The Non-Denial Denial: David Weiss and Prosecutorial Nihilism

Below is my column in The Hill on the long-awaited interview of Special Counsel David Weiss with House investigators. As expected, Weiss refused to answer most of the questions, but seemed perfectly Nietzschean in explaining obvious conflicts between the accounts of whistleblowers and the Attorney General.

Here is the column:

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that all things are matters of mere interpretation and “whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

One has to understand Nietzsche and his nihilistic rejection of meaning to fully appreciate this week’s interview with special counsel David Weiss. Indeed, Weiss seemed to be channeling pure Nietzsche in arguing that the denials of his request for authority to charge Hunter Biden were not really denials at all. What about the absence of any but a couple of gun charges after five years? Weiss insisted it is just a matter of interpretation.

Weiss appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, which is looking into the handling of the investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged criminal conduct. The one thing that both Republican and Democratic members appear to agree upon is that the Weiss investigation was an unmitigated mess — years of delay and internal dissension over the indictment of the president’s son.

Indeed, after years of denial, some Democratic members and the journalists are now admitting that Hunter Biden clearly broke the law. The Weiss investigation, however, languished for years even as some of us were pointing out that the statute of limitations was about to pass on felonies.

At the same time, Attorney General Merrick Garland steadfastly refused to appoint a special counsel into the expanding corruption scandal involving Hunter and other Biden family members selling influence and access.

Congress was scheduled to hear from Weiss when Garland suddenly made him a special counsel, though the attorney general did not expressly extend his mandate to cover the corruption allegations. That allowed Weiss to delay any appearance. He would bring gun charges against Hunter, but he has inexplicably still not brought the tax charges that he did not previously allow to expire or charges under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Weiss has shown no signs of movement as evidence has piled up. Most recently, Hunter’s own tax accountant gave incriminating evidence on his former client from claiming the payment of prostitutes as “a business expense” to allegedly misrepresenting payments as “loans.”

As expected, Weiss continued to refuse to answer questions about his lackadaisical approachThat includes obvious questions like why, when whistleblowers said the defense had agreed to an extension of the statute of limitations, Weiss let felonies expire. Those crimes included some of the most serious allegations of influence peddling and corruption facing the Biden family.

There was one area where the “ongoing investigation” mantra would not work. Garland repeatedly testified that Weiss had total authority to pursue any charges in any district. That was directly contradicted by the whistleblowers, who say that Weiss told them that he lacked such authority to pursue charges — a statement that Gary Shapley included in a memo sent to his superiors without any later contradiction or correction.

The account of the whistleblowers, that Weiss was turned down in efforts to bring charges against Hunter in California and Washington, D.C., were confirmed by those U.S. Attorneys — E. Martin Estrada (California) and Matthew Graves (D.C.). They also declined to explain why they refused to assist in prosecuting the son of the president.

Weiss has taken years and has brought only a couple of gun charges. Indeed, his billet could be described accurately as a systematic effort to avoid recognizing an array of evidence of other criminal acts.

The Justice Department was faced with a field littered with influence peddling and corrupt practices, including acts that may implicate the president himself. There are actual photos and videotapes of drug use, prostitution and luxury gifts tied to shady foreign sources. And then there are the millions of dollars of transfers from those foreign sources, and emails both promising access to Joe Biden and threatening his wrath if there are failures to pay.

In his House interview, Weiss continued to insist that he did indeed have full authority to bring any prosecution anywhere. When confronted by the fact that Estrada and Graves refused to cooperate, he admitted that he had asked for a special status to allow him to move forward on the cases under what is called “515 Special Attorney authority.”

However, a house investigator stated the obvious: “But [515 authority] wasn’t granted, right?”

“Yes. We have been over this. It wasn’t granted. They said follow the process. I followed the process…I asked for something, and in that conversation, they didn’t give it to me.”

The investigators then pressed again with the obvious: “When you ask for something and they didn’t give it to you, what is that?”

That is when Weiss went full Nietzsche.

Weiss responded “I’m not — you want me to say it’s a denial, but it’s not. Not when I know that, weeks later, I was specifically told, ‘You can proceed.’”

Weiss insisted that he was asked to “proceed with this process. We’re asking you to go through this process. From my mind, it’s a sequencing event. It’s not a denial in any way, shape or form.”

That is when he added “That’s the way I interpreted it.”

It is that easy. Even a denial is not really a denial. As Nietzsche said, it is all “a function of power and not truth.” For Garland and Weiss, blind justice itself becomes a matter of interpretation.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

159 thoughts on “The Non-Denial Denial: David Weiss and Prosecutorial Nihilism”

  1. “Weiss has shown no signs of movement as evidence has piled up.”
    Of course not. Why, pray tell, should he “move” on anything? He knows he’s ‘taken care of’…. all he has to do is ‘hold the line’ ….just a little while longer for his mob boss over at Biden, Inc. His payoffs are coming. Weiss is a ‘made man’ in the Biden mafia. He’s done real good for the Big Guy.

    “As expected, Weiss continued to refuse to answer questions about his lackadaisical approach.” Why would he? No pressure AT ALL to face ANY repurcussions. None. His payoffs are coming. How many millions will his book deal advance be?

    Impeach Merrick Garland for God’s sake. Forget Biden, go after Garland, hard. Steamroll and flatten the guy.

    1. Democrats want Biden to step down so they can put Gavin Newsom in the WH instead, and give Feinstein’s open seat to Kamala.

      So WHY would Republicans move forward with impeaching Biden?
      It makes no sense to do the Dems dirty work.
      Instead they need to impeach Garland, Wray, Mayorkas.

      But what will the Repubs do?
      Impeach Biden, of course.
      They are useless fools, as we all know by now.

      1. I intended send a note to Estovir to not only focus on her speech, but on her explanation of Abraham’s response to the death of Sarah, his wife. It tells a lot about the Jewish people and provides focus on Jewish origins in the area of the Levant.

        I don’t know what the Jesuits believe and if Estovir would like to comment it might be interesting. To me it is a very important passage in the Torah.

        1. Excellent speech.

          To the extent I would criticize, Weis’s emphasis on jews is too strong – not that what happened is not horrible.
          Nor that it is not entitled to hundreds of 2 hour documentaries.

          But the Huge point she makes – one made also by Victor David Hansen recently is the response.

          First, The Nazi’s own behavior demonstrated that they KNEW what they were doing was wrong.

          The members of the Einstatz groups did not write home about how proud they were about executing people all day,
          Hamas did.

          But second and worse still, nowhere in the world did millions come out to protest in favor of the nazi Genocide.

          Barri was best when she was noting this is not about jews. Jews are just the canary in the coal mine.

