╌>

Garland and Fauci face the music

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  10 months ago  •  122 comments

Garland and Fauci face the music
“I am not the President’s lawyer,” Garland is expected to say, according to the excerpts obtained by CNN. “I will also add that I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people.”

Right now, the House will question the corrupt Merick Garland and the infamous Dr Fauci before the American people. Andy Biggs is also calling for him to be impeached for weaponizing our Justice Department against conservatives.

 It will be the first time Garland has testified since an IRS whistleblower called into question his claim that U.S. Attorney David Weiss had ultimate charging authority over Hunter Biden.


Garland is now making his opening statement.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

Now carried by responsible news organizations

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

two maga circle jerks both with the sole purpose of providing a distraction from the criminal acts of their party's leader...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago
two maga circle jerks both with the sole purpose of providing a distraction from the criminal acts of the party leader..

The legally predicated investigations into the Biden Family are ongoing.

We are still trying to figure out what any Biden grandkids did to garner money from foreigners.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

Why do Democrats/leftists love their criminals so damn much?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

Ya!  Nothing but projection and defection.  All some have.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    10 months ago
We are still trying to figure out what any Biden grandkids did to garner money from foreigners.

Didn't your grandparents and uncles funnel foreign bribery money from their LLCs to you while you were still in school? Shocker! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago
the criminal acts of their party's leader...

What criminal acts has Ronna McDaniel committed?  She's who I see listed as the party "leader".  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.4    10 months ago

Have you ever noticed that not one liberal or "independent' will bother even attempting to explain why a Biden grandchild would be getting any money from foreigners?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

What pray tell is Dr, Fauci 'facing the music for'?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    10 months ago

doesn't matter, it's a kazoo band from the insurrectionist clown car of the GOP circus...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    10 months ago

What pray tell is Dr, Fauci 'facing the music for'?

Nothing, they just want to believe the guy that told them to inject bleach and shove lightbulbs up their asses. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.3  George  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    10 months ago
shove lightbulbs up their asses. 

Nobody wants to hear about your sex life.

Comment stands, would have been removed except flagger also responded to it, by charger

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  George @1.2.3    10 months ago

Nobody wants to hear about your sex life.

Wow, you trigger easily. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

Who's the man sitting behind Garland's right shoulder? Isn't he one of the whistleblowers?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago
Now carried by responsible news organizations

I've checked throughout the hearing. NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC weren't covering it. CNN and FNC have.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.4    10 months ago

Amazing isn't it.  It is getting late in the day to ignore this story.

As Yogi Berra once said "It gets late early around here."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

Swalwell was right when he told Jordan that there was no credibility with him and the gqp.  That's why you hate him.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.6  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

Fox is far from being a responsible news organization.

Fox is fascism read by ignorant blond bimbos.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.6.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.6    10 months ago
Fox is fascism read by ignorant blond bimbos.

An exceptionally ignorant, false, idiotic comment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.6.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.6    10 months ago

And C-Span?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

"Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI HQ about the Hunter Biden investigation?"

AG
MERRICK GARLAND: "Uh, I don't recollect the answer to that question"

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    10 months ago

Thank God he’s not on SCOTUS.    

I call that divine intervention at its best.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @2.1    10 months ago

Back then he was supposed to be totally independent. "A man of integrity!"

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Sparty On @2.1    10 months ago
I call that divine intervention at its best.

I call it We the People dodging a toxic, lethal bullet to preserve the US Constitution.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @2.1    10 months ago

“I call that divine intervention…”

When one cites divine intervention in any reference to our courts, one misses the essence of our entire judicial system. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.3    10 months ago

I can see some vocabularies could use some work here:

Divine, as in supremely good, superb.

Very superb!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

QUESTION: "Have you had personal contact with anyone at the FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden investigation?"

 AG
MERRICK GARLAND: "I don't recollect the answer to that question."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    10 months ago
AG MERRICK GARLAND: "I don't recollect the answer to that question."

And THAT answer right there should disqualify him from office. He needs to go.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    10 months ago

Your point is that he is either unfit or corrupt?

I'm going to go with the latter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    10 months ago

I'll go with unfit.

