David Weiss' Botched Investigation

[LPTiger 5,210]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

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.

AU93, I don't think it is that clear.    As you know, there are actual conflicts and conflicts that are conflicts because they merely give the appearance of impropriety.   How close were Beau Biden and Weiss?   How often did they work together?   Did they simply work together or were they social friends as well?    How much social time did they spend together?   Was VP Biden involved in the decision to appoint him interim USA?   This isn't just any other case.   This involves the son of the most powerful person on the planet.   Having it handled by a guy who had a relationship with the president's only other son doesn't look great.   If I were Garland I'd find someone else.   You are 100% correct that whoever he appoints is going to draw some flack.   But, he can certainly do better than this IMO. 

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

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.

So you think it's appropriate for Weiss to continue being over the investigation despite everything that's been learned about the handling of the case?

1) Allowed SOL to expire on felony charges
2) Signed off on a plea deal that came to impasse because of how sloppily it was drafted
3) Whistleblowers came forward to accuse Weiss's office of hindering the investigation

One of the whistleblowers is a Democrat.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Auburnfan91

[AURex 2,083]

Waiting for one single shred of evidence from the GOP extremists. Evidence. Not implications. Not some dude who knew some dude who heard about it from some dude. Evidence.

[AU9377 5,295]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So you think it's appropriate for Weiss to continue being over the investigation despite everything that's been learned about the handling of the case?

1) Allowed SOL to expire on felony charges
2) Signed off on a plea deal that came to impasse because of how sloppily it was drafted
3) Whistleblowers came forward to accuse Weiss's office of hindering the investigation

One of the whistleblowers is a Democrat.

Only being privy to the information of the two IRS agents that disliked the way Weiss handled the case doesn't give a complete picture of what has and has not been looked into.  To be frank, I don't believe that there is a there there.  I am open to facts that show actual criminal activity.  I am not open to game playing by House Republicans.  I don't trust them and I don't trust their motives.  They have earned that distrust.  These are the same people that discarded Jeff Sessions when he did the right thing and recused himself from decisions relating to oversight of what would become the Mueller investigation.  These are the same people that went out of their way to punish an actual whistleblower when Donald Trump attempted to bribe a foreign country to help damage a political rival.  These people don't have any good will to barter with.

I honestly don't care to which party someone belongs or if they are independent.  I am the last person on earth to vote for someone due to a letter by their name.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Only being privy to the information of the two IRS agents that disliked the way Weiss handled the case doesn't give a complete picture of what has and has not been looked into.  To be frank, I don't believe that there is a there there.  I am open to facts that show actual criminal activity.  I am not open to game playing by House Republicans.  I don't trust them and I don't trust their motives.  They have earned that distrust.  These are the same people that discarded Jeff Sessions when he did the right thing and recused himself from decisions relating to oversight of what would become the Mueller investigation.  These are the same people that went out of their way to punish an actual whistleblower when Donald Trump attempted to bribe a foreign country to help damage a political rival.  These people don't have any good will to barter with.

I honestly don't care to which party someone belongs or if they are independent.  I am the last person on earth to vote for someone due to a letter by their name.

None of what the whistleblowers have stated has been disproven.

POLITICO obtained emails and documents from Hunter Biden's lawyers revealing that if not for the whistleblowers coming forward, Weiss wouldn't have sought a guilty plea on any charges as part of the deal.

Quote

On May 18, another lawyer for Biden sent two Delaware prosecutors — including Lesley Wolf, a senior prosecutor in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office — the first draft of a proposed deal, structured so it wouldn’t need a judge’s sign-off and wouldn’t require a guilty plea from Biden.

As part of the deal, Biden would admit he was late filing his taxes for 2017 and 2018, and that he owned a gun while he was using drugs. He would promise to pay any taxes he still owed, to pay his taxes on time for the next five years, and to never own a gun again. The deal would be made public, and it would also cover three corporate entities affiliated with him.

If he upheld his end of the bargain through January 2025, the Justice Department would promise not to prosecute him for anything they’d investigated thus far. The draft wording of that promise was clear and broad: “The Department of Justice agrees not to criminally prosecute Robert Hunter Biden and the affiliated businesses (namely: Owasco P.C.; Owasco LLC; and Skaneateles LLC): (a) for any federal crimes arising from the conduct generally described in the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A); or (b) for any other federal crimes relating to matters investigated by the United States.”

Weiss’ team of prosecutors seemed pleased. That evening, Wolf sent the Biden team a list of must-haves for a potential deal, noting that many of them were already in the first draft.

