David Weiss' Botched Investigation

[Son of A Tiger 587]

You know things are wrong when both CNN and the NYT chime in on the DOJ's investigation of Hunter Biden by  David Weiss calling it an "unholy mess."

David Weiss, DOJ accused of making 'unholy mess' with Hunter Biden case: 'All over the map' | Fox News

Edited August 21, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[AU9377 5,294]

It certainly should have been over and done with by now.  There is nothing discoverable that takes over 5 years to discover.  David Weiss could just be incompetent or he could simply go to the office and day dream half the day.  Another real possibility is that, regardless of how much someone speculates, assumes and imagines, there may simply be no evidence of actual criminal conduct.  Sometimes prosecutors sit on their hands when that happens and wait, hoping that time reveals something they have yet to find.  In either event, it is usually a good sign for the defendant.  If the FBI had solid evidence of a crime, they would have charged without hesitating.  Therefore, either the evidence isn't there or it isn't very solid and is largely circumstantial. 

[Mikey 16,779]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

If the FBI had solid evidence of a crime, they would have charged without hesitating.  Therefore, either the evidence isn't there or it isn't very solid and is largely circumstantial. 

I don't think the FBI or DOJ is doing anything in this case but covering evidence up and trying to keep the Bidens out of trouble. Haven't you paid any attention to the whistleblower's statements? Calling the efforts to get at the truth in this case half hearted would be a credit to the government.

[DKW 86 7,504]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It certainly should have been over and done with by now.  There is nothing discoverable that takes over 5 years to discover.  David Weiss could just be incompetent or he could simply go to the office and day dream half the day.  Another real possibility is that, regardless of how much someone speculates, assumes and imagines, there may simply be no evidence of actual criminal conduct.  Sometimes prosecutors sit on their hands when that happens and wait, hoping that time reveals something they have yet to find.  In either event, it is usually a good sign for the defendant.  If the FBI had solid evidence of a crime, they would have charged without hesitating.  Therefore, either the evidence isn't there or it isn't very solid and is largely circumstantial. 

Or the fix is in, like most things in DC...as the whistleblowers have shown time and again.

Are you really just this mindlessly slavish to the party?

Edited August 22, 2023 by DKW 86

[LPTiger 5,206]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Or the fix is in, like most things in DC...as the whistleblowers have shown time and again.

Are you really just this mindlessly slavish to the party?

I didn't see this one coming.

[LPTiger 5,206]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It certainly should have been over and done with by now.  There is nothing discoverable that takes over 5 years to discover.  David Weiss could just be incompetent or he could simply go to the office and day dream half the day.  Another real possibility is that, regardless of how much someone speculates, assumes and imagines, there may simply be no evidence of actual criminal conduct.  Sometimes prosecutors sit on their hands when that happens and wait, hoping that time reveals something they have yet to find.  In either event, it is usually a good sign for the defendant.  If the FBI had solid evidence of a crime, they would have charged without hesitating.  Therefore, either the evidence isn't there or it isn't very solid and is largely circumstantial. 

AU93, have you ever known a prosecutor to intentionally let a SOL run on a felony charge when the other side is willing to sign a tolling agreement?   This was not slow played. This was dead until the whistleblowers came forward.   Weiss put his career above his duty.  He never wanted to bring charges as The NY Times has reported.   What evidence do you need for a failure to file a return charge and failure pay taxes charge, particularly where subsequent late filings admit to the income amount.   What evidence do you need on the gun charge when the defendant has publicly admitted he was an addict at the time he bought the gun?    

[AU9377 5,294]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Or the fix is in, like most things in DC...as the whistleblowers have shown time and again.

Are you really just this mindlessly slavish to the party?

David Weiss is a LIFELONG REPUBLICAN.  He is not a Democrat operative of some kind.

