So What Changed Weiss' Mind?

[gab13by13]

DOJ prosecutor Weiss worked out a plea deal for Hunter Biden. No charges for his lying on his gun application and Hunter pleads guilty to misdemeanor tax evasion. The plea deal falls apart. Weiss is made a Special counsel. Fox News, Congressional Magats are furious with the busted plea deal. So many threats are made that one of DOJ's main prosecutors stepped away because of death threats against her.

Weiss changes his mind, he goes from no charges for lying on his gun application to putting Hunter in jail for 25 years. What changed?

Magats and Fox still aren't happy, they want Hunter charged with more crimes.

In the words of Andrew Weissmann, "this was not DOJ's finest day."

From no charges to 25 years in jail and I am not supposed to criticize DOJ?

Threats work. The insurrection is growing. Members of Congress who are stoking the violence are immune from prosecution.

Our democracy is hanging by a thread.

Even the judge in Fulton county is allowing Chesebro defense counsels to ask questions to the grand jurors, why? The deliberations of the grand jury are to remain secret and there is a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. Why are defense counsels being allowed to interrogate jurors? Threats are working. Read Mitt Romney's new book. Senators voted against indicting Trump because they were afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We are on the road to autocracy.

[padah513]

1. Garland?

[gab13by13]

6. Maybe Weiss got death threats?

A top Republican senator changed his mind and voted to acquit Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, for inciting the U.S. Capitol riot, over safety fears for his family, according to a new book about Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Maybe it is/was a contemplated and controlled prosecution.

Please hear me out.

Consider this: In a way, this lances the boil of Hunter Biden and his alleged transgressions. Once the trial (or new plea deal) is over, it's over.

He's not going to get "the book" thrown at him and go to jail for 25 years. The facts show this case to be more de minimis* than a violation of the law. There are plenty of gun owners who haven't even registered their weapons according to the law and some of them are alcoholics, drug users, etc. They have no business possessing and/or owning guns. But there isn't enough jail space for them.

I know it sounds like a game of chicken, but I feel secure that a jury is going to look at the facts, look at the law, and acquit HB. Or he'll take another plea bargain complete with probation and a prohibition against owning other weapons, perhaps temporarily.

Yes, HB was indicted but that doesn't mean he's certain to be convicted. Trust his attorneys. Trust the jury system.


* De minimis means a technical breach of the law. Like when someone takes an orange from a buffet on the way out the door of a restaurant and is charged with theft. Or parking in a handicap space for 90 seconds.

[LymphocyteLover]

9. Yes, Hunter has a strong defense for a number of reasons including that this particular

law was overturned as unconstitutional by the courts recently

[gab13by13]

10. I hear you but,

The Swift Boaters were a bogus group who brought John Kerry down.

Hillary's emails and her "role" in Benghazi were de minimis, but those brought her down.

If this does go trial will the trial be held right before the election? Even if it doesn't go to trial Republicans are getting the talking points they need, why even a special counsel had to be appointed to deal with Hunter's crimes.

[jaxexpat]

32. Good luck convincing the willfully blind, Gab. "Trust the system" people don't do logic.

I understand that without the democratic system, no one but the powerful has a voice in the processes of government. If the spirit of "see, it's working" persists in dismissing threats to that democracy, what can be done?

There has been an incremental slide into our current low state for decades. This downward spiral has not been checked or even punctuated with equally important tacks toward the progressive in those same decades. It would be a hard case to make that the ACA has made as big an impact as the Citizens United ruling or that the gutting of Roe v Wade and civil rights legislation of the 1960/s is offset by Biden's economic policies (especially since so much of that is scheduled to go into effect in the wake of a new election cycle). There is no rational reason to think anything's going okay when the metric for discernment starts so far elevated from the current that it's nearly microscopic when one looks up for it. Most importantly, it is out of the range for most voters' memory. Hillary's pillory, Biden's Hunter albatross and Kerry's assassination were not accidents nor is their pattern going to end anytime soon. BTW, as you know, they're running the "impeach Biden" play and no one's even pausing on a field full of yellow flags.

Does anyone imagine that the justice system can or will counter the daily damage of Fox and its friends?

[Joinfortmill]

23. I hope so, but it has a very bad look and doesn't smell too good, either.

[no_hypocrisy]

33. I get it. 2 years ago, a 6 yo boy's mother

accused me of choking her son when I was his substitute teacher.

