Donald is about to go through some things...

[fishonjazz]

Republicans: we want a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. We want that special counsel to be David Weiss.

Merrick Garland: ok I will appoint a special counsel and it will be David Weiss.

Republicans: that's not fair! The system is rigged against conservatives! Lol

Republicans Wanted a Special Counsel Investigation of Hunter Biden. Now Many Oppose It.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings. Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry...

www.yahoo.com

Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings.

Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry: David Weiss, the Donald Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney who has long investigated the case.

But Friday, after Garland elevated Weiss to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted publicly not with triumph but outrage.

The reaction was a notable political development, one that underscored both how Weiss, a Republican, has fallen in conservative circles and how deeply it has become ingrained in the GOP to oppose the Justice Department at every turn.

But in interviews, away from social media and television appearances, the reaction of many Republicans to Weiss’ appointment was more nuanced. Privately, some in the GOP were chalking up the development as a victory.

The party had worked for years to elevate the Hunter Biden case — which Democrats have long dismissed as a partisan obsession of the right — to a scandal equivalent to those dogging Trump, who has faced two impeachment trials, two special counsel investigations and three indictments totaling 78 felony counts against him. Those indictments include charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully retaining national defense information after he left office.

By contrast, Hunter Biden has thus far been accused of two misdemeanor crimes stemming from his failure to pay taxes on more than $1.5 million in income related to his overseas business deals, and one felony count of illegally possessing a firearm while being a drug user.


He described the appointment of a special counsel as “a direct acknowledgment that Hunter Biden did something wrong,” (I consider guilty pleas direct acknowledgement that he did something wrong lol)

 

[One Brow]

Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.

What's your source for your claims?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

And if there is a spike, in the Trump era, which my recency bias interpreted as an increase, it’s also not irrelevant to look a little deeper.

There isn't a spike. We are actually at low ebb on conspiracism. This chart only goes back to 2004, but even in that frame you can see how little QAnon was holding the attention of Americans.

Not only was QAnon not the phenomenon you and The Thriller made it out to be, but even the 2020 election was nothing compared to the Sandyhook mass shooting.

I will agree with you that it is relevant to look a little deeper. Why is it that a mass shooting had people discussing conspiracy theories so much more than anything Trump did? It was the reach of Alex Jones and Infowars. Why is it that you believed conspiracism to be on the rise, or on some sort to uptick? It is the media you consume. Both you and Thriller consume the same media and you have the same distorted view. By doing the same sort of research LogGrad did of term usage it becomes clear that Thriller is even further into this distorted view than you are. That doesn't surprise me as Thriller clearly prefers a more filtered intake of information than you do. You stick to your ideas but at least you'll sometimes read views that disagree with yours. The same cannot be said of Thriller. With Thriller it is filters and blocks on everything with only a curated stream of information allowed in to his bubble.

If you would like to do your own research into what has the attention of the public, here is a fun tool to play with:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&hl=en-US

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.

Congress did a lot of shady things prior to the Supreme Court slapping them down in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. There are some in Congress who like to pretend they still have the power to do things without courts, including whoever authored your linked memo posted to congress.gov. It was only a couple years ago that Nancy Pelosi claimed she had the power to do such a thing when she said "If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, you’re not seated, and that would have been my right as Speaker to do so", but that isn't how the law works. Congress does not have that power. They are going to need a guilty verdict from the courts.

 

[One Brow]

Congress did a lot of shady things prior to the Supreme Court slapping them down in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. There are some in Congress who like to pretend they still have the power to do things without courts, including whoever authored your linked memo posted to congress.gov. It was only a couple years ago that Nancy Pelosi claimed she had the power to do such a thing when she said "If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, you’re not seated, and that would have been my right as Speaker to do so", but that isn't how the law works. Congress does not have that power. They are going to need a guilty verdict from the courts.

Powell vs. McCormack specifically excludes the 14th Amendment from its umbrella in footnote 41.

In addition to the three qualifications set forth in Art. I, § 2, Art. I, § 3, cl. 7, authorizes the disqualification of any person convicted in an impeachment proceeding from "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"; Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office", and § 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person


"who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."


It has been argued that each of these provisions, as well as the Guarantee Clause of Article IV and the oath requirement of Art. VI, cl. 3, is no less a "qualification" within the meaning of Art. I, § 5, than those set forth in Art. I, § 2. Dionisopoulos, A Commentary on the Constitutional Issues in the Powell and Related Cases, 17 J.Pub.L. 103, 111-115 (1968). We need not reach this question, however, since both sides agree that Powell was not ineligible under any of these provisions.

