NYT Confirms Whistle blower claim

[hislegacy]

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

And who is Weiss's direct report - who would be the one stopping him?

 

[BPPLEE]

And who is Weiss's direct report - who would be the one stopping him?

Now there are 6 whistleblowers in this case

 

[GodLovesCats]

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

You need to stop paying attention to Fox News. The network is now financially on record for admitting all they ever do is lie, lie, and lie some more, or at best make misleading statements and cover up the facts. So to be an honest man as God commanded, you must read and post totally different sources.

 

[BPPLEE]

You need to stop paying attention to Fox News. It is nothing but blatant lies 24/7. If you want to be honest as God commanded, you must only use real news sources that never mislead people to believe what is obviously not true.

Let me know what those sources are. Surely you don’t mean ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN

 

[NxNW]

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

Example in my signature

The 'example' in your signature is false. The investigation *made* money due to all the seizures of fraudulent assets. Plus it established that the Trump administration colluded with Russia.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Let me know what those sources are. Surely you don’t mean ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN

The Associated Press and Reuters are 501(c)(3) organizations that only exist to report totally unbiased factual news.

PBS is also widely considered politically neutral.

 

[NxNW]

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

Drilling down to the original NYT article, it says the exact opposite of what you and the Washington Examiner claim it says. From the NYT:

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.”

 

[NxNW]

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

I'd expect your article to say what you claim it says. It doesn't.

"NYT says Whistleblower makes unsubstantiated claim" would be a more appropriate headline.

 

[BPPLEE]

The Associated Press and Reuters are 501(c)(3) organizations that only exist to report totally unbiased factual news.

PBS is also widely considered politically neutral.

Sorry I can’t agree about AP and especially PBS. I don’t know much about Reuters so you might be right about that one

 

[GodLovesCats]

The 'example' in your signature is false. The investigation *made* money due to all the seizures of fraudulent assets. Plus it established that the Trump administration colluded with Russia.

Collusion with Russia was proven by Robert Mueller, who listed 10 crimes that could have been articles of impeachment if Donald Trump had been President in 2016. The problem was as a sitting President he was immune to punishment for collusion with Russia before he became President.

 

[BPPLEE]

Drilling down to the original NYT article, it says the exact opposite of what you and the Washington Examiner claim it says. From the NYT:

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.”

From the article you linked
He testified that Mr. Weiss, despite his public statements to the contrary, was also unhappy, and that he complained about being handcuffed by higher-ups in the department.
Things came to a head during a meeting among investigators on Oct. 7, when Mr. Weiss made an unexpected admission to him in the presence of several other federal law enforcement officials, according to Mr. Shapley’s account.

“He surprised us by telling us on the charges, quote: ‘I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,’” said Mr. Shapley, a longtime Republican who has said he is motivated by the evenhanded application of justice, not politics.
“To add to the surprise, U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main D.O.J. at that time and was denied that authority,” he added.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Drilling down to the original NYT article, it says the exact opposite of what you and the Washington Examiner claim it says. From the NYT:

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.”

Like Fox News, The Washington Examiner is far right and does not care about the facts. So it is no surprise that newspaper also is lying about the NYT article.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sorry I can’t agree about AP and especially PBS. I don’t know much about Reuters so you might be right about that one

Reuters is so unbiased it controversially refused to call the September 11, 2001 terrorists what they were.

 

[Pommer]

And who is Weiss's direct report - who would be the one stopping him?

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.

What one tells their superiors and what one tells their underlings aren’t necessarily going to jive.
This may be that?

 

[NxNW]

From the article you linked
He testified that Mr. Weiss, despite his public statements to the contrary, was also unhappy, and that he complained about being handcuffed by higher-ups in the department.
Things came to a head during a meeting among investigators on Oct. 7, when Mr. Weiss made an unexpected admission to him in the presence of several other federal law enforcement officials, according to Mr. Shapley’s account.

“He surprised us by telling us on the charges, quote: ‘I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,’” said Mr. Shapley, a longtime Republican who has said he is motivated by the evenhanded application of justice, not politics.
“To add to the surprise, U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main D.O.J. at that time and was denied that authority,” he added.

Weiss says otherwise via official channels. Rumors are irrelevant.

 

[DaisyDay]

From the article you linked
He testified that Mr. Weiss, despite his public statements to the contrary, was also unhappy, and that he complained about being handcuffed by higher-ups in the department.
Things came to a head during a meeting among investigators on Oct. 7, when Mr. Weiss made an unexpected admission to him in the presence of several other federal law enforcement officials, according to Mr. Shapley’s account.

“He surprised us by telling us on the charges, quote: ‘I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,’” said Mr. Shapley, a longtime Republican who has said he is motivated by the evenhanded application of justice, not politics.
“To add to the surprise, U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main D.O.J. at that time and was denied that authority,” he added.

That’s Shapely’s testimony which contradicts Weiss’. Some say whistleblower while others say disgruntled employee. Shapely seems angry that Weiss declined to promote him; this could just be revenge.

 

[BPPLEE]

That’s Shapely’s testimony which contradicts Weiss’. Some say whistleblower while others say disgruntled employee. Shapely seems angry that Weiss declined to promote him; this could just be revenge.

You can always speculate on what it could be but I understand that other whistleblowers have come forward and there are 6 so far.

 

[DaisyDay]

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

Your article claims that the NYT confirmed Shapley’s account. Please quote the part that does this. Merely stating what he said is not confirming it, especially when it gives a conflicting account.

Weiss conducted the investigation. Are you claiming he obstructed the investigation he conducted? That is not Shapeley’s allegation which is that Garland interfered, not Weiss.

 

[DaisyDay]

You can always speculate on what it could be but I understand that other whistleblowers have come forward and there are 6 so far.

Who are they and what exactly does each claim?

Also show that the claim in the OP is accurate as this is the topic.

 

[BPPLEE]

Who are they and what exactly does each claim?

Also show that the claim in the OP is accurate as this is the topic.

We will have to wait and see what comes of it and I don’t care about your demands