This counsel hardly seems special

I’m not a fisherman, but I know when something smells fishy.

I’m neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, but there is something really strange about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s elevation of U.S. Attorney David Weiss to special counsel to continue the investigation of Presidential Son, Recovering(?) Drug Addict, and Professional Lothario Hunter Biden.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s choice seems strange to some

I will confess to not having 100% of the facts, because there are too many and they keep changing. The difference between me and most other pundits is that I admit I don’t have 100% of the facts. I estimate 87.4% is what I am sure of. 

I have enough facts to ask why Garland elevated Weiss to special counsel when in three letters to congress, Weiss said he had all the authority he needed. 

Those three letters were contradicted by the sworn testimony of two whistleblowers who said Weiss told agents in a meeting he did not have all the authority he needed. One of them was a self-confessed Democrat, and also announced he was gay, for no particular reason I could see.

Weiss, who was appointed by Donald J. Trump, has been investigating Hunter for five years. Five freaking years.

And in that lengthy time, the statute of limitations had passed on several suspicious tax filings from Hunter. 

With the unlimited resources of the government behind him, what the hell is taking Weiss so long?

Weiss is the latest, but not the only, special counsel appointed by Garland.

He follows Robert Hur, appointed in January 2023 — looking into Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents after he left office as vice president — and Jack Smith in November 2022 — investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents and his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Garland said he made the Weiss appointment after Weiss requested it on Tuesday.

Did Garland ask why — now, after all this time — Weiss needed the added authority?

Is it not true that as long as Weiss is working the case, Republicans can’t call him to testify? 

Speaking of Republicans, they have long demanded a special counsel for Hunter. Now they got one, and we are reminded of the adage of being careful what you wish for. 

This is not what they had in mind.

Garland said Weiss’ appointment “reinforces for the American people the department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters. I am confident that Mr. Weiss will carry out his responsibility in an even-handed and urgent manner and in accordance with the highest traditions of this department.”

I’ll have whatever it is  he is smoking. He made the announcement with a straight face and walked off without allowing questions from the media. There would have been many.

As The New York Times reported, “The special counsel announcement marked a stunning reversal: Just last month, Mr. Weiss denied a claim that he had asked to be made special counsel. Mr. Garland had also scoffed at the idea, saying Mr. Weiss actually possessed more power as a sitting U.S. attorney than he would as special counsel.”

Got that?

Weiss was the guy who signed off on the Hunter plea bargain deal that stank so bad a federal judge sent both sets of lawyers to bed with no dinner.

This is the guy Garland trusts for independence, accountability, and even-handedness? It seems like a case of misplaced confidence to me.

I don’t have a horse in this race. I am nonpartisan when it comes to the truth, or at least to the facts.

I avoid hurling accusations I can’t support, but this move by Garland is suspicious, it smells like spoiled fish, and is likely to satisfy no one.

43 thoughts on “This counsel hardly seems special”

  1. Slap in the face to the honest hardworking taxpayers. Confirms what most know, these ruling elite believe the common man/person is stupid. Unfortunately many have taken the position re: politics…”whatever, I don’t want to be involved in “partisan” politics. How about right and wrong?

  2. Stu, I agree with you. The fix is in, Hunter will end up on top. I figure for some reason, if Joe Biden can’t run, he will pardon Hunter on his way out. Our government is a joke and the democrats are all sitting on their hands and have little to say. Hopefully we will get through this and send Biden packing in 2024. We are lucky we got past the last three years without out a major incident. I think the damage Biden has done can be corrected by an experienced new President. To the voters of all parties, please think before you vote…

    1. Yes. Do not vote for fascist criminals and everything will be fine. Oh, and while you’re at it, what “damage” has been done by the Biden administration? I live these vague, fact-lessv accusations you people throw out. List the damages. We’ll wait. But please use reliable sources or you’ll be laughed at.