I was suspended during the investigation.

I was facing losing my teachers’ license, arrest, trial, conviction, imprisonment, scandal, etc. it didn’t look good for me either.

Fortunately for me, every one in that first grade class consistently said it never happened.

I returned to the classroom with no malingering damage.

[Joinfortmill]

38. Glad it all worked out!

[Lonestarblue]

3. I remember reading somewhere that the plea deal fell apart after a House Republican called

the judge. I don’t believe that Republicans are unhappy that the plea deal fell apart because it now keeps Hunter Biden in the news. It’s my understanding that Hunter has already paid the fines and back taxes. The indicted charge is serious, but it’s also something that is not prosecuted often.

I know others here disagree, but I believe Garland erred in making Weiss a Special Counsel. He essentially gave him permission to stretch his investigation out for as long as he wants, just as Ken Starr did investigating every aspect of the Clintons’ lives that had absolutely nothing to do with the one thing for which he was impeached.

So now that Hunter has been indicted, Weiss can ensure that his trial takes place next year and any verdict hits before the 2024 election.

[Best_man23]

4. And had these EXACT SAME Charges been applied to Don Jr.

The MAGAts would be lionizing him this morning as a hero to the 2nd Amendment.

Reporters need to start asking the MAGAts as to what additional "crimes" haven't been charged, other than Hunter has the last name of Biden.

But other posters are correct, if his name was Hunter Smith, this indictment would have never been brought.

[Fullduplexxx]

5. Reporters are complicit

[gab13by13]

11. Reporters are afraid to challenge Magats

they will get death threats. See my other thread.

[LymphocyteLover]

7. clearly he was pressured by the House MAGA morons

[bullimiami]

8. He's a fucking total failure that wasted 4 years an millions of dollars on a witch hunt.

Needed something to justify his corruption.

[gab13by13]

14. I did not stutter, I do not watch right wing cable news anchors like Chuck Todd.

I heard what Weissmann said on Nicolle Wallace, they were clearly talking about DOJ prosecuting Hunter for lying on his gun application.

I am not afraid to give my opinions. Do you believe that DOJ was correct to prosecute Hunter for lying on his gun application. Do you disagree with Weissman, who said on Nicolle's show, that DOJ combined one felony charge into 3 charges to get to 25 years jail time. That is what Weissmann was speaking about when he said it wasn't DOJ's finest day.

[gab13by13]

15. The gun charge had nothing to do with the plea deal being rejected.

The judge said nothing about that. Weiss went from no charges to combining 1 felony charge into 3 felony charges, quite a change of opinion was it not?

I have no problem with my opinions being challenged, but you are not addressing my opinion. Why did Weiss go from no charge to 3 felony charges? The rejection of the plea deal had nothing to do with that.

[FBaggins]

13. That doesn't seem difficult to figure out

Unless we're saying that one side is lying, one side thought that the deal protected him from further charges in other areas of the investigation and the other didn't. That blew the deal up.

There's no evidence that "Weiss changed his mind". It's entirely possible that (like almost every plea deal that has ever been made) the carrot/stick arrangement was "if you don't make this deal, we're charging you with something more serious than what the deal would include". The diversion agreement makes clear what charges were pending if the deal didn't go through... why act like Weiss "changed his mind" when that's exactly what happened? It isn't as though DOJ withdrew the deal... it was the defense that did so (in court).

From no charges to 25 years in jail

That's unnecessarily hyperbolic. "No charges" isn't really what a diversion agreement is (e.g., he would have to waive indictment on the very charges that have now been brought and two years of diversion forbidding alcohol/drugs for someone who has been in rehab several times is no slap on the wrist), and there's no way that he gets 25 years in jail even if he's convicted of all counts.

For a first time offender with no tie to actually using the gun in some other crime... and all three charges stemming from the same act? My guess would be concurrent sentences with the longest being two or three years - very possibly served under house arrest. That's assuming that the law isn't found to be unconstitutional as applied here.

[gab13by13]

16. Thank you for agreeing with my argument

and agreeing with Andrew Weissmann. The 3 felony charges were totally uncalled for, right? Surely you are not disagreeing with Andrew Weissmann?

