"Even the appearance of impropriety"

[LPTiger 5,163]

In legal ethics, this is the standard that we were taught == you must not onion only avoid impropriety but you must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.   It is a tough standard and one that I suspect 60-65% of the country right now would say Garland has not met.   The party that told us that whistleblowers must be believed apparently are not paying attention.   We have had 2 career agents come forward and say that Weiss' team forbid them from asking questions about or investigating connections between Hunter and his dad.   They also told us that Weiss' team did not approve of them obtaining certain search warrants to search Hunter's property.    We were told that Weiss' team tipped off Hunter's lawyers ahead of other searches.   Garland told us Weiss had all the authority he needed.   Weiss said he had all the authority he needed.   Now Weiss has been designated by Garland as the special counsel.    And my understanding is that they have asked the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal to dismiss that case so they can file in California.   To a conservative, this doesn't feel right.   I wonder if anyone on the other side of the aisle feels it might not pass the ethics test I cite above. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

11 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

In legal ethics, this is the standard that we were taught == you must not onion only avoid impropriety but you must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 

 

*Clarence Thomas looks around nervously* 

 

anyway....

 

The whistleblowers claims are enough to warrant an investigation, but unless there is some actual evidence of their claims presented such as a letters, phone calls, emails, texts, memos or other corroborating evidence that Weiss was being illegally influenced by the White house or upper levels of the DOJ then I don't see how you can actually conclude with any kind of confidence that interference happened. Ultimately these whistleblowers have given us their opinions and their disappointment that Weiss did not implement their final suggestions or desires in regards to prosecution. It's something to consider, but it's not proof of improper influence. 

The plea agreement was dismissed as prosecutors/the government would not grant Hunter the wide protection from future prosecution that he was asking for.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

56 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

*Clarence Thomas looks around nervously* 

Your whataboutism is showing.  Clarence Thomas has friends, hard to believe isn’t it, he has never sat in judgement of those friends.  What’s your problem?

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

1 hour ago, LPTiger said:

And my understanding is that they have asked the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal to dismiss that case so they can file in California.   To a conservative, this doesn't feel right.   I wonder if anyone on the other side of the aisle feels it might not pass the ethics test I cite above. 

It shouldn’t feel right to any American.  It is blatant as it can be.  The GOP Oversight and Ways and Means Committees are pushing back and still investigating.  Also; is the appointment of Weiss legal by Garland?

 

 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, LPTiger said:

In legal ethics, this is the standard that we were taught == you must not onion only avoid impropriety but you must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.   It is a tough standard and one that I suspect 60-65% of the country right now would say Garland has not met.   The party that told us that whistleblowers must be believed apparently are not paying attention.   We have had 2 career agents come forward and say that Weiss' team forbid them from asking questions about or investigating connections between Hunter and his dad.   They also told us that Weiss' team did not approve of them obtaining certain search warrants to search Hunter's property.    We were told that Weiss' team tipped off Hunter's lawyers ahead of other searches.   Garland told us Weiss had all the authority he needed.   Weiss said he had all the authority he needed.   Now Weiss has been designated by Garland as the special counsel.    And my understanding is that they have asked the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal to dismiss that case so they can file in California.   To a conservative, this doesn't feel right.   I wonder if anyone on the other side of the aisle feels it might not pass the ethics test I cite above. 

It looks almost as bad as the pressure Trump applied during his presidency on the Mueller investigation and other investigations.  Its bad that both sides are doing it

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Your whataboutism is showing.  Clarence Thomas has friends, hard to believe isn’t it, he has never sat in judgement of those friends.  What’s your problem?

I'd argue what Thomas has done is worse than both Biden and Trump's transgressions.

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

I'd argue what Thomas has done is worse than both Biden and Trump's transgressions.

How so?

[AU9377 4,931]

2 hours ago, LPTiger said:

In legal ethics, this is the standard that we were taught == you must not onion only avoid impropriety but you must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.   It is a tough standard and one that I suspect 60-65% of the country right now would say Garland has not met.   The party that told us that whistleblowers must be believed apparently are not paying attention.   We have had 2 career agents come forward and say that Weiss' team forbid them from asking questions about or investigating connections between Hunter and his dad.   They also told us that Weiss' team did not approve of them obtaining certain search warrants to search Hunter's property.    We were told that Weiss' team tipped off Hunter's lawyers ahead of other searches.   Garland told us Weiss had all the authority he needed.   Weiss said he had all the authority he needed.   Now Weiss has been designated by Garland as the special counsel.    And my understanding is that they have asked the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal to dismiss that case so they can file in California.   To a conservative, this doesn't feel right.   I wonder if anyone on the other side of the aisle feels it might not pass the ethics test I cite above. 

