DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Attorney General Garland appoints a special counsel in Hunter Biden probe

U.S. Attorney David Weiss will be appointed special counsel in the ongoing probe of the president’s son Hunter Biden.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney David Weiss will be appointed special counsel in the ongoing probe of the president's son Hunter Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday.

Weiss will be responsible for the “ongoing investigation" of President Joe Biden's son "as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation," the Justice Department said in a statement. Weiss, who was already overseeing the Hunter Biden probe and is based in Delaware, asked to be appointed special counsel on Tuesday and Garland agreed it was "in the public interest" to do so, the attorney general said.

The move was announced shortly before prosecutors from Weiss's team revealed in a court filing the plea talks over tax and gun charges against the president's son had broken down and the case would likely have to go to trial in California or Washington, D.C.

DOJ noted that Weiss was nominated by then-President Donald Trump in 2017 and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate in 2018.

Garland said the appointment "reinforces for the American people the Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters."

Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges related to his failure to pay income taxes earlier this year. But while standing in court last month waiting to enter the plea, the agreement fell apart over confusion about a separate gun charge.

The judge asked the parties to hammer out the agreement and return later, leaving Hunter Biden to enter a not-guilty plea while it's litigated.

Lawyers for Hunter Biden had also indicated they believed that the plea agreement would settle all matters facing the president's son, but prosecutors said that other investigations continued.

"After the hearing, the parties continued negotiating but reached an impasse. A trial is therefore in order," prosecutors said in their Friday filing.

Two sources familiar with the situation told NBC News the White House had no advance notice of the special counsel appointment.

Documents in the failed plea agreement were made public last week.

The White House declined comment, referring reporters to the Justice Department and Hunter Biden's lawyers.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, ripped the appointment despite previously calling for a special counsel.

“David Weiss can’t be trusted and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption. Weiss has already signed off on a sweetheart plea deal that was so awful and unfair that a federal judge rejected it," said his spokesperson, Russell Dye.

Garland has named two other special counsels since he took over the Justice Department in 2021.

In November 2022, Garland named Jack Smith as a special counsel to conduct two investigations into former President Donald Trump: his role in the effort to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents after leaving office.

Smith has secured two indictments against Trump, the first in a Florida court that accuses him of mishandling national secrets and the second earlier this month in a Washington, D.C. court, which accuses him of defrauding the U.S. in the bid to prevent the transfer of power.

In January, Garland named Robert Hur to investigate classified documents that were found in President Biden's office and residence. The documents were from his time as vice president.

NBC News reported earlier Friday that the president's attorneys and Hur have been negotiating for about a month over the terms under which he would be interviewed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ial-counsel-hunter-biden-probe-rcna99447

All of the matters brought forth concerning Hunter Biden deserve a special investiagtion. I think Garland made the right move here.

Sounds like they got Hunter, again.

agreed.

I hope Wiess can be fair and unbiased. I have my doubts though.

Lol appointed by trump..I have my doubts as well.

Got no problem with this.

100%... I don't know what will come of this, but there's enough smoke to investigate...

Should be... well... interesting.

This youtuber says it best...

@docclovve447
10 hours ago (edited)
So the guy who prolonged an investigation, didn't charge on the most egregious charges, let statute of limitations expire AFTER the defense agreed to extend it , delayed the search warrant the IRS wanted, approved a ridiculous never seen before plea deal of basic blanket immunity for any crimes committed, is NOW going to get to the bottom of the case he was already flubbing...riiight


Sounds to me more like a protection racket, since there have been rumors of forthcoming subpoenas for all the family members that had their bank accounts stuffed.

Or he doesn’t have anything substantial yet and is continually on the hunt.

I have no idea what that even means.

Of course you don't. You can only bring charges on what you have enough evidence for a grand jury to indict a person on and that you believe you can convict someone on. Unlike congressional hearings where they just throw crap up against a wall to see if they can get anything to stick, a prosecutor can't use hearsay evidence in court. So just like in normal court proceedings, you file charges based on what your evidence can support and continue investigating other possible charges until such time as you can get enough evidence to prosecute on those charges or drop the investigation if and when you can't.