          This is about a generation that beleives it is acceptable to murder, rape, torture not just its political oponents,
          but their families and children.

      2. It is an excellent speech. The question now is whether the vocal support for Hamas by progressives is the death knell for CRT, intersectionality and DEI.

      3. Thank you profusely for sharing that link. I was just thinking last night how our generation (I’m 73) has fallen asleep on how the antiestablishment radicals of the 60’s and early 70’s have infiltrated our education system, media, corporations and government. This Jewish lady is so spot on in that we must fight for our freedoms. We are literally watching our country being destroyed and we have a ruling class allowing this to happen not realizing these barbarians will eventually come for them as only the most fanatical are pure enough

    1. Thank you. Excellent Video, Must watch.

      Weiss does an excellent job of making clear that the very real differences between real liberals and conservatives.
      The things that the left and right of most of my life fought bitterly over are of little consequence in comparison to
      the evil of the left today.

      Those here who have been democrats, liberals for their whole lives. Should listen to Bari.

      The left today is NOT the left of Mario Savo and Berkeley in the 60’s
      It is not even close.
      The left today is dangerous, and evil.

      Weis touched on what we should all be able to see.

      The Nazi’s – real Nazi’s hid their genocide. The nazi’s moved from mass executions to
      death camps where their victims did most of the dirty work of murdering their fellow victims.
      The Nazi’s KNEW what they were doing was evil and wrong and were ashamed and hid it.

      Those engaged in barbarous murder in Israel a month ago were gleeful over what they had done.
      They recorded it on video and shared it with the world. They called home and with pride to their
      mothers about murdering dozens of women and children.

      But WORSE STILL, was the response of millions across the world who took to the streets to celebrate
      this mass murder.

      This is not about Jews, this is not about genocide. this is not about israel.

      This is about the EVIL that is the left today.
      The left today is more evil than the Nazi’s.

      When americans learned of the holocaust – millions did not march down the streets of New York Celebrating the Nazi’s.

      In the 60’s when Solzhenitsyn exposed the murderous nature of the Soviet Union our children did not take to the streets
      to praise Stalin for exterminating his own people.

      When the Khmer Rouge butchered 1/3 of the population of Cambodia people recoiled in horror.

      What we see from the left right now, is not just about Israel or the Palestinians.

      It is about the willingness of millions of young people today to cheer on shocking attrocities over politics.

    2. For those on this blog so lacking in understanding, I will explain the above. A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged

      Not by a long-shot. You really fail to understand Bari’s message, predictably.

      Bari Weiss isnt a conservative, a liberal, a progressive or a moderate. She is a Jew. Regardless of whether you think her being a lesbian and committed Jew is not a big deal because gays and lesbians have been ordained Rabbis for decades, it is. Her girlfriend, now wife, converted to Judaism. That anyone would convert, as an intelligent, educated adult, which her wife is both, to any major religion, is a big deal, but as a lesbian even bigger. These two women looked into the dark abyss of our civilization, as Bari stated, and made a conclusion: political ideologies are shallow and inadequate. Andrew Sullivan agrees. Glenn Greenwald does not. Bari chose religion. She chose to put her skin on the line, and her soul. She chose God, YWHW, the rich Jewish Patrimony that I suspect you take for granted given your comments on here. You have never, to my knowledge, ever quoted the Torah nor the Talmud. Bari does. All the time. You reference and quote “conservatives” on this forum because they tickle your bone. God is not about making you comfortable. God should make all of us uncomfortable which is why people ejected God, and chose a golden calf, political ideologies.

      You recently expressed admiration for the articles of Rod Dreher, while knowing nothing about him. He tickled your fancy. He is a tortured soul who has broken every religious precept he formerly used to bludgeon others. He was a fraud much like conservative thinkers. I have stated many times ideologies like yours is the reason why our civilization is such a dark abyss. Without God there is nothing but a dark abyss. Bari now realizes that. However she provides no new revelation to knowledgeable Catholics which are sadly few. Pope John Paul II > 40 years ago stated far more eloquently and scholastically what Bari articulated in the video. Had you been reading and studying regularly your Jewish Patrimony, you would have articulated decades ago what Bari is realizing now. Bari has a long way to go. She has a lot of maturing and growing to do as a Jewish thinker and I have no doubt she will soar as a leader, as a Jewish leader. You say you are a Jew. You labeled my Faith walk as “religiosity”, a pejorative, though I took no insult. I only wish you were more of a devout as a Jew than Bari given you have decades of years ahead of her.

      You wont listen to me, and thats fine. But dont think I am here to comfort, assuage or tickle your fancy. I am here to challenge others to do what Bari did: look at the deep abyss of our civilization and turn to God who led the Jews out of a dark abyss in Egypt, and the God Son, Jesus Christ, who conquered Death and offers His followers a lasting life beyond the Republican / Democrat, Left/Right ideologies

      1. “You really fail to understand Bari’s message, predictably.”

        You say that because you fail to understand my message or recognize opinions vary without necessarily being wrong. Frequently, you are too black and white.

        The politics of today are becoming progressively more bipolar and seem to divide into progressives and everyone else. I use the term conservative for the rest, though they have many differences.

        The Federalist Society is considered by most to be a conservative organization, but one can argue they are not, depending on how one wishes to define the term.

        As I mentioned, Bari Weiss is left of center and addressed a group predominantly right of center. The adage “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged” can be used in left-right terms in the same fashion.

        If you cannot deal with abstractions, that is a problem for you to fix. Listen carefully to Bari’s words that say, perhaps in the abstract, she refined her prior position. Abstractly, she was mugged.

        You can listen to the video between Bari and Ben Shapiro, who represent opposite sides but have much agreement. Both are free speech advocates, as am I. I like both. Bari is a Jew, but that fact has little to do with the essence of her talk.

        You look at the wife’s conversion as a big deal. You can call it that, but I don’t see it significant in this discussion. Did you forget the Biblical Ruth, a convert to Judaism? Did you forget David? If you did, you missed a major part of the Bible

        Jews have ideologies. Bari has an ideology. You can classify her any way you want, but she will tell you to your face a story different than you state. I appreciate Bari for her soul, her Judaism, and her abilities.

        As far as myself, I find no need to quote the Torah or the Talmud, though I have, to a limited extent, and even added a few corrections to your dialogues on the Torah. I do not believe in proselytizing, nor do I believe in pushing religion down the throats of others. Religion is personal, and no one needs to wear it on his sleeve.

        “God is not about making you comfortable.”