We have heard from two IRS agents that were unhappy that they were removed from the investigation after they had disagreements over the direction of the overall investigation and the charges to be brought.   At some point, we will hear from other IRS agents that will be able to give context to, confirm or give another account of the things that concern some from their earlier testimony.  When Republicans were urged to believe testimony of whistleblowers a few years ago, their testimony was confirmed by other witnesses, including U.S. Ambassadors, State Dept employees and a recorded telephone conversation.  The information those whistleblowers provided was evidence of a crime, whereas here the information is not evidence of a crime, but third party speculation.

Weiss did have all the authority he needed to charge crimes.  Republicans claimed that he did not.  Garland then responds by naming Weiss as Special Counsel and totally removing himself from the matter.  Of course, that is also not enough.  Republicans continue to throw around impeachment, yet they can't name the crime for which they would impeach the President.

As for ethics... Is that not the reason that Garland left Weiss in his role, so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety?  There really is nothing that Garland could have done or said to have avoided the appearance of impropriety when that appearance is the sole mission of the Republicans in the House.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Your whataboutism is showing.  Clarence Thomas has friends, hard to believe isn’t it, he has never sat in judgement of those friends.  What’s your problem?

we don’t actually know that because for a long time Thomas hasn’t been reporting all the gifts, trips, benefits his ‘friends’ have been giving him despite ethical rules requiring him to. 
 

Best case scenario is that Clarence hasn’t been influenced by all the wealth showered on him by his ‘friends’ but still knowingly failed to disclose the gifts because he knew, as the OP states, the ‘appearance of impropriety’ would be strong. 
 

 

[LPTiger 5,163]

Why are we even talking about Clarence Thomas?   You show me one person who had a matter before the court that he took a trip with?   Show mw one recusal motion he denied. I'm not here arguing about the dem justice whose book publisher had a matter before the court and she didn't recuse.   What I am reading is the whistleblowers got kicked off the case and now are just making things up?   Does that even pass the smell test.   A gay, lifetime democrat is just making stuff up about Hunter.   Let's assume you are correct, how in the he!! do you justify letting the SOL run on the felonies....   Y'all keep insisting on evidence... is Hunter's written word not a form of evidence (email saying he has to give half to Joe)?   Do we just dismiss his written word for some reason?   And how can they get evidence if they are forbidden from asking the questions.       

[auburnatl1 4,920]

25 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

we don’t actually know that because for a long time Thomas hasn’t been reporting all the gifts, trips, benefits his ‘friends’ have been giving him despite ethical rules requiring him to. 
 

Best case scenario is that Clarence hasn’t been influenced by all the wealth showered on him by his ‘friends’ but still knowingly failed to disclose the gifts because he knew, as the OP states, the ‘appearance of impropriety’ would be strong. 
 

 

It’s a bad look. However, probably no other conservative is quite in the media gotcha cross hairs like he is. So I’m reserving “judgement”

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

32 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Why are we even talking about Clarence Thomas?   You show me one person who had a matter before the court that he took a trip with?   Show mw one recusal motion he denied. I'm not here arguing about the dem justice whose book publisher had a matter before the court and she didn't recuse.

 

You brought up the basic legal notion of 'not giving even the appearance of impropriety', which a lot of people would say hiding lavish gifts and falsifying transparency reports would fall under that,  but I guess you're now saying that doesn't apply to US Supreme Court justices...or at least not to the Conservative ones....ok...sorry for bringing it up.

 

Quote

  What I am reading is the whistleblowers got kicked off the case and now are just making things up?   Does that even pass the smell test.

  A gay, lifetime democrat is just making stuff up about Hunter.     

Correction. That agent said that he used to be Conservative but now identifies as a "moderate Democrat". Not saying that makes him less credible, but by his own admission he's not been a lifelong liberal/Democrat.  

