This man has been investigating Hunter for Five years... Ask yourself why?
Newsweek
"Numerous Republicans and pundits are questioning U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's Friday appointment of U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel to oversee the yearslong investigation involving Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.
An attorney from Delaware, Weiss has been overseeing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) probe into Hunter Biden since it was launched in 2018 after being appointed to his position a year prior by former President Donald Trump. In June, Weiss—who was retained by the Biden administration—charged the president's son with failure to pay federal income taxes and illegally possessing a firearm.
Weiss asked Garland for special counsel status in the case on Tuesday, according to the attorney general. Speculation as to why Weiss made the request is partially derived from the most recent legal twist involving the president's son who reportedly planned to plead guilty last month to federal tax violations in exchange for two misdemeanors and no prosecution for a felony gun charge due to his history of substance abuse.
However, the so-called "sweetheart deal" as coined by conservatives fell through when U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is presiding over the case in Wilmington, Delaware, asked if the deal offered Hunter Biden blanket immunity from prosecution in his plea dealings or only for his tax offenses. Both sides offered different interpretations of the plea, leading to a "null and void" agreement.
Attorney and legal scholar Jonathan Turley told Newsweek via email on Friday following the announcement that an issue remains due to recent testimony of two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers last month before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.
In that hearing, Supervisory IRS Special Agent Gary Shapley and IRS Criminal Investigator Joseph Ziegler testified that the Hunter Biden investigation had been mishandled and allegedly stymied by the DOJ and Biden officials.
"For those IRS agents, this seems a lot like sending 'Shoeless Joe' Jackson back into the game after telling him, 'Say it ain't so, Joe!'" Turley said. "Garland again had the chance to take a bold step to restore public trust in his department."
Turley continued: "He could have appointed a new and unimpeachable special counsel and expand the mandate to include the broader influence peddling scandal. He did neither. The immediate impact will be to insulate Weiss from questioning by Congress."
Weiss pushed back against claims of DOJ retaliation, going as far as to write a letter early last month to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican.
"First, the Department of Justice did not retaliate against 'an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Criminal Supervisory Special Agent and whistleblower, as well as his entire investigative team...for making protected disclosures to Congress,'" Weiss wrote.
He also rejected Shapley's notion that the DOJ and not Weiss had authority over the probe.
In a June 7 letter, Weiss wrote that he has "ultimate authority over this matter," extending to decisions as to "where, when and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution."
Garland said on Friday that Weiss being appointed special counsel includes that aforementioned authority, in addition to wider jurisdiction that extends beyond Delaware.
"First, David Weiss said he didn't have the power he needed and wanted special counsel status," Jordan wrote Friday on X, formerly Twitter. "Then, he said he had all the power he needs. Now, he gets special counsel status because he didn't really have the power he needs? Something's not right."
The GOP-led House Oversight Committee wrote on X that Garland's move is part of a coverup aimed to discredit the "Committee's mounting evidence of President Joe Biden's role in his family's schemes selling 'the brand' for millions of dollars to foreign nationals."
Representative James Comer, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Oversight Committee, has led a consistent investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family based on alleged financial dealings with foreign nationals.
Comer wrote on X that the DOJ "is trying to stonewall congressional oversight" from the American people."
A spokesperson for Comer declined to comment further to Newsweek, instead referring to Comer's post.
The White House, which also declined to comment to Newsweek, issued a memo on Friday prior to Garland's announcement that in its view detailed Comer's undermining of credibility as it pertains to the ongoing investigation.
"Comer has told big lies and small ones, from repeatedly peddling debunked allegations in his relentless attempts to smear Joe Biden, to trafficking in fringe conspiracy theories, to reportedly lying about something as basic as showing up to a transcribed interview with a witness," wrote Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, criticized the appointment as an affront to the American public.
"This action by Biden's DOJ cannot be used to obstruct congressional investigations or whitewash the Biden family corruption," McCarthy posted on X on Friday. "If Weiss negotiated the sweetheart deal that couldn't get approved, how can he be trusted as a Special Counsel?"
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said the move was likely made to shut down the federal investigation.
"We're not gonna let this go," Graham said Friday on Fox News. "Mr. Weiss, you're not off the hook. This Friday afternoon gambit is not gonna work. We're going to continue to ask questions about the biggest sweetheart deal in the history of America."
https://www.newsweek.com/david-weiss-ap … ns-1819274
This is the height of hypocrisy. Republicans are now crying that Garland did exactly what they asked for?