  3. I agree. Why now? And I am not a Hunter defender–I think he’s a damn disgrace–but what other person in America who didn’t pay all their taxes and lied on one line of a gun application gets investigated by the justice department? If there’s more there, tell us!

  4. I’m glad you finely got your head out of your ass. The justice department and the media have been covering up for the democrats for years. It was so obvious to anyone with common sense who wasn’t filled with hate and didn’t believe the lies they were told on tv every day. And if the reporters start asking tough questions it will be the first time in years. The people running the democratic party today are corrupt and we better wake up before we lose this country.

    1. You have zero knowledge of said corruption other than what you hear from a corrupt right-wing media. Choose your media carefully or you become warped. Stu is actually a good one to follow because he is always fair. Associated Press, BBC and NPR are also pretty fair. I never watch ANY cable news shows, however. They are all about ratings, not facts.

    2. I hope you felt my head was out of my ass when I called Trump a lying, narcissistic, thin-skinned crybaby.
      But I doubt it.
      I call ‘em as I see ‘em, beholden to neither side.

      1. There goes your Trump derangement syndrome again. Calm down have a piece of Limburger cheese Curly.

    3. “The justice department and the media have been covering up for the democrats for years. It was so obvious …”
      Not to me.

      Under Obama, I remember Illinois dem governor Governor Rod Blagojevich was charged with conspiracy to commit mail, wire fraud and solicitation of bribery and convicted on 18 counts. (As you may recall, Trump had to be talked out of pardoning him. He has a real soft spot for corrupt politicians)

      A quick look-up also shows that the Obama DOJ also prosecuted:

      Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) (pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud)

      Corrine Brown (D-FL) convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges

      You’ll remember Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was mandated to register as a sex offender

      Thomas Porteous (D), Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached, convicted and removed from office December 8, 2010, on charges of bribery and lying to Congress (2010)

      And of course, the state level dem politicians are legion.

      Just in Pa, the Obama admin prosecuted:
      State Senator Vince Fumo (D) guilty of 139 counts
      Secretary of Revenue of Pennsylvania Stephen Stetler (D)
      President Judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Mark Ciavarella (D) sentenced to 28 years
      Senior Judge Michael Conahan (D) sentenced to 17½ years in federal prison.

      If you add in other state level politicians, the list goes on and on.

      So if DOJ was trying to protect Democratic politicians, it was doing a damn poor job of it.

        1. Hillary Clinton and her email scandal. Did you forget how they protected her. She should have gone to jail.

  5. My hope is that I’m not forced to vote for an 80+ year old candidate for another term, which I will be if the opponent is the mean one or Mar-a-Lardo, that this will be a cause for Biden pulling out of the race. At that point it becomes wide open. I find the honesty of both Chris Christie and Will Hurd refreshing, and I’m also pulling for Tim Scott.

    1. You obviously don’t live in New Jersey or you would know that Christie is nothing but another jackweed bully. I’ll take him over Trump, of course, but I’d also vote for a turnip before Trump.

        1. Danny boy, I will admit your head is not up your ass. It is up the ass of that orange-akinned SOB who you are so in love with. You were kissing it so much it just slipped in.

          1. Corrupt government and letting my family get free money using my name I’ll take Trump back anytime.

  6. I don’t think that they call it a special counsel, without thinking it as a special defense.

  7. Notice how we no longer trust our government — the executive, legislative, or judicial branch? The Left has achieved its goal. It doesn’t matter who sits i in the White House, the halls of Congress, or on the judicial benches, trust is dead.

    1. Right. So what I want to know is why did Mueller cover-up Trump’s conspiring with Russia?
      Fun game.

  8. Just when I think I can’t be shocked anymore something happens that proves I can be. The blatant arrogance of appointing someone so provably biased, and calling him impartial is so far over the top that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

  9. I’ve had experience working with the DOJ and government investigators (though not with the IRS). A big part of my law practice is representing whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. That law allows a whistleblower who exposes fraud on the government to sue on behalf of the government. The way it works is that you file the charges “under seal” and disclose all the information you have to DOJ/local U.S. Attorney. If they’re interested in pursuing it, either criminally or civilly, they assign an assistant U.S. attorney and put some FBI agents on it–or if it is defense spending–DCIS [Defense Criminal Investigative Service]. They interview the whistleblower and his/her lawyers lay out the case for the lawyers and investigators.