        You are another one who feels he can define God. From the religious viewpoint, we cannot define God (peshitut, devoid of specificity), but we can provide human terms to permit a view. The Bible enumerated ten traits. Look up the Sefirot to widen your horizons. God represents infinity, while these traits denote the finite. Take note of the balance between these traits, something you lack. It is the combination within the Sefirot that provides infinity.

        “You recently expressed admiration for the articles of Rod Dreher, while knowing nothing about him.”

        Wrong! I said I liked the article I read and knew little about him. Cindy knew much more about him and suggested I read more. You disagree with him, so in your usual black-and-white fashion, you say one should not listen to him.

        “He was a fraud much like conservative thinkers. ”

        Take note of how badly you speak of others. The Torah tells one not to act in that fashion.

        “I have stated many times ideologies like yours are the reason why our civilization is such a dark abyss. ”

        You have not the slightest idea of my ideology or my affinity toward my religion. You are preaching without understanding the souls of others. That is a critical error.

        “Without God there is nothing but a dark abyss. Bari now realizes that. ”

        What do you mean Bari “now realizes that.” She realized that long before and was well-trained in Jewish theology. How dare you say Bari lacked God before! She is a committed Jew with different ideas than Ben Shapiro, another committed Jew. God is in both of their lives, but their ideological lives differ. I will leave it up to them to state their differences.

        I cannot deal further with your characterizations of Bari. The rhetoric is insufferable.

        “You labeled my Faith walk as “religiosity”, a pejorative, though I took no insult.”

        You demonstrate you took it as an insult when it was not, and I am not sure exactly what was said. If I used the word in that fashion, it was improperly used, but I lack memory of the context.

        I do remember something I said that you might be confused about. I was talking about the way people express their religion. As you know, Jews have Kosher laws. Milk and meat, cannot be mixed, but meat is permitted to eat after milk based on an unset time. Of course, if it is a hard cheese, meat should not immediately follow. Different Jews follow the rules and timing differently. That is a way of expressing themselves, though the belief in God can be identical. I referred to myself as not following the strictest rules of Orthodoxy and that my beliefs were unique like every other person. You are afraid of such uniqueness. God looks at this differently than you. He looks for us to improve our path while we recognize every improvement can be called a Mitzvah. You fail to understand God’s basic demands of a Jew.

        “I only wish you were more of a devout as a Jew than Bari given you have decades of years ahead of her.”

        You do not know what it is to be a Jew.

  2. Republicans in the committee let their impatience get the better of them. This is why Weiss was not able to answer the majority of their questions because DOJ rules don’t allow him to talk about details on an ongoing investigation. Republicans are going to have to wait until Weiss finishes his investigation and issues a report where all their questions will be answered.

    1. DOJ rules also outlaw torture, Cointelpro style blacklisting and Guantanamo. They simply choose not to follow those rules. Every DOJ official swears an Oath of Office to not do things also – but rules have no meaning.

      The 21st Century is the “Wild West” – there are no rules and no cops to enforce them. It’s pure unconstitutional-authoritarianism and nether party seems to concerned about it.

    2. Hey Svelaz, Biden supporters everywhere are inspired by your dogged determination. They should follow your lead and start measuring the statute of limitation in dog years!!!

    3. Poor Svelaz…
      Too funny.
      Weiss refuses to answer because it puts him and his boss in hot water.
      The only thing consistent is the testimony from the whistle blowers.
      Seems this non-denial denial does is confirm the whistle blowers’ veracity.


        1. “Now, witness by witness, congressional Republicans have secured testimony that repeatedly confirmed the whistleblowers’ accounts.”

          This is old news. These witnesses allegations have already been debunked by Amy wheeler. His credibility is suspect.

          She’s far more detailed and transparent than what “just the news” can provide. This is why Chairman Comer holds these hearings behind closed doors. It’s so they can manipulate what was said without the proper context and the follow up questions posed by democrats in the committee.

      1. No, Weiss refuses to answer certain questions because DOJ rules prevent him from discussing ongoing investigations. The whistleblowers testimony is not consistent. There are problems with it because the committee is not making everything they said public. There are already holes in their testimony derived from public records.

        Comer wants Weiss to forget the Rules and provide him with information he can use to make more allegations because he’s run out of allegations to promote. Weiss is following the rules as he should be. He’s required by law to issue his report when he’s done. The problem is the republicans in the committee are too impatient with the pace of the investigation. Weiss has no evidence to back up the allegations and he has run out of time on those limited by the SOL. (Statute of limitations). They just don’t have enough evidence to ensure a conviction.

        1. “DOJ rules don’t allow him to talk about details on an ongoing investigation.”


          The DoJ rules state, ALL details about on going investigation must be leaked to the Washington Post, a primary disseminater of approved propaganda. ( review Jack Smith’s actions, for examples of proper protocols)

          1. The “leaks” with regard to Jack Smith are from public court filings and public evidence. Weiss having no “leaks” means he’s running a tight ship. Isn’t that what we want?

            1. The “leaks” with regard to Jack Smith are from public court filings and public evidence.

              Just keep lying Svelaz. We anticipate nothing less from you. Those WAPO stories cite ‘people close to the case’ not court filings.

        2. So we are clear what you claim are “rules” are merely norms. You are having a great deal of trouble with the distiction between a rule or law and a norm or policy. The former is binding, the later is not.

          I noted early that you were correct that the attempted actions of a prior congress are within the powers of congress.
          But you were incorrect in that they are far outside the NORMS.

          What Comer is seeking is outside the norms. But until recently presidential impeachment inquiries were not normal.
          Regardless, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are the legitimate domain of the House.
          Weiss can TRY to refuse to answer – it is within the NORMS for him to not answer. He is NOT however protected by the law or the constitution. If the house chooses to insist – Weiss must answer.

          The only priviledge that MIGHT apply to Weiss that the house can not overcome should they choose is executive priviledge.

          Weiss claiming executive priviledge would likely lead quickly to Biden’s impeachment because it would mean that the president directly communicated with Weiss about this case.

          1. “So we are clear what you claim are “rules” are merely norms.”

            No. I’m not claiming anything of the sort. I’m pointing out that the DOJ has specific rules regarding discussing current investigations and Weiss is prevented from discussing the particulars of the investigation because it can affect the outcome if there are charges or evidence that can undermine the case or the investigation.

        3. The SOL ran decause DOJ allowed it too
          Congess is absolutely entitled to enquire into how that occured.
          There is abolutely nothing that precludes DOJ from full disclosure of the entire investigation and all prosecutorial decision regarding a case that is closed and can not be reopened.

          There are only two claims Weiss can assert to preclude congressional inquiry.
          He can take the 5th or he can invoke executive priviledge.
          Otherwise he must comply.