I don't know for sure if he got anything in exchange for his shitty handling of the whole mess.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    10 months ago
I don't know for sure if he got anything in exchange for his shitty handling of the whole mess.

His isn't a crime of monetary corruption. What Garland does he does because of ideology.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    10 months ago

I expect there are many people who could be involved in such an investigation. It’s reasonable that the AG could have contact with someone involved and not know it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @3.2    10 months ago

You don’t think it’s reasonable  for him to remember discussing the case with doj officials?

Given the obvious conflicts of interest involved in the BIden DOJ prosecuting a Biden who is threatening to call the president as a witness, it would seem extremely reckless to have off hand discussions about the case with random doj officials.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    10 months ago
You don’t think it’s reasonable  for him to remember discussing the case with doj officials?

Depends on if he has. I don’t think anyone here has a clue what any Attorney General does on a daily basis, but his roll - in theory - is political, and to a lesser extent, administrative. I doubt he actually spends much time looking at or discussing specific cases.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.2    10 months ago

You realize that flies in the face of credibility because the case involves the son of a sitting US President. Of course Garland was aware.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    10 months ago

I didn’t say he was unaware of the particular case. I just think it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that he hasn’t been communicating with people working the case.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.2    10 months ago

 IDepends on if he has

Then it would be pretty easy to say "I've never talked about this case with FBI officials."  

This isn't an ordinary case. He is investigating the son of his boss, making the case rife with conflicts of interest. Unless he's a really shitty lawyer, that should have set off alarm bells from the beginning about who he talks to about it.  If he's so blase about who he talks to about it, he shouldn't be AG. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.4    10 months ago

Garland has zero excuse for not appointing a special prosecutor from the very beginning.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.6    10 months ago

I think it’s arguable, at least. In theory, they’re not investigating the president yet, so I think it’s harder to cite a conflict of interest. That’s usually the reason they appoint one. The other reason would be in the public interest, which is so vague a standard as to be meaningless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.7    10 months ago

WTF?

No conflict of interest when investigating the son of the man who appointed you?

I have no idea how anyone can possibly believe such crap. It is ridiculous spin.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    10 months ago
No conflict of interest when investigating the son of the man who appointed you? I have no idea how anyone can possibly believe such crap. It is ridiculous spin.

Why don’t you calm tf down and read? I said it was arguable. Do you really need to freak out every time someone doesn’t agree with you 100%?

If you think it’s so clear, then you’re free to cite legal precedents of independent counsel being assigned whenever the relatives of appointing executives are investigated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.9    10 months ago
I said it was arguable. Do you really need to freak out every time someone doesn’t agree with you 100%?

If THAT is an "argument", I want no part of that insanity.

Crazy idea that the AG of the US had no knowledge of anything to do with Hunter Biden and the Biden family investigations.

If you choose to believe it, then that is solely on you, but I simply refuse to believe something so damn idiotic.

I suppose it is possible some could choose to refuse to see any conflicts of interest. People sometimes believe all sorts of things which are just flat-out crazy, and I can't stop them, but I can SMH at them!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    10 months ago
Crazy idea that the AG of the US had no knowledge of anything to do with Hunter Biden and the Biden family investigations.

Well, that wasn’t the question, so there’s no pressure on anyone to believe it.

I suppose it is possible some could choose to refuse to see any conflicts of interest.

Perhaps it would help you if you researched the laws, guidelines, and precedents on conflict of interest.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.11    10 months ago

I know a conflict of interest when I see it. Someone appointed by the President should have appointed a special counsel from the start. He failed to do try that, thus creating the a appearance of impropiety.

I won't stick my head in the sand and ever pretend that isn't a conflict of interest.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.12    10 months ago
He failed to do try that

Ok, but he did end up appointing one, didn’t he? Or am I thinking of a different case?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.13    10 months ago
Ok, but he did end up appointing one, didn’t he?

By Jove, you got it!

Or am I thinking of a different case?

I have no earthly idea what you are thinking. Your post 5.1.21 kind of displays a little ignorance on the topic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.14    10 months ago
By Jove, you got it!

Then I don’t see what you have to be mad about.