Give me the name of 1 stand alone person who lied on his gun application and was indicted. By stand alone I mean the person did not commit a crime with his gun. Give me just one name.

[FBaggins]

18. Nowhere did I agree with your argument

Give me the name of 1 stand alone person who lied on his gun application and was indicted. By stand alone I mean the person did not commit a crime with his gun. Give me just one name.

Haven't we been through this already? The 5th circuit case (US v Daniels) that overturned a similar use of this same law just last month?

Daniels was found to have a gun and evidence of marijuana use at a traffic stop. He was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(3) with no connection to any illegal use of the gun.

[gab13by13]

19. Harry Litman agrees with me that Weiss changed his mind,

Former prosecutor Harry Litman added that the "false statement charges against Hunter Biden are a raw deal."

"There appears to be nothing that happened since the plea deal unraveled (through no fault of Biden) other than Republican ignorant potshots," the analyst added.

[gab13by13]

20. The Appeals court dismissed the lower court indictment of US v Daniels.

Daniels was acquitted. Find someone else, the Appeals court nullified Daniel's indictment. As a matter of fact, the 5th circuit appeals court ruled that since Daniels was sober at the traffic stop that he had no business being indicted. The Appeals court admonished the lower court for upholding Daniel's indictment.

Daniels last name wasn't Biden I guess.

[FBaggins]

37. So? He was both indicted and convicted

An appellate court voiding a conviction because the law isn't constitutional is not evidence that it's never charged.

Do you really think we stumbled on the only example?

Daniels last name wasn't Biden I guess.


Doesn't fit the facts. There are plenty of pundits predicting that he'll get the same result.

[gab13by13]

17. Andrew Weissmann also said on Nicolle

that prosecutors do not indict someone for crimes because they can, they indict someone for crimes that are proper. He was speaking about the Weiss indictments. Weissmann said that prosecutors only indict for lying on gun applications as add ons when people illegally bought a gun and used it to commit crimes.

Weiss is the first prosecutor to indict someone for a stand alone crime about lying on his gun application and I am supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence, that person is the son of the president of the United States who is running for reelection?

[Johonny]

31. I assume the standard application of the law

Will be part of Biden's defense. If it ever does go to trial.

[gab13by13]

21. C'mon people,

the narrative going around is that people are rarely indicted for what Hunter was indicted for. I am saying that no one has been indicted, and I must add, prosecuted, for what Hunter did.

Someone give me just 1 name. Can the MSM be wrong in saying rarely indicted?

The US v Daniels case did not fly. Try again.

[inthewind21]

28. Name drop

much? lol

[Klondike Kat]

22. Joy Reid had a gentleman on her show last night

who previously worked for the DOJ(?) (I don't remember exactly). Anyway, he pointed out that he had a very hard time getting his superior to charge anyone under that particular statute, let alone some statutes that more serious. He also pointed out that, generally speaking, the specific statute was only charged when it was included with other related charges.

[marble falls]

24. They use that charge mainly to have a bargaining chip to plead to another charge ...

... we'll drop the lying on the handgun papers if you plead guilty to the robbery.

[gab13by13]

26. Thank you

[gab13by13]

25. Thank you

[gab13by13]

27. Propaganda works folks,

I'm stubborn, I will never call a fence a wall.

I will never agree that people other than Hunter Biden have been indicted and prosecuted for the stand alone crime of lying on one's gun application.

Until someone gives me a name and then as the Monkees said, I'm A Believer.

[Kingofalldems]

29. Should we give up?

[edhopper]

35. Should we

keep silent about seeing corruption in our institutions because some here think it's pessimistic?

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Thug lobbying of legislative and judicial branches is the path to autocracy

I'm not seeing any or enough of these threats being prosecuted. They're only taking the most extreme seriously. We are an occupied country. We may as well be living in Vichy France.

[edhopper]

34. The plea deal pissed off the wrong people

and they let it be known that Hunter needed to be kept in the News.

[mopinko]

36. threats. threats, blackmail and bribery. the only way tfg ever got anything.

[msfiddlestix]

39. Great Question. I only wish the media was asking the same, it's so patently obvious.

But, we are told not to question the DOJ. Did Garland approve or give the green light?

I have to imagine he did, otherwise why did he appoint Weiss in the first place?