Any other sources?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Powell vs. McCormack specifically excludes the 14th Amendment from its umbrella in footnote 41.

Trump is also not a member of Congress and so this court case would not apply, however the broader idea that Congress cannot make up its own rules on the fly will apply. One thing that Congress does not have is the unilateral power to determine what is and is not considered an insurrection. There is no definition in the 14th Amendment. Instead the definition for what is or is not an insurrection is in 18 U.S. Code § 2383, and the entity that gets to make the determination on someone having violated 18 U.S. Code § 2383 to then trigger the 14th Amendment is a Federal court of law. Like it or not, Trump will get his day in court.

 

[One Brow]

Trump is also not a member of Congress and so this court case would not apply, however the broader idea that Congress cannot make up its own rules on the fly will apply. One thing that Congress does not have is the unilateral power to determine what is and is not considered an insurrection. There is no definition in the 14th Amendment. Instead the definition for what is or is not an insurrection is in 18 U.S. Code § 2383, and the entity that gets to make the determination on someone having violated 18 U.S. Code § 2383 to then trigger the 14th Amendment is a Federal court of law. Like it or not, Trump will get his day in court.

So, Congress (or someone else) would sue, and the court would decide. Since you did not mention the requirement of "guilty", I agree.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Republicans: we want a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. We want that special counsel to be David Weiss.

Merrick Garland: ok I will appoint a special counsel and it will be David Weiss.

Republicans: that's not fair! The system is rigged against conservatives!

The change is because new information came out in testimony from an FBI whistleblower behind closed doors in front of the House Oversight Committee regarding Weiss' handling of the investigation. Before the testimony, it was understood that Weiss' investigation was being frustrated by the DOJ. That was when there were calls to let Weiss do his thing. After the testimony it became clear that Weiss was leaking plans in advance to the DOJ so they could put in place pieces to frustrate those plans. When it became clear that Weiss was part of the problem then many changed their tune on wanting Weiss' involvement. Crazy, right?!? Getting new information and minds changing?

 

[fishonjazz]

The change is because new information came out in testimony from an FBI whistleblower behind closed doors in front of the House Oversight Committee regarding Weiss' handling of the investigation. Before the testimony, it was understood that Weiss' investigation was being frustrated by the DOJ. That was when there were calls to let Weiss do his thing. After the testimony it became clear that Weiss was leaking plans in advance to the DOJ so they could put in place pieces to frustrate those plans. When it became clear that Weiss was part of the problem then many changed their tune on wanting Weiss' involvement. Crazy, right?!? Getting new information and minds changing?

Also in the post you quoted it mentioned how many republican actually think this is all awesome in private. But in public they have to keep to the story of the DOJ being weaponized against conservatives and act all butthurt about it. Gotta follow the playbook.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Also in the post you quoted it mentioned how many republican actually think this is all awesome in private. But in public they have to keep to the story of the DOJ being weaponized against conservatives and act all butthurt about it. Gotta follow the playbook.

Anyone from the GOP who thinks this is awesome is an idiot. What Merrick Garland did was stop the Congressional investigation into corruption of the DOJ. The FBI whistleblower divulged corruption between Weiss and the DOJ. The next step would have been to call Weiss before the House Oversight Committee to get him to testify under oath about exactly what he did. By making Weiss now a Special Council, he is now entitled to respond to any investigation-related question with "I cannot comment on this as it is an active investigation". Merrick Garland didn't do this to help the truth come out. He did it to stop the truth from coming out.

 

[fishonjazz]

Anyone from the GOP who thinks this is awesome is an idiot. What Merrick Garland did was stop the Congressional investigation into corruption of the DOJ. The FBI whistleblower divulged corruption between Weiss and the DOJ. The next step would have been to call Weiss before the House Oversight Committee to get him to testify under oath about exactly what he did. By making Weiss now a Special Council, he is now entitled to respond to any investigation-related question with "I cannot comment on this as it is an active investigation". Merrick Garland didn't do this to help the truth come out. He did it to stop the truth from coming out.

Well ya, this is what happens when you never take off your tin foil hat.

 

[str8line]

Time for a gag order:

Trump jabs at judge in election case, testing warning against ‘inflammatory’ statements

Overnight, Trump called Chutkan ‘biased and unfair’ for comments during 2022 sentencing of Jan. 6 defendant.

www.politico.com

 

[One Brow]

The change is because new information came out in testimony from an FBI whistleblower behind closed doors in front of the House Oversight Committee regarding Weiss' handling of the investigation. Before the testimony, it was understood that Weiss' investigation was being frustrated by the DOJ. That was when there were calls to let Weiss do his thing. After the testimony it became clear that Weiss was leaking plans in advance to the DOJ so they could put in place pieces to frustrate those plans. When it became clear that Weiss was part of the problem then many changed their tune on wanting Weiss' involvement. Crazy, right?!? Getting new information and minds changing?