[AU9377 5,294]

1 hour ago, LPTiger said:

AU93, have you ever known a prosecutor to intentionally let a SOL run on a felony charge when the other side is willing to sign a tolling agreement?   This was not slow played. This was dead until the whistleblowers came forward.   Weiss put his career above his duty.  He never wanted to bring charges as The NY Times has reported.   What evidence do you need for a failure to file a return charge and failure pay taxes charge, particularly where subsequent late filings admit to the income amount.   What evidence do you need on the gun charge when the defendant has publicly admitted he was an addict at the time he bought the gun?    

Fair point on the tax charge, but I need to know more than simply what the two IRS agents had to say on the matter to know if other reasons existed to not file those charges.  There are examples of people being charged with misdemeanor tax evasion that received jail time, but what isn't shown are the literally tens of thousands of cases that aren't prosecuted at all. They simply set up a payment and penalty plan or the taxes and penalties are paid by the taxpayer. 

I read the NYT piece.  The writer was pretty clear about one thing. Weiss fully investigated HB's international business dealings and found the same thing that House Republicans have found to date.  Nothing.  You have to admit, the gun charge is extremely rare to ever see as a stand alone charge. Based on recent appellate decisions, it may very well be unconstitutional.

https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-gets-boost-judge-rules-gun-charge-unconstitutional-1818871

 

[AU9377 5,294]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don't think the FBI or DOJ is doing anything in this case but covering evidence up and trying to keep the Bidens out of trouble. Haven't you paid any attention to the whistleblower's statements? Calling the efforts to get at the truth in this case half hearted would be a credit to the government.

You are basing your opinion on the testimony of two people that have knowledge of about 25% of the overall investigation.  I won't spend too much time rehashing it, but career DOJ and specifically FBI agents don't go to work every day with their number one objective being to serve and protect elected officials.  They just don't.  To believe they do is just a buy in to the narrative being spun. 

That is not to say that they don't, like every human, have their own biases and predispositions, but they aren't wired like many Republicans have been convinced that they are, to protect some and go after others.

[LPTiger 5,206]

34 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Fair point on the tax charge, but I need to know more than simply what the two IRS agents had to say on the matter to know if other reasons existed to not file those charges.  There are examples of people being charged with misdemeanor tax evasion that received jail time, but what isn't shown are the literally tens of thousands of cases that aren't prosecuted at all. They simply set up a payment and penalty plan or the taxes and penalties are paid by the taxpayer. 

I read the NYT piece.  The writer was pretty clear about one thing. Weiss fully investigated HB's international business dealings and found the same thing that House Republicans have found to date.  Nothing.  You have to admit, the gun charge is extremely rare to ever see as a stand alone charge. Based on recent appellate decisions, it may very well be unconstitutional.

https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-gets-boost-judge-rules-gun-charge-unconstitutional-1818871

 

AU93, in my experience the cases that are not prosecuted involve small dollars amounts,  involve a year or maybe 2 of non-filing and non-payment, and typically extenuating circumstances.   Hunter B, didn't file and didn't pay taxes, on millions of dollars in income over, I believe, a 5 year period.   He case is significantly different than the cases that don't get prosecuted.   It's similar to the difference between shoplifting $100 worth of cigarettes and embezzling $10,000,000.    The shoplifter probably doesn't spend more than a few hours in jail and the embezzler is going to spend some time in prison.    I haven't read the entire 5th Circuit opinion but based on the small burb in the tweet or what ever they are called now, it appears the court may have been making a difference between a past drug addiction that had abated at the time of the gun purchase vs current drug addiction.   I can't imagine a court saying a current drug addict has the right to possess a firearm.   Stranger things have happened I suppose.  

[I_M4_AU 8,144]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Or the fix is in, like most things in DC...as the whistleblowers have shown time and again.

Are you really just this mindlessly slavish to the party?

You have to ask?

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

David Weiss is a LIFELONG REPUBLICAN.  He is not a Democrat operative of some kind.

And the answer is……..yes.

[I_M4_AU 8,144]

21 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I read the NYT piece.  The writer was pretty clear about one thing. Weiss fully investigated HB's international business dealings and found the same thing that House Republicans have found to date.  Nothing.  You have to admit, the gun charge is extremely rare to ever see as a stand alone charge. Based on recent appellate decisions, it may very well be unconstitutional.

