Garland names special counsel in Hunter Biden investigation

Let's see if I got this right......The Attorney General of Delaware signed off on a plea deal that would let Hunter skate on some charges with immunity from other charges.

Then you appoint the exact same person as special prosecutor instead of someone impartial.


Yep, sounds legit to me.


The time for an impeachment inquiry is urgent at this point or else this will drag on into eternity.

a reply to: RickinVa

He's not the Attorney General of Delaware. He's a United States Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Also, he was appointed by Trump.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

He's not the Attorney General of Delaware. He's a United States Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Also, he was appointed by Trump.

Just because Democrats are beholden to each other and their failed policies and cover for one another, doesn't mean other parties are the same way.

Democrat = hive mentality

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

He's not the Attorney General of Delaware. He's a United States Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Also, he was appointed by Trump.

Why the hell would you think that it matters to me that he was appointed by Trump, like that means something.

Also of note......the DOJ has moved to drop the charges in Delaware and refile them in a different venue.


Amazing, I call it for what it is...judge shopping. Tough judge the first time.


Which also relieves Hunter of everything the judge ordered...no random drug testing or looking for a job now.


This has been a great day for team Biden.

a reply to: Threadbare

We can see what the democrats are up to. Smith and his DC grand juries while the case is in Fl. Shopping this case around now too.

Maybe the Bidens aren't well liked in Delaware? Ca and DC will be friendlier.

And now the DoJ can run full interference on the Congressional investigations.

We see them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I voted for Trump because I hate the evil left, butI also dislike republicans.

You always tell it like it is, and that's why I like you.

a reply to: RickinVa

No, it's because Delaware is not the correct venue for the trial as that is not where the crime was committed.

U.S. Attorney David Weiss ? ? ?

Isn't he the same guy that Negotiated the Buttery Sweet deal for Hunter that was thrown out ?

I'm gonna go bounce my head off the ground until this makes sense brb

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: face23785

A trial is therefore in order. And that trial cannot take place in this District because, as explained, venue does not lie here.

DOJ moves to drop Hunter Biden case in Delaware ahead of possible trial in different district

I wasn't saying they didn't drop it in Delaware.

Pretending that was why the special counsel was needed, however, is laughable. That is in no way a solid explanation for this.

We were repeatedly assured Weiss had the authority and ability to charge anything anywhere. You were either lied to then, or you're being lied to now. That's best-case scenario. Worst case, and most likely, is that you were lied to both times.

Do you guys ever get tired of being sold blatant, obvious lies that fall apart under even 4 seconds of scrutiny? Then you run all over the internet parroting this stuff, embarrassing yourselves.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

No, it's because Delaware is not the correct venue for the trial as that is not where the crime was committed.

Then why was it in court there the first time before the judge tossed the deal?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Once again, Delaware is not the correct venue for the tax charges. Hunter was living in California at the time. It wasn't an issue when Hunter was going to be pleading out. Now that it's going to trial however the prosecution needs to file in the correct venue or Hunter's lawyers will have the case dismissed.

By the way, thanks to the judge not accepting the plea deal there's more a good chance that Hunter is going to skate on the gun charge. The 5th Circuit just ruled the law as unconstitutional. So I'm sure that will be brought up in the trial.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

No, it's because Delaware is not the correct venue for the trial as that is not where the crime was committed.

Don't you mean alleged crime?

Or did you forget you said this

Isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty?

You're sounding more full of crap with every post

a reply to: RickinVa

It wasn't tried in Delaware. Charges were filed in Delaware. Because Hunter was taking a plea deal there was no issue in regards to venue as the case wasn't going to be going to trial.

Now that it is going to trial, charges need to be filed in the correct venue.

originally posted by: RickinVa
I can see the special counsel report already...

After a thorough investigation, it has been found that although Hunter Biden was extremely careless in his financial affairs, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

Seems like I heard crap like that before somewhere........

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's Use of a Personal E-Mail System:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

...although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

You mean something like this?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RickinVa

Also, he was appointed by Trump.

Again, you keep parroting this as if it means something.

I know you get lied to alot by your favored "news" sources, so I doubt you're aware of this, but the President appoints literally thousands of people during a 4-year term. The vast majority of them he doesn't personally choose and vet. They are recommended to him by others and if they're not for some kind of key position, the President just signs off on them.

In this case, this prosecutor was chosen by Democrats.

Don't get mad at me, get mad at wherever you get your news from for misleading you into thinking this guy being a Trump appointee means he must be trustworthy on a case against the Bidens. That's not even remotely close to the truth, and the facts to date show he has been quite favorable to the Bidens.

Why do you think your preferred news services have to lie to you like this? If the facts are on their side, they'd use them instead of all these false narratives. Did you ever think of that?

Why do you think Biden lied about whether he knew about Hunter's business deals? Why would he lie that no one in his family got money from China or Russia? Why would Garland lie about Weiss having all the powers he needed to prosecute this anywhere and then they have to turn around and pretend he needed to be appointed special council to prosecute in another district as if those eventualities aren't obviously mutually exclusive?

Do you typically go around lying to everyone about everything when you've done nothing wrong?

a reply to: face23785

Do you guys ever get tired of being sold blatant, obvious lies that fall apart under even 4 seconds of scrutiny? Then you run all over the internet parroting this stuff, embarrassing yourselves.

I keep asking the same thing .....

It is honestly one of the main things that keeps me so enthralled with ATS , I love the Lefties on here I love peeling back the layers of there Minds .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Doubling down or onto the next thing is the preferred strategy.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Doubling down or onto the next thing is the preferred strategy.

They have to wait for their evening talking points.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Doubling down or onto the next thing is the preferred strategy.

They have to wait for their evening talking points.

They got them already. It was necessary because Weiss needed the Special Counsel authorities to charge the case in another jurisdiction.

Even though that completely disproves the earlier story that Weiss had all the authority he needed to charge anything anywhere.

Their brains simply aren't capable of recognizing the disconnect. Let's face it, the Democrats know their faithful will swallow anything and the Democrat media and Democrat Big Tech will back them up.

Edit: Great example, a few days ago Democrats were commemorating the 9th anniversary of the killing of Michael Brown. They still think he was a victim. They still think he had his hands up and was "executed."

That's been debunked for over 8 years, but Democrats only listen to certain news sources and none of them informed them that that entire narrative was lies. They are kept in a state of perpetual ignorance. Not only are they lied to, but they believe the lies years after the fact because they're never exposed to the truth. They still blindly support someone who was justifiably killed for attacking a cop. That's the definition of hero to them.