I didn't watch Garland's presser, but Average Joe brought up a valid point: the Federal Regulations do require a Special Counsel to be "outside the US Government":
"§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation."
28 CFR 600.3 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-VI/part-600
David Weiss is the US Attorney for Delaware; surely that is not a position "outside the United States Government." Did Garland give any reason for straying from the regulation?
Personally, I don't see any need for a Special Counsel at all in this case, but if there is to be one named surely all the proper "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed. It does not appear Garland did so here.
" Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making".
That may be the issue right there.
Government agents know much less about people outside the government than those in the same sphere. There's tons of data about government officials that can be weighted and is is more easily accessible to someone like Garland vs. someone who's an outsider.
Think of it like getting someone outside of RHP to moderate the forums. They may be more impartial but you're not quite as sure who you're getting. You can research them all you want but you don't know them as well as someone on this site.
That said, rules are rules and that one in particular is there for a good reason. Garland should be following all proper protocols.
It is Ironic that if the situation were reversed Republicans would flaunt how they wouldn't give a damn about such rules and pick someone they knew would deliver the results they want.
@vivify saidIt appears this regulation was ignored, without right wing complaints, in the appointment of John Durham:
" Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making".
That may be the issue right there.
Government agents know much less about people outside the government than those in the same sphere. There's tons of data about government officials that can be weighted and is is more easily accessible to someone like Garland vs ...[text shortened]... ouldn't give a damn about such rules and pick someone they knew would deliver the results they want.
"Durham, 73, was appointed to serve as special counsel in October 2020 by then-Attorney General William Barr. He previously was the Justice Department’s top prosecutor in Connecticut – a position he was appointed to in 2017 and left in 2021."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/who-is-john-durham-special-counsel-trump-russia/index.html
@no1marauder saidExactly. This is not a real issue for people like Av Joe it's just a partisan talking point.
It appears this regulation was ignored, without right wing complaints, in the appointment of John Durham:
"Durham, 73, was appointed to serve as special counsel in October 2020 by then-Attorney General William Barr. He previously was the Justice Department’s top prosecutor in Connecticut – a position he was appointed to in 2017 and left in 2021."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/who-is-john-durham-special-counsel-trump-russia/index.html
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147478
@vivify saidDurham and Barr are not republican, they are swamp.
Exactly. This is not a real issue for people like Av Joe it's just a partisan talking point.
Technical rules are not the problem. Weiss (supposedly) had the power to investigate biden BEFORE, no restrictions.
Both Weiss and Garland lied about it.
They lied about that per the whistleblowers.
After 5 years of investigating Wiess was going to let biden of with a pat on the wrist, a judge put a stop to that.
This corruption is getting out of hand…The people see it.
@no1marauder saidWasn’t Weiss one of the architects of giving Biden’s son a get out of jail free card sweetheart deal, while letting some crimes time out without charge? Why would anyone think that this is nothing more than more of the same?
I didn't watch Garland's presser, but Average Joe brought up a valid point: the Federal Regulations do require a Special Counsel to be "outside the US Government":
"§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience t ...[text shortened]... all the proper "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed. It does not appear Garland did so here.
@mott-the-hoople saidBarr was handpicked by Trump, and Barr picked Durham.
Durham and Barr are not republican, they are swamp.
Are you saying Trump picks "swamp" to work for him?
@kellyjay saidThere was no "sweetheart deal" granting Hunter Biden general immunity besides the tax and gun charges: that's a persistent right wing talking point that can charitably called a "myth".
Wasn’t Weiss one of the architects of giving Biden’s son a get out of jail free card sweetheart deal, while letting some crimes time out without charge? Why would anyone think that this is nothing more than more of the same?
@no1marauder saidLetting known crimes time lapse through statute of limitations, charging for the lesser crimes to void the greater one is not something that the average citizen would receive.
There was no "sweetheart deal" granting Hunter Biden general immunity besides the tax and gun charges: that's a persistent right wing talking point that can charitably called a "myth".
@no1marauder saidSounds like he's a member of a State government not the US government
I didn't watch Garland's presser, but Average Joe brought up a valid point: the Federal Regulations do require a Special Counsel to be "outside the US Government":
"§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience t ...[text shortened]... all the proper "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed. It does not appear Garland did so here.
@no1marauder saidI think that there are at least 10 principles in all this mess, each of which should have a special counsel to find out what the hell they are up to, what the hell is going on.
I didn't watch Garland's presser, but Average Joe brought up a valid point: the Federal Regulations do require a Special Counsel to be "outside the US Government":
"§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience t ...[text shortened]... all the proper "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed. It does not appear Garland did so here.
Who was the last impt politician to use that worn-out phrase, " I promise transparency!!" Was it Biden?
Why did this 'special counsel' weeiss say he will follow the law? Does that not go without question? WHY would he say that? An honest transparent person, who is not trying to cover for Hunter, would not say that. He would subpoena the Bidens, for sure.
BTW, Trump may not be able to surmount some technicality, on Jan 6 issue, so you fellers may get your wish...... To have Biden as president, who will print another $6Trillion and so forth. I got my own money, thank god, but many people will start coming up short and that is when the true handlers come out of hiding and start setting up food lines, etc. And pod residences. Brrrrrrrrr
Y'all are fools.
@athousandyoung saidNo, US attorneys work for the US government. Typically they are assigned a geographical area which is either a State or part of a larger State.
Sounds like he's a member of a State government not the US government
Think of it like getting someone outside of RHP to moderate the forums. They may be more impartial but you're not quite as sure who you're getting. You can research them all you want but you don't know them as well as someone on this site.YOu say somethign about getting someone ooutside................BUT, you're not (quite sure) as to who you're getting.
i actually do not get your meaning, but assuming a person qualifies for the job, how would we have any say about what we hope or know he will act on? We are not supposed to. We are, indeed, NOT supposed to be concerned about how he will act.
We cannot have the slightest appearance of affecting their work.
@no1marauder saidLets say you are right, the Durham appointment was without question improper. Why don't you discuss this with Sonhoouse on another thread, rkight after his latest on flying saucers!!
It appears this regulation was ignored, without right wing complaints, in the appointment of John Durham:
"Durham, 73, was appointed to serve as special counsel in October 2020 by then-Attorney General William Barr. He previously was the Justice Department’s top prosecutor in Connecticut – a position he was appointed to in 2017 and left in 2021."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/who-is-john-durham-special-counsel-trump-russia/index.html
Today is August 2023. Time to do things right.
Each time I post, it is as if I am rolling a strike at the bowling alley.
No offense. 🙂