If Weiss fully investigated HB’s international business dealings; why did the whistleblowers come forward when they saw that the DOJ was not charging HB?  When the whistleblowers did come forward; why did the sweetheart deal blow up when Weiss said the investigation had not ended.  As to the *Nothing* it’s nothing so far.  The gun charge was only there to facilitate the immunity forever for HB.  Why can’t you see any of this?

The Hunter Biden defense team basically threatened the DOJ to put President Biden on the stand to get that sweetheart deal:

It was Halloween of 2022, and Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, didn’t sound happy. Just three weeks earlier, news had leaked that federal agents believed they had enough evidence to charge his client with illegally buying a gun as a drug user.

The leak was “illegal,” the lawyer wrote to the U.S. attorney overseeing the probe. The prosecution, he argued, would be seen as purely political, and it might even violate the Second Amendment.

Then he issued a warning: If the Justice Department charged the president’s son, his lawyers would put the president on the witness stand.

“President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial,” Clark wrote in a 32-page letter reviewed by POLITICO. 

That letter, along with more than 300 pages of previously unreported emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal team and prosecutors, sheds new light on the fraught negotiations that nearly produced a broad plea deal. That deal would have resolved Biden’s most pressing legal issues — the gun purchase and his failure to pay taxes for several years — and it also could have helped insulate Biden from future prosecution by a Republican-led Justice Department.

The documents show how the deal collapsed — a sudden turnabout that occurred after Republicans bashed it and a judge raised questions about it. The collapse renewed the prospect that Biden will head to trial as his father ramps up his 2024 reelection bid.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/19/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse-00111974

Analysis:  anything to protect the Biden’s.

Edited August 23, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[Son of A Tiger 587]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

 If the FBI had solid evidence of a crime, they would have charged without hesitating.  

I wish I had the confidence they would but their credibility is in question these days .

[AU9377 5,294]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If Weiss fully investigated HB’s international business dealings; why did the whistleblowers come forward when they saw that the DOJ was not charging HB?  When the whistleblowers did come forward; why did the sweetheart deal blow us when Weiss said the investigation had not ended.  As to the *Nothing* it’s nothing so far.  The gun charge was only there to facilitate the immunity forever for HB.  Why can’t you see any of this?

The Hunter Biden defense team basically threatened the DOJ to put President Biden on the stand to get that sweetheart deal:

It was Halloween of 2022, and Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, didn’t sound happy. Just three weeks earlier, news had leaked that federal agents believed they had enough evidence to charge his client with illegally buying a gun as a drug user.

The leak was “illegal,” the lawyer wrote to the U.S. attorney overseeing the probe. The prosecution, he argued, would be seen as purely political, and it might even violate the Second Amendment.

Then he issued a warning: If the Justice Department charged the president’s son, his lawyers would put the president on the witness stand.

“President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial,” Clark wrote in a 32-page letter reviewed by POLITICO. 

That letter, along with more than 300 pages of previously unreported emails and documents exchanged between Hunter Biden’s legal team and prosecutors, sheds new light on the fraught negotiations that nearly produced a broad plea deal. That deal would have resolved Biden’s most pressing legal issues — the gun purchase and his failure to pay taxes for several years — and it also could have helped insulate Biden from future prosecution by a Republican-led Justice Department.

The documents show how the deal collapsed — a sudden turnabout that occurred after Republicans bashed it and a judge raised questions about it. The collapse renewed the prospect that Biden will head to trial as his father ramps up his 2024 reelection bid.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/19/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse-00111974

Analysis:  anything to protect the Biden’s.

They didn't need the gun charge in order to back door immunity.  Any judge was going to ask questions to ascertain whether the agreement is understood by both the Prosecutor and the Defendant.  In 90% or more of cases, when someone enters a plea, that plea is all inclusive as to any charge coming from the core matter.  They could have easily left the gun charge alone and simply included the tax charge plea. He was likely trying to charge more and, in his mind, appease Republicans by including the gun charge.  That stood zero chance of working because anything short of charging some kind of conspiracy that includes Joe Biden will always result in the House Republicans making un-supported allegations of cover ups and everything else imaginable.