The Justice Department would insist on filing a court document charging Biden with two tax misdemeanors and one felony offense for possessing a gun as a drug user. They’d want the deal to be structured as a pretrial diversion agreement, which meant it would come with a built-in promise to drop all charges against Biden if he abided by its terms for several years. They’d want the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office in Delaware to supervise Biden during that period. The deal would be public, and it would reference Biden’s former drug use and current sobriety. He’d need to stop using drugs and to consent to drug testing. The deal would also have to include a longer statement of facts, a lifetime gun ban and a commitment not to publicly proclaim his innocence. Pleading guilty was not on Wolf’s list of must-haves.

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

 

Also the OIG, Michael Horowitz, won't be able to investigate the whistleblowers claims unless he gets approval.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/22/doj-ig-cites-potential-limitation-in-review-of-hunter-biden-coverup-claims/

Edited August 23, 2023 by Auburnfan91

[DKW 86 7,505]

8 hours ago, AURex said:

Waiting for one single shred of evidence from the GOP extremists. Evidence. Not implications. Not some dude who knew some dude who heard about it from some dude. Evidence.

We waited four years for evidence on Russians Russians Russians. Must give it a full four years on Biden...and every other political witch hunt that we can dream up going forward.

Impeachments for all!!!!!

[I_M4_AU 8,147]

10 hours ago, AURex said:

Waiting for one single shred of evidence from the GOP extremists. Evidence. Not implications. Not some dude who knew some dude who heard about it from some dude. Evidence.

You mean like the 1st impeachment of Trump?  Right on.

[Son of A Tiger 587]

23 hours ago, AU9377 said:

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

So now you think all Republicans are good, honest guys?

[homersapien 11,633]

22 hours ago, LPTiger said:

AU93, I don't think it is that clear.    As you know, there are actual conflicts and conflicts that are conflicts because they merely give the appearance of impropriety.

Such a "conflict" is (literally) no conflict at all.  By definition.

[LPTiger 5,210]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Such a "conflict" is (literally) no conflict at all.  By definition.

Homer, per our ethics rules, lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

[homersapien 11,633]

50 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Homer, per our ethics rules, lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

OK,  I stand corrected in the attorney ethical sense. 

Did you catch my response in the thread about the witness who changed his testimony in Trump's document case after he dropped his Trump-paid lawyer and got new representation?

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by homersapien

[LPTiger 5,210]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

OK, . I stand corrected in the attorney ethical sense. 

Did you catch my response in the thread about the witness who changed his testimony in Trump's document case after he dropped his Trump-paid lawyer and got new representation?

 

In some ways it is the hardest ethic's rule to adhere to (because it isn't black and white) and in some ways it is the easiest (if you have to ask yourself the question, just step aside).    I'll try to see what you are referring to now.   

[homersapien 11,633]

21 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

In some ways it is the hardest ethic's rule to adhere to (because it isn't black and white) and in some ways it is the easiest (if you have to ask yourself the question, just step aside).    I'll try to see what you are referring to now.   

Well, aside from the obvious conflict of interest, I was specifically wondering about the ethics of advising the Trump servant to (apparently) lie to his detriment and for Trump's benefit.

But I suppose they are really one and the same.

Edited August 23, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,633]

(I am tempted start telling lawyer jokes.)

[LPTiger 5,210]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(I am tempted start telling lawyer jokes.)

I promise you I have heard them all.

[LPTiger 5,210]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, aside from the obvious conflict of interest, I was specifically wondering about the ethics of advising the Trump servant to (apparently) lie to his detriment and for Trump's benefit.

But I suppose they are really one and the same.

Homer, I'm not going to say it has never happened, because it probably has, but I can't imagine a lawyer urging a witness to lie in a criminal investigation.   My, and every lawyer I know, number one rule was, self-preservation,  never do anything that might result in me having to use a toothbrush other than the one in the drawer to the left of my sink at my house.   Now, there are many clever ways to coach a witness that fall far short of criminal liability.   There are a lot of factors that go into being a great lawyer.   Witness prep is near the top of the list.  I always assumed every witness I prepped was taping every single word I said.   I suspect Trump's lawyers assumed the same.   Now, could a prosecutor twist a witness' arm, with threats of imprisonment,  and have them say that prep was actually encouraging them to lie -- of course they could.  I would be really surprised if someone who had the cache to be hired by the former president would be willing to risk going to jail for him.   But, heck stranger things have happened.

[homersapien 11,633]

1 minute ago, LPTiger said:

Homer, I'm not going to say it has never happened, because it probably has, but I can't imagine a lawyer urging a witness to lie in a criminal investigation.   My, and every lawyer I know, number one rule was, self-preservation,  never do anything that might result in me having to use a toothbrush other than the one in the drawer to the left of my sink at my house.   Now, there are many clever ways to coach a witness that fall far short of criminal liability.   There are a lot of factors that go into being a great lawyer.   Witness prep is near the top of the list.  I always assumed every witness I prepped was taping every single word I said.   I suspect Trump's lawyers assumed the same.   Now, could a prosecutor twist a witness' arm, with threats of imprisonment,  and have them say that prep was actually encouraging them to lie -- of course they could.  I would be really surprised if someone who had the cache to be hired by the former president would be willing to risk going to jail for him.   But, heck stranger things have happened.

