General Discussion

JohnSJ

(98,883 posts)

29. No it isn't. The reason President Biden didn't replace Weiss was because he was currently

Fri Sep 29, 2023, 02:33 PM

Sep 2023

investigating his son, and viewed it as a conflict of interest.

The reason the AG honored Weiss request to be SC is because the pressure from the House repukes to appoint a SC on the president’s son, and because Weiss had already been familiar with the case.

In case you were not aware, the rethugs were very much against Weiss being the SC, because I suspect, the Weiss examination of the facts of the case, Weiss did not see anything out of the ordinary than what was charged.

Now that a SC has been appointed, when the rethugs call that SC before Congress, he will not comment in an ongoing investigation

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Some Tidbits On Merrick Garland [View all] gab13by13 Sep 2023 OP

Can't you see he's playing mikeysnot Sep 2023 #1

Unrec!!! JohnSJ Sep 2023 #2

why bother ? msfiddlestix Sep 2023 #22

For the same reason that the some seem obsessed with posting anti Garland posts on a JohnSJ Sep 2023 #25

"Trash this thread" is your friend. GoCubsGo Sep 2023 #38

This ongoing vendetta against Garland is getting so predictable. wnylib Sep 2023 #3

Thank you... agingdem Sep 2023 #12

The Garland bashing is so persistent and meaningless that wnylib Sep 2023 #15

truth. bigtree Sep 2023 #18

They secretly want a Bill-Barr type hatchet man to do for Biden what Barr did for Trump AZSkiffyGeek Sep 2023 #32

you see no harm done with the actions listed in the op? msfiddlestix Sep 2023 #24

Should we criticize President Biden for not replacing Weiss when he became President? What should JohnSJ Sep 2023 #26

Really? That's your argument? Straw Man. and you know it. msfiddlestix Sep 2023 #28

No it isn't. The reason President Biden didn't replace Weiss was because he was currently JohnSJ Sep 2023 #29

I wonder why the persistence of Garland bashers on DU wnylib Sep 2023 #33

But, but, but, he playing eleventy dimensional chess... onecaliberal Sep 2023 #4

What do they say when people can't debate? gab13by13 Sep 2023 #5

What do they call people who write inflammatory posts and demand others debate them? AZSkiffyGeek Sep 2023 #7

we had a term that used to be popular here bigtree Sep 2023 #19

That wasn't what I was thinking of, but it applies... AZSkiffyGeek Sep 2023 #31

Where do you get this from? EndlessWire Sep 2023 #21

Where is this rule about ceasing prosecutions? AZSkiffyGeek Sep 2023 #30

You do realize you are responding to your own OP? JohnSJ Sep 2023 #27

It's on the messenger to cite sources for the messenger's opinions. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #34

once again, Garland bashing without ANY corroborating proof bigtree Sep 2023 #6

6. If it weren't for the J6 Committee forcing his hand, DOJ would have let Trump skate for J6. 50 Shades Of Blue Sep 2023 #8

+1 That's what I think. Earth-shine Sep 2023 #9

If it were not for Cassidy Hutchinson's J6 testimony gab13by13 Sep 2023 #10

This. Also, trump announcing his 2024 run forced garland. onecaliberal Sep 2023 #11

fiction bigtree Sep 2023 #17

this is a lie bigtree Sep 2023 #20

completely false, again without any receipts bigtree Sep 2023 #14

if it wasn't for Merrick Garland "fleshing out" the agingdem Sep 2023 #16

How so? Can you for once be more specific than that? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #35

but of course you have always stopdiggin Sep 2023 #13

Yes. He demonstrated he would serve the office Captain Zero Sep 2023 #23

"Merrick Garland truly is showing Magats that he is not partisan against them." As he should. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #36

He has made missteps edhopper Sep 2023 #37

Without sourcing or providing any context to the "missteps"? Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #39

The OP edhopper Sep 2023 #40

No he was not. He was pretty clear on what he thought they were. Beastly Boy Sep 2023 #41