One thing being Special Counsel affords him the opportunity to do is to issue a report of his findings that all can see.  He can produce a detailed set of findings from his investigation and then submit that to the AG for release.  Mueller did that.  Ofcourse, when he presented it, Bill Barr refused to release the entire report at first, only releasing redacted portions that were favorable to the President. Garland will immediately release the entire report, regardless of what right wing talking heads might predict.

You say "nothing so far".............where do you think evidence will come from if it wasn't part of the communications already known about?  Like I have said before, this is classic Trump Republican playbook theater.  It doesn't matter what truth is or isn't.  It only matters that the water is muddy enough and the topic doesn't go away.  Then you repeat claims over and over until a segment of the public accepts the allegations as fact, regardless of whether they are or not.

[I_M4_AU 8,144]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

where do you think evidence will come from if it wasn't part of the communications already known about? 

Well, did you know Biden was using a pseudonym on his government emails?  Do you think Weiss even looked for something like this?  You need motivated investors like the IRS whistleblowers to dig deep into this investigation.  We haven’t seen that so far, what we have seen is the DOJ looking the other way.

[AU9377 5,294]

46 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, did you know Biden was using a pseudonym on his government emails?  Do you think Weiss even looked for something like this?  You need motivated investors like the IRS whistleblowers to dig deep into this investigation.  We haven’t seen that so far, what we have seen is the DOJ looking the other way.

IRS investigators would never be charged with looking into that.  That would be an investigative team in the FBI.    That is why I have stated repeatedly that, until we hear from others involved in the investigation, we only have 25% to 50% knowledge about what was looked into.  Those investigators simply don't know and don't have access to the entire case.  Jim Jordan wasn't eager to have others involved come in and testify.  Why?  Because that would risk the narrative that he was developing.

[aubaseball 2,699]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I won't spend too much time rehashing it, but career DOJ and specifically FBI agents don't go to work every day with their number one objective being to serve and protect elected officials. 

I use to have faith in this statement until 2016.   Then I read a few text messages from a prosecutor and a very high up FBI Agent saying that a certain person would not get elected.  

[I_M4_AU 8,144]

17 hours ago, AU9377 said:

IRS investigators would never be charged with looking into that.  That would be an investigative team in the FBI.    That is why I have stated repeatedly that, until we hear from others involved in the investigation, we only have 25% to 50% knowledge about what was looked into.  Those investigators simply don't know and don't have access to the entire case.  Jim Jordan wasn't eager to have others involved come in and testify.  Why?  Because that would risk the narrative that he was developing.

I didn’t think the IRS would ever look into that, but the FBI sure should have.  I would imagine they talk to each other at some point.  Why didn’t the FBI know about the pseudonyms?  You are correct that we don’t know much about the investigation, but it is why the GOP Oversight Committee is so important is to find ties to Joe from Hunter.

Jim Jordon wasn’t eager to have others testify, I would think, because he didn’t have enough solid evidence to start asking questions. Isn’t it wise to know the answers of your questions before you ask a witness any question, or is that just on TV?

Edited August 23, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[LPTiger 5,206]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, did you know Biden was using a pseudonym on his government emails?  Do you think Weiss even looked for something like this?  You need motivated investors like the IRS whistleblowers to dig deep into this investigation.  We haven’t seen that so far, what we have seen is the DOJ looking the other way.

Why in the H_ll does the US President need a pseudonym email much less 4 to 6 of them?   Talk about the appearance of impropriety!!!!   If everything is on the up and up, why do you need to be even the slightest bit sneaky and sus?  Don't I recall something about this was going to be the most transparent administration in the history of the world?   Any chance those emails get produced in response to a FOIA request?  The more we learn.......    

