EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Attorney Weiss Colluded With DOJ To Thwart Congressional Questioning, Emails Show

[Oldestyle]

More than likely he misspoke or was misunderstood.

Or maybe you're not accurately reporting what these 6 people have said.

The IRS agents and the FBI agent took notes in the meeting, Marener. What Weiss said wasn't misunderstood. So who lied? Weiss or Garland?

 

[Marener]

Not when you don't understand what heresay is you don't know what facts are

What do you think hearsay is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. Weiss said the opposite.

What They Are Saying: U.S. Attorney Weiss’ Response to Graham Creates More Questions Than Answers | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON – At the end of June, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Ranking Member of...

www.judiciary.senate.gov

According to the whistle blowers Weiss could not get special counsel status

 

[Marener]

The IRS agents and the FBI agent took notes in the meeting, Marener. What Weiss said wasn't misunderstood. So who lied? Weiss or Garland?

Or misspoke.
Or you aren't being accurate about the whistleblowers are saying.

Let's see the notes! Or the testimony!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What do you think hearsay is?

You're talking in circles I've already explained what heresay is. Do keep up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or misspoke.
Or you aren't being accurate about the whistleblowers are saying.

Let's see the notes! Or the testimony!

The testimony has already been given

 

[Oldestyle]

Or misspoke.
Or you aren't being accurate about the whistleblowers are saying.

Let's see the notes! Or the testimony!

Do I really have to comb through the whistleblower testimony to find that? Nobody is claiming that the whistleblower's testimony isn't true, Marener. The facts back up their claims. So who lied, Garland or Weiss?

 

[WEATHER53]

Libs are all about ANYTHING that prevents Trump from running. They do not seek to defeat him, they seek to prevent him.

 

[Marener]

Do I really have to comb through the whistleblower testimony to find that? Nobody is claiming that the whistleblower's testimony isn't true, Marener. The facts back up their claims. So who lied, Garland or Weiss?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need to be able to back up your claims.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-2-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

On page 114, the whistleblower makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really know anything. He wasn't in the meeting with Weiss. It's very second hand information. Third hand information really. He doesn't know who talked to who when or what was said. You know that things get less accurate in these games of telephone.

And yes, people are claiming the testimony isn't true. Weiss and Garland both say that he never asked for special counsel status until this month.

 

[WEATHER53]

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need to be able to back up your claims.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-2-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

On page 114, the whistleblower makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really know anything. He wasn't in the meeting with Weiss. It's very second hand information. Third hand information really. He doesn't know who talked to who when or what was said. You know that things get less accurate in these games of telephone.

And yes, people are claiming the testimony isn't true. Weiss and Garland both say that he never asked for special counsel status until this month.

Claims from libs are evidence and claims from conservative are lies.
Lib101

 

[mamooth]

The Trumpworld conspiracy theories have gotten too complex and convoluted for anyone outside of their cult to understand them. That's just one reason why nobody pays any attention to them.

I suppose you can just simplify them to "EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF OUR CULT IS EVIL AND OUT TO GE T US!".

 

[Oldestyle]

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need to be able to back up your claims.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-2-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

On page 114, the whistleblower makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really know anything. He wasn't in the meeting with Weiss. It's very second hand information. Third hand information really. He doesn't know who talked to who when or what was said. You know that things get less accurate in these games of telephone.

And yes, people are claiming the testimony isn't true. Weiss and Garland both say that he never asked for special counsel status until this mon

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need to be able to back up your claims.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-2-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

On page 114, the whistleblower makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really know anything. He wasn't in the meeting with Weiss. It's very second hand information. Third hand information really. He doesn't know who talked to who when or what was said. You know that things get less accurate in these games of telephone.

And yes, people are claiming the testimony isn't true. Weiss and Garland both say that he never asked for special counsel status until this month.

Who is whistleblower "2"? There were the two IRS whistleblower's who testified under oath in front of Congress who were there and there was the FBI whistleblower who was also there. All three say that Weiss claimed that he had asked for Special Counsel status from Garland following the DC and California DA's turning him down on opening investigations in those locations. All three took notes at that meeting. So was Weiss lying in that meeting?