    The thing to know about the DOJ is that it is very small “c” conservative. They don’t want to bring cases unless they are sure they are very strong, and they certainly do not want to put themselves in situation where they have egg on their face–say like Durham going 1 for 3. I’ve argued, sometimes along with investigators, for investigative steps or subpoena’s and been told, nope, not going to do it.

    As was pointed out in the hearing, investigators in general, and these investigators in particular, have often been disappointed by charging decisions, and believe that their targets are being undercharged. In other words, the experience is not some kind outlier. I’ve experienced it myself.

    I would analogize, perhaps to journalism. I’m no reporter, and maybe Stu can tell me different–but it seems to me that a reporter may go to their editor and say “I want to run this.” Based on my TV and movie knowledge, the editor can say, well, what do have to support that? And on review, the editor can say “sorry, not enough. You need more to back that up.” Does that mean the story is being suppressed, or is it simple prudent journalism?

    Many of the claimed investigative limits were imposed while Trump was still President. Remember, it began in 2019, so two years of it were under Trump. So, if the Biden administration was exercising improper influence over the investigation during that time, it was via time travel.

    The potential felony charges seem to involve the fact that Hunter Biden improperly claimed business deductions for a range of personal expenses, from his children’s college tuition, to escorts and no-show employees, to stays for his drug dealer at a Hollywood hotel. Despicable. Although Weiss initially agreed that the felonies should be charged, he came back after consultation with the Department of Justice Tax Division,”which was worried the evidence that might come in related to his substance abuse and the death of his brother, Beau Biden” would sway the jury. Remember, they have to prove intent, and the Tax Division, which has tried hundreds of these cases, was worried Hunter would convince a jury that he was too coked-up and despondent to know what he was doing. (What the law calls “diminished capacity”). Having dealt with the DOJ, the jury issue objection rings true. They are very concerned about “jury appeal.” I had the same experience. The DOJ attorneys on a case I was on recommended that the government take it, but, after a nice celebratory dinner with co-counsel (dollar signs dancing in our eyes) we were told a couple weeks later, er, no, after further consultation, not going to do it.

    The territorial stuff seems confusing. Could be Weiss said he didn’t have authority (having not asked for it yet) and wasn’t looking at other jurisdictions at that time or that he was refused authority? Unclear. But why lie? Given the Tax Division’s jury worries, whether to pile on in other jurisdictions may have seemed to be senseless in any event. He had what he needed to get a guilty plea on the tax stuff, and the taxes had been paid, so in an ordinary case that would be end of it.

    One issue that stood out for me was the testimony that Ziegler said he expected “extra approvals” for investigative avenues when investigating the son of a president. The DOJ is supposed to treat all defendants no better and no worse than any other. Apparently the assumption was that some extra effort would be made to really nail Hunter Biden, but the purpose of the justice system is to treat him like any other guy who did what he did.

    The upshot is that this is the ordinary sausage-making at the DOJ that is usually out of view. Weiss’ mistake was that he treated Hunter Biden like an ordinary schmoe instead of America’s Most Wanted. The real point of the investigation was to try to get to Joe Biden, something that he clearly was unable to do in 5 years of investigation.

    The deal didn’t “stink.” Instead, the judge found there wasn’t really a deal. The defense said “this is it, this is the end” but the prosecution said, “no, we are still investigating and can charge him with more stuff.” Nothing wrong with either position, if true, but the whole point of the hearing was to see if the defense and prosecution were on the same page. They weren’t, so there was nothing to approve.

