Watching NBC's Ken Dilanian ignore what Garland said about Weiss' authority

[bigtree]

...Merrick Garland said repeatedly in this hearing that he had promised Congress to their face he would not interfere with Weiss' Hunter Biden probe which began when the U.S. Attorney was assigned to the case in 2018.

Garland:

MR. WEISS IS A LONG TIME CAREER PROSECUTOR. PRESIDENT TRUMP APPOINTED HIM.

HE WAS CHARGED WITH THAT INVESTIGATION UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. HE HAS CONTINUED. HE KNOWS HOW TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. I HAVE NOT INTRUDED OR ATTEMPTED TO EVALUATE THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PROMISE I MADE TO THE SENATE.

MR. WEISS ASKED FOR [SPECIAL COUNSEL] AUTHORITY GIVEN HIS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER, AND GIVEN MY PROMISE THAT I WOULD GIVE HIM ANY RESOURCES HE REQUESTED, AND I MADE HIM SPECIAL COUNSEL.

MR. WEISS HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT HIS INVESTIGATION HOWEVER HE WISHES , AND MR. WEISS HAS CONFIRMED THAT IN LETTERS TO THIS COMMITTEE....

MY TESTIMONY TODAY IS THAT I PROMISED THE SENATE I WOULD NOT INTRUDE IN HIS INVESTIGATION. I DO NOT INTEND TO DISCUSS INTERNAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELIBERATIONS WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE THEM.

U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID WIESS TOLD SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM "I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS REGARDING POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT UNDER 28 SECTION 550 WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ME TO FILE CHARGES IN THE DISTRICT OUTSIDE MY OWN WITHOUT THE PARTNERSHIP OF THE LOCAL U.S. ATTORNEY." WITH WHOM DID HE HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS? I WILL NOT GET INTO THE INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT.

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR MR. WEISS TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. I MADE IT CLEAR IF YOU WANTED TO BRING A CASE, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THE WAY YOU DO THAT IS TO GET AN ORDER SIGNED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLED A 515 ORDER. I PROMISED HE WOULD BE ABLE TO THAT, AND HE MADE CLEAR HE UNDERSTOOD HE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

republican:

EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY NOW KNOWS WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS, THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PERMITTED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO EXPIRE. EVERY LAWYER WHO IS EVER PRACTICE UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALLOWING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO EXPIRE. DO NOT EVEN KNOW AS THE CITY OR WHETHER THIS OCCURRED OR NOT?

Garland:

PROSECUTORS MAKE APPROPRIATE DETERMINATIONS ON THEIR OWN. IN THIS CASE, I LEFT IT TO MR. WEISS WHETHER TO BRING CHARGES OR NOT. THAT WOULD INCLUDE WHETHER TO LET THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO EXPIRE OR NOT, WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BRING A CASE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR NOT, WHETHER THERE WERE BETTER CASES TO BRING OR NOT.

I WILL SAY AGAIN, THE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS LAPSED, IF IT WAS, HAS TO COME FROM MR. WEISS.

I HAVE INTENTIONALLY NOT INVOLVED MYSELF IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NOT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET OUT OF RESPONSIBILITY, BUT BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO PURSUE MY RESPONSIBILITY.

from Merrick Garland's opening statement:

OUR JOB INCLUDES SEEKING JUSTICE FOR THE SURVIVORS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION, HUMAN SMUGGLING AND SEX TRAFFICKING. THAT INCLUDES PROTECTING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE THIS ONE BY HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE ALL THOSE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE JANUARY 6th ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL.

OUR JOB IS ALSO TO PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS. THAT INCLUDES PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS AS AMERICANS TO WORSHIP AND THINK AS WE PLEASE, AND TO PEACEFULLY EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS, OUR BELIEFS, AND OUR IDEAS. IT INCLUDES PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF EVERY ELIGIBLE CITIZEN TO VOTE AND TO HAVE THAT VOTE COUNTED.

IT INCLUDES COMBATING DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS UNDER LAW, AND DETERRING AND PROSECUTING ATTACKS SUCH AS HATE CRIMES. OUR JOB IS TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW.

THAT MEANS WE APPLY THE SAME LAWS TO EVERYONE. THERE IS NOT ONE SET OF LAWS FOR THE POWERFUL AND ANOTHER FOR THE POWERLESS, ONE FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR, ONE FOR DEMOCRATS AND ANOTHER FOR REPUBLICANS, OR DIFFERENT RULES DEPENDING UPON ONE'S RACE, AT THE CITY, OR RELIGION.

OUR JOB IS TO PURSUE JUSTICE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR. OUR JOB IS NOT TO DO WHAT IS POLITICALLY CONVENIENT. OUR JOB IS NOT TO TAKE ORDERS FROM THE PRESIDENT, FROM CONGRESS, OR FROM ANYONE ELSE ABOUT WHO OR WHAT TO CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATE.

AS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS SAID, AND I REAFFIRMED TODAY, I AM NOT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER. I WILL ADD THAT I AM NOT THE PROSECUTOR FOR CONGRESS. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WORKS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. OUR JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE FACTS AND THE LAW, AND THAT IS WHAT WE DO.

video and transcript: https://www.c-span.org/video/?530429-1/attorney-general-testifies-justice-dept-oversight&live&vod


...the rest is just a repeat of these dirt-dumb things republicans on the committee are saying and Garland basically reiterating the above.

[markpkessinger]

1. Watching this turned my stomach!

Garland promised when he was named AG that he would allow the prosecutor Trump appointed to investigate Hunter Biden to continue in that role and to conduct his investigation with no interference from Garland, and he kept that promise. Now, they are asking Garland if he was “aware” that the Trump-appointed prosecutor had “allowed” the statute of limitations om some of the potential charges against Hunter Biden, thereby implying that Garland was either slow-walking the investigation or was somehow negligent for not intervening.

As Garland repeatedly pointed out, the Trump-appointed prosecutor had full authority to bring whatever charges he deemed appropriate, and was given all the resources he said he needed for the investigation.

Look, you can’t have it both ways. Either Garland was taking a hands-off approach (which was thoroughly appropriate under the circumstances), or he wasn’t. And the suggestion that the AG of the United States should have been monitoring the statute of limitations on the thousands of cases the DOJ is handling at any given time is absurd on its face!

[bigtree]

2. good point, Mark

...this is what it looks like with most of what republicans are projecting in their accusations.

They're practically baiting Garland to do what he pledged to them he wouldn't, and hasn't.