The standard isn't whether Weiss is a "MAGA idiot." The question isn't whether Biden or Trump has more "influence," whatever that means, in Delaware. The claim, including in the quote in your post, is that Weiss was actively conspiring with the Biden administration, the Biden family, or Democrats generally.

How is it that the "indulgent" Weiss "help[ed]" Hunter Biden delay the case?

And why on earth was Trump appointing Biden operatives as US attorneys? Once again, Occam's Razor seems to be tossed aside with these theories and explanations.

People act like everyone Trump appointed in his time as President was a mindless slave to him. Given all the roadblocks those people put in his path during his tenure, that doesn't hold up either.

I put a lot more stock in the testimonies of Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler than the ability (or interest) of a Delaware lawyer to overcome Biden's influence in the state.

Phrase it however you want. Your theory is that a US attorney appointed by Trump, at a time Biden was not president and was uncertain ever to become president, could not escape the influence of Joe Biden merely because he is from Delaware.

Joe Biden's powers are at once astonishing and inescapable. At the same time, he is a bumbling, addled, incompetent cipher.

It's very hard to reconcile the ideas you've expressed in this thread. It seems all roads lead to the conclusion that Democrats are corrupt and more dangerous than Republicans. I don't think you are following evidence to that inevitable conclusion. I think you are working backwards from the conclusion and constantly finding "proof" to justify it.

In short, I think you already had the conclusion that you should be more afraid of Democrats before this trial or charge or matter was dreamed of. So you have found a way to fit it into your preexisting worldview. That isn't an indictment of you. It's how biases work. But I don't think the situation really justifies your conclusion. In fact, you sort of have to believe a few contradictory things at the same time to make it work.

Whether he's President or not, Joe Biden and his family are political forces in Delaware, certainly much more proximate than Trump's influence.

Again, I put much more stock in testimony from people directly involved in the process than your assumptions regarding Trump's Ring-of-Power-esque control over people he happens to appoint to things.

Throw in a media that is, at best, incurious about mis-steps by Democrats and I worry much more about what Democrats are up to than Republicans.

I think it started out that way. And every new piece of information flows through that filter. You can frame Trump's influence here in a cartoonish way to dismiss it, but you credit the same cartoonish "Ring of Power" influence Biden has over apparently every single person in Delaware, including a US attorney he didn't appoint and whom Republicans were - at least for a time - demanding be appointed as special counsel in this very investigation. Even the Republicans getting what they ask for is proof that Democrats are behind it all!

The beauty of your "quite easy" theory is that Biden would control the outcome no matter what he did. The mere fact that things occurred in Delaware is enough to seal the deal.

Trump couldn't possibly have appointed anyone but a Biden devotee/subject/operative (or whatever you want to call someone under Biden's "influence") because he was appointing a position in the great State of Delaware. And Biden controls every man, woman, and child in the state.

Edit to add: There are plenty of accounts from FBI and IRS folks who disagree with the folks you have chosen to credit. They were just as involved in the process, some much more involved and at a higher level. And yet you don't believe them. You believe the people whose testimony aligns with your conclusion that Democrats were pulling the strings and can't be trusted. I don't think that's a coincidence.

...not people fearful for their jobs.

I believe an experienced politician and his family can exert a lot more influence than a hare-brained businessman.

I believe if Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were Republicans, we'd know exactly what was said on that plane because media creatures wouldn't rest until they found out. But ask them to care about investigations of Democrats and they hem and haw. They don't ask because they don't want to know.

I have watched the Democratic party up close for 50+ years and have a lot better appreciation of what they can get away with than you do. (I know, I know, "they're not real Democrats")

"I believe an experienced politician and his family can exert a lot more influence than a hare-brained businessman."

That hare-brained businessman is literally the entire GOP now.

incredible influence over the Republican party as a whole. He is killing bills while not even in office.

So it is not a matter of whether you are a member of that party or not. The fact is the crazy guy has way more influence / sway than Biden at this point

Or that Bob Menendez likely soon will not be?

Their missteps received the same press and attention as those of say, Matt Gaetz. Obviously they weren't swept under the rug.

Which, I think you'd agree, had a very powerful force behind it.

If you look, you'll find a long list of Democrats who wish they could un-do Franken's "sentencing", because, after all, it's fine if a Democrat does that sort of thing.

Menendez isn't out yet, but it's funny how the missteps of Matt Gaetz didn't end up resulting in any kind of charges that I can find, and yet you say it's equivalent to people like Menendez, against whom there's evidence out the ying-yang.

He was a Democrat in a strong blue state with a Democrat governor. They could make an example out of him with pretty minimal risk of losing his seat.

