Delaware US Attorney Blocked Hunter Biden Warrants

#1

Caculator

No sane person wants to live on planet of the apes
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
3,222
Likes
4,034
#1
Delaware US Attorney Blocked Hunter Biden Warrants and Subpoenas in Order to Protect the Joe Biden 2020 Election Effort
July 16, 2021 | Sundance | 67 Comments
Baselines are always important when reviewing information; I cannot stress this enough. When the corrupt instititional officials within the DOJ and FBI need to justify their corrupt activity, or get out in front of any exposure of their corrupt activity, they consistently run to two media outlets, The New York Times and Politico. [State Dept use CNN, Intelligence Community use Washington Post] This is the one constant you will notice in all reporting.
joe-and-hunter-biden.jpg
That is the baseline for Politico writing today about U.S. Attorney David Weiss intentionally burying information about an investigation of Hunter Biden in the summer and fall of 2020 in order to protect the candidacy of Joe Biden. USAO Weiss of Delaware stopped the investigation of Hunter Biden, stopped issuing grand jury subpoenas, and stopped the issuance of search warrants in order to keep the public from knowing that Hunter Biden was under a criminal investigation.
~ Two Tiers of Justice ~
Contrast that –now confirmed– defensive activity, with these exact same DOJ and FBI officials leaking everything they could about investigations of Donald Trump, or anyone in Trump’s orbit, even when those investigative statements were false, in order to undermine his candidacy and presidency.
This glaring contrast is one of the most brutally obvious examples of political manipulation within the DOJ as an institution. Two solid and confirmed tiers of justice.
POLITICO (with the DOJ spin) – Last summer, federal officials in Delaware investigating Hunter Biden faced a dilemma. The probe had reached a point where prosecutors could have sought search warrants and issued a flurry of grand jury subpoenas. Some officials involved in the case wanted to do just that. Others urged caution. They advised Delaware’s U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.

“To his credit, he listened,” said a person involved in the discussions, reported here for the first time. Weiss decided to wait, averting the possibility that the investigation would become a months-long campaign issue.
Since taking office, President Joe Biden has left Weiss — a Republican appointed by Donald Trump on the recommendation of Delaware’s two Democratic senators — in place. That puts him in one of the most sensitive positions in the Justice Department, deciding how to proceed with an investigation of the president’s son that has proven politically fraught on several fronts. (read more)

Of course there is no reason for Joe Biden to remove USAO Weiss… by his action and inaction Mr. Weiss has shown his intention to protect the installed occupant of the White House from any corrupt investigative scrutiny. Additionally, David Weiss now holds a get-out-of-jail leverage card against any action by the DC machine. This is the way of the swamp.
However, and I share this with full intent and seriousness, these examples of corruption within the DOJ and FBI that continue piling up upon each-other will not end well for these institutions. You cannot have the American people see this many examples of ‘two-tiered justice’ and simultaneously expect the American people to have any confidence in the rule of law.
This is not going to end well. I’m not sure exactly how this is going to end, but I am certain that a bulging and tenuous powder-keg of unstable nitroglycerine exists in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
When the justice system of a nation is subverted for one-sided political benefit by a small group of institutional elites, and it happens so openly and brazenly while the participants act with such incredible hubris, there will -eventually- be a response in direct proportion to the severity of the corruption.
The administration efforts to have the allied communication platforms control information is a sign of desperation and fear. The regime knows that something very bad is possible because the scale of their corruption is too vast to continue hiding. The evidence is leaking out everywhere. They are exposed, naked and vulnerable. Their grip on the control aspect is tenuous at best.
History tells us there will eventually be a reckoning of biblical proportions; and it will be very, very uncomfortable for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#2
#2
Conservative Treehouse
  • Extreme right leaning
  • Does not clearly differentiate between fact, analysis, or opinion
  • Does not provide traceable sources for most content
  • Moderate to poor reputation among other conservative news outlets
 
#3
#3
Conservative Treehouse
  • Extreme right leaning
  • Does not clearly differentiate between fact, analysis, or opinion
  • Does not provide traceable sources for most content
  • Moderate to poor reputation among other conservative news outlets
However they quoted a politico article as having validated the claims, a left leaning site rated high on factual reporting. Remember our discussion on Reuters? Do we need to engage your 10 and 12 year olds again?

Politico
 
#4
#4
I don't care which way it leans. As much credit should be given to anyone reporting the news as NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, Newsmax, MSNBC, CNN, and the many I could spend all day listing that have been caught in a plethora of lies. Why not just debate the content of the reporting?
 
#5
#5
Conservative Treehouse
  • Extreme right leaning
  • Does not clearly differentiate between fact, analysis, or opinion
  • Does not provide traceable sources for most content
  • Moderate to poor reputation among other conservative news outlets






Gratuitous assertions
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#6
#6
Conservative Treehouse
  • Extreme right leaning
  • Does not clearly differentiate between fact, analysis, or opinion
  • Does not provide traceable sources for most content
  • Moderate to poor reputation among other conservative news outlets
  • Gratuitous assertions
FYP. Good addition to the list.
 
#7
#7
The response to data-based summary of a news site built on readily available and easily found information is interesting. I didn't attack the site or the author, but the defenses still go up.
 
#10
#10
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and theFallGuy
#13
#13
Something an extreme leftist lib would say for $1000 Alex

Maybe I could lay off a bit if more reputable, fact-based, WWWWWH, left- or right-leaning sources were used.