This testimony?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FBI-SSA-Transcribed-Interview-Transcript.pdf

Could you point out where the former FBI agent said "Weiss was leaking plans in advance to the DOJ so they could put in place pieces to frustrate those plans", or the equivalent?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Time for a gag order:

Trump jabs at judge in election case, testing warning against ‘inflammatory’ statements

Overnight, Trump called Chutkan ‘biased and unfair’ for comments during 2022 sentencing of Jan. 6 defendant.

www.politico.com

Trump is already under a pseudo-gag order. As a condition of not being in custody, he is forbidden from harassing "officers of the court". He's clearly violated that. What is Judge Chutkan going to do? Nothing. She is going to do nothing. She is going to look the other way and pretend it didn't happen, so is Special Council Jack Smith other than making noise in the media. This is all a show and Trump going to jail now in August isn't in the script.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

This testimony?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FBI-SSA-Transcribed-Interview-Transcript.pdf

Could you point out where the former FBI agent said "Weiss was leaking plans in advance to the DOJ so they could put in place pieces to frustrate those plans", or the equivalent?

"IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s testimony that Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off is confirmed by a former FBI agent. Shapley and the FBI agent planned to interview Hunter Biden in December 2020, but learned the night before that the Biden transition team was tipped off.'

Comer Releases Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent’s Transcribed Interview Transcript - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

 

[One Brow]

"IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s testimony that Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off is confirmed by a former FBI agent. Shapley and the FBI agent planned to interview Hunter Biden in December 2020, but learned the night before that the Biden transition team was tipped off.'

Comer Releases Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent’s Transcribed Interview Transcript - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

So, it needed to be coordinated through the Secret Service, and not for the purpose of putting "in place pieces to frustrate those plans". Thank you for walking back what you said.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So, it needed to be coordinated through the Secret Service, and not for the purpose of putting "in place pieces to frustrate those plans". Thank you for walking back what you said.

I didn't walk anything back. The questioning of Hunter Biden never happened. When they got word or where the agent would be, they made the agent wait a minimum of 1 block away until he gave up. There was no coordinating of anything. IRS agent Gary Shapley went far more into depth over how the DOJ interfered.

No one thinks Hunter Biden didn't break laws. It is cuckoo that so many are cheering this putting of Hunter Biden above the law and the corruption of the DOJ to facilitate that as a way to own the GOP. It is your government too that is corrupt.

 

[One Brow]

I didn't walk anything back. The questioning of Hunter Biden never happened. When they got word or where the agent would be, they made the agent wait a minimum of 1 block away until he gave up. There was no coordinating of anything. IRS agent Gary Shapley went far more into depth over how the DOJ interfered.

So, you think Hunter Biden wanted to be interviewed, and "they" prevented it anyway? Otherwise, it sounds like Biden did not want to interviewed, and the agent who tried anyhow was a pretty foolish person.

It is cuckoo that so many are cheering this putting of Hunter Biden above the law

It is cuckoo that people are complaining about Hunter Biden exercising his rights in a manner that any other citizen has a right to, and calling it "corruption".

and the corruption of the DOJ to facilitate that as a way to own the GOP.

The DoJ being run by a Republican appointed by Trump. Sure. Whatever you want to believe.

It is your government too that is corrupt.

It's not our government?

 

[Gameface]

Trump has been indicted in Georgia for the thing we all heard him do on the phone.

#notaperfectphonecall

In other news, the most criminal person in the history of American crime, Hunter Biden, who conclusively* (*without evidence) was acting on behalf of his father and collecting money for access to the, wait for it, Vice President of the United States of America, often referred to as the NOT most powerful politician in the world, will likely not get a plea deal that literally anyone else with his criminal history (remember it has to be an ACTUAL criminal record, not Fox News story times) would have gotten.

So we get the drama of a former actual politician, former President of the U.S., with at least 3 active trials on criminal felony charges numbering in the several dozens, as well as some minor person busted for not paying taxes and making a false statement on an official document. So yeah, "both sides" seem to be in some hot water, even though Hunter Biden is not, was not, has never been a politician. He's never held official office. He's never run for election. He's never been part of an administration or otherwise served any elected official.

 

[LogGrad98]

Trump has been indicted in Georgia for the thing we all heard him do on the phone.

#notaperfectphonecall

You didn't mention Hunter Biden therefore your post is invalidated. Please edit and click "save" to continue.