[LPTiger 5,206]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t think the IRS would ever look into that, but the FBI sure should have.  I would imagine they talk to each other at some point.  Why didn’t the FBI know about the pseudonyms?  You are correct that we don’t know much about the investigation, but is why the GOP Oversight Committee is so important is to find ties to Joe from Hunter.

Jim Jordon wasn’t eager to have others testify, I would think, because he didn’t have enough solid evidence to start asking questions. Isn’t it wise to know the answers of your questions before you ask a witness any question, or is that just on TV?

I understand he has subpoenaed 4 additional agents -- a mix of FBI and IRS.   I'd bet a doughnut they are not being summoned to say Weiss diligently looked under every rock and between every crack and cranny.   Get the popcorn ready.    A case is built piece by piece and witness by witness.   Jordan is very bright, and he knows the answers to the questions already. 

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

David Weiss is a LIFELONG REPUBLICAN.  He is not a Democrat operative of some kind.

This is misleading. He served under the Obama administration as the US Attorney for Delaware. He was recommended by both Delaware senators who are Democrats.

Weiss has a conflict of interest because he previously worked with Hunter's late brother Beau Biden in Delaware. Weiss needs to recuse from the investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/20/hunter-biden-david-weiss-special-prosecutor-delaware/

[AU9377 5,294]

4 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I use to have faith in this statement until 2016.   Then I read a few text messages from a prosecutor and a very high up FBI Agent saying that a certain person would not get elected.  

FBI agents are allowed to discuss politics amongst one another.  They shouldn't do it on FBI issued devices.  Sending the message that read "no he won't...we'll stop it" referring to whether Trump would ever be elected President was not smart for someone in his position.  That said, his wife was very involved and active in Democrat campaigns in Virginia and other places.  There are a lot of ways to take a message in one context and make it much more sinister months later.  The Inspector General found that, although that statement shouldn't have been made by someone in his position, there was no evidence whatsoever that he did anything improper at any point to either aide Clinton or hurt Trump. 

Interestingly, the Inspector General's report also found conversations between agents demonstrating anti-Clinton and Pro-Trump bias.  I get it, those don't help the talking point.

[AU9377 5,294]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t think the IRS would ever look into that, but the FBI sure should have.  I would imagine they talk to each other at some point.  Why didn’t the FBI know about the pseudonyms?  You are correct that we don’t know much about the investigation, but is why the GOP Oversight Committee is so important is to find ties to Joe from Hunter.

Jim Jordon wasn’t eager to have others testify, I would think, because he didn’t have enough solid evidence to start asking questions. Isn’t it wise to know the answers of your questions before you ask a witness any question, or is that just on TV?

The point is that we don't know what the FBI has looked into at this point.

[AU9377 5,294]

9 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

This is misleading. He served under the Obama administration as the US Attorney for Delaware. He was recommended by both Delaware senators who are Democrats.

Weiss has a conflict of interest because he previously worked with Hunter's late brother Beau Biden in Delaware. Weiss needs to recuse from the investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/20/hunter-biden-david-weiss-special-prosecutor-delaware/

Garland could name Mother Theresa (if she were living) and before sunset some on the right would have a list of reasons as to why she isn't acceptable on moral grounds.  I realize you would prefer a clown like Trey Gowdy, but it isn't happening.  By the way, what you mention is NOT a conflict. It doesn't come close to qualifying as a conflict of interest.

[AU9377 5,294]

18 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

I understand he has subpoenaed 4 additional agents -- a mix of FBI and IRS.   I'd bet a doughnut they are not being summoned to say Weiss diligently looked under every rock and between every crack and cranny.   Get the popcorn ready.    A case is built piece by piece and witness by witness.   Jordan is very bright, and he knows the answers to the questions already. 

We have watched these same cartoon-ish Congressmen build witness by witness before (see Benghazi hearings), until Hillary Clinton testified  and made them look like an unprepared group of playground brats.  Kevin McCarthy even slipped up and admitted what was really going on when he said that the Benghazi Special Committee was formed "to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers" and make her appear “untrustable.”

Until I see something more than presumptive accusations by these people, they have not earned the benefit of the doubt.  At least not from me.