I’m thinking of the decision to appoint special counsel in a general way. I think I have said elsewhere that I don’t care about Hunter, so excuse me for not thinking immediately about all the latest developments. I don’t think that has much of an impact on anything we have been talking about.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.15    10 months ago
I’m thinking of the decision to appoint special counsel in a general way.

What does that even mean? Either he appoints one or he doesn't. Stop trying to spin.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.16    10 months ago
Either he appoints one or he doesn't.

That wasn't your complaint. Your complaint was that he didn't do it from the very start. If all you care about is that it happened, then you should be satisfied.

I thought our conversation was about how necessary it was. Or maybe you're changing it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.17    10 months ago

My point yet once again is that he should have done it long ago.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

David Weiss was recommended for US Attorney by the two democrat Senators from Delaware. He had to be safe to get that recommendation.

Enough with the BS about Trump appointing somebody that democrats recommended.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    10 months ago

Not to mention he was only one of two prosecutors Biden retained. He showed his worth to Biden and was rewarded

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    10 months ago

He was an Obama investment and Biden collected the returns.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5  Ronin2    10 months ago
The Justice Department works for the American people.

So long as the American people have a D behind their name (especially if their last name ends with Clinton, Obama, or Biden); are not named Trump or any of his followers; are not parents concerned about their children's education; and don't say or do anything we don't agree with.

If you meet all of those requirements; then yes the DOJ does "work for you". 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @5    10 months ago

Did Garland just say he didn't pay attention to the Hunter Biden investigation?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    10 months ago
Did Garland just say he didn't pay attention to the Hunter Biden investigation?

He claimed to know nothing about what Weiss knows.

He is claiming he had nothing to do with the investigations. Which is why it is most perplexing as to why he didn't appoint a special prosecutor from the get-go.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    10 months ago

We are down to:

Question: “Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI HQ?”

Garland: “Uh, I don't

Was he not prepared for the onslaught?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    10 months ago

McClintock just asked Garland if it was incompetence or corruption!

LMAO!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    10 months ago

As Garland becomes a stuttering bumbling mass of jelly, some are beginning to wonder

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    10 months ago

I wonder why he keeps harping on the fact that Weiss was a Trump appointee?

Sounds like they are setting him up to be hung out to dry and then they will spin it somehow into being Trump's fault!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    10 months ago
I wonder why he keeps harping on the fact that Weiss was a Trump appointee?

Every lefty prefaces every reference to Weiss with that. As I said, Weiss only got forwarded to nomination by Delaware's two democrat Senators. I'm sure Trump was simply filling a vacancy with what he thought would be an unbiased prosecutor. The fact is that Delaware is Biden territory. It is a club out there.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    10 months ago

Just another smokescreen attempt by leftists.

Garland is the one ultimately responsible, and he didn't do shit. He allowed the investigation to continue without  special prosecutor and then let the SOL run out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    10 months ago

When Biden's dumb press secretary said Hunter would not be pardoned, we knew the fix was in.  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    10 months ago
When Biden's dumb press secretary said Hunter would not be pardoned, we knew the fix was in.

Well, that or it was a lie.

A special prosecutor should have been appointed on day one instead of trying to get sweetheart deals for the President's son.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    10 months ago
or it was a lie.

Remember, these are the people trying to fight "disinformation."

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    10 months ago
He is claiming he had nothing to do with the investigations.

He probably doesn’t. He’s a cabinet officer, running a huge department. It’s not his job to conduct investigations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.11    10 months ago

As head of the Justice Department, I don't find it at all unreasonable to assume he should have been informed about what occurs in his department.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.13  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    10 months ago
As head of the Justice Department, I don't find it at all unreasonable to assume he should have been informed about what occurs in his department.

Thousand of investigations are ongoing some he may know about and some he may not. Some he may not WANT to know about to give separation between him and investigators. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @5.1.13    10 months ago

Always an excuse.

Leftists everywhere are probably cheering you on!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
5.1.15  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    10 months ago
As Garland becomes a stuttering bumbling mass of jelly

He reminds me of Kirby. Another bumbling, mumbling little mouse.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    10 months ago

I think you’re assuming too much. I worked in a government office with only about 80 employees, counting attorneys, investigators, secretaries, and so on. The big boss never had a clue what I was doing. Half the time, he wasn’t even in the office (and I’m being generous). He was usually off at some meeting with other government people or a public event.

