Then if true that begs the question why didn't he request it after being denied in California and DC? If he didn't think they were worthwhile cases in the first place why bother?
I don't think it actually does. I'm not going to go back and read through all the transcripts again to find every time they talked about it but I think it was inferred he wasn't being allowed special counsel status when they tried to charge him in the other states. I know wb2 used inferred specifically. And WB 1 said "We knew that President Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves did not support the investigation, but DOJ and United States Attorney Weiss allowed us to believe that he had some special authority to charge."
It sounds like it's possible they thought he was being denied that status because he wasn't being allowed to bring charges there. Instead he claims he could bring charges himself if he asked Garland for the status but instead he referred it to California an DC and when they declined he just wiped his hands of it and didn't tell them that. With the way he's answered questions to congress I don't see him going out of his way to explain to them this. He could have just let them infer he had been denied which seems to be his style.
There were six IRS witnesses in the meeting. The email confirms another non whistleblowers name and the New York Times independently confirmed that is what he told them in the meeting as well. Your podcast guest seemed to think he could have just been lying to the IRS agents to draw the heat off himself. It could be as simple as that why the whistleblowers thought there wasn't justice if true. But at the same time the blame comes back squarely on Weiss for lying to them in the first place.
"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."
An I.R.S. investigator’s testimony describing strains over the inquiry into President Biden’s son is at odds with the version laid out by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
www.nytimes.com
He went from being "granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges." before the testimony was released to. “I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter,” he wrote, referring to the section of federal law that defines the role of a special attorney." So he followed the process was denied and then declined to ask for authority?
Why didn't he say that in the first place instead of the limited statement he made that was then contradicted by the testimony? It's not lying but it wasn't the whole truth either. Just like I said after the first statement, It's a crafted legal letter.
Everyone is calling the Whistleblowers liars and ignoring how Weiss has rolled back part of his statement and it is still a he said she said thing. Only now there's additional confirmation from the Times that Weiss told the IRS agents that he "is not the deciding person." That still directly contradicts his later statement which was written with crystal clear legal intent.
Weiss started off