Whistleblower
-
Think about the nonsensical construct Garland has built around the public question of Who sabotaged the Hunter Biden prosecution? That is, who dragged it out for years, willfully undermining the investigators’ ability to investigate even as we were told that the “ongoing investigation” necessitated resisting any congressional inquiries? Who pulled that off for so long that the statute of limitations lapsed on some of the most revelatory corruption charges? Who choreographed the inevitable sweetheart plea deal?
That wasn’t Weiss. It was Garland.
Garland says that Weiss needed only to ask, and he would have been given limitless special-counsel authority to charge the case as he saw fit. As a result, the feeding frenzy is now focused on (a) whether Weiss really faced resistance from Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys in Washington, D.C., and California over the prospect of indicting Hunter, and (b) whether Weiss formally asked Garland for special-counsel status while he was telling the agents that his hands were tied by the Biden Justice Department.
That’s how Garland wants us to evaluate the matter. And it’s preposterous.
Have a look at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600 — they’re short and fairly straightforward. The first thing you may notice, in light of the present circumstances, is that there is no procedure calling for a district U.S. attorney to seek special-counsel status. To the contrary, the rules explicitly provide that a “Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government” (see § 600.3, emphasis added). If the special-counsel rules were followed — and Garland claims to be a stickler for DOJ rules — a request by Weiss to be appointed as a special counsel would have required his resignation from his plum position inside the United States Government.
But that doesn’t begin to capture Garland’s sleight of hand.
The main reason there is no procedure for a U.S. attorney to request special-counsel status is that the rules commit the decision of whether to appoint a special counsel to the attorney general and require that the decision be based on the attorney general’s own determination of two specific questions (see § 600.1). Not surprisingly, those questions are virtually the antithesis of the nonsensical question Garland would like us to think is dispositive — namely, whether a U.S. attorney (who answers to Garland) was blocked from filing charges by two other U.S. attorneys (who answer to Garland).
Instead the two questions laid out in the rules are commonsense ones, which any ethical attorney general would consider if an investigation or prosecution of a sensitive matter were warranted, to wit: (1) Would the investigation or prosecution of the person involved “present a conflict of interest for the Department [of Justice],” and (2) would it be “in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter”? (Emphasis added.)
If there is a viable basis for a criminal investigation or prosecution, it is the attorney general’s obligation to appoint a special counsel, not on request by a Justice Department prosecutor, but if the answers to those two questions are “yes.” That is, a special counsel should be named if a serious conflict of interest vitiates the Justice Department’s capacity to handle the case in the normal manner, and the case is sufficiently important that the public interest supports bringing in a prosecutor from outside the government.
There is no clearer textbook example of such a conflict of interest than when the president’s Justice Department is in the position of having to investigate the president himself or a member of the president’s close family. Here, the Biden Justice Department is in the position of investigating and prosecuting the president’s son for financial crimes, in which the president appears to be implicated, and for a gun crime that is complicated by the president’s incessant rhetoric about ratcheting up federal gun regulations.
It could not conceivably be more obvious that the attorney general was obligated to appoint a special counsel from outside the government the moment he learned about the Biden case and the gargantuan conflict of interest it entails. It was up to Garland to do that, not up to Weiss to ask him to do that. Lawyers do not get to delegate their ethics to subordinates.
Since the need for a special counsel could not be any clearer, the only sensible inference to be drawn is that Garland’s refusal to appoint one meant that he and the president did not want the investigation and prosecution of the Biden case to be pursued. They banked on the regnant double standard under which Republican administrations are subjected to intense media pressure to appoint special counsels even in the absence of evidence of a crime, whereas the press makes nary a peep about a Democratic administration that refuses to appoint a special counsel in the face of a patent conflict.
-
Different whistleblower
"Gal Luft, a dual U.S. and Israeli citizen, is accused of recruiting and paying a former high-ranking U.S. government official – and adviser to then President-elect Donald Trump – on behalf of principals based in China in 2016 without registering in the U.S. as a foreign agent as federal law requires.
The 57-year-old fugitive has become a key figure in Republican-led corruption investigations into President Joe Biden, accusing him, his son Hunter Biden and other family members of having improper financial arrangements with the China-controlled energy company CEFC."
-
That brings us to the central deceit.
While Garland would have you believe Weiss would have been granted any necessary authority if only he’d asked, it was not Weiss’ job to ask. Rather, it was Garland’s duty to appoint a special counsel, regardless of whether a subordinate asked him to do so.
Under the regulations, a special counsel must be brought in from outside the government.
By definition, if Weiss had asked to be appointed a special counsel, he would effectively have been resigning his coveted position as US attorney for Delaware. Why would Garland have expected Weiss to ask for Garland to fire him?
More to the point, there is no provision in the regs for the AG to appoint a special counsel on request by a district US attorney.
Rather, the regs require the AG to name a special counsel if the AG is aware of a conflict of interest that prevents the Justice Department from investigating and prosecuting a case in the normal course.
There can be no greater conflict of interest than that posed by the president’s Justice Department’s having to investigate the president himself and/or a close family member of the president.
It is the textbook case for a special counsel.
The Biden Justice Department could not credibly investigate the Biden family. Garland knows that, yet he refused to appoint a special counsel.
-
Different whistleblower
"Gal Luft, a dual U.S. and Israeli citizen, is accused of recruiting and paying a former high-ranking U.S. government official – and adviser to then President-elect Donald Trump – on behalf of principals based in China in 2016 without registering in the U.S. as a foreign agent as federal law requires.