 

[Marener]

Claims from libs are evidence and claims from conservative are lies.
Lib101

I'm not accusing anyone of a lie. I'm just saying that Garland told Weiss and Weiss told a supervisor and the supervisor told the whistleblower, might not be accurate information.

 

[Marener]

Who is whistleblower "2"? There were the two IRS whistleblower's who testified under oath in front of Congress who were there and there was the FBI whistleblower who was also there. All three say that Weiss claimed that he had asked for Special Counsel status from Garland following the DC and California DA's turning him down on opening investigations in those locations. All three took notes at that meeting. So was Weiss lying in that meeting?

Agent Zeigler wasn't in that meeting so he can't testify to it.

Shapley was, but his statement is different than what you claimed. He said that Garland requested "special counsel authority" at the same time as the referral to DC.

• IRS Supervisory Special Agent Shapley memorialized in an email a meeting where U.S. Attorney David Weiss told multiple people that he was not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. Weiss stated that he went to the D.C. U.S. Attorney to request charges there but was denied. Weiss also requested special counsel authority when it was sent to D.C. and the Justice Department denied his request. No witnesses at the meeting have refuted Shapley’s summary of the meeting. In fact, his supervisor said he “covered it all.”

Weiss says he didn't request special counsel authority but was in talks about possibly doing so with the agency. There's nothing there saying he requested special counsel authority AFTER he was turned down by California and DC.

Hearing Wrap Up: IRS Whistleblowers Expose How Bidens Were Treated Differently - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

 

[Oldestyle]

I'm not accusing anyone of a lie. I'm just saying that Garland told Weiss and Weiss told a supervisor and the supervisor told the whistleblower, might not be accurate information.

Weiss said this at a meeting attended by six witnesses, including the two IRS whistleblowers and one of the FBI whistleblowers. All three of them have testified that Weiss told them that Garland had turned down his request for Special Counsel status.

So who lied, Marener? Garland or Weiss?

 

[Oldestyle]

Agent Zeigler wasn't in that meeting so he can't testify to it.

Shapley was, but his statement is different than what you claimed. He said that Garland requested "special counsel authority" at the same time as the referral to DC.

• IRS Supervisory Special Agent Shapley memorialized in an email a meeting where U.S. Attorney David Weiss told multiple people that he was not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. Weiss stated that he went to the D.C. U.S. Attorney to request charges there but was denied. Weiss also requested special counsel authority when it was sent to D.C. and the Justice Department denied his request. No witnesses at the meeting have refuted Shapley’s summary of the meeting. In fact, his supervisor said he “covered it all.”

Weiss says he didn't request special counsel authority but was in talks about possibly doing so with the agency. There's nothing there saying he requested special counsel authority AFTER he was turned down by California and DC.

Hearing Wrap Up: IRS Whistleblowers Expose How Bidens Were Treated Differently - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

So you're saying that it was Weiss who lied to the other six people in that meeting?

 

[Marener]

Weiss said this at a meeting attended by six witnesses, including the two IRS whistleblowers and one of the FBI whistleblowers. All three of them have testified that Weiss told them that Garland had turned down his request for Special Counsel status.

How many of them heard Weiss ask Garland for special counsel status?
How many of them heard Garland turn down Weiss?

 

[Marener]

So you're saying that it was Weiss who lied to the other six people in that meeting?

Or misspoke, or was misunderstood.

You know, normal things that happen.

 

[Oldestyle]

How many of them heard Weiss ask Garland for special counsel status?
How many of them heard Garland turn down Weiss?

That's not the question at hand, Marener. We're trying to figure out which person lied, Merrick Garland (under oath!) or David Weiss when he told those six witnesses that he had requested Special Counsel status and was denied.

 

[Oldestyle]

Or misspoke, or was misunderstood.

You know, normal things that happen.

So those witnesses "misunderstood" what Weiss said? Even though some of them were taking notes at the meeting? How exactly would you misunderstand someone saying that they asked for Special Counsel status but were denied?