          Of course republicans are impatient – John Solomon found enough for an indictment in a few months back in 2017.
          Comer has found enough to convict the entire Biden family in a few months.

          Congress is perfectly entitled to know what Weiss is proceding so slow the SOL ran out on a very simple case.
          Hunter was paid. He failed to pay taxes. He did so deliberately over many years – hence criminal tax evasion.

          The entirety of Crossfire huricane took 8 months. The Mueller SC which rehashed that took 22 months including numerous prosecutions on far less evidence that Weiss had at the start.

          Weiss is not proceeding slowly – he is trying to run out the clock.

          Or more accurately he is trying to save Joe Biden from having to pardon his son.

          Because that is actually what this is all about. NO ONE is going to jail.
          Everyone with a brain knows that.

          Republicans what DOJ to do its job – which would require Joe to Pardon Hunter before the election.
          DOJ is stonewalling so they can delay this until after the election. so that the fallout is after the election.

          This is the flip side of What Democrats are doing withTrump. They want to pile on as much as possible before the election, and delay losing on appeal until after.

          I would note that this is ALL Election fraud.

          We are getting far past the point at which ordinary people grasp that Joe Biden is corrupt.
          We are deep into DOJ/FBI are corrupt.

          DOJ must do its job unless directed otherwise by the president.
          And if they are directed otherwise – by anyone, they must reveal who did so to allow the house to impeach them.

          1. “There are only two claims Weiss can assert to preclude congressional inquiry.
            He can take the 5th or he can invoke executive priviledge.
            Otherwise he must comply.”


            He can refuse to answer questions that can affect the integrity of the investigation. That’s why the DOJ has certain rules against providing information.

            Weiss voluntarily testified. He is not obligated to answer everything. Remember, the DOJ is independent for a reason.

            The DOJ has a rule against indicting a sitting president. By your own argument Trump should have been indicted by mueller. It’s just a rule, not a law. Right?

    4. You say: “DOJ rules don’t allow him to talk about details on an ongoing investigation.” How can he be investigating crimes on which the Statute of Limitations has run?

      1. “How can he be investigating crimes on which the Statute of Limitations has run?”

        Because republicans are pressuring him to investigate anything so they have something to point to against Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.

        The continuing problem for republicans is that they still don’t have the evidence or the assurance that the charges they want against Hunter will guarantee a felony conviction. They just don’t have it.

        The gun charges? They won’t win. Because Hunter Biden can use the Bruen ruling in his favor and professor Turley agrees. He has a very strong defense against those charges.

        The tax issue? It’s moot. They have already been paid and his friend paying it is not illegal. All they are left is with allegations that “may” produce a charge. But that’s it.

        The most that he could end up with is a few misdeanors and time served. But Republicans don’T want that. They want a felony, and that requires they have a clear shot at conviction. They don’t. That’s why Weiss is having so much trouble with the evidence he has. It’s not going to produce what republicans want. So they are accusing Weiss of incompetence or “slow walking” the investigation because he’s not finding the evidence they need or the assurance that a felony conviction will be guaranteed.

        1. “The tax issue? It’s moot.” No, the issue is not moot; the SOL was allowed to run for some reason. Why? That is an issue of public corruption that rivals Hunter’s influence peddling. And the fact that “a friend” may have paid Hunter’s taxes four or five years after they were due does not absolve him of criminal liability. That would be like saying that if a bank robber returns the loot he stole, there is no longer any problem. The fact that the DNC trolls on this website cannot even admit simple facts shows that it will not be possible for Donald Trump, in his second term, to “work with” the Democrats.

          1. “And the fact that “a friend” may have paid Hunter’s taxes four or five years after they were due does not absolve him of criminal liability.”

            His friend did pay Hunter’s taxes. That’s not in doubt. Paying back the taxes leaves the charge of failure to report income or whatever it is he didn’t do a misdemeanor and after so long it’s pointless to even file a charge. Missing the statute of limitations may have been due to the inability to find enough evidence to prosecute for a felony which is what republicans wanted. A misdemeanor would have been unsatisfactory.

            1. “His friend did pay Hunter’s taxes.”

              A man robs a bank. A friend pays the bank what his friend stole.

              Does that mean the man didn’t rob the bank?

    5. Logic and reason eludes you.

      Weiss was perfectly able to answer questions – he chose not to.

      There are only two basiss to refuse to answer congress that can not be overcome – that is executive priviledge and the courts have limited that to communications between someone and the president. Congres can not get arround executive priviledge if the courts accept a claim as legitimate. The other is attorney client priviledge – only a client can waive priviledge and that priviledge only applies to private actors – not government. Executive priviledge often applies to the WH counsel as an example – but not attorney client priviledge.

      Every single other privilege can be overcome by congress

      Both parties when running the executive strive to limit congressional oversight to the greatest extent possible.
      But their actual power to do so rests almost entirely on politics, not law or constitution.

      There is no “ongoing investigations” privilege. It is a norm for congress to defer to the executive in ongoing investigations.
      But the reason for that deferal does not exist here. SC Weiss is NEVER going to jail a single Biden.
      It is not possible for Congress to thwart the carriage of justice.

      Trump ultimately pardoned all those persecuted by DOJ/FBI in the collusion delusion.
      Trump could have had he wished to do so Fired SC Mueller and ordered the investigation shutdown.

      Pardoning those convicted, even dictating to DOJ who will be investigated and who will not, as well as firing anyone in the executive branch are all the constitutional powers of the president.
      That is true whether the president is Trump or Biden or Obama.

      There is only one remedy for a presidents use of constitutional powers in a way that offends people – that is impeachment and removal.

      Had Trump fired SC Mueller he would have quickly been impeached and he might have been removed.

      Currently Biden is in Trumps shoes.

      Biden can pardon himself, hunter, his entire family. All those who have assisted him in obstructing justice.
      He can order Garland, Weiss anyone in the executive to prosecute whoever he please or to defer prosecution of whoever he pleases.

      These is little to nothing that can be done about a president excercising his constitutional powers in an abusive or offensive way.
      The Courts can reign in presidents who EXCEED their powers. But there is no ability to stop a president from doing what is immoral or unethical
      it is not even possible in most instances for the courts to prevent the president from doing what is illegal. So long as the presidents actions are within the presidential powers in the constitution.

      There is only one remedy for a president excercising constitutional powers in an immoral, unethical or illegal way – that is impeachment.

      That is also why congresses oversight power is virtually unlimited – and even more so in an impeachment inquiry.

      Whether you like it or not Congress has the ABSOLUTE power – both by right of its oversite function as by its impeachment power to ask and get an answer all questions regarding DOJ’s excercise of law enforcement powers.