That's why the entire "didn't charge on the most egregious charges" is just more crap thrown up against the wall. Obviously the investigation is ongoing and expanding. Just like this, "approved a ridiculous never seen before plea deal of basic blanket immunity for any crimes committed". Which is exactly why no plea deal was reached. The two parties had a misunderstanding on what that wording meant. And once it was found that Biden's attorneys thought that's what the wording meant, Wiess was no longer willing to accept that plea agreement. The judge even gave them time to work out those details and no agreement could be reached.

"delayed the search warrant the IRS wanted" is just more empty rhetoric. What those who keep repeating this nonsense can't quite seem to grasp is that just because somebody wants a search warrant issued, a prosecutor has to have enough tangible evidence to present to a judge to get him to agree to sign a search warrant. It's not as simple as "I want a search warrant" then somebody waves a magic wand and a search warrant suddenly appears.

I'm never ceased to be amazed at just how shallow and superficial some of these claims are that have so many people fooled.

Yep, it's all rhetoric. Hunter is clean as a whistle.

That's not what I said. But then you know that. As I said yesterday, I think Hunter is a scum bag. But in your zeal to paint a picture that does not exist, in order to prove that in a court of law takes a process. Sometimes a very long process. It's hilarious you you don't seem to dispute a point I made in my post.

Yes, the points that you quoted that the guy made are based on BS. I gave examples as to why. That doesn't mean I think Hunter has not most likely broken laws which he deserves to be prosecuted of.

Proof. Where’s the beef? The beef is still grazing in the field. Go get it bro. Bring it back and show us all the proof. Then prosecute.

Subterfuge is something they love to use. It's the typical "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. It paints the picture that this process will never be fair from the beginning. That way, if nothing more is found to convict Hunter on they will say, "See we told you it wasn't going to be fair. We knew they would cover for him." If in fact more is found to convict Hunter on they will say, "See we told you there was more there."

There's nothing new about such strategy. But it is what it is.

It's nothing like that. That's just the whiney narrative you want to sell.

You'd have to be brain-dead to ignore the irony that someone who has failed miserably at a job -- to the point of looking rather suspicious -- is given the job of doing it again.

Not that difficult to understand. Well, like I said, for those with a pulse and minor electrical connections upstairs. Spin it any way you want though, we're all used to it.

You’d have to be brain dead to think any of that is against the law.

YOU ARE the gift that keeps on giving.

Tax evasion, money laundering, purchasing a firearm as a crackhead are no longer against the law??

And you talk about me "belittling" people when you spend every waking moment belittling yourself.

You're used to attacking the messenger without being able to attack the points they make. It's exactly like I said it is. Republicans have done nothing but say that there needs to be a DOJ special counsel to investigate Hunter. So the DOJ appoints one. A man trump appointed to investigate Hunter. What's their reaction? Yeah, but this guy isn't going to be fair! So they got what they wanted and still they complain.

It's obvious your spin is not rooted in reality. A prosecutor brings charges based on what the evidence to convict is at the time. The charges he brought against hunter were based on what he felt he could convict him on now. Let me explain what spin is. Spin is you claiming he "failed miserably at his job". Obviously he isn't finished doing his job. That's why it's called an "ongoing investigation". That's why he wouldn't accept the plea deal when they didn't agree on the wording that would give hunter immunity moving forward.

The spin is the "heads you win tails they lose" scenario you and others have set up. If nothing more is found to prosecute for you'll say it was rigged. If more charges are brought you'll claim you knew hunter was guilty of more all along. A small child can see that no matter how much you deny it.

Weiss was appointed by President Donald Trump to become the U.S. attorney in Delaware in 2018 and began investigating Hunter Biden, President Biden's son, the following year.

After all of that, you claim it's someone else who's the whiner.

Hunter was not charged with money laundering. At least not yet. Speaking of the gift that keeps on giving.

Thanks for defining spin with a bunch of spin.

This dude spent five years on an investigation. He let the statute of limitations expire on one offense. After five years, he presented a resolution to a judge that had to be flushed down the drain because it offered Hunter permanent immunity on future crimes that may come forward. Literally, blown up at the bench. Did you really, really miss all of that??

