So Merrick Garland isn’t “outright” corrupt? Does that leave open just “corrupt?” You know, as in siccing the FBI on parents attending school board meetings? And colluding with Randi Weingarten & the White House in intimidating them? Or how about green-lighting a ridiculous sweetheart deal carefully arranged for Hunter by the Delaware US Attorney David Weiss that got shot down by one honest judge? How about prosecuting Trump for classified documents violations while doing virtually nothing about SloJoe? You can’t be that credulous, Glenn. Garland is about as corrupt as they come - yes, outright corrupt. I’m really surprised at you.
And also, how about prosecuting thousands of people who “paraded” in the Capitol on January 6, and now announcing that he’s going after at least hundreds more who were outside?
True. I’ve just learned that one can never be too cynical about the current crop of Democrats. They flaunt their lawlessness because I don’t think they’re particularly concerned about elections anymore.
I understand your point, but I think it's not quite as bad as you suggest. Biden supporters, to give just one example, are pretty darned concerned about the Nov election, as they should be.
Agreed: he is utterly corrupt and, as you say, flaunts his rottenness with revoltingly smarmy, righteous public pronouncements about his pursuit of “justice,” tantamount to Majorkas solemnly declaring the border to be “secure.” Both men knowingly lie without the slightest compunction, knowing how untouchable they are. I find Hunter far more likable than either of these scoundrels, if only because he is so unpolished and sloppy in his criminality.
Now I want to be wrong! As you can see, I've got convictions! But seriously, it would be a blast. I love Belgian ales, by the way. Chimay, Ommegang, Delirium tremens, etc.! :-)
Glenn, do you actually believe that IF the House representatives were given an unlimited amount of time to question Hunter, they would allow him to do it in a public forum? I'm certain that the J6 Committee would have been happy to take Jim Jordan's testimony, under oath, in public or private, his choice. We all look forward to seeing the actual proof/smoking gun, that Comer and Jordan have gathered to impeach Joe Biden.
The Committee wanted an ordinary legal deposition where they could do fact-finding. That's what an investigation is for, and an ordinary deposition is a common tool to accomplish it. They said they would publish the transcript. And they said they would then do a public hearing where Hunter could do his grandstanding histrionics act.
Since we're asking rheorical questions, are you suggesting that an impeachment investigation cannot proceed until the House already has in-hand has all the smoking guns that the investigation might reveal?
Or are you saying that there's simply nothing suspicious, at all, about the foreign payments, some of which were characterized by Hunter himself as being reserved for the "Big Guy"?
Thanks for your comments, Glenn. What I am articulating is that testimony from Hunter Biden appears to be so critical to their case. Just as the testimony of Jim Jordan would be extremely beneficial in the indictment against Trump for allegedly conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. As long as either Hunter or Jim are UNDER OATH, the individuals asking the questions should be intelligent enough to ascertain the needed testimony be it a private or public forum.
You seem to assume that the Republicans already know what happened in these complex financial transactions (which were apparently made complex deliberately in order to hide them).
But they don't. They are conducting what's called "an investigation" in order to find out. Sorting through that stuff takes much longer than the few minutes given to a Congressman in a public hearing. It takes a deposition.
If Hunter wants his day in the public eye, fine. He can have it afterward in the public hearing. Meanwhile, the Republicans are entitled to -- nay, they are obligated to -- conduct an investigation in order to see if an impeachment is warranted, or not.
I agree with what you have said and we both are looking for the same results. In my opinion, when you have a key witness that is willing to testify, it would be imperative to show some flexibility if this witness is as critical to your case as Hunter appears to be. Hope you're doing well.
He KNOWS that Dad will pardon him as long as he's president. That's why he's acting this way because he is certain that the Biden Crime Family will protect him.
So Merrick Garland isn’t “outright” corrupt? Does that leave open just “corrupt?” You know, as in siccing the FBI on parents attending school board meetings? And colluding with Randi Weingarten & the White House in intimidating them? Or how about green-lighting a ridiculous sweetheart deal carefully arranged for Hunter by the Delaware US Attorney David Weiss that got shot down by one honest judge? How about prosecuting Trump for classified documents violations while doing virtually nothing about SloJoe? You can’t be that credulous, Glenn. Garland is about as corrupt as they come - yes, outright corrupt. I’m really surprised at you.
