Garland names Trump appointee David Weiss Special Counsel in Hunter Biden Investigation

#77
#77
This is going to be awesome next year. There are going to be continual “leaks” or just basic innuendo connecting crackhead’s business to puddinhead and thus including him in the sphere of investigation by association while at the same time you have the other major party leading candidate dealing with multiple ongoing trials while campaigning. Every damn banana republic in the world be like

 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol and Orangeburst
#78
#78
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

F3RGIkXWoAEU_HF
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol and BreatheUT
#79
#79
Majors said:
All the media has to do it report objectively. MSM does not need to confuse opinions with facts. That’s where you get tribal.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Since the advent of social media, it has all become tribal. You are including Fox, News Max and OAN as mainstream, right? I realize you have no desire to accept the truth about Trump. Even with every reputable aide telling you the same things about him. Never mind about that. Everyone who has testified against Trump before the grand jury has been Trump appointed Republicans. Regardless of who reports it, it is fact.
 
#82
#82
hog88 said:
Durham was a DOJ AUSA when he was appointed special counsel.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this answers your post but Durham, as Mueller, were appointed special "assistants" not special counsels....

The Statutory Authority for Barr’s Appointment of Durham as Special Counsel

On Dec. 1, Attorney General William Barr announced that he had appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, as a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Though Barr appointed Durham formally on Oct. 19, he did not notify Congress until December. What statutory authority did Barr have to make this appointment? And how does that authority compare with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017?

Barr and Rosenstein, respectively, appointed Durham and Mueller pursuant to the same three statutes: 28 U.S.C § 509, § 510 and § 515. The first statute vests broad supervisory powers in the attorney general, while the second statute authorizes the attorney general to delegate his powers to subordinates. The third statute is the most important for present purposes. Section 515 empowers the attorney general to authorize a “special assistant”—though not a “special counsel”—to conduct “any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings.” Both the Durham and Mueller appointments contain the same, critical sentence: “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.” This provision will allow Durham to bring federal prosecutions during the Biden presidency.

Neither Durham nor Mueller was appointed pursuant to the special counsel regulations promulgated by the Clinton administration. Rather, both appointment orders indicate that some of these regulations, including “28 C.F.R. §§ 600.4 to 600.10 are applicable to the Special Counsel.” It is not entirely clear what “are applicable” means, as this issue was never tested in courts. But at a minimum, it is clear that Durham was not appointed pursuant to these regulations—in particular, because 28 C.F.R § 600.3 provides that “[t]he Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.” Durham would not meet these requirements because he is the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. Barr, therefore, could not have relied on these regulations.

(More at the above link)
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#83
#83
jmacvols1 said:
Not sure if this answers your post but Durham, as Mueller, were appointed special "assistants" not special counsels....

The Statutory Authority for Barr’s Appointment of Durham as Special Counsel

On Dec. 1, Attorney General William Barr announced that he had appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, as a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Though Barr appointed Durham formally on Oct. 19, he did not notify Congress until December. What statutory authority did Barr have to make this appointment? And how does that authority compare with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017?

Barr and Rosenstein, respectively, appointed Durham and Mueller pursuant to the same three statutes: 28 U.S.C § 509, § 510 and § 515. The first statute vests broad supervisory powers in the attorney general, while the second statute authorizes the attorney general to delegate his powers to subordinates. The third statute is the most important for present purposes. Section 515 empowers the attorney general to authorize a “special assistant”—though not a “special counsel”—to conduct “any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings.” Both the Durham and Mueller appointments contain the same, critical sentence: “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.” This provision will allow Durham to bring federal prosecutions during the Biden presidency.

Neither Durham nor Mueller was appointed pursuant to the special counsel regulations promulgated by the Clinton administration. Rather, both appointment orders indicate that some of these regulations, including “28 C.F.R. §§ 600.4 to 600.10 are applicable to the Special Counsel.” It is not entirely clear what “are applicable” means, as this issue was never tested in courts. But at a minimum, it is clear that Durham was not appointed pursuant to these regulations—in particular, because 28 C.F.R § 600.3 provides that “[t]he Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.” Durham would not meet these requirements because he is the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. Barr, therefore, could not have relied on these regulations.

(More at the above link)
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#84
#84
BernardKingGOAT said:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Since the advent of social media, it has all become tribal. You are including Fox, News Max and OAN as mainstream, right? I realize you have no desire to accept the truth about Trump. Even with every reputable aide telling you the same things about him. Never mind about that. Everyone who has testified against Trump before the grand jury has been Trump appointed Republicans. Regardless of who reports it, it is fact.
Click to expand...
All of it. Twitter dumbed down professional journalism where opinions are relayed as facts. The issues I’m speaking of were well before Trump and grand jury’s. You’re wrapped around the last two years and not the big picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#85
#85
TN Ribs said:
Comer should be doing cart wheels in the halls of Congress. He's been investigating Hunter for months and has failed spectacularly at every turn. This saves him and Jordan any further embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Because crack addicts are always earning 20+M in wire funds over time to their shell companies. Regroup on this one and report back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeburst, VOLS INC. and 1 other person
#93
#93
evillawyer said:
Couldn't he technically resign from his DOJ position and then be immediately retained as the special counsel?
Click to expand...
I don't know but if I had to guess...no. I don't see him resigning from his job just for a special counsel position.
 
#94
#94
BreatheUT said:
So is the prosecutor now the special counsel? Is this the same person that was helping the defense to attempt to hide future immunity?
Click to expand...
That is a VERY good point. Once the news broke, I wanted to inform VolNation. I googled David Weiss and learned he was appointed in 2018, under the Trump administration. I was ignorant to the fact he was responsible for the BS plea deal, at the time. Seeing things in this light, was he appointed just to slow or stop the flow of damaging Biden information? Lets hope for leaks.
 
#95
#95
Jesse Waters is discussing it now. Hog may have mentioned this earlier. They want to slow the investigation until closer to the election at least. If Biden wins this thing quietly goes away and state media proclaims the Biden's were innocent the entire time. If Trump wins, in a last ditch effort Biden will pardon his own son from any wrongdoing after bring found guiltyof a minor crime. Then I'm guessing any investigation is off the table. Right now a pardon is too obvious a sign of guilt and would even alert the lemmings something is not right.
 
#96
#96
BreatheUT said:
So is the prosecutor now the special counsel? Is this the same person that was helping the defense to attempt to hide future immunity?
Click to expand...
OK then, just had a new thought. A special counsel should be someone outside of the government's employ. Does hiring an individual currently employed by the federal government go against the policies governing a special counsel? If correct, does any evidence brought by the special counsel then become fruit of a poison tree, therefore inadmissible?
 
#97
#97
Tