NYT Confirms Whistle blower claim

[hislegacy]

MSN

www.msn.com

​

The New York Times confirmed one of the bombshell claims made about the Department of Justice's mishandling of its probe into Hunter Biden but buried it deep in its Tuesday report.​

​

After Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax violations and entered a pretrial diversion agreement regarding the felony gun registration charge, the House Ways and Means Committee released testimony from two IRS whistleblowers who alleged that President Biden's son received preferential treatment by the Justice Department.​

​

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley claimed that U.S. Attorney David Weiss alleged to multiple witnesses that he was told by the DOJ that he could not bring charges against Hunter Biden in California and Washington D.C. Attorney General Merrick Garland denied there being any interference in the probe.​

​

However, the Times is now confirming that Weiss did in fact make such claims about the DOJ.​

 

[GodLovesCats]

The report is by Fox News. Enough said. If you see that company's logo at the top of the page, you know it is all lies. Faux Noise only cares about making the Republican Party look awesome and Democratic Party look terrible.

If you want to be honest as our God commanded, you must avoid the network that always lies in its politics department and stop misleading people into thinking it tells the truth. You are being extremely dishonest by not putting the actual source (Fox News, not the NYT).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

MSN

www.msn.com

​

The New York Times confirmed one of the bombshell claims made about the Department of Justice's mishandling of its probe into Hunter Biden but buried it deep in its Tuesday report.​

​

After Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax violations and entered a pretrial diversion agreement regarding the felony gun registration charge, the House Ways and Means Committee released testimony from two IRS whistleblowers who alleged that President Biden's son received preferential treatment by the Justice Department.​

​

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley claimed that U.S. Attorney David Weiss alleged to multiple witnesses that he was told by the DOJ that he could not bring charges against Hunter Biden in California and Washington D.C. Attorney General Merrick Garland denied there being any interference in the probe.​

​

However, the Times is now confirming that Weiss did in fact make such claims about the DOJ.​

Once again OP wont link directly to Fox News who actually published this story and instead chooses an aggregating site. Why is that?

Also, here is the actual NYT article referenced in the article. If you actually read it with out the Faux News spin, it's not nearly as damning as they make it out to be:

Competing Accounts of Justice Dept.’s Handling of Hunter Biden Case

An I.R.S. investigator’s testimony describing strains over the inquiry into President Biden’s son is at odds with the version laid out by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

www.nytimes.com

Basically, the NYT confirmed that Shapley made the claim that Weiss said "it wasn't up to him" when asked about additional charges against HB
even though Weiss wrote a letter saying exactly the opposite.

 

[DaisyDay]

Once again OP wont link directly to Fox News who actually published this story and instead chooses an aggregating site. Why is that?

Also, here is the actual NYT article referenced in the article. If you actually read it with out the Faux News spin, it's not nearly as damning as they make it out to be:

Competing Accounts of Justice Dept.’s Handling of Hunter Biden Case

An I.R.S. investigator’s testimony describing strains over the inquiry into President Biden’s son is at odds with the version laid out by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

www.nytimes.com

Basically, the NYT confirmed that Shapley made the claim that Weiss said "it wasn't up to him" when asked about additional charges against HB
even though Weiss wrote a letter saying exactly the opposite.

Does Mr. Shapely represent the DeepState?

 

[DaisyDay]

Jesus commanded everyone not to hate anybody.

Luke 14:26

 

[hislegacy]

Once again OP wont link directly to Fox News who actually published this story and instead chooses an aggregating site. Why is that?

Well, because that is the site I was reading at the time - not really hard a concept to understand and not anything nefarious.

 

[hislegacy]

Basically, the NYT confirmed that Shapley made the claim that Weiss said "it wasn't up to him" when asked about additional charges against HB
even though Weiss wrote a letter saying exactly the opposite.

Can't read articles behind a paywall and I don't pay for my news - that is why I don't have cable TV.

There is a SECOND whistle blower saying the same things also -

Is it not worthy of an investigation?

 

[DaisyDay]

Well, because that is the site I was reading at the time - not really hard a concept to understand and not anything nefarious.

Yes, but the problem is that you labeled your link "MSN" when it is really FoxNews. What is worse, imo, is that the title says that NYT "confirms" while nowhere is the link to the actual NYT article. Fox unfortunately links only to itself, which is a red flag.

 

[DaisyDay]

Can't read articles behind a paywall and I don't pay for my news - that is why I don't have cable TV.

Here, no paywall

There is a SECOND whistle blower saying the same things also -

Is it not worthy of an investigation?

Offhand, I'd say yes, it should be investigated, but until it is verified as true and accurate, not given credence overmuch. One problem with this 118th Congress is that it has had a lot of bad faith investigations that are too obviously politically motivated.

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, but the problem is that you labeled your link "MSN" when it is really FoxNews. What is worse, imo, is that the title says that NYT "confirms" while nowhere is the link to the actual NYT article. Fox unfortunately links only to itself, which is a red flag.

It was a cut from the address line from the website.

Why are you complaining about this? I didn’t write the thing, the website did. I didn’t title the link, the website did.