Republicans called for a special counsel on Hunter Biden. Now that they have one, they’re pretending something nefarious is going on?
They hand picked this prosecutor. He had overwhelming support.
Republicans have been demanding for months that the DOJ appoint him special counsel status. And now that the department has, the GOP is…throwing a fit. All I can say is, predictable.
Weiss hasn't even wrapped up his investigation or given a final formal report, yet Republicans want him axed?
Garland has absolutely rolled over for Republicans at every turn, giving them everything they want and now what's wanted? Another hand-picked prosecutor? And what happens when that one doesn't produce the intended result? Another? As a tax paying citizen, I say enough is enough.
What are Republicans claiming are actual grounds to dismiss this man? Particularly since he hasn't even concluded the investigation and provided a report?
And as far as Lindsey Graham, HOLY HYPOCRISY.
He was one of 32 senators who just months ago said it is “important” that Mr Weiss receive special counsel status to “allow him to investigate an appropriate scope of potentially criminal conduct, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and provide additional assurances to the American people that the Hunter Biden is free from political influence.”
In my opinion, it was a necessary move by Garland to place the investigation outside of the department.
Republicans about face on Weiss is disingenuous. After months of calling for this, their objection makes it clear that they will stop at nothing to weaponize Congress to interfere with an ongoing investigation.
"This is the height of hypocrisy. Republicans are now crying that Garland did exactly what they asked for?"
Really, after becoming aware of what the two IRS whistleblowers said about Weiss, not to mention the sheer fact he has been investigating Hunter for 5 years, and came up with a non-precedented plea deal. That precipitated the judge to become concerned that the agreement included a non-prosecution clause for crimes outside of the gun charge.
It is very possible Weiss will no longer be available to give testimony in regard to the whistleblower's claims.
Garlend's appointment of Weiss is once again a clear weaponization of Garland, in my view. It would be hard to even consider any other reason than a cheap political ploy on the part of this DOJ/White House. We need one problem addressed before he creates another --- he needs to be called before Congress and answer the questions in regard to what the IRS WBs have accused him of sharing with them, as as well as 6 others in the meeting.
This AG is clearly protecting Biden's. I could not be more sure of anything.
In terms of Independence and transparency, on what grounds would Garland have to deny Weiss request to become be granted special prosecutor?
Aren't many jumping to irrational conclusions about his investigation before it is even over or a final report written up? We all know Justice Department policy says, don't tell people in the public what you're doing exactly before you decide to file criminal charges. Policy is not to talk about an ongoing investigation.
As special counsel, he's going to operate outside of day-to-day supervision from the DOJ. Free from their influence. It gives him increased authority. How is that a negative?
Again, Weiss was appointed by Trump, hand-picked by Barr and accepted overwhelmingly and with glowing commentary by Republicans.
How is the elevation to special counsel (something Republicans demanded) a move by Garland to protect the Bidens?
Why was Weiss appointed to begin with? Are we really to believe that Bill Barr hand picked someone he believed would go easy on Biden?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I feel pretty certain at this point that when the man's final report comes out it's going to reveal a whole lot of nothing and that's why Republicans want him gone before he can write that report. They want a new guy so that they can draw this out, keep it going. Keeping the smoke and mirror show along with the continued stream of uncorroborated allegations running through the election.
Since the GOP is saddled with Trump, they have to somehow make Biden appear to be as much of a criminal.
"This AG is clearly protecting Biden's. I could not be more sure of anything."
I completely agree with you Sharlee and with Senator Ted Cruz, "camouflage and cover up".
Cruz conveniently forgot to mention that he was one of the senators involved in hand-picking Weiss.
This Weiss guy really pulled the wool over Republicans? Over all of your senators in 2018 and Bill Barr?
I must ask what does Weiss being appointed by Trump or Ted Cruz voting for him, really have to do with what this man does? I assume you voted for Biden, should I blame you for all of what I see as his failures?
Your logic escapes me. Yes as Biden pulled the wool over many Americans' eyes if I were to adopt your logic. Your reasoning totally escapes me.
