Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Nope. My response was to your breathless credulity of the IRS "whistleblower" ...[/I]
|
As compared to your reflexive dismissiveness of the whistleblower's complaints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
And my assertion remains true, whether you like it or not. People from other agencies who refer cases to DOJ for possible prosecution are often disappointed when DOJ doesn't prosecute as fully as they think is warranted (or even at all). I've been in this position several times myself as one who referred (or consulted upon) cases from DOD, DOL and DOE. The difference was that I didn't label myself a whistleblower and run to some pathetic, discredited morons on the Hill (e.g., Comer, Jordan) because the cases didn't cross the DOJ threshold for action (i.e., a slam-dunk felony). I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted to allegations made by anyone who takes Comer or Jordan seriously.
|
I actually agree with your assertion, but your assertion is just a deflection from the central point: there appears to be a disparity of treatment of certain types of cases within the Justice Dept and FBI.
It is good that you didn't label yourself a whistleblower. That would be a disservice to Ms Shapley, who has more credibility at this point than you do. While you're out there trying to discredit the guy by calling him a "malcontent with pending personnel actions" against him (where's your proof of that as it relates to Shapley, by the way?),
the NY Times, in a random act of journalism, independently confirmed a key element of Shapley's testimony - that Weiss was getting pushback from within the DOJ:
"But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony," The Times wrote Tuesday. "A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation."
So, on one hand, you have Merritt Garland stating that Weiss has no restrictions in pursuing his investigation. On the other hand, you have the story of two whistleblowers, elements of which have been corroborated by the NY Times, who claims Weiss told them (and others who were involved in the same discussion) he didn't have the final word in the pursuit of his investigation.
Somebody is not telling the truth. If Shapley and others are lying, then they'll deserve whatever legal punishment is due to them for making a false claim. If Garland is lying - and now there's evidence that at least contradicts his claims of giving Weiss free rein - then Garland needs to go.