Additionally, when you click on the link that I didn’t write, it shows the source. How about just commenting on the substance, instead of inconsequential things like the title or link the website provides.

Complain to them, not me.

 

[hislegacy]

Here, no paywall


Offhand, I'd say yes, it should be investigated, but until it is verified as true and accurate, not given credence overmuch. One problem with this 118th Congress is that it has had a lot of bad faith investigations that are too obviously politically motivated.

We could say the EXACT same thing about the 117th. Could we not.

Example in my signature

 

[DaisyDay]

We could say the EXACT same thing about the 117th. Could we not.

No, not without evidence.

Example in my signature

Your signature is a bunch of sentences without reference - I don't really know what it means, but if you meant the Mueller investigation:

Robert Mueller's Russia probe cost nearly $32 million in total, Justice Department says

The cost of the investigation has been a weapon used by both Trump and Mueller's supporters in the ongoing political fight over the Russian election meddling probe.

www.cnbc.com

 

[DaisyDay]

It was a cut from the address line from the website.

Why are you complaining about this? I didn’t write the thing, the website did. I didn’t title the link, the website did.

Additionally, when you click on the link that I didn’t write, it shows the source. How about just commenting on the substance, instead of inconsequential things like the title or link the website provides.

Complain to them, not me.

You chose the website. It's not a big deal, just mildly misleading.

Why I think it is a bad choice is that, besides Fox being generally unreliable, it is an article about an article without any link to the actual, original article and it misstates what the original actually says. It is not only biased but dishonest.

 

[BPPLEE]

The report is by Fox News. Enough said. If you see that company's logo at the top of the page, you know it is all lies. Faux Noise only cares about making th3e Republican Party look awesome and Democratic Party look terrible.

If you want to be honest as our God commanded, you must avoid the network that always lies in its politics department and stop misleading people into thinking it tells the truth. You are being extremely dishonest by not putting the actual source (Fox News, not the NYT).

Here’s another source

New York Times confirms prosecutor was blocked from charging Hunter Biden in California - Washington Examiner

As much as the New York Times tries to bury the lede, there's no denying it: The "Gray Lady" has independently confirmed a crucial detail by the second, unnamed IRS whistleblower attempting to expose the efforts of the federal government to protect Hunter Biden from the legal consequences of his...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[hislegacy]

You chose the website. It's not a big deal, just mildly misleading.

Yes! I actually read from multiple websites and quote from them.

There is a screen shot if someone takes the time to click on the link. What website is it from?

Look at the title of the thread, I mentioned no website. Look at the OP I mentioned no website. I mere showed the link from the we site I got the information from.

 

[Blade]

Ok this is odd I will agree. Well I click on MSN link I am then taken to MSN that shows a video of FOX....lol..sorry. MSN has been doing this for years FOX does this. NYT did confirm no? It is odd how some skip the story and go after the OP for just posting a link?

He didn't lie he didn't mislead. We all do this.. we read some news and then we just post a link to where we read it. I think hope anyone can search on this if they wanted to.. were all on the internet.

 

[DaisyDay]

Here’s another source

New York Times confirms prosecutor was blocked from charging Hunter Biden in California - Washington Examiner

As much as the New York Times tries to bury the lede, there's no denying it: The "Gray Lady" has independently confirmed a crucial detail by the second, unnamed IRS whistleblower attempting to expose the efforts of the federal government to protect Hunter Biden from the legal consequences of his...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

This is referring to the same article as the OP. Does another commentary really count as another source? I don't think so as the "source" is the NYT article and the commentary is secondary.

 

[DaisyDay]

However, the Times is now confirming that Weiss did in fact make such claims about the DOJ.​

Please quote the part of the article that sustains this allegation. What I read contradicts it:

Mr. Weiss said in a letter to Congress this month that he had not been constrained in pursuing the investigation. Mr. Weiss said in the letter, dated June 7, that he had been “granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.” He has yet to face more specific questions from House Republicans in the wake of Mr. Shapley’s testimony.​

Then further down:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Weiss did not return a request for comment. In his June 7 letter to Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he wrote that he had “ultimate authority” over every aspect of the investigation, which seemed to contradict Mr. Shapley’s claim that he had said he was not the deciding official in the case. (Mr. Jordan subsequently sent a letter asking Mr. Weiss to clarify what “ultimate authority” means.)

In a short news release last week setting out the terms of the deal with Mr. Biden, Mr. Weiss added without explanation: “The investigation is ongoing.” It is unclear whether that phrase was just Justice Department boilerplate, a hint about the possibility of more charges arising from the inquiry or a shield against demands for documents and testimony about the Biden case from Congress.​

The article does confirm that Mr. Shapely made the accusations, but not that Mr. Weiss confirmed them. If I'm missing the part that says what your Fox article claims, please quote it because I don't see it.

 

[hislegacy]

The article does confirm that Mr. Shapely made the accusations, but not that Mr. Weiss confirmed them.

LOL - you really expect him to admit he lied and obstructed the investigation? Really?

 

[Pommer]

LOL - you really expect him to admit he lied and obstructed the investigation? Really?

Wait, wasn’t it Weiss whom was heading the investigation?