"My cousin Vinnie" would have been a better choice.

Nobody said he was.

It. was. part. of. the. investigation.

Here's the part you missed. The judge asked each side what that wording meant in the plea deal. Once it was revealed that the two sides interpreted that totally different the judge actually gave them time to iron that out and bring back to the court. They could never reach an agreement on that. That's what happened and none of your spin can change that. So yes the judge threw it out. And that's one of the two reasons the judge threw it out. none of which had to do with the sentencing phase.

I'll show you exactly what the judge was concerned about and why the plea deal was rejected since it seems the GOP rhetoric has you confused....


These are the two defining reasons the deal was not accepted by the court. And she in turn actually gave the two sides time to iron out the misunderstanding and bring it back before the court.

And you said that money laundering "was" part of the investigation. Because that's your predetermined conclusion. The fact is as anyone can see, the investigation is ongoing. Which very well could mean it's "still" a part of the investigation.

Didn't miss any of that, but thanks.

That certainly doesn't resemble anything you've been posting. You're welcome.

In what probably is a little bit of what about, but the best response i heard lately was from Chris Christie.

He was asked about Hunter Biden, he said that Hunter Biden wasn't in government position and most of the talk about influencing Joe Biden's policy is republican garbage-they have no proof, they are trying to equate the Biden crime family to Donald Trump. They pretty much know that something is going to come out of these 4 cases

What Christie did bring up and some democrats are latching onto, Hunter Biden is going to have to go to trial for his misdeeds;
However, did anybody ever look at Jared Kush and the 2 billion he reaped from the Saudi's-what was he even doing in the middle east-we have cabinet level people to deal with the middle east-kush was doing business and reaping big money-
What about Ivanka and the Chinese patents?
What about Steve Mnuchin and the 1 billion he got infused into his brand new private equity fund

They aren't concerned about any of that. And both Ivanka and Kusher were actually working for the government in The White House at the time.

I understand that statement, and I'm no attorney. I suspect most competent humans above the age of 10 could do the same. David Weiss has practiced law for 35 years. The heading Agreement Not to Prosecute should be dead giveaway that you may want to read that paragraph before you sign off.

So the prosecutor that worked on the case for five years "interpreted that totally different"?? That's one of the most homogenized excuses for 'benefit of doubt' that I've ever seen.

They couldn't reach an agreement because that was the purpose of this entire plea agreement -- and both sides knew it. One got mad that the judge had the audacity to cite it, the other played dumb and said "awe, shucks, what do we do now?".

Sure, that's your version of what happened. That's why the two sides were fighting in court. Because they were both after the same outcome? That's why Weiss requested to be given special counsel powers to further investigate Hunter Biden. Because you know, he didn't want investigate or possibly prosecute him on anything else.

Yep. My version is "something smells very fishy here".

Yours is "nothing to see here".

I think we can call it a day.

There was plenty to see when the two sides went after each other in court. Some just don't want to see it.

Well, not all of us can see things as clearly as Imperial Chancellor Pit at Dawgtalkers.

Once again a cheap shot to attack the messenger rather than the message. I expect no less from you. It's what you always seem to resort to when you have nothing else left. Desperation rears its ugly head.

It's not desperation. I merely tire of arguing with a magic-eight-ball. "Nothing left" = I'd rather argue with my dog at this point. Have a great evening.

It certainly is.


When it gets to that point, it's nothing more than a huge L

That's desperation? You and Daman should get together and read the dictionary in the evenings. Now you can get your LWL.

Yeah, personal shots are considered a part of your lexicon. I guess you don't consider boiling it down to personal shots as desperation. According to you that isn't rash or extreme behavior.

This special council appointment is a disgrace. Since when do individual citizens get special council investigations for ‘suspected’ criminal activity? And it was done to satiate the whining of Trumpians. Pathetic.

Trumpians were pathetic enough to plant cocaine in the WH so this is just par for the course bro. Can’t make this crap up…oh wait Goper’s do.

You need to come forward and share your proof so this matter can end.