Compare that to the Attorney General of the United States, who heads a department of over 115,000 employees across 40 different organizations. He’s also in various government meetings, answering questions in Congress, or giving press conferences and interviews. Maybe a few speeches.

Meanwhile, DOJ has a lot more going on than just prosecuting the president’s son. DOJ is also civil rights, taxes, interpol, national security, fbi, atf, prisons, etc.

There are probably dozens of levels of bureaucracy between the AG and any one case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.16    10 months ago

I don't have any doubts he was consulted. The son of the President? of course he knew and he blew it by not appointing a special prosecutor from the start.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.15    10 months ago

He sure did look bad today. 

I'm sure he couldn't wait to get out of there.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.17    10 months ago
I don't have any doubts he was consulted.

You also don’t have any evidence that he was. 

And even if he was consulted, advised, or whatever, it was probably by a supervisor of a supervisor of a supervisor, and not someone who was actually working on the case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.19    10 months ago

Sorry, but hopefully I will never be dumb enough to believe that crap.

I have my eyes open and see what Garland failed to do from the onset---appoint a special prosecutor.

I won't pretend this was handled at all well to satisfy some liberals.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.20    10 months ago
Sorry, but hopefully I will never be dumb enough to believe that crap.

Don’t sell yourself short.

I have my eyes open and see what Garland failed to do from the onset---appoint a special prosecutor.

He still may. Just because he hasn’t appointed one, that doesn’t mean he can’t at some future date. It will likely depend on how the case evolves. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.21    10 months ago
Don’t sell yourself short.

That is simply hilarious based solely on what else you said in that post.

He still may. Just because he hasn’t appointed one, that doesn’t mean he can’t at some future date. It will likely depend on how the case evolves.

There basically is no difference between a special prosecutor and a special counsel. Garland already appointed one in case you missed it (and your post indicates you did).

Keep up.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

Rep Gaetz is tearing him limb from limb right now!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    10 months ago

No, he isn't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    10 months ago

Swalwell tore Gym Jordan apart limb by limb.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2    10 months ago

He hasn't got the weapons.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.2    10 months ago

jim "hit the showers boys" jordan?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.2.2    10 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7  Texan1211    10 months ago

Garland should resign.

He is looking like a dumbass up there.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @7    10 months ago

Yup, he is a total wreck.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7.2  George  replied to  Texan1211 @7    10 months ago
He is looking like a dumbass up there.

Thank you Mitch McConnel for saving us from this piece of partisan crap.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  George @7.2    10 months ago

Thank you Mitch McConnel for saving us from this piece of partisan crap.

Oh, the irony LOL 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7.2.2  George  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.1    10 months ago

And another ignorant comment.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @7    10 months ago
Garland should resign.

Letting him resign allows him to leave with some sort of dignity, integrity and respect.  The man has none.  Like those that are supporting this clown, he lacks integrity and deserves no respect.  The only option is impeachment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8  Texan1211    10 months ago

Swalwell is now making an idiot of himself again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @8    10 months ago

The guy who slept with a Chinese spy when he was on the Intelligence Committee.

Known for his flatulence.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
8.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @8    10 months ago

Again?  You mean he stopped at some point?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    10 months ago

Didnt Andy Biggs support Trump's fake election fraud campaign? 

Lets impeach him for being a traitorous clown. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9    10 months ago

Garland is making himself look foolish.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    10 months ago

I like the way the seeded article cites Andy Biggs as if he is some sort of legitimate voice. 

He is a total jackass. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
10.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @10    10 months ago
I like the way the seeded article cites Andy Biggs as if he is some sort of legitimate voice

I like how you can't refute anything presented and attack the source.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1    10 months ago

Andy Biggs wants to impeach Garland. 

That will be after he impeaches himself for his traitorous actions surrounding the 2020 election.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    10 months ago
Andy Biggs wants to impeach Garland

As do many other people.  Now don't go crying about elections and people who should be removed.  Unless you are going to call out all the Democrats who did, pretty much the same thing back from now to the 2016 election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10    10 months ago

Speaking of Jackasses, the democrats showed a film of Jan 6th.

