Looks like The NY Times confirms that Weis didn’t have final charging authority like the whistleblower claimed contradicting AG Garland. They just buried it in the 21st paragraph
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He did bring it to garlands attention according to the whistleblower asking for special counsel authority. And garland is on record saying that Weiss had total authority to charge without influence. That is false period based off of everything known currently.And immediately following that^^^, we get this...
While Mr. Weiss had the authority to pursue leads that led to jurisdictions other than his own in Delaware, the department’s practices dictated that he secure the approval and cooperation of the U.S. attorneys in those districts before proceeding.
If Mr. Weiss wanted to move ahead without their approval, he could have brought the issue to Mr. Garland’s attention, and the attorney general could then appoint him “special attorney,” which would allow him to bypass the standard chain of command. There is no indication that Mr. Weiss appealed for help from Mr. Garland or his top deputies — or that he even communicated about the case with anyone in leadership beyond the department’s top career official at headquarters.
You're asking a HS dropout to think critically. CNN isn't reporting this. His inbred mind says.... "It did not happen".He did bring it to garlands attention according to the whistleblower asking for special counsel authority. And garland is on record saying that Weiss had total authority to charge without influence. That is false period based off of everything known currently.
And honest question how do you square the whatsapp threatening message to the Chinese and then the $5 million deposit a couple days later?
And that ^^^ is contradictory to Weiss's statementHe did bring it to garlands attention according to the whistleblower asking for special counsel authority.
Then Weiss lied too according to the New York TimesAnd that ^^^ is contradictory to Weiss's statement
Weiss had told the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee earlier this month that “I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.”
Take the word of a lying idiot ^^^You're asking a HS dropout to think critically. CNN isn't reporting this. His inbred mind says.... "It did not happen".
Weiss says he has ultimate authority to prosecute. Whistleblower says no ny times confirms whistleblower and you ask how Weiss lied?How so?
NYT didn't confirm what you think. They confirmed the second whistleblower told the same story.Weiss says he has ultimate authority to prosecute. Whistleblower says no ny times confirms whistleblower and you ask how Weiss lied?
HaaaaaaaNYT didn't confirm what you think. They confirmed the second whistleblower told the same story.
Which is that they were blocked from being able to prosecute, and that the AG lied under oath. You, as the peoples moderator understood this but poor greed had amnesiaHaaaaaaa
Exactly. The AG should e impeached. Judge should throw out plea deal.Which is that they were blocked from being able to prosecute, and that the AG lied under oath. You, as the peoples moderator understood this but poor greed had amnesia
Haaaaaaa
Which is
^^^idiots can't read something without injecting a conspiracy.Exactly
Drip drip dripIn addition to Shapely, the NY Times is claiming they've independently confirmed from another IRS official that Garland's camp did push back in LA & DC against pursuing charges.
You're a liar.In addition to Shapely, the NY Times is claiming they've independently confirmed from another IRS official that Garland's camp did push back in LA & DC against pursuing charges.
“A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.”Drip drip drip
What has been confirmed is this: "A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story." Nothing more.That episode was confirmed
That’s been known for a whileWhat has been confirmed is this: "A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story." Nothing more.
😂 😂 😂What has been confirmed is this: "A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story." Nothing more.
There is no evidence that joe Biden has committed a crime. Hunter Biden is a different story. The rest of your post is a lie.Why do you take every accusation against Trump as gospel whether evidence has been presented or not, yet defend Biden in the case of overwhelming evidence? The case that the FBI and DOJ colluded to protect Hunter Biden is significantly stronger than either impeachment attempt against Trump.
There was no evidence trump colluded with Russia either but we all know your stance on that oneThere is no evidence that joe Biden has committed a crime. Hunter Biden is a different story. The rest of your post is a lie.
But THAT is what the NYT confirmed.That’s been known for a while
There was enough evidence to investigate.There was no evidence trump colluded with Russia either but we all know your stance on that one
Even after the fbi knew there was nothing there?There was enough evidence to investigate.
At what point was that?Even after the fbi knew there was nothing there?
There is no evidence that Joe Biden has committed a crime. None.the walls are closing in, even some of the lib press and dems are taking notice.
compromised POTUS
Before they started the investigation, moron. Comey knew that the "russian intelligence" was cooked up by Hillary.At what point was that?
You're a liar.Before they started the investigation, moron. Comey knew that the "russian intelligence" was cooked up by Hillary.
Despite your repeated attempts to gloss over this, the existence in fact of dozens of shell corporations, the text messages and other correspondence, and witness testimony is absolutely "evidence" under the law.There is no evidence that joe Biden has committed a crime. Hunter Biden is a different story. The rest of your post is a lie.
No. You're just a moron and a rube.You're a liar.
There is zero evidence that joe Biden has committed a crime.Despite your repeated attempts to gloss over this, the existence in fact of dozens of shell corporations, the text messages and other correspondence, and witness testimony is absolutely "evidence" under the law.
Now, can you argue the implications of this evidence, or what reasonable inferences can be drawn? Sure. But to keep saying it isn't "evidence" doesn't erase the absolute fact that it certainly is.