And also, how about prosecuting thousands of people who “paraded” in the Capitol on January 6, and now announcing that he’s going after at least hundreds more who were outside?
Well see one way or the other, soon enough.
True. I’ve just learned that one can never be too cynical about the current crop of Democrats. They flaunt their lawlessness because I don’t think they’re particularly concerned about elections anymore.
I understand your point, but I think it's not quite as bad as you suggest. Biden supporters, to give just one example, are pretty darned concerned about the Nov election, as they should be.
Someone should check on how many $100 Walmart gift cards are being sold in batches of 1,000 to the usual suspects.
Agreed: he is utterly corrupt and, as you say, flaunts his rottenness with revoltingly smarmy, righteous public pronouncements about his pursuit of “justice,” tantamount to Majorkas solemnly declaring the border to be “secure.” Both men knowingly lie without the slightest compunction, knowing how untouchable they are. I find Hunter far more likable than either of these scoundrels, if only because he is so unpolished and sloppy in his criminality.
You both owe me a beer if you're wrong!
Oh, geez, another beer summit? You’re on, although I don’t know what the standard of proof will be.
We can discuss that at the summit!
Now I want to be wrong! As you can see, I've got convictions! But seriously, it would be a blast. I love Belgian ales, by the way. Chimay, Ommegang, Delirium tremens, etc.! :-)
I agree that Merrick Garland is quite corrupt and useless as an AG. I think of him as a limp dick of human.
Except an angry and vindictive, bitter limp dick. (Is that a thing?)
There IS such a thing and Garland is it.
Glenn, do you actually believe that IF the House representatives were given an unlimited amount of time to question Hunter, they would allow him to do it in a public forum? I'm certain that the J6 Committee would have been happy to take Jim Jordan's testimony, under oath, in public or private, his choice. We all look forward to seeing the actual proof/smoking gun, that Comer and Jordan have gathered to impeach Joe Biden.
The Committee wanted an ordinary legal deposition where they could do fact-finding. That's what an investigation is for, and an ordinary deposition is a common tool to accomplish it. They said they would publish the transcript. And they said they would then do a public hearing where Hunter could do his grandstanding histrionics act.
Since we're asking rheorical questions, are you suggesting that an impeachment investigation cannot proceed until the House already has in-hand has all the smoking guns that the investigation might reveal?
Or are you saying that there's simply nothing suspicious, at all, about the foreign payments, some of which were characterized by Hunter himself as being reserved for the "Big Guy"?
Thanks for your comments, Glenn. What I am articulating is that testimony from Hunter Biden appears to be so critical to their case. Just as the testimony of Jim Jordan would be extremely beneficial in the indictment against Trump for allegedly conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. As long as either Hunter or Jim are UNDER OATH, the individuals asking the questions should be intelligent enough to ascertain the needed testimony be it a private or public forum.
You seem to assume that the Republicans already know what happened in these complex financial transactions (which were apparently made complex deliberately in order to hide them).
But they don't. They are conducting what's called "an investigation" in order to find out. Sorting through that stuff takes much longer than the few minutes given to a Congressman in a public hearing. It takes a deposition.
If Hunter wants his day in the public eye, fine. He can have it afterward in the public hearing. Meanwhile, the Republicans are entitled to -- nay, they are obligated to -- conduct an investigation in order to see if an impeachment is warranted, or not.
I agree with what you have said and we both are looking for the same results. In my opinion, when you have a key witness that is willing to testify, it would be imperative to show some flexibility if this witness is as critical to your case as Hunter appears to be. Hope you're doing well.
He KNOWS that Dad will pardon him as long as he's president. That's why he's acting this way because he is certain that the Biden Crime Family will protect him.
So sick of the 2 standards of justice. One for connected Democrats—and one for everyone else.
Glenn: Garland or not, NOTHING is going to happen to Hunter, and HE knows it!
It's like the bad movie that never ends. Just when you think you have the snake cornered, he slithers away. There's too many snakes in this story.
Caption beneath the photo:
"Hey you! Where's the money you owe us?!"
Several million Americans will watch the documentary being made by Kevin Morris about H. Biden's 'journey' and they'll believe every word.
Merrick Garland (or is it Garland Merrick?)
It's Merrland Garlick