What does it have to do with Garland's corruption?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2    10 months ago

What corruption is that?  Waiting so long to investigate Trump that now his trials will not be completed before the 2024 election?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.1    10 months ago

Protected Hunter Biden; protected Brandon; protected the whole fucking Brandon clan.

Garland doesn't give a shit about the Constitution or the laws. Otherwise he would have known he couldn't appoint Weiss as a Special Counsel.

  but the written  rules  governing special counsels call for the attorney general to appoint “an  outside  Special Counsel.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, someone who doesn’t have the inherent conflict of interest that any employee of the Justice Department has—such as when the department is investigating the son of federal prosecutors’ ultimate boss, the president of the United States. 

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

( a ) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

( b ) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C) .

Read the parts I bolded. Weiss doesn't qualify to be a special counsel. First he is member of the government/DOJ. Second he has a proven conflict of interest with the Brandon family- which he has already abused by slow walking what should have been an open and shut investigation and charging; preventing investigators from following any leads that tied into Brandon; didn't want to even file charges against Hunter- but was forced to when whistleblowers outed his corrupt investigation. Gave Hunter a plea deal no impartial uncorrupt prosecutor ever agree to. Judge that shot down the plea deal forced Weiss to bring gun charges against Hunter- or else be shown to be the partisan corrupt POS he truly is. Also, Weiss has a connection to the Brandon family.

U.S. attorney David Weiss, who offered Hunter Biden a sweetheart plea deal and is now serving as a special counsel in the Biden investigation, worked for years with Biden's late brother Beau, the  Washington Post  reported on Sunday. That's just another of several connections between Weiss and the Biden family, which led a spokesman for House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) to say that Weiss "can't be trusted."

Beau Biden, President Joe Biden's older son, was serving as Delaware's attorney general when Weiss in 2009 became the state's acting U.S. attorney. Weiss served in the position for two years, during which he and Beau Biden "often worked" together, including on a 2010 case highlighted in the   Post 's   report .

At the time, "it also wouldn't have been strange for Weiss to run into Joe Biden," the   Post   reported. Then-vice president Biden and Weiss appeared together at a 2010 ceremony for a Delaware judge.

The   Post  report came one day after the   New York Times   reported that Weiss earlier this year   appeared ready   to drop the Justice Department's probe into Hunter Biden without any charges. Weiss's plan changed, according to the   Times , after IRS whistleblowers alleged that the Justice Department was sabotaging its own investigation and shielding the Bidens from scrutiny.

Weiss ultimately   offered   Hunter Biden a plea deal for gun and tax charges that likely would have allowed the first son to avoid jail time. The deal unexpectedly   collapsed   last month, however, and Judge Maryellen Noreika refused to accept a revised version that would have offered Biden broad immunity. Weiss   said   this month that the case will likely go to trial.

In addition to the working relationship with Beau Biden, who died in 2015, Weiss worked with a Biden family friend who did business with Hunter Biden, the   Washington Free Beacon   reported . Derek Hines, who serves as Weiss's special assistant in the Biden probe, was special counsel to Louis Freeh, a former FBI director who worked with Hunter Biden, donated money to a college trust for Joe Biden's grandchildren, and joined the board of the Beau Biden Foundation.

Nothing to see here. No conflict of interest. 

Why do Democrats/leftists love their criminals so damn much? We are still waiting for an answer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.1    10 months ago
Waiting so long to investigate Trump that now his trials will not be completed before the 2024 election?

Blame Biden for his shitty choice for AG.

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.1    10 months ago
Waiting so long to investigate Trump

That is 50% of it. Prosecuting his boss's opponent and waiting for an election to do it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @10    10 months ago

That is your opinion of anyone that doesn't have a "Get Trump at all costs" mentality 24/7.

In case you missed it. This is about the human POS Garland, the most partisan and corrupt AG in the history of the US. 

Could potentially be the first impeached AG as well.

Democrats do love their criminals.

Wonder if they will throw Garland under the bus to try and save Brandon, Hunter, and the rest of the Brandon clan that received foreign money?