It appears to me that Republicans chose this prosecutor very carefully and even very recently advocated for him to be named a special counsel. But in light of him not coming up with the smoking gun Republicans now want him fired even though his investigation is not over and final report has not been given.
Why are Republicans souring on the man they hired? He quite literally has not even finished his job. If Republicans felt he was competent for the job when they tapped him, then why isn't he competent to finish?
Republicans have literally been given everything they want in terms of this Biden investigation. Beginning with Garland leaving the man in place to begin with which as we know rarely happens. You've been given the special counsel designation that you asked for and despite all of this Republicans are unhappy? Only because the man isn't giving you what you want because in all actuality it's probably not there.
Yes, the Republicans in Washington at one point were asking for a special counsel to investigate Hunter, Joe, and the entire Biden family. I never heard them ask that it be Weiss.
At any rate, the more that is surfacing shows Weiss is compromised.
I think the floodgates have opened, and we can expect many more Whistleblowers to step up, and share.
"Over 30 Senate Republicans called for the investigation of President Joe Biden’s (D) son, Hunter Biden, due to his documented nefarious actions including alleged felonious offenses. The GOP members, including Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland asserting that U.S. Attorney David Weiss be given “special counsel protections and authorities to conduct the investigation into Hunter Biden.”
Quoting from the letter..
"Given the politicization of the DOJ under your watch and the importance of avoiding any appearance of impropriety, the undersigned request that you provide US Attorney Weiss the full protections and authorities of a special counsel,” wrote the GOP Senators. “This is one important action that you can take that will go a long way in restoring faith in our governmental institutions.”
This is absolutely ridiculously ludicrous, laughable and hypocritical.
It's pure flip flopping.
For republicans, it was so very important to have Weiss given the title of special counsel. That has been clearly documented. But now they are whining because Garland went through with it? What grounds did Garland have to deny Weiss when he asked for the designation? Garland has done his job but Republicans look awfully disingenuous on this one.
It's a shame many Americans don't get the full picture of any issue because they're trapped in a news bubble feeding them bits and pieces.
I see absolutely zero evidence that Weiss is compromised. Especially since he has not given a formal final report.
https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/30-gop … nter-biden
That letter was written on September 19, 2022 almost a year ago.
“He was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a press conference.
Yet the two whistleblowers claim Weiss claimed he tried to indict Hunter in Cal, and was refused, and then headed to DC to indict, and got the same.
It appears Weiss is lying or the two IRS WB are lying. The liar is most likely Garland.
Yes, I just read Ted's take, and could not agree more. It will be hard for left media even to try to spin this one.
This corruption is literally being perpetrated right before our eyes. I could not be more disgusted.
Oh, My another firsthand whistleblower... Making similar claims that IRS WBs made... In regard to not being allowed to question Hunter. Thank Goodness Fox is reporting these developments.
HUNTER BIDEN Published August 14, 2023 9:00am EDT
FBI agent says Biden transition team, Secret Service were tipped off on 2020 plans to interview Hunter Biden
Comer says this reveals DOJ 'misconduct' in Biden criminal investigation under US Attorney Weiss
EXCLUSIVE: An FBI supervisory special agent told congressional investigators that the Biden transition team and Secret Service headquarters were tipped off in December 2020 about a planned interview of Hunter Biden – a tip-off that resulted in the interview of then-President-elect Biden’s son not taking place at all, even while he was labeled the target of the yearslong federal investigation.
The agent, who worked for the FBI for more than two decades and retired from the bureau last year, participated in a transcribed interview under oath behind closed doors with the House Oversight Committee last month.
Fox News Digital exclusively obtained the transcript of the FBI supervisory special agent’s interview, which took place on July 17.
His testimony came amid whistleblower allegations that prosecutorial decisions made throughout the Hunter Biden investigation, led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, were influenced by politics. IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley testified that the Biden transition team and the Secret Service were "tipped off" about the planned interview of Hunter Biden. The agent corroborates Shapley's testimony.
Attorney General Merrick Garland last week sought to clear the cloud of alleged politicization from the investigation into the president’s son, who pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and a felony gun charge after an orchestrated plea deal with the Justice Department fell apart in federal court on grounds of unconstitutionality.
Garland on Friday appointed Weiss as special counsel in the investigation into Hunter Biden and any other matters that arose or may arise from that probe.
