the point of my comment. Turley’s article makes a false claim about NYT independent reporting. That has nothing to do with the internal evidentiary record.
To claim that the NYT proves Weiss is right and Garland is wrong with this cherry-picked quote is either intentionally misleading or reckless at best.
The only surprising thing about the NY Times story is that a piece of truth got past the editors. It has been obvious for a long time that Garland is a corrupt hack who will do whatever it takes to protect the Bidens and the democrat agenda.
RE: “While the newspaper buried the major fact in the 21st paragraph of the story..” …precisely the way the ‘covered’ Hitler’s genocide during WWII. Waaaay in the back of the paper. All the news THAT FITS, they print. Journalassts.!
Also buried yesterday. The Recording of Trump….leaked to the media, in NOT supported by an actual document. The document in question does not exist. The recording had to be leaked, because the claimed document does not exist. Trump was talking about media account he had saved in his personal papers.
You supported his nomination? Wow.