this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3744 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that the Trump-appointed US attorney who is investigating Hunter Biden has been given “special counsel” status.

This gives the senior prosecutor, David Weiss, more powers than a typical US attorney and puts the nation in uncharted territory – with three special counsels at the Justice Department currently investigating matters related to the sitting president, his son, and the previous president.

Garland’s order appointing Weiss said he is authorized to “conduct the ongoing investigation … as well as any matters that arose from that investigation or may arise” as the probe continues.

A senior Justice Department official said Weiss will write a report, which the attorney general is expected to publicly release when the probe is over. This has been the common practice of special counsels in recent years, like Robert Mueller and John Durham.

Weiss made a request to be elevated to a special counsel on Tuesday.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

As someone who voted for Biden in 2020, and will do so again in 2024, this is a good thing. Elevating this Hunter business to the level of a special counsel investigation takes away the R’s nonsense “weaponization of government” argument. I’m confident that the investigation will show this whole thing is a nothingburger.

Edit: It’s only a matter of time…

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, they’ll still call it weaponization and say it was biased no matter what. It’s good for history books, but won’t stop GOP talking points

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know you’re right. I just hope that the verdict from the Court of Public Opinion doesn’t align with GOP talking points.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Considering how the recent special elections have gone for Republicans its looking like it doesn't

[–] Vlhacs@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd like to share your enthusiasm, but anything short of a full conviction with jail time will mean maga idiots will start screaming "two tier justice!"

[–] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 1 points 1 year ago

I expect the best we'll get is him having a heart attack during one of his temper tantrums from all of the court cases. Which will somehow be blamed on the deep state.

[–] Poob@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

You could have Trump himself leading the investigation, and conservatives would still say it's rigged and biased

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

The Republicans know you can appoint a SP who's in the tank. That's what they do, why shouldn't Garland?

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's see if I'm prescient. The special council report will conclude that Hunter did some stuff, but he's already been prosecuted for it and it had no connection to the office of the president outside of Hunter falsely claiming he could arrange meetings with Joe. Republicans will probably try to spin the report as evidence of something nebulous without a single shred of evidence. Their base will of course eat this up. They'll rumble about impeaching Joe, Democrats will push back and ask on what grounds, and Republicans will vaguely gesture in the direction of the report as if that means something. Nothing will ultimately come of it except it will be the latest version of "but her emails" that Fox will pull out when they need a distraction from whatever damning thing Republicans have done this week.

[–] foiledAgain@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Yo hit me up with them lotto numbers for next week

[–] BitingChaos@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Gosh, now I'm not sure if I will ever vote for HUNTER BIDEN.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A senior Justice Department official said Weiss will write a report, which the attorney general is expected to publicly release when the probe is over.

In a two-pronged agreement, Hunter Biden would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors, and prosecutors would agree to drop a separate felony gun charge in two years if he stayed out of legal trouble and passed drug test.

But at a stunning three-hour court hearing last month, the deal nearly collapsed under scrutiny from the federal judge overseeing the case.

District Judge Maryellen Noreika said the intertwined deals to resolve the tax and gun charges were “confusing,” “not straightforward,” “atypical” and “unprecedented.” At the end of that hearing, she ordered the Justice Department and Hunter Biden’s lawyers to file additional legal briefs defending the constitutionality of the deal.

Calls for a special counsel have intensified in recent months, with leading Republicans claiming Hunter Biden got a “sweetheart deal,” and IRS whistleblowers alleging that the Justice Department gave him preferential treatment in a plea deal earlier this summer.

Federal prosecutors have spent five years investigating Hunter Biden for potential felony tax evasion, illegal foreign lobbying, money laundering, and other possible crimes.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] dougiejones@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
[–] meldroc@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

By "IRS whistleblowers", I think AutoTL;DR actually meant to say "Chinese spies."

[–] louisvillehenry@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

They misspelled Jared Kushner

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure this gives Republicans a big hate boner today.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

It's probably pissed off the Oversight Committee because it basically takes over the investigation and renders them moot.

I'm OK with that because it was a sham investigation anyway

[–] atticus88th@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Can I be a special counsel next?