Quote

  Let's assume you are correct, how in the he!! do you justify letting the SOL run on the felonies....   Y'all keep insisting on evidence... is Hunter's written word not a form of evidence (email saying he has to give half to Joe)?   Do we just dismiss his written word for some reason?   And how can they get evidence if they are forbidden from asking the questions.  

I'd be all for charging Hunter with felonies if he committed them. I don't give a flying f*** about Hunter Biden. Throw him in jail and teach him a lesson. If Biden or the DOJ improperly messed with the investigation then I hiope its discovered and appropriate punishment taken. But as of right now all we've got are 2 investigators who think and believe improper influence took place, but don't have anything to prove it did.

Hopefully they'll pass on the slap on the wrist plea deal and give him some real punishment.

Edited August 12, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[Didba 5,256]

On 8/11/2023 at 5:22 PM, I_M4_AU said:

How so?

Biden and Trump's transgressions as president have only had major impacts on the US in roughly the last 8ish years. Thomas's transgressions have spanned much longer and potentially for his whole term and/or large portions of it.

@NolaAuTiger this is why

Edited August 16, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

35 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'd be all for charging Hunter with felonies if he committed them. I don't give a flying f*** about Hunter Biden. Throw him in jail and teach him a lesson. If Biden or the DOJ improperly messed with the investigation then I hope its discovered and appropriate punishment taken.Hopefully they'll pass on the slap on the wrist plea deal and give him some real punishment.

This.

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

16 minutes ago, Didba said:

Biden and Trump's transgressions as president have only had major impacts on the US in roughly the last 8ish years. Thomas's transgressions have spanned much longer and potentially for his whole term and/or large portions of it.

Who has Thomas given a favorable ruling to?  Why would you single him out when other justices have received as much, even more, than Thomas has.  It doesn’t make sense.  Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself on a case that involved her publisher, now that would be the first one that should be looked at.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/

[LPTiger 5,163]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who has Thomas given a favorable ruling to?  Why would you single him out when other justices have received as much, even more, than Thomas has.  It doesn’t make sense.  Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself on a case that involved her publisher, now that would be the first one that should be looked at.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/

This was my point earlier re Book publisher!!!  Show me ONE recusal motion JusticeThomas denied where it was even alleged that he had received benefits from the party.   You can't because it doesn't exist.   But, he has a Super Bowl replica ring....  Has Jerry ever had a matter before the court.   Bottom line, this special counsel appointment smells worse than LSU corndogs....

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

11 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

This was my point earlier re Book publisher!!!  Show me ONE recusal motion JusticeThomas denied where it was even alleged that he had received benefits from the party.   You can't because it doesn't exist.   But, he has a Super Bowl replica ring....  Has Jerry ever had a matter before the court.   Bottom line, this special counsel appointment smells worse than LSU corndogs....

Yes the special counsel appointment is blatantly obvious that we are heading toward a Banana Republic and the Dems don’t care.  It really is amazing.  Most will say if Joe is guilty put him in jail on one hand, but squawk when someone tries to find the smoking gun.

[Didba 5,256]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who has Thomas given a favorable ruling to?  Why would you single him out when other justices have received as much, even more, than Thomas has.  It doesn’t make sense.  Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself on a case that involved her publisher, now that would be the first one that should be looked at.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/

All of them are fine by me IDGAF about Sotomayor, she is just as in the wrong as he. His has just been the most confirmed and egregious. The lack of favorable rulings doesn't mean a thing to me.

[AU9377 4,931]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It shouldn’t feel right to any American.  It is blatant as it can be.  The GOP Oversight and Ways and Means Committees are pushing back and still investigating.  Also; is the appointment of Weiss legal by Garland?

 

 

At this point, it doesn't matter what Garland does, Fox and the like will declare that it shows whatever it is that they want it to show.  What someone tweets is irrelevant really.  Some are acting as though the IRS agents that testified before the House committee are the only people that were working on the case.  Without knowing what else was looked into and by whom, every wild accusation known to man is being made.

There is ONE objective that House Republicans have.  That objective is to use as much innuendo and supposition as possible and to keep it in the news cycle long enough that people buy what they are selling without the need for any real evidence.  They don't care what Hunter Biden is charged with.  They don't care that David Weiss is a lifelong registered Republican.  They only care about using it to change the conversation from their leading candidate and his soon to be 4th indictment.