      Congress is entitled to know exactly why prosecutorial decisions are made, by who they were made and who commnicated what to whom about those decisions.

      I would note this is ALWAYS the case. However when that inquiry does not include inquiry into possible misconduct by those in DOJ or the president, MOST of the time Congress will CHOOSE to defer to DOJ/FBI.

      But there is no requirement that they do so.

      Just as the presidents power to excercise the constitutional powers of the president is limited only by impeachment (or the threat of impeachment). Congresses consitutional oversite power of the executive is not limited by anything but elections.

      The executive – under all administrations constantly plays a game of chicken with congress refusing to answer for a variety of reasons.
      These may well be good reasons. And congress nearly always defers to those reasons.

      That is a NORM – not a requirement.

      As I noted earlier – democrats have significantly widened the overton windoe.
      Lots of things that have been NORMS in past have been breached.

      If the house chooses to do so, they can require Weiss to answer – regardless of whatever excuse he provides for failing to do so.

      This extends right up to an including the 5th amendment.

      Most people – including you, do not understand that the 5th amendment does not preclude testifying, it precludes being punished on the basis of your testimony. Prosecutors as well as congress an FORCE people to waive 5th amendment claims – by granting immunity.

      Failure to answer the questions congress asks can result in congress finding you in contempt. And can result in being prosecuted for contempt as well as obstruction of congress and jailed. It can also result in impeachment. Weiss can be impeached, Garland can be impeached. Biden can be impeached.

      I find it odd that those of you on the left – sought to prosecute protestors for obstructing congress – something that private a private individual can not do without committing another significant crime such as murder, kidnapping or bribery,
      but you fail to grasp that members of the executive can be prosecuted for obstructing congress, because their right to protest is as a private citizen, NOT in the excercise of their government job.

      Regardless, Congress is entitled to know the decisions that Weiss made and the influences he was subject to.
      They are also entitled to confirm that he is telling the truth by demanding the documentation that supports or contradicts his testimony,
      and by putting the same questions to other members of the executive to determine if Weiss is lying and if others influenced his decisions.

      1. “Weiss was perfectly able to answer questions – he chose not to.

        There are only two basiss to refuse to answer congress that can not be overcome – that is executive priviledge and the courts have limited that to communications between someone and the president.


        Weiss is not required nor it can be compelled by congress to undermine an investigation. Because it would infringe on the due process rights of those being investigated.

        Weiss is not going to violate the due process rights of those being investigated by tainting and undermining a case with divulging sensitive information that can be used in court to committee members who cannot keep that information confidential for long. It would easily result in a mistrial or worse dismissal of the entire case.

        “I find it odd that those of you on the left – sought to prosecute protestors for obstructing congress – ”

        Because it’s a crime. Trespassing and rioting are crimes, theft, assault, destruction of public property. All are prosecutable offenses.

  3. Equal justice, rule of law, constitutionalism, were never supposed to be fluid ideas. Just like men can’t be women and women can’t be men, those three can’t be anything else and still be called equal justice, rule of law and constitutionalism.

    The Regime controlling our federal bureaucracy are doing to the law what gender doctors are doing to people. I’ll call it Constitution Dysphoria. Anyone thinking Progressivism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism can be constitutional has this dysphoria.

    We are 100+ years into this dysphoria and we have the scars to prove it.

  4. “Those crimes included some of the most serious allegations of influence peddling and corruption facing the Biden family.”

    As always, according to Turley, influence peddling is not illegal. To make it a crime requires a very, very high bar to clear thanks to SCOTUS making it almost impossible to charge influence peddling as a crime. This is why Weiss has a hard time with the “evidence” he has to file the charges republicans want. It’s not an issue of being ‘lackadaisical’ in pursuing charges. It’s an issue of having evidence that would ensure a conviction, and Weiss doesn’t have it. Even after years of investigation.

    The whistleblowers testimonies are not enough because they are mostly hearsay. Additionally the evidence presented by the whistle blowers is so full of holes and inconsistencies that under scrutiny it won’t hold up in court. Weiss knows this, but the republicans in the committee don’t care, they want to use their cherry-picked “evidence” to file charges and use it for political gain. It doesn’t matter whether it will ensure a conviction or not. All they want is headlines that they can hang around president Biden’s neck.

    The gun charges won’t fly because, Ironically Hunter Biden has a strong defense thanks to Bruen and it’s “history and Traditions” benchmark. Turley admits this is going to be a problem.

    “Legal experts like George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told the Washington Examiner it’s always possible Hunter Biden could be the namesake of a future Second Amendment challenge at the high court, though it is more likely that he could reap the benefit of a favorable ruling over existing legal challenges that are further down the line for the Supreme Court’s possible examination.

    “A challenge to Section 922 would be predictable in most criminal cases,” Turley said. “This, however, would result in a curious challenge by Hunter of a law that has long been defended by his father. It could come to that, though cases like Daniels may do the heavy lifting in challenging the law.”

    The tax charges? Those are now irrelevant. The taxes have been paid.

    FARA? Nope, it doesn’t apply to Hunter Biden he was not representing the interests of a foreign government, but a business. He was a consultant. Arranging access to his father is not illegal or criminal, in fact it falls under the protections of the 1st amendment free speech rights as shown under Citizens United. Manafort was charged under FARA because he was representing foreign government interests while being Trump’s campaign manager.

    Comer is holding these hearings behind closed doors for a reason. A lot of the testimony has ended up undermining the narrative that he has been trying to build, unsuccessfully.

    Weiss refused to answer a lot of questions because the investigation is still ongoing and obviously it would be improper for him to answer specific questions that can undermine the investigation and give Hunter an even stronger defense on any charges against him. Additionally it would only serve as fodder for more allegations and innuendo.

    1. All this from the dufus Svelaz, who brought us the classics like
      “State of Florida appraisals” and “Trump built Mar-a-Lago”.

          1. And even the COUNTY of Palm Beach told Engoron NOT to use the tax assessment to valuate the property. Its not an accurate reflection of the value of the property. Period.

            Either the lender hired independent appraisers before they loaned millions against the property, or they committed a fiduciary fraud against their shareholders.

            Details matter. Especially rudimentary details if you wish for your ravings to be taken seriously.
            You are wrong as often as Gigi and Dennis, the only thing rare is your willingness to admit it.

            1. “And even the COUNTY of Palm Beach told Engoron NOT to use the tax assessment to valuate the property.”

              You have proof backing up that assertion? As you say, details matter. Where’s the citation for that pertinent detail?

              “It’s not an accurate reflection of the value of the property.”