That appointment has left Republicans and critics of Garland outraged and with questions as to how the same prosecutor who has been leading the investigation for more than four years – and accused of allowing politics to influence decisions – could now lead the probe with a newfound perception of independence from the Biden Justice Department.
"Tipping off the transition team and not being able to interview Hunter Biden as planned are just a couple of examples that reveal the Justice Department’s misconduct in the Biden criminal investigation that occurred under U.S. Attorney Weiss’ watch," House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.
"The Oversight Committee has no confidence in U.S. Attorney Weiss as special counsel, given his inability to prevent the Biden transition team from being contacted, and federal agents were not permitted to interview Hunter Biden as planned," Comer continued. "Under the Weiss-led investigation, investigators were prevented from taking steps that could have led to Joe Biden, the statute of limitations was allowed to run with respect to certain felonies, and the U.S. attorney’s office sought to give Hunter Biden an unprecedented sweetheart plea deal."
The FBI supervisory special agent’s testimony highlighted some of the decisions made throughout the probe – including steps to interview Hunter Biden, the target of the investigation – and how they differed from any other investigations the agent had been involved in for 20 years serving at the FBI.
According to the transcript obtained by Fox News Digital, the FBI agent testified that years into the investigation, which began in November 2018, it was time to interview Hunter Biden.
REPUBLICANS BLAST 'COVER-UP' OF HUNTER BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTMENT: 'SOMETHING’S NOT RIGHT'
The "initial plan" was to "make approaches of multiple witnesses, to include subject Hunter Biden, on December 8th" 2020 – weeks after the presidential election.
"The initial plan was to have the local field office of the Secret Service be notified the morning of to diminish opportunities for anybody else to be notified. I was working with my management on that, as well as headquarters – our FBI headquarters," the agent testified.
The night before, on Dec. 7, 2020, the agent said he was "informed that FBI headquarters had contacted Secret Service headquarters and had made a notification at that time, or somewhere around that time on the evening of the 7th."
"That we sought to interview Hunter Biden."
The agent said he believes the Biden transition team was notified of the intent to interview Hunter Biden as well, and he said he was "upset" when he learned of that communication.
"I felt it was people that did not need to know about our intent," he said. "I believe that the Secret Service had to be notified for our safety, for lack of confusion, for deconfliction, which we would do in so many other cases, but I didn’t understand why the initial notification."
The agent explained that by "transition team" he was referring to "when one party or, you know, president-elect, you know, is in that president-elect phase, their team of advisers or appointees or whomever are considered the transition team."
"How big and robust that is, I don’t – I don’t have any individual name or roles," he said.
The next day, the morning of the proposed interview with Hunter Biden, the agent testified that he was notified by his assistant special agent in charge that "we would not even be allowed to approach the house – that the plan, as told to us, was that my information would be given to the Secret Service, to whom I don’t know exactly, and, you know, my name, my contact, you know, my cellphone, for example, with the notification that we would like to talk to Hunter Biden and that I was not to go near the house and to stand by."
Majority counsel asked him if, in his two decades of working at the FBI, he had "ever been told" to "wait outside of a target’s home until they contacted you?"
"Not that I recall," the agent said. "I mean, there have been times where we waited for maybe something else operationally to happen, but no, not from the point of view of the target, the subject of the investigation."
The agent said he and his assistant "weren’t allowed to go to the house" and had to wait "a block or two away."
"We waited a period of time. You know, I will add, it was frustrating, and I know supervisor No. 2 was very frustrated, and I understood that frustration," he said, adding that they did have another interview to conduct.
"After a certain period of time, and I don’t exactly recall how long, we transitioned to make an attempt to interview another – or a witness as part of the investigation," he said.
When asked if he was ever able to interview Hunter Biden, the agent said, "I was not, no."
During the interview, minority counsel questioned the agent on whether he believed the change of plans with regard to the Dec. 8, 2020, interview "was driven by political considerations."
"I couldn’t answer that," the agent said. "I don’t know why the change or why we were instructed of the changes."
When asked if that was ever his "view," the agent said that he "understood the reason why, potentially why Secret Service headquarters was notified because FBI headquarters, you know, has a relationship with Secret Service headquarters, so I could understand that, you know, so to foster an ongoing good working relationship that one was not blindsided by the other."