    Note that in the ordinary case, a plea deal is the end of a matter. It is the whole point of a “deal.” The defense says their understanding was correct, but the MAGA hissy-fit caused Weiss to back out. In other words, the part that is “fishy” may be Weiss’ backpedaling, not the deal itself. (From what I’ve read, if tax-evaders pay up, they often don’t get prosecuted at all. And on the gun charge, the 5th Circuit has just ruled that making it illegal for drug-users to own a gun is unconstitutional! Second Amendment supporters need to start making “Free Hunter Biden” signs. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it, but, who knows, Clarence Thomas might be Hunter’s best friend on that charge.)

    Garland’s stated goal was to show that the DOJ is non-political. That’s why he kept Durham and Weiss, though he could have just fired them. Their problem was that they could not meet the high expectations of finding high-level corruption.

    Weiss, unable to nail Joe, tried to exit quietly, but he could not without becoming a MAGA traitor. So he backed out and decided to keep investigating. Better than admitting he’s got nothing. Garland knows that there is no there, there on Joe Biden, and is perfectly happy to let Hunter be prosecuted. Weiss didn’t want to take the risk of losing at trial, now he probably will have to. Garland is obviously trying to blunt the outcry be saying “fine, he’s special counsel.” No biggie. Maybe Weiss, sick of the whole thing, will resign. Then Garland will appoint someone else, if he can find anyone willing to do the thankless job of prosecuting a garden-variety tax-evader. Not much glory in that.

    At the end of the day, Weiss had every incentive to be the guy who nailed Joe Biden–fame, fortune, book tours and a political career. Chris Christie launched his by nailing Jared Kushner’s dad and Giuliani got his by going after the mob. His incentive to cover up for Joe was absolutely zero. Ordinarily, Americans in general, the GOP in particular, don’t care very much about tax fraud. They don’t want the IRS to have enough resources to go after everybody like Hunter Biden, and Trump supporters were fine with the pardons of Paul Manafort and several other tax fraudsters because the crime is so teensy. Why care about Hunter.

        1. To the Trump fsns (borrowed):

          As much as I hate to interrupt the personal zen that is your daily angry Facebook rant at Chick-fil-A for the wokeification of their nuggets, I have something I’d like to share with you.

          You see, you keep talking about Joe Biden’s family being ‘corrupt’, and here’s the thing about that:
          Hunter Biden didn’t make $640 Million while working in the White House.
          Ivanka Trump & Jared Kushner did.
          Hunter Biden didn’t have his dad fast track 16 Chinese patents in two months for him.
          Ivanka Trump did.
          Hunter Biden didn’t get special national security clearance despite deep concerns of possible foreign influence.
          Ivanka Trump & Jared Kushner did.
          Hunter Biden didn’t get a $2 Billion paycheck from a country he only months before had negotiated official American foreign policy with.
          Jared Kushner did.
          Sitting President Joe Biden doesn’t have a Chinese bank account.
          But sitting “President” Donald Trump sure did.

          So, you see… all those “impeachable offenses” you baselessly accuse the Biden family of committing — yeah well, funny thing is, they were actually committed… by the Trumps.
          Now I know you won’t believe any of this because facts are about as useful to you as a second pair of underwear and a passport, but it doesn’t make them any less true.

          1. Here’s another brilliant riposte. Fani Willis’ 98-page 41-Count, RICO and conspiracy indictment. I don’t know how much you know about Willis, but she is known as a “tough on crime liberal” –so someone you may like.

            So, it is now official: Trump, along with 18 other defendants, has like many a mob boss, been indicted for racketeering. The indictment is brilliant (though I’ve only read it once) and very strong.

            As you likely know, RICO (and its states’ counterparts) was passed to combat organized crime and get to the mob bosses who presided over but did not directly participate in the crimes (the “predicate acts”). It can be tricky, as it has some very technical hurdles. However, Georgia’s “little” RICO was written to make it easier to bring than the federal version.

  10. Trumps family did nothing wrong. If they did this corrupt justice department would be all over them. You people are so full of hate you can’t think straight.

Comments are closed.