I get your point. 

There are degrees of shaping a witnesses testimony that avoids the problem of advising them to lie.  But it certainly sounds like this witness was better served better by the court-appointed attorney.

 

 

[homersapien 11,633]

20 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

I promise you I have heard them all.

I'm sure you have.

I really relied on our corporate attorney when I got into marketing (New Business Development) after spending most of my career in R&D. 

He was excellent in explaining what I could and couldn't do in certain in certain situations. He had either a BS or MS in chemical engineering and a law degree from Vanderbilt. Great guy.

Anyway, I started telling him lawyer jokes and he knew more of them than I did.

[LPTiger 5,210]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm sure you have.

I really relied on our corporate attorney when I got into marketing (New Business Development) after spending most of my career in R&D. 

He was excellent in explaining what I could and couldn't do in certain in certain situations. He had either a BS or MS in chemical engineering and a law degree from Vanderbilt. Great guy.

Anyway, I started telling him lawyer jokes and he knew more of them than I did.

What do you call a half empty bus of lawyers going off a cliff -- wasted space

Why do lawyers not fear swimming in shark infested waters -- professional courtesy

What is the difference between a deal rattlesnake in the road and a dead layer in the road -- brake marks in front of the snake and acceleration marks in front of the lawyer

[AURex 2,083]

14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

We waited four years for evidence on Russians Russians Russians. Must give it a full four years on Biden...and every other political witch hunt that we can dream up going forward.

Impeachments for all!!!!!

Here we go again with right wing whataboutism. Let's change the topic because we don't actually have a single shred of evidence.

 

[AURex 2,083]

5 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Homer, per our ethics rules, lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

You mean like Giuliani and Powell and Eastman and Cheseboro and all of the others? hahahahaha

 

[AU9377 5,295]

On 8/23/2023 at 7:15 AM, DKW 86 said:

We waited four years for evidence on Russians Russians Russians. Must give it a full four years on Biden...and every other political witch hunt that we can dream up going forward.

Impeachments for all!!!!!

The Mueller report was released on April 18, 2019.  That is 2 years and a few months from inauguration.  Of course, it was a redacted report as the result of Bill Barr's leadership as AG.  That report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"...... and went on to list connections and ties between Russian interests and the Trump campaign to an extent never before seen in U.S. politics.  Those included the Trump campaign manager actually being charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. Trump's NSA head, Michael Flynn, was also charged.  Most importantly, they all lied about their connections with the Russian govt.  The only thing that wasn't found was direct coordination between the parties.

You can pretend that there was nothing to be concerned about, but that isn't what the report found.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

19 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Now, there are many clever ways to coach a witness that fall far short of criminal liability.

Legal "ethics"

[homersapien 11,633]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Mueller report was released on April 18, 2019.  That is 2 years and a few months from inauguration.  Of course, it was a redacted report as the result of Bill Barr's leadership as AG.  That report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"...... and went on to list connections and ties between Russian interests and the Trump campaign to an extent never before seen in U.S. politics.  Those included the Trump campaign manager actually being charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. Trump's NSA head, Michael Flynn, was also charged.  Most importantly, they all lied about their connections with the Russian govt.  The only thing that wasn't found was direct coordination between the parties.

You can pretend that there was nothing to be concerned about, but that isn't what the report found.

Nice try, but DKW is TOTALLY locked in to his narrative. It's key to his image.

[DKW 86 7,505]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Mueller report was released on April 18, 2019.  That is 2 years and a few months from inauguration.  Of course, it was a redacted report as the result of Bill Barr's leadership as AG.  That report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"...... and went on to list connections and ties between Russian interests and the Trump campaign to an extent never before seen in U.S. politics.  Those included the Trump campaign manager actually being charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. Trump's NSA head, Michael Flynn, was also charged.  Most importantly, they all lied about their connections with the Russian govt.  The only thing that wasn't found was direct coordination between the parties.

You can pretend that there was nothing to be concerned about, but that isn't what the report found.

That is a crock of s*** and you know it. Please answer with facts.

Who was charged with Treason, Sedition, and Collusion?
Where were they arrested?
Where were they tried?
Who were the judges that tried the cases? 
What were the case numbers?
How much jail time did they get for the charges of Treason, Sedition, and Collusion?
Where are they now serving time?

Every day for years we were told there were Cases, Arrests, and Convictions, were coming SPECIFICALLY for Treason, Sedition, and Collusion. 

So far, we got almost nothing and when it comes to what we were promised about Treason, Sedition, and Collusion we actually got NOTHING.