This place isn't for discussing anything of substance, it's just a cheering section for political sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#14
#14
LOL. You’re an ass but I like you RT, I guess I’m an ass man. Very funny!
The article itself is not clearly labeled analysis and refers to Biden as “the installed occupant of the White House.” I did that guy a favor by assuming he wasn’t defending this rag. 😂
 
#15
#15
Where did the summary say "Does not provide traceable sources for ALL content"?

You see what you want to see.
I would return your statement to you. You see what you want to see. I've got some things to do today so I might not respond right away, but I have a question. What news source by name should we be believing? Who in your eyes are reporting it correctly and professionally?
 
#16
#16
I would return your statement to you. You see what you want to see. I've got some things to do today so I might not respond right away, but I have a question. What news source by name should we be believing? Who in your eyes are reporting it correctly and professionally?

Here's what I look for:
  • Clearly answers Who, What, When, Where, Why, and/or How in the first section of the article
  • Provides clearly delineated separation between WWWWWH, analysis, and opinion
  • Provides clear reference to primary and secondary source material
  • Provides clear method of contact for submission of corrections, additions, concerns, etc. (Comment section does not count)
  • Author is listed clearly by name or employing service
  • Does not use derogatory language, epithets, insults, pet names, insinuation, mockery, etc.
When I do go looking for news, I primarily stick with AP, Reuters, BBC World Service, and Christian Science Monitor. While no news service is perfect, these have a long-standing reputation as quality outlets and openly address when mistakes are made. They have documented chains of editorial oversight and traceable lineage of information in storage even if it is not published as part of the article or story.
 
#17
#17
Maybe I could lay off a bit if more reputable, fact-based, WWWWWH, left- or right-leaning sources were used.

This place isn't for discussing anything of substance, it's just a cheering section for political sport.

Facts are facts regardless of source but context also matters. That’s why FOX News dominates all the liberal networks in ratings. You can’t just keep blaming everything on racism, white privilege, and other stupid s**t. If you want something to be considered something of “substance” bring some facts instead of just feelings.
 
#19
#19
Here's what I look for:
  • Clearly answers Who, What, When, Where, Why, and/or How in the first section of the article
  • Provides clearly delineated separation between WWWWWH, analysis, and opinion
  • Provides clear reference to primary and secondary source material
  • Provides clear method of contact for submission of corrections, additions, concerns, etc. (Comment section does not count)
  • Author is listed clearly by name or employing service
  • Does not use derogatory language, epithets, insults, pet names, insinuation, mockery, etc.
When I do go looking for news, I primarily stick with AP, Reuters, BBC World Service, and Christian Science Monitor. While no news service is perfect, these have a long-standing reputation as quality outlets and openly address when mistakes are made. They have documented chains of editorial oversight and traceable lineage of information in storage even if it is not published as part of the article or story.
Disregard the intermediary publisher and go back to the original politico article. I don’t care about the intermediate op-Ed, the info pointed out in the original article points to corrupt as hell behavior. Plain and simple. The USA put their thumb on the justice scales.
 
#20
#20
Here's what I look for:
  • Clearly answers Who, What, When, Where, Why, and/or How in the first section of the article
  • Provides clearly delineated separation between WWWWWH, analysis, and opinion
  • Provides clear reference to primary and secondary source material
  • Provides clear method of contact for submission of corrections, additions, concerns, etc. (Comment section does not count)
  • Author is listed clearly by name or employing service
  • Does not use derogatory language, epithets, insults, pet names, insinuation, mockery, etc.
When I do go looking for news, I primarily stick with AP, Reuters, BBC World Service, and Christian Science Monitor. While no news service is perfect, these have a long-standing reputation as quality outlets and openly address when mistakes are made. They have documented chains of editorial oversight and traceable lineage of information in storage even if it is not published as part of the article or story.

The AP? The AP is nothing but a collection of media outlets, so no accountability. BBC is lefty.
 
#21
#21
The AP? The AP is nothing but a collection of media outlets, so no accountability. BBC is lefty.

The BBC, yes; I will agree. The BBC World Service operates separately from the BBC and with a dedicated news room and editorial staff.
 
#24
#24
Disregard the intermediary publisher and go back to the original politico article. I don’t care about the intermediate op-Ed, the info pointed out in the original article points to corrupt as hell behavior. Plain and simple. The USA put their thumb on the justice scales.
So this Trump appointee, while working for Donald Trump, subverted justice and tarnished his supposedly stellar reputation by *checks notes* delaying issuance of some warrants and subpoenas until a time when he couldn’t be accused of running a politicized investigation (like what actually happened to the Pennsylvania USA)? And he was assisted by Bill Barr who declined calls to appoint a special prosecutor?

That’s what is in the politico article that you clearly didn’t even read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENGRVOL
#25
#25
So this Trump appointee, while working for Donald Trump, subverted justice and tarnished his supposedly stellar reputation by *checks notes* delaying issuance of some warrants and subpoenas until a time when he couldn’t be accused of running a politicized investigation (like what actually happened to the Pennsylvania USA)? And he was assisted by Bill Barr who declined calls to appoint a special prosecutor?

That’s what is in the politico article that you clearly didn’t even read.
I don’t care who appointed him. If an investigation was active and it was time to issue subpoenas they should have done so and it had a possibility of connecting to the Dem POTUS candidate. That isn’t his problem his problem is to execute the investigation with a blind eye to the political fallout.

Hey they could have even offered the judgement at the same time and Jim Comey would nod approvingly
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

Back
Top