[LPTiger 5,163]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

All of them are fine by me IDGAF about Sotomayor, she is just as in the wrong as he. His has just been the most confirmed and egregious. The lack of favorable rulings doesn't mean a thing to me.

Dib, tell me what you mean by the lack of "favorable rulings doesn't mean a thing to me?"   NOTHING prevents the justices from taking trips paid for by others.   Becoming an Article III judge doesn't mean you can't accept gifts from friends.  What you can't do is accept gifts from friends and then decide cases/issues which would benefit them. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Trump voters and Thomas supporters decrying the appearance of impropriety because a Trump appointee was named special counsel, but disagreed with two lay witnesses with zero trial experience on what to charge. I don’t think the phrase means only doing those things Tucker would be happy with.

[homersapien 11,373]

20 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Why are we even talking about Clarence Thomas?   You show me one person who had a matter before the court that he took a trip with?   Show mw one recusal motion he denied. I'm not here arguing about the dem justice whose book publisher had a matter before the court and she didn't recuse.   What I am reading is the whistleblowers got kicked off the case and now are just making things up?   Does that even pass the smell test.   A gay, lifetime democrat is just making stuff up about Hunter.   Let's assume you are correct, how in the he!! do you justify letting the SOL run on the felonies....   Y'all keep insisting on evidence... is Hunter's written word not a form of evidence (email saying he has to give half to Joe)?   Do we just dismiss his written word for some reason?   And how can they get evidence if they are forbidden from asking the questions.       

What an ironic post considering the title of this - your  thread. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,931]

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes the special counsel appointment is blatantly obvious that we are heading toward a Banana Republic and the Dems don’t care.  It really is amazing.  Most will say if Joe is guilty put him in jail on one hand, but squawk when someone tries to find the smoking gun.

Comedy gold.  A week ago you wanted a special counsel appointed.  Today you claim that the appointment is proof that we are headed toward being a Banana Republic.  Have you ever actually considered the possibility that Weiss and the FBI looked at Hunter's business dealings and didn't find a connection to Joe Biden?  Hunter can talk about protecting the brand and brag about his access to his father all day every day all over the world and that still not be criminal.  He could get $2 billion from the Saudis because he is the President's son and guess what?  That isn't illegal.  He can be appointed to boards and start investment firms with people from Brazil to China to Itanbul and again, that is not illegal.

What is illegal is failing to pay your taxes on income.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Yes.  This certainly smells bad.  How dare the Biden DOJ retain the U.S. attorney investigating Hunter Biden.  How can they possibly defend giving a Republican, a Trump appointee, the role of special counsel.

This is a new low, even by Democrat standards.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

26 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Have you ever actually considered the possibility that Weiss and the FBI looked at Hunter's business dealings and didn't find a connection to Joe Biden? 

Yes, I have and it is obvious that Weiss didn’t look deep enough to implicate Joe.  I did want a special counsel to be appointed, just not Weiss who has proven he didn’t look deep enough to do a thorough investigation.  The man was going to give Hunter a pass.

 

26 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Hunter can talk about protecting the brand and brag about his access to his father all day every day all over the world and that still not be criminal. 

This is true, however, when you add that at least 9 Bidens not named Joe also received some of that $20 million they received during Joe’s time as VP.  Why did that happen?  Who benefited from this distribution?  Do you think Hunter is the type of person that is philanthropist?   Why is it that only the most corrupt of nations are interested in Hunter’s business?  Why not Italy or France?  One of Hunter’s emails to his daughter states Hunter is paying *Pop’s* bills which shows a direct connection to Joe.  It will be interesting when the Biden money man testifies, if he is allowed.

Can you look past your bias for Biden?  Do these not raise some sort of curiosity that should be looked into until those questions are answered.

Does it not raise a red flag when the only reason we even know about this potential bribery scheme is because of a laptop that was left at the repair shop and not pick up?  How about 51 ex-security people mislead the population saying it had *all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign* or when the FBI planted the seed in the social media outlets and MSM that there was about to be a hack dump involving Hunter and Joe just before the election?

Where is your curiosity in these matters?  Is it just part of politics?