Merrick Garland's Waterloo moment

Merrick Garland did his best to tap-dance through a mine field during Jim Jordan's Judiciary Committee hearing on David Weiss's intentional mishandling of Hunter Biden's corruption investigation. He failed. Jim Jordan nailed Garland during Chairman Jordan's cross-examination of AG Garland.

Before that, though, Garland tap-danced himself right into the middle of a mine field during his opening statement. During his opening statement, Garland said "Our job is to pursue justice, without fear or favor. Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate. As the President himself has said, and I reaffirm today, I am not the president's lawyer. I will add I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people. Our job is to follow the facts and the law. That is what we do."

AG Garland is right in this respect. It isn't easy running interference for Joe Biden's corrupt crack-head son. That's essentially what Garland's job description is. I don't know if AG Garland made the final decision to let Hunter Biden's felony tax evasion charges run past the statute of limitations. Still, that's what happened. By not getting an indictment on those charges, Hunter can't be prosecuted on those charges.

That's a big deal because the 2014-15 felony tax evasion charges connected to Joe Biden's work as "The Brand" in getting Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin terminated. We'll return to that in a bit. First, check this out:

Bingo. Refuse to partner with David Weiss so Weiss couldn't prosecute Hunter Biden on felony tax evasion charges is essentially the same as turning Weiss down. It's a distinction without a difference. Check this out: AG Garland told Matt Gaetz that "I have left these matters to Mr. Weiss." Isn't that convenient? AG Garland just admitted that he didn't exercise supervisory control over the biggest investigation of the Biden administration. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls this "willful blindness":

Here's a question that didn't get asked: why didn't you supervise David Weiss's investigation. Here's a follow-up question: Gen. Garland, you said that you promised to let Mr. Weiss conduct this investigation without harrassing him. Isn't it possible to get updates without harrassing him? Isn't it possible to exercise supervisory control without harrassing Mr. Weiss?

Finally, didn't you have a responsibility to exercise supervisory control so Mr. Weiss wouldn't offer Hunter Biden the biggest sweetheart deal in the history of corruption? By not supervising Mr. Weiss, AG Garland let Weiss work with Hunter's defense team to protect Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Isn't that convenient? I'm sure that's 100% coincidental.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more