"As far as the other, I don’t know," the agent said, referring to the Biden transition team. "I don’t know why that would have happened."
When pressed again on whether he had any "knowledge that it happened for political reasons," the agent testified, "I don’t – do not have any knowledge of that."
The agent was asked if he has "ever known U.S. Attorney David Weiss to make prosecutorial decisions based upon political influence,"
"No," the agent said.
He did testify, however, that he disagreed with investigative steps in the probe – specifically related to the interview of Hunter Biden – but told investigators that "the decision was made, and I moved on."
Meanwhile, Comer told Fox News Digital that the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means committees "will continue our investigation into the Justice Department’s two-tiered system of justice and hold bad actors accountable."
Alan Dershowitz
"Chiming in on the appointment of Hunter Biden’s special counsel, a prominent Harvard law professor is warning that the U.S. attorney leading the investigation is in "clear violation" of the Department of Justice’s regulations.
"It's illegal. The regulation provides clearly that special counsel have to come from outside the government for good reason. What's so special about a special counsel is that he doesn't have to answer to the present administration, he's independent," Harvard University law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said on "Mornings with Maria" Monday.
"But if you have somebody who serves at the pleasure of the attorney general, and obviously as the U.S. attorney serves his pleasures [as] part of the administration, that person shouldn't be serving," he continued. "It's in clear violation of the regulation itself."
On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed U.S. attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the Hunter Biden probe investigating the alleged Biden family business dealings. Weiss had also previously led the prosecution in Hunter Biden's tax and gun charges.
Garland had said that Weiss had told him that "in his judgment, his investigation has reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel, and he asked to be appointed."
Before Weiss' move into the new role, congressional Republicans blasted his proposed plea agreement for Hunter Biden as a "sweetheart" deal, and critics alleged the Department of Justice is operating under a two-tier justice system — a charge that Garland has denied.
Dershowitz expressed his agreement with GOP critics who claim something isn’t quite right about the special counsel appointment.
"What I would have liked to find out is what David Weiss actually did, not what he was authorized to do. What did he actually investigate? Did he look into Burisma? Did he look into Ukraine, China, or did he merely satisfy himself by looking at the gun charge, which is a minor misdemeanor, and looking at the two tax charges?" Dershowitz posited. "I think it was the wrong person to pick for this job."
Prominent Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have called for special counsels to be opened on President Biden and his administration.
Though Dershowitz is a self-proclaimed Democrat who noted his intent to vote for Biden again in 2024, he did not contest an investigation into the president’s involvement with his son’s suspicious overseas transactions.
"I'm a Democrat," the professor said Monday, "I really do think a special counsel has to be appointed to investigate whether or not President Biden had any connections to his son's illicit dealings."
"I think there's, right now, enough cause from these whistleblowers and these other allegations to have somebody outside the government look to see whether or not President Biden had any connections to his son's shenanigans," Dershowitz added.
"I hope not. I think not. But it's not my opinion that counts, it's the objective evidence that counts."
Dershowitz is muddying the waters
I find it not surprising that he is a frequent talking head on Fox and newsmax.
Weiss was appointed under statutory authority. As far as I can see, no special counsel has been appointed under 600.3. Durham was appointed in the exact manner as Weiss As was Hur. Meaning they were all appointed "pursuant to the attorney general statutory authority"
Absolutely nothing illegal.
You can focus on 600.3 but it is a regulation not a statute.
You can look at 509, 510, 515. These are the statutes, laws passed by Congress. Simply put, Garland used the statutory powers of the AG.
Dershowitz is going into the weeds here, fairly confident that a very small number of Americans will be able to figure it out. Fox will never give you this information but the truth is out there. Why Dershowitz would put out an incomplete explanation is beyond me.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/st … al-counsel
I'd use the actual law citations but pretty sure not many here would care to look but they are there for those that do.
I have faith that Dershowitz can be fully trusted to supply information on the law, especially any issue that includes the Constitution.
He has been giving interview after interview on this subject. Youtube is a good place to check a few out.
The information that he has supplied is correct it is just not the full picture. He stops short of explaining, in full, the powers of an attorney general. He explained regulatory but omitted statutory. This information is very easily verified. Like I said, no AG has appointed a special counsel is strictly under 600.3 since 2003. Barr appointed Durham in the exact same manner as Weiss. Not surprising that he wouldn't give the full picture as Fox viewers wouldn't find it very interesting.