              No value is accurate. It’s an estimation based on market values in the areas plus there’s the problem of the deed restrictions which do affect value. Which is why you can always challenge the assessment in court. But again a pesky detail about court proceedings is that they use official government records. Since the county appraiser valued the property between $18-27 million per the rules of evidence it’s used by the court to compare against the claims of the defendant.

              Trump has already been found guilty of committing fraud by Judge Engoron. This trial is about how bad Trump will be punished for it. The rules require this process before the judge can issue the punishment.

              1. “It’s not an accurate reflection of the value of the property.”

                No value is accurate. It’s an estimation based on market values in the areas

                No that’s a lie. Property Tax assesment is based on hard measureables. Square footage, number of structures Street and utility access, extras like pools, tennis courts extra garages, zoning.
                Market value is a small consideration, but assessments take place only every 10 to 20 years. The county has to make the decision if in fact the small influence of market will be enough to pay for the assessment. Because the measureables are locked in.

                You write long winded comments, seldom with no grasp of basic knowledge of the subject.

              2. Where I live, the property tax assessments are many multiples less than market values.

                Keep digging. It shows how uninformed you are. And if you don’t have a clue about what you’re opining about here, then there’s no reason for anyone to give weight to the gazillion other comments you pollute this blog with.

                1. Where I live, the property tax assessments are many multiples less than market values.

                  Any one that owns property get the annual property tax notice in the mail. They see the assessed value . They know it is no where near to its market value. A counties Property tax revenue is the approved millage time the property tax assesment. In a hot market, the property tax assessment does not change. Something else the owners know.
                  Svelaz ignorant of all the simple stuff.

                  But it did expose the Judge as the partisan, he is. This is just another data point, proving the Judge is ignoring the law, and willing to lie to get Trump
                  The Appeal will be sweet.

                  1. “But it did expose the Judge as the partisan, he is. This is just another data point, proving the Judge is ignoring the law, and willing to lie to get Trump
                    The Appeal will be sweet.”

                    LOL! No. The judge reading from the official county record doesn’t make him partisan. He’s reading from official government records to compare. That is not ignoring the law.

                    1. LOL! No. The judge reading from the official county record doesn’t make him partisan. He’s reading from official government records to compare.

                      Are you trolling? Or truly that stupid?

                      WHY did the Judge bring up something that has no bearing on the case?????

                      ONLY to smear Trump, because the Partisan hack of a Judge is in on the Con.

                      Property tax assessment has zero influence on market value.

                      I suspect the media goes silent on the trial proceedings today. As the Defense now will present expert witnesses shredding the prosecutions premise for civil charges.

                      This has no chance on appeal.

                  2. Iowan2,
                    We just got our county tax assessment last week.
                    It was off from market value by nearly $100k.
                    I would add another $50k in improvements we have made that is not included in the market value.

              3. “has already been found guilty of committing fraud by Judge Engoron.”

                Another blatant lie or else an ignorant raving by Svelaz. Would you like to provide your own correction to this statement?

                Simple fact is that you are in over your head on most topics discussed here. Maybe better homes and gardens would be a better fit for you.

        1. “Trump didn’t build Mar a lago, that was an error on my part.”

          How could you not know it wasn’t built by Trump?

          This demonstrates tremendous ignorance, especially since Svelaz has been arguing all sorts of minute details involving MAL, which proves Svelaz’s comments have no factual basis.

          MAL was the Post estate. Svelaz should look up the history since his rhetoric, whether based on past or present events, Svelaz is wrong.

          Svelaz justifies his arguments by making things up. He doesn’t know how to research and only digs his hole deeper.

          Anyone with a minimum of knowledge can see that Svelaz is a fraud who contradicts himself continuously, adding to his lack of knowledge. We all are entertained by telling Svelaz he is wrong, but we all should try to find the the things Svelaz said that were true. Very little and almost impossible to find.

          Others base their argument on facts dealing with a man who creates his argument and then his erroneous facts to fill in the details. His facts are fiction made up by him on the spot. He admitted this above., so instead of showing the idiot the facts, one should laugh heartily.

    2. . This is why Weiss has a hard time with the “evidence” he has to file the charges republicans want.

      You fail to understand the Weiss had the evidence, The IRS, had the evidence. AG Garland refused to allow those appropriate jurisdictions to have the charges Filed. Weiss, per jurisdictional rules, could not indict, because the District AG’s refused to file the paper work. Garland refused to issue Wiess the Special Counsel power.

      1. “You fail to understand the Weiss had the evidence, The IRS, had the evidence.”

        Evidence of what? Hunter Biden didn’t report certain income. Failure to report is not evidence of fraud. The taxes were paid. Which makes it hard to charge Hunter Biden with tax evasion when he already paid the tax. Failure to report is not tax evasion. In order to prove tax evasion the IRS has to prove intent and they don’t have that. That’s why Weiss couldn’t charge Hunter based on the “evidence” he had.

        1. Evidence of what? Hunter Biden didn’t report certain income. Failure to report is not evidence of fraud.

          Keep up with the facts. Weiss admits he was denied the power to bring charges using the evidence in his possesion, of crimes committed.
          Your trolling is so bad, I would refuse to pay for your output today.

        2. “Failure to report is not evidence of fraud.”

          United States v. Kokenis, is one of many cases.

          Intent is important, but the court doesn’t need a confession to find a person guilty. Hunter will have to prove he made a valid mistake, but based on the records already released, it is quite clear he was gaming the system and knew it.

  5. George Orwell who wrote the book “1984” warning about the tactics of Communist-Authoritarian regimes, Orwell warned about the danger of “Memory Hole” practices. Literally and figuratively “air-brushing” people and events out of history.

    So what happened to DOJ attorneys that violated Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution?

    Subordinate employees at CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies – employees who refused illegal orders to torture – were destroyed or went to prison. Overturning the World War Two “Nuremberg Defense” precedent, invented by Americans used to convict and execute Nazi war criminals.

    None of the architects at DOJ were held accountable. Most were promoted.

    Republicans fear the so-called “Deep State”, now the tables are turned and some Trump supporters are on the receiving end of this genuine “Deep State”.

    Although Republicans created these unconstitutional practices, Democrats did little to correct these genuine evils. In 2023, we now have evidence that most Americans harmed were completely innocent.

    There is no statute of limitations on war crimes, many are prosecuted 20-40 years later. None of the subordinate officials loyal to their oath of office have been pardoned and made whole again for refusing illegal orders.

    Both political parties simply created an Orwellian “Memory Hole” – a tactic invented by the Communist block nations.

  6. The United States of America is going the way of the do do unless something is done.

    It doesn’t matter one bit who is President anymore, our modern 21st century government/media bureaucracy is there to protect Democrats and persecute Republicans with a few sacrificed token Democrats here and there. A one party rule with Democrats leading the way will soon be openly totalitarian.