Garland may be a criminal, and have that all important D behind his name; but Democrats will do anything to maintain power. Garland can always be replaced by another lapdog with a D behind their name.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @10.3    10 months ago

You confuse the crazy, MAGA and QAnon riddled Republican committees with a responsible investigation. 

Garland would have a larger chance of being hit by lightning twice than he would have of being found guilty in an impeachment trial. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @10.3.1    10 months ago

You confuse Democrats with anyone that cares about the Constitution or our laws. Much the less about criminals with a D behind their names.

Garland would have a larger chance of being hit by lightning twice than he would have of being found guilty in an impeachment trial. 

The Democrats would prove yet again they don't give a shit about this country in the Senate. Nothing new with them. They proved it long ago with the Clinton impeachment. Maybe they can go stand on the White House lawn with their criminal of the moment in a show of solidarity again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @10.3.1    10 months ago

and win the lottery

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
10.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @10.3.1    10 months ago
a responsible investigation.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif Are you referring to the Meuller "investigation" that was 1.  Patisan and 2. Turned up ZERO EVIDENCE. 

Or the J6 Committee partisan shit show that altered "evidence"? 

Or Alvin Bragg's "investigations" that went nowhere?

Or the Fulton County "investigation" that is acting in a partisan manner?

How about the Smith "investigation" that has violated the Brady rule several times?

Those " responsible investigations"?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    10 months ago

Some MAGA idiot on the committee just asked Garland  "do you support more crime?". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11    10 months ago
Some MAGA idiot on the committee just asked Garland  "do you support more crime?". 

Sadly, I have to ask.

What did he answer, and did you believe it?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11    10 months ago
GA idiot on the committee just asked Garland  "do you support more crime?"

Are you saying he should have assumed the answer was "Yes?"

The only people the DOJ seems eager to prosecute are 70 year old ladies and people who protested only at one specific protest. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
12  Jasper2529    10 months ago

"The Justice Department follows the rule of law without regard to political party, religion, or belief." ~Merrick Garland

If anyone believes that, I have oceanfront property in Kansas for sale!

Also, he took absolutely NO responsibility for how the DoJ and FBI have abused the American people under his tenure.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @12    10 months ago

How so?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
12.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    10 months ago
How so?

If you watched the hearing live as I did, you'd know. If you couldn't watch it live, I'm sure it's available on the Internet by now.

Here you go. Take your pick:

CBS:

CNBC:

WaPo:

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    10 months ago

Here is the little cherry on top:

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.2    10 months ago

Like Swalwell said, and why you hate him, 'you have no credibility'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @12.1.1    10 months ago

How has he 'abused the American people'?

You don't have an answer, obviously.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.2    10 months ago

How so 'the cherry on top'?

This asshole scumbag has no credibility whatsoever nor any one else on this distraction of a  'trial'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

One more thing:

Adam Schiff claimed that Donald Trump lied when he said Joe Biden pressured Garland to prosecute him.



(Start at 2:22 of the tape)


From April of 2022:

"A new report claims President Joe Biden has told people he wants former President Donald  Trump to be prosecuted .

The leak was  published in the  New York Times  on Saturday as Democrats mount increasing pressure on the Justice Department to take action against Trump and people within his orbit in relation to the  Capitol riot.  At focus are Attorney General  Merrick Garland  and his "deliberative approach," as the report put it, which is causing frustration."

Biden wish for Trump prosecution leaked as Democrats mount pressure campaign on DOJ | Washington Examiner

Leaked to the New York Times.


Once again Donald Trump told the truth and Adam Schiff lied.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @13    10 months ago

That last sentence there REALLY takes the cake!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
13.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    10 months ago

Trump tells the truth every once in a while.

Brandon should try it for a change.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14  author  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

"Former Trump advisor Kash Patel says that Republicans should focus on impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray for enabling the "two-tiered system of justice."

"The real people that need to be impeached are the architects of the two-tier system of justice: the people who have covered up the crimes continuously," Patel said on the   "Just the News, No Noise"   TV show. "Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray are the top two twins of deceit at the top of my list."

Kash Patel says the 'top two twins of deceit' Merrick Garland and Chris Wray need to be impeached | Just The News

 
 

Who is online

Hal A. Lujah
Ed-NavDoc


30 visitors