This really isn't complicated legal stuff either. Yelling "corrupt" over and over again is not persuasive outside of Fox News.
Frankly, that outlet is insulting to the intelligence of many Americans.
Again, if you'd like to understand the powers of the AG in the appointment of a special counsel, you need only look at the statutes. I've also provided a very clear link up above that explains the use of attorney general Barr's statutory powers in appointing Durham. Shame on Dershowitz for giving a half-assed explanation
Is this thread an example of the left being more willing to get their hair on fire about media reports than the right? Asking for a friend...
Interesting question. Keep in mind this story or issue is very current, it's not a subject that has lingered for many years and is continually repeated ad nauseam.
Actually, this thread is a good example of my theory. One can see this thread drew few that were willing to leave a comment. Hence left is not really interested in anything Biden related. They prefer to stick with anything Trump-related. I see no real hair on fire from the left in regard to the Weiss news. I see no hair on fire in regard to this subject from left or right. Note I drew no right-leaning users.
This conversation has been mainly between Willowarbor, and myself. This user, in my view, handles themself civil and offers an interesting debate. I assume she leans left, her intelligence is very notable. She certainly shared her views and took the time to present info on how she came to her view. Our views just differed. I did not disrespect her view and went back and forth until I felt we were beating a dead horse. I would think that person is independent, that leans a bit left. She or I have let our hair become ablaze.
So, I think you may take note as a conservative --- see my last comment
(before you asked your question) I backed away and avoided possible confrontation. No becoming uncivil, just walking away.
What's your take on the Weiss controversy?
It speaks to my point, I don't see it as a controversy. The right makes things into controversies that are routine.
Election changes during state emergencies - always accepted, until Donald Trump came along
Vaccines - accepted until the GOP had an issue with the one for Covid
A president returning classified documents after leaving office - no brainer, but the GOP wants an exception for their cult leader now
The GOP just invents controversies. They are like the drama queen from high school who tried to stir people up because she lacked the intelligence to have an actual conversation about topics. Back then, we tried to avoid that girl. Kind of hard in today's time when the majority of that party has adopted the drama queen mindset.
"Election changes during state emergencies - always accepted, until Donald Trump came along"
Meaning states routinely violated election laws when they decided they were in an "emergency"? Can you give examples?
"Vaccines - accepted until the GOP had an issue with the one for Covid"
Accepted? As in "I won't subject MY children to evil vaccines that produce autism in them"? That kind of "accepted"?
"A president returning classified documents after leaving office - no brainer, but the GOP wants an exception for their cult leader now"
You mean as in using a hammer on subpoenaed computer hard drives so they could not be checked? That kind of "returning"? (Yes, I know she wasn't president).
Oh my --- I must share in regard to your sentiments in regard to vaccines, even at the cost of dating myself, I personally remember problems with trusting various vaccines.
Certainly, over the years, there have been several instances where segments of the US population have questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In the 1950s
During the development of the polio vaccine in the 1950s there were great concerns about its safety and potential side effects. Many parents worried that the vaccine might cause polio itself, which lead to a decrease in vaccine acceptance. The Cutter Incident in 1955, where a batch of improperly inactivated polio vaccine caused cases of polio, also contributed to the vaccine problem.
MMR Vaccine and Autism In the late 1990s, a controversial study by Andrew Wakefield suggested a link between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. This led to a significant decrease in MMR vaccine uptake and fueled concerns about vaccine safety. However, the study was later discredited, and numerous subsequent studies found no credible evidence linking vaccines to autism.
2000s. Thimerosal and Vaccine Ingredients During the 2000s, concerns were raised about the use of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, in vaccines. Some believed that thimerosal could be linked to developmental disorders like autism.
The 2010s saw a rise in anti-vaccine movements and the spread of misinformation through social media platforms. Groups and individuals questioned the overall safety of vaccines, claimed they were linked to various health issues, and raised fears about vaccine mandates infringing on personal freedoms. This movement led to pockets of lower vaccination rates.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought about a new wave of vaccine skepticism. Some people expressed concerns about the rapid development of vaccines, potential side effects, and long-term safety. Lack of longer studies.
It's important to note vaccine hesitancy has existed in various forms throughout the decades.