    1. Melodrama is always the last resort for republicans who have nothing of substance to show for their allegations.

      1. The 117th Congress attempted to
        1. Abolish the filibuster, and then
        2. Add 4 Democrat senators
        3. Pack the SCOTUS
        4. Abolish the electoral college

        Only Joe Manchin stood between them and the state Mr Witherspoon described.

        Svelaz, did you figure out the difference between appraisals and assessments yet? How about who does property tax assessments in FL? Did you google who built Mar-a-Lago and when??

        You dont even bother to learn basic facts before you start with your keyboard diarrhea.

        1. Jimmy, those are normal functions of congress. That’s not what Witherspoon is alleging. He’s being melodramatic as some here always are.

          Some common synonyms of assess are appraise, estimate, evaluate, rate, and value. While all these words mean “to judge something with respect to its worth or significance,” assess implies a critical appraisal for the purpose of understanding or interpreting, or as a guide in taking action.

          Both appraisal and assessment are synonymous depending on the context.

          1. “depending on the context.”


            Details matter. In the finance and tax world, they are not synonymous.

            1. Sure, if you want to be literal about everything, but in reality even tax experts mix them up when being general about it. You’re just nit picking which is fine, but ultimately it doesn’t change the overall argument that the judge was only using the information he had in front of him and was not making his own assertion as many try to allege.

          2. Abolishing the filibuster to allow the rest is not a “normal function of Congress”. They are an attempt establish one party rule.

            1. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a function of congress. The constitution gives congress the power to create its own rules. If the majority chooses to get rid of the filibuster it can. The filibuster is not in the constitution. It’s not even a requirement. So they can certainly choose to abolish it if they want to. One way to prevent a “one party rule” is to vote. That’s the solution.

              1. 4am in the 5 swing states

                ………….|”””” oh look biden got 100s of thousands of votes in all 5 states all for him in the middle of the night.

                That solution is pure crap now

          3. Some common synonyms of assess are appraise, estimate, evaluate, rate, and value.
            Not in legal documents. That is the context. Any person that pays property tax knows tax assessment does not equal appraised value.
            What the Dems count on, is Low information voters like Svelaz is too ignorant to spot the lie.

            1. What lie? It’s not uncommon for those two terms to be mixed up. Only the nitpickers and literal nannies have an issue with it.

              1. What lie? It’s not uncommon for those two terms to be mixed up.

                Svelaz, caught in his non stop spewing of ignorance. Changing his post from ‘synonyms,’ to, ‘mixed up’ Yes I did notice.
                You did not notice that I limited my observation to legal documents.

                I’m glad you’re back Svelaz. You are such a great example of the left being , shallow, vapid and ignorant.

                1. Like I said, only nit pickers and literal nannies are the ones upset about the distinction which to the general public really doesn’t care because ultimately even the “professionals” get lazy with their definitions.

                  1. Some common synonyms of assess are appraise, estimate, evaluate, rate, and value

                    So. NOT COMMON SYNONYMS?

                    No. No professional would “get lazy with definitions. But your pedantry and lies are noted.

                  2. Its not nit picking, fool. Its the very distinction at the crux of the discussion. The tax assessment and the appraised value of the property are NOT synonymous. Tax assessments are NOT used for securing loans, so the judge using that number because “thats what was in front of him” is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard.

                    1. For instance, here is what a disinterest in details and terminology leads to…

                      From the BBC——

                      “Take Mar-a-Lago, for example, the former president’s Florida resort. It was the Palm Beach County assessor – not the judge – that appraised the market value of Trump’s primary residence at between $18m-$27.6m (£14.5m-£22.5m).”

                      The assessor did NOT appraise the market value. That is a lie born of ignorance.

          4. No Svelaz, those are NOT normal functions of congress. They are violations of the norms.
            But they are not unconstitutional. Just bad ideas.
            The members of congress can not be prosecuted for attempting these, the only consequence that can be mposed is by the electorate.

            This is EXACTLY like challenging an election – it is NOT normal, but it is constitutional.
            This is exactly like trying to get legislatures to submit alternate slates of electors – it is NOT normal. But it is legal and constitutional.

            Democrats have been agressively trying to expand the overton window throughout my lifetime.

            Within the past decade they have been extremely successful in doing so.

            As the window has expanded – Republicans have followed suit.
            It is THAT that has pissed off democrats.

            I would say it is THAT that has democrats shouting, NAZI,
            NAZI, NAZI, But democrats have been shouting nazi nazi nazi about republicans my entire life.

            Regardless turn about is fair play.

            There is no constitutional requirement for the filibuster. It is merely a good idea.
            Its fundimental purpose is completely consistent with the design of our government by our founders.
            The purpose of the filibuster is to add another super majority requirement to expanding federal power.

            It is a good idea, not a constitutional requirement.
            Democrats did not eliminate the filibuster, but they did limit it. And then they found with Trump as president they had far less power to thwart republicans.

            There are specific constitutional requirements regarding creating states. But those are no impediment to adding states.
            Democrats are free to try to do so. But adding states is NOT normal. In almost 250 years we have added 37 States – nearly all in the first 100 years. Adding states is a legitimate roll of congress.
            It is NOT normal.

            Packing the supreme court is a legitimate function of congress. It is NOT a normal one. There have been no changes in the size of the supreme court in over 100 years. There has never been an expansion of the size democrats sought.
            There have been several past attempts to pack the supreme court. All by democrats all have been thwarted.
            It is NOT normal.

            The electoral college is a requirement of the constitution. Abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment.
            Congress is the normal starting point for constitutional amendments, but constitutional amendments are NOT normal.
            Like eliminating the fillibuster eliminating the electoral college has dramatic impacts – far beyond those democrats seek.
            As with all of the above democrats short sightedly focused on the first order benefits not the much larger 2nd and 3rd order harms of their actions. Eliminating the electoral college would transform the country – not merely to democrats, but all policies would favor a few big cities. The entire focus of the executive branch would be the wants and needs of a few big cities in the US.

    2. Steve,
      Well said.
      The level of contempt they have for the rule of law is disgusting.
      Whomever is the Republican candidate, that is who I am voting for. Even if it is Trump from jail.

      1. That says a lot about you that you would vote for Trump. He loves all the dictators of the world. Calls them smart. He now says he will detain or deport millions of immigrants. Sounds like Germany in 1939. He wants to dispose of the “vermin” that oppose him. Sounds more like Hitler in 1939. He has said he will (will) use the DOJ to punish his enemies. He can’t keep track of who is currently president. His closest advisors from 2017 to 2021 all say he should not be allowed near the White House. Yet you would vote for him? Says a lot about you. So yes, I will call you a racist, fascist A hole to support someone so despicable as trump. Hate Biden all you want. But support for a wanna be racist fascist dictator? That makes you a fascist.