The 57-year-old fugitive has become a key figure in Republican-led corruption investigations into President Joe Biden, accusing him, his son Hunter Biden and other family members of having improper financial arrangements with the China-controlled energy company CEFC."
@taiwan_girl said in Whistleblower:
on behalf of principals based in China in 2016 without registering in the U.S. as a foreign agent as federal law requires.
Guess who else worked for the same company (CEFC China Energy) and didn't register as a foreign agent?
-
This post is deleted!
-
FBI Director very anti- Republican. LOL
"Representative Ken Buck, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, offered a rare thank you to Wray during Wednesday's hearing, reminding his colleagues that the FBI director was both nominated to the post by former Republican presidents and expressing his support for the bureau's work.
On Wednesday, Buck asked Wray to confirm that he was first appointed to the position of assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's criminal division by former President George W. Bush and confirmed by a Republican Senate. The Colorado Republican then reminded those at the hearing that it was former President Donald Trump who nominated Wray to lead the FBI, with the approval of another Republican Senate.
"I think there were only five votes against me, and they were all from Democrats," Wray answered.
When Trump announced he was nominated Wray over Twitter in 2017, he called Wray "a man of impeccable credentials."
"According to Wikipedia, you are still a registered Republican, and I hope you don't change your party affiliation after this hearing is over," Buck told Wray.
Wray himself told Republicans on the Judiciary panel that it was "insane" to say he acted in bias against the GOP given his "personal background."
-
Thou shalt not testify:
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/07/Redacted-letter-1.pdf
[T]he Department expects that you will decline to respond to questions seeking non-public information likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege or other significant confidentiality interests, in particular information about deliberations or ongoing investigative activity in law enforcement matters...You should instead refer such questions to the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs.”
Consistent with longstanding practice, this will afford the Department the full opportunity to consider particular questions and possible accommodations that may fulfill the Committee’s legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests.
-
Is Wray a necessary ingredient in anybody's narrative that the Hunter Biden investigation was torpedoed due to politics?
@Horace said in Whistleblower:
Is Wray a necessary ingredient in anybody's narrative that the Hunter Biden investigation was torpedoed due to politics?
Sure - he at least has to agree to go along with it. He continues to publicly affirm his independence on the investigation.
-
Agent Zeigler...
I have witnessed the corrosion of ethical standards and the abuse of power that threaten our nation. It is within this context that I have chosen to shed light on these actions and expose those responsible. I recognize that while I was present at the start of this investigation and was closely involved with the investigation for roughly five years – that I'm just a part of the story. Others – including my colleague and supervisor Gary Shapley who is here with me today – have their own views and understandings of what took place during this investigation.
Mr. Weiss stated that he had been granted "ultimate authority" over this matter but then later stated in the same letter that his "charging authority" is geographically "limited" and that he would need to ask President Biden appointed U.S. Attorney's[sic] to "partner" with him in charging the case. We know that as recently in March of 2023, even the Department of Justice-Tax Division attorney assigned to the case questioned Mr. Weiss's authority and didn't know where Mr. Weiss was going to charge the case.
My own agency retaliated against me and threatened me with criminal conduct in response to an internal email I sent to IRS leadership, even after years of essentially being left on an island when it came to this investigation. It is not my desire to become a martyr for this case — and I fear effectively ending my career. I did not ask to be in this position, nor did I want to be...
At the end of the day, I worked on a complex criminal tax investigation over the last 5 years and the investigative process is 999% done and we were in the process of bringing the case to indictment. Since October of 2022, the Delaware AUSAs and DOJ-Tax had effectively stopped communicating with me and my team has ultimately been removed from the investigative team.
I had recently heard an elected official say that I must be more credible, because I am a gay democrat married to a man. I'm no more credible than this man sitting next to me due to my sexual orientation or my political beliefs. I was raised and have always strived to do what is right. I have heard from some, that I am a trator to the democratic party and that I am causing more division in our society. I implore you, that if you were put in my position with the facts as I have stated them, that you would be doing the exact same thing – regardless of your political party affiliation. I hope that I am an example to other LGBTQ people out there, who are questioning doing the right thing at a potential cost to themselves and others. We should ALWAYS do the right thing, no matter how painful the process might be. I contemplated scenarios that would have been highly regrettable. But I did what was right and I am sitting in front of you here today.
"it is not difficult to believe that appointing a special counsel in this matter is the best way to go forward to give everyone confidence in the fairness of our tax system."
-
@Horace said in Whistleblower:
Is Wray a necessary ingredient in anybody's narrative that the Hunter Biden investigation was torpedoed due to politics?
Sure - he at least has to agree to go along with it. He continues to publicly affirm his independence on the investigation.
@Jon said in Whistleblower:
@Horace said in Whistleblower:
Is Wray a necessary ingredient in anybody's narrative that the Hunter Biden investigation was torpedoed due to politics?
Sure - he at least has to agree to go along with it. He continues to publicly affirm his independence on the investigation.
No room for the director to be unaware of everything that goes on under him?
-
It was kind of interesting watching the Democrats on the committee question the witnesses. The rep from Delaware spent his entire 5 minutes talking about hypocrisy, because the GOP was silent about (sit down) Trump and here they are complaining about Biden. He asked no questions. it was 5 minutes of grandstanding.
Somehow he forgot to mention that Trump was impeached - twice.
He also forgot to mention that, for the last 2 years of Trump's term, his party controlled congress. They could have investigated anything...
Another representative claimed that it was all irrelevant because Biden was not president when these alleged irregularities occurred.