Shocked you would bring up the document issue. Biden took and kept documents in unsecured places. Come on... We have no idea when he took them, what they pertained to, or why he took them.
So, appears Biden had a jump on Trump taking documents.
Pretty sure this time around, it was the right undermining vaccines - not just many Americans. Their main media network went anti-vax and their party leader hid the fact that he had gotten vaccinated from his supporters. Meanwhile, every other living president did a PSA to support vaccines.
And why are you shocked I brought up the document case? Only the right sees the charge for obstruction of justice for a former president trying to keep them after leaving office as 'weaponization.' Obstruction that neither Pence nor Biden did when they discovered they were in possession of documents. Nor did Pence or Biden wave them around at their golf courses. Nice attempt to shift the goalposts away from what Trump is actually charged with. Typical.
Actually, Willow and I were discussing the subject of the thread --- you reverted to all that is Trump. I was polite and just pointed out that Americans have exhibited problems with various vaccines for decades.
I have no intention to change my view on the fact that Biden also took documents, and kept them. No, he did not wave them around, he left them in his garage in an unsecured location that I would assume just about anyone that cut his lawn could have a look-see. One man's act does not in any respect negate the others because one man did not wave the documents around. We have no idea what Biden may have done with the documents he took and carelessly kept. No idea at all.
Ya know what Val, you are more intelligent to defend Biden on this one.
But, whatever. No problem here. I am past arguing about anything on this forum.
In this case, Willow and I were having a discussion and you jumped into it. A discussion that was equally critical of the GOP and not 'all that is Trump.' I purposely avoided your post.
And it's easy to defend Biden on this one as the right only compares the taking of documents to Trump and omits Pence. Biden and Pence both had documents and both returned them when discovered. None of the three were charged with taking documents. It was the obstruction in returning them that is the illegal act - which only one person did. So it's an easy defense. And as you note, the right has no proof or idea if Biden did anything with the documents at all.
It's easy to avoid tangents if one just ignores posts that are not on the main topic or stays out of conversations not directed to them.
"It's easy to avoid tangents if one just ignores posts that are not on the main topic or stays out of conversations not directed to them."
Absolutely true. It's also a wise choice to avoid interacting with individuals whose ideologies and mindset greatly differ from your own.
"Absolutely true. It's also a wise choice to avoid interacting with individuals whose ideologies and mindset greatly differ from your own."
Sharlee, while we are different in outlook for reasons that are not always understood, do we cease communications with one another because of it?
Cred,
I always strive to be straightforward. In recent years, I've learned that picking the right battles in conversations truly contributes to my overall well-being. Nowadays, it's evident that many people hold strong beliefs and opinions. So, I question the value of engaging in discussions that only lead to frustration for everyone involved. For me, communication is rooted in the mutual respect we share. I feel you may share this sentiment.
However, in today's world, it has become apparent to me, many appear to care very little about mutual respect. I hope to work at being the exception.
Shar
I don't believe that we can ever change each other's minds, but it doesn't hurt to understand the ideas that drive the other side, if for an education if nothing else. Yes, indeed, I share the sentiment.
I am going to challenge the other side, but still keep it all above board.
Cred,
I feel through the last few years of turmoil, and division I have come to understand the "other side's views, and ideas", with good clarity.
Yes, I have spent time challenging, and learning these views, and ideas, and yet, find no common ground. I have clearly at this point taken a side, as I can safely assume you have.
At this point, I see little it destructive to have much more than a bit of a back-and-forth with those that don't share my thoughts. It seems very futile to do so.
I think it is smarter if entering a discussion to listen to the other's view, respond with my view, and if no common ground at all is recognized --- I step away. I think it is always beneficial, respectful, not to mention fair to listen to others' views. But I stop beating a dead horse.
Can you not agree that entering or prolonging a frustrating line of thought can lead to nowhere, but frustration? Do you see much meshing of the minds here on HPs? IMO, It is rare that left and right come to much common ground.
Much of the time we are just smacking each other with digs, and sometimes snarky BS. (which admittedly is not unusual on chats)
In my view, you and I have come to know each other and get on well. You, never pick up a stick to beat that dead horse. After we share, we move on. I find we share the ability to respect a line drawn.
Shar
Yeah, we are quite different at the fundamental levels.