        1. One can admire a foes tactical prowess on the battlefield. To always assume a foe as stupid despite the evidence at hand is arrogance that leads to bad decisions and ultimately defeat.
          You should study Sun Tuz.
          They are illegal immigrants. Get the wording correct. If it were not for Biden’s disastrous failure to secure the Southern border, Trump would not be in this position.
          You can call me whatever you want. Your opinion is of no value to me.
          BTW, I am not white.
          The leftists have demonstrated they are the fascists.

          1. Did I say you were white. Shows your inability to understand basic English. Why are those closes to trump in 2017-2021 saying he should be allowed no where near the White House?

            1. Because he will make Biden schlitz in her diapers, and Im referring to Dokturd Jill. The Big Guy would have a cerebral aneurysm which come to think of it might be a good reason for Trump to visit Biden’s basement and 1600 Penn Ave, SE

        2. “He now says he will detain or deport millions of immigrants.” Do you mean people who have entered the country illegally? It is his legal duty.

  7. Nietzschean or not, David Weiss performed brilliantly for Team Biden slow walking Hunter’s investigation for years. He even managed to get the more serious criminal charges dropped for statute of limitation reasons. You can’t get much better than that right ? And that Weiss was totally comfortable before the House Oversight Committee glassing over any and all facts should surprise no one. I think I can see Dean of Harvard Law School in his future perhaps ?

    1. No we are seeing the definition of Democrat Privilege. All of the arrestees of 1.6 are also white and they are in prison. The guy that accidently killed a black guy on the subway in NY because he was threatening to kill people is white. The guy that was charged by Alvin Bragg with killing the black guy that was robbing his bodega in NY was Hispanic, sometimes called a “white Hispanic” when it helps leftists. DOnald Trump is charged with having classified documents in a secured home, Joe Biden had more documents from when he WAS NOT a president in his unsecured home, his unsecured “Think” tank, and at a university center paid for by China…and he has not been charged.

      Democrats are the most favored class in America. Talk about STRICT SCRUTINY!

  8. The Weiss investigation, however, languished for years even as some of us were pointing out that the statute of limitations was about to pass on felonies.

    State Legislatures have overturned previous laws on their books re: statutes of limitations so that victims could seek judicial relief. SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Wong that the limitations statute in the Federal Tort Claims Act is subject to equitable tolling. Can the statutes regarding Hunter’s behaviors be subject to equitable tolling? Can Congress rescind / extend the statutes re: Hunter’s illegal acts, and extend them much like State Legislatures have done?

    e.g. Equity Trumps Jurisdiction

    The question presented in United States v. Wong1 and its companion case,2 also from the Ninth Circuit, United States v. June, is whether the statute of limitations for claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) is jurisdictional or subject to equitable tolling. In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan issued on April 22, the Court sided with the plaintiffs and held that the statute allowed equitable tolling.

    United States v. Wong

    1. Congress could change the statute of limitations. Sure. But Congress is barely able do it’s most basic job thanks to incompetent noobs and dysfunctional republicans in the House.

      1. How about that State of Florida appraisal and the 90 year old house that Trump built. Talk about incompetent….

  9. Weiss: “I’m not — you want me to say it’s a denial, but it’s not.” “From my mind, it’s a sequencing event. It’s not a denial in any way, shape or form.”

    Lewis Carroll:

    “What day of the month is it?” asked the Hatter.

    “The fourth,” said Alice.

    “Two days wrong!” sighed the Hatter. “I told you butter wouldn’t suit the works!” he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

    “It was the best butter,” the March Hare meekly replied.

    “Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,” the Hatter grumbled: “you shouldn’t have put it in with the bread-knife.”

    You know you’re in trouble when the Hatter and Hare make more sense.

  10. And this is why Federal District Attorneys should be appointed free of the influence of the senators in their state. This was a “Republican” appointment by Former President Trump but with the consent of the Delaware senators. I suppose that we should have known he was in bed with the powers-that-be in Delaware whether they were republican or democrat. I think that’s why we have seen virtually no movement in this case. Delaware is so small that DA Weiss is probably cousin to half the state, if not more. Probably closer even than “Kissing Cousins”.
    Sort of shows how the rich and powerful tend to skip free of justice.
    I may be wrong but I have seen no part of the Constitution that says that the Senate should have veto power over Federal District Attorneys. I may have missed something there but I do not see it in the enumerated powers of the senate. Seems to me all Federal District Attorney’s should be attack dogs for the executive branch and the president, who is the top law enforcement agent in the country and who only delegates such power to the Attorney General.
    Trump should have fired this District Attorney while still president and replaced him. Yes, yes I know about undue influence but that is the job of the president to enforce the law and he should fire those that do not perform their job.
    It’s the judicial branch that determines guilt or innocence, not the president or the Attorney General. Their duty is to enforce the law and they should be impeached or fired if they fail to do so.

  11. Dual system of Justice. The DoJ spent millions tracking down a person that happened to be in DC on Jan 6. But He is labeled an enemy of the Democrat party. Sentencing first, trial later. Weiss has to be so proud of himself. A DoJ employee, willingly turned into a political operative.

  12. He’s (Weiss) is under the spell of “The Delaware Way”.
    Put the God Mother Jill Tracy Giacoppo-Biden the Queenpin (sic) of the Biden Crime Syndicate on the Stand.
    She raised those Kids, and is the other half of the parental education of Them. She parades Joe with a leash in his mouth.
    A regular Hillary Clinton, shadowed behind Her’ Bill.
    She Knows Its Complicitly, She’s a “Doctor” She’s smart enough to Know-It-All and more than anyone else.
    Put Her on the Stand.

  13. So when Weiss followed the process and was told no in D.C. and LA did he follow the sequencing and ask again for special attorney status? If not why not? If so why was he not given it?

    And why was he not simply given it when he first asked for it?

    And why did he let the statutes of limitations lapse?

    Where is the transcript of this interview?

    This is the first direct statement I’ve seen that Weiss asked for special attorney status and was denied.

    1. While the direct statements have value, one of the reasons that Weiss must testify, is because either Weiss himself was obstructing or someone else was.

  14. Pure BS.

    Americans are being snookered and DOJ is complicit.

    American justice, once the envy of the world has sunk to banana republic levels.

    Thanks Garland.

  15. How they must gnash their teeth a tear their hair out over Hunter’s blindingly stupid laptop debacle.

Leave a Reply