This post speaks to Josh's point. Your assumption is that Matt Gaetz wasn't charged because there's nothing to the allegations. Not because of anything nefarious.

Menendez is being investigated, and it is being reported on, and it is very likely going to result in his dismissal, despite the nefarious Democrats and press.

The double-standard in your assumptions is obvious.

Point taken on the Al Franken allegations. But again, if the Democrats really wanted them swept under the rug, how were they reported in the first place?

I think Democrats regret Franken's resignation now because Trump has changed the standard for that sort of thing. Sexual impropriety is apparently no longer a disqualifier for political service.

other hand...

But I don't think anyone in '98 gets away with "grab 'em by the pussy" or having an extramarital affair with a pornstar.

differently by the women in Congress at almost the same time.

Franken had to leave because of what was happening outside of politics at that time. No Harvey Weinstein et al and he skates easily through it.

And I don't think the press coverage is equivalent at all.

You're the one assuming Gaetz did something worth being charged for.

I haven't heard anything about the (ongoing) Gaetz investigation since the initial charges. Similar to Menendez. If I go search for news, I can find it.

Why do you feel that the Gaetz investigation has received more attention? I have heard nothing about it. I chose it because it was the latest non-Trump GOP member I could think of that was put under investigation.

Its been pretty widely reported that should Trump get a second term, he and his operatives will move to eliminate civil service protections from thousands of government jobs. Since its becoming more and more apparent that Trump = GOP, you can link that to a party plan as well.

This would make exponentially more people in fear for their jobs, most of which not very high paying to begin with. The experience and professionalism of civil servants allows most departments to operate effectively across administrations. While the unit heads can be politically appointed, the meat and potatoes of the operations are still run by experienced professionals. Eliminate the civil service protection and we become even a bigger mess.

Instead of good, educated commentary, we'll have Starburns on here spewing the company line to ensure his job security.

I worked in OSD policy when former Pres. Trump created the "Schedule F" employee group which would have converted most policy positions into "at will" employees who could be fired without cause (similar to Schedule C or political appointees). While it caused a stir and some discussion I do remember the opinion was mixed as to whether it was a good thing. Most thought it would be fine if you knew going into the hiring process that you were filling an "at will" position. Most also thought that if the number of positions re-classified was too large the ability of the bureaucracy to limit the impact of changes of party would be diminished. That could be a good or bad thing depending on your view of the Federal bureaucracy.

I don't know if I buy the argument it would stop people from dissenting on bad policy, I see almost none of that anyway. Most civil servants recognize the legitimacy of the President and the President's political appointees and do what they are told.

On a separate but related topic, virtually every manager I've ever talked to in my 30+ years in Federal Service says it is too hard to fire a Federal employee. That leads to bloat, poor performance, low morale, and complacency. There is definitely room to remove some civil service protections that would vastly improve the efficiency of the Federal bureaucracy.

I also think there were plenty of people at the IRS that weren't willing to do anything that would help Donald Trump and were willing to drag their feet as long as they could to make that happen. Obviously they're not going to stand up and say they did it, because that would mean the IRS actually is politicized, and we can't have that.

How convenient. And we can know they simply fear for their jobs, and not that they are telling truth to power, because they disagree with the assertions put forward by the witnesses you credit. If his claims are true, they should lose their jobs. Thus, his claim must be true and their claims must be false.

I hope you never have a subordinate allege you did something wrong. Even more, I hope no one would decide its veracity based on the logic in your post.

Like I said, you believe what aligns with your worldview and preexisting biases. Your "I've seen them up close and know better than you what Democrats can do" comment confirms my point. You aren't objectively assessing these facts and reaching a conclusion. You are operating with a preexisting lens that Democrats are dangerous and capable of getting away with horrible things. And then you are finding support for that predisposition. It's no problem to dismiss all the evidence that contradicts your conclusion. It must be wrong because it doesn't align with your starting point, which was that you already know Democrats are capable of horrible things.

And if it comes out they didn't do their jobs due to a political reason, those jobs will be in jeopardy.

They all have to be lying because they (1) didn't do their jobs for political reasons, and (2) they'd lose their jobs if anyone found out.

You can't believe both the account you believe and the contradictory account multiple others have told are true. And you've picked one based on a rather odd view that the accusations must be true and any denial of them is proof that they're true because the deniers just want to cover their tracks and save their jobs.

I say "odd" there. But I don't actually think it's that odd. I think it reflects a bias, which I think your own accounting confirms.

Ireland for a few days so am going to choose to say we agree to disagree on this one have a good rest of your week and here is hoping the Sox can learn to protect a freaking four run lead.

Lay some good groundwork for La K's and my trip in two weeks