I have been around here long enough where most of the HP participants know what I think, believe and why. Who could have missed my world famous "rants"? The aggregate of my comments here over the years would be the equivalent to a small novel. Most of you could probably have a pretty good estimate as to how I would come down on any hypothetical issue. I have always been able to explain why I take the positions that I do.
When it comes to the other side, I can know the whats, but it is the whys that I am trying to ferret out. Each side appears irrational to the other side. What is so frightening today is the extent of polarization between Right and left that is now a chasm bigger than the Grand Canyon. While there was common ground 50 years ago, it is hard to find now. That is the new reality, and the question has risen to a point as to whether it can be resolved peacefully.
I am always content to leave the carcass to Rest In Peace.
" It's also a wise choice to avoid interacting with individuals whose ideologies and mindset greatly differ from your own. "
Heaven forbid one should ever change one's mind.
Well, that would be your view. However, I did not elaborate in my response on the sentiment to Val. Cred questioned my thought, I did elaborate on my thoughts in that reply. Here is my comprehensive
"Cred,
I feel through the last few years of turmoil, and division I have come to understand the "other side's views, and ideas", with good clarity.
Yes, I have spent time challenging, and learning these views, and ideas, and yet, find no common ground. I have clearly at this point taken a side, as I can safely assume you have.
At this point, I see little it destructive to have much more than a bit of a back-and-forth with those that don't share my thoughts. It seems very futile to do so.
I think it is smarter if entering a discussion to listen to the other's view, respond with my view, and if no common ground at all is recognized --- I step away. I think it is always beneficial, respectful, not to mention fair to listen to others' views. But I stop beating a dead horse.
Can you not agree that entering or prolonging a frustrating line of thought can lead to nowhere, but frustration? Do you see much meshing of the minds here on HPs? IMO, It is rare that left and right come to much common ground.
Much of the time we are just smacking each other with digs, and sometimes snarky BS. (which admittedly is not unusual on chats)
In my view, you and I have come to know each other and get on well. You, never pick up a stick to beat that dead horse. After we share, we move on. I find we share the ability to respect a line drawn.
Shar"
Yes, to address your comment --- most defiantly one can come around to changing one's view. I answered in the here and now.
Val: What you are describing is a two-way conversation not a discussion open to anyone like discussions are here on HP. They may go where they will with comments directed to no one or anyone participating.
Today ---
"Special Counsel David Weiss on Tuesday strongly rejected claims that his office "reneged" on a plea deal for the president’s son to resolve federal tax and gun charges, while stressing that agreement is "not in effect."
Weiss, in a filing Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, fired back at Hunter Biden’s legal team, which, over the weekend, filed a motion stating that "the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement."
"First, the Government did not ‘renege’ on the ‘previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement,’ as the Defendant inaccurately asserts in the first substantive sentence of his response," Weiss wrote in the filing, adding that Hunter Biden "chose to plead not guilty at the hearing on July 26, 2023, and U.S. Probation declined to approve the proposed diversion agreement at that hearing. Thus, neither proposed agreement entered into effect."
Sunday, August 20, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/p … -deal.html
by Sharlee 17 months ago
U.S. Rep. Greg Steube Files Articles of Impeachment Against Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., President of the United States, For High Crimes and Misdemeanors"118th Congress State of the Union Address, President Joe Biden – February 7, 2023WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.)...
by Sharlee 19 months ago
"Then on June 7, "“I want to make clear that, as the attorney general has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the...
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
The House Oversight Committee has asked Hunter Biden’s business associate Rob Walker testify before the panel, following information from subpoenaed financial documents revealing that he transferred more than $1 million to members of the Biden family after receiving a $3 million wire from a Chinese...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Now that Trump has announced he is running again, it seems he and all his Trumpers out there have ignored all the legal entanglements he has pending. I know as a master con-artist, he is very good at playing the victim and attacking those who oppose him, but there has to be accountability for...
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
Note: This is from a left-wing publication.FBI Document Reveals Biden Family’s International Bribery SchemeIn a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document,...
by Castlepaloma 13 months ago
1 day ago — House approves impeachment inquiry into President Biden as Republicans rally behind investigation.Sounds too good to be true. Considering Three presidents have been impeached, although none were convicted: Andrew Johnson was in 1868, Bill Clinton was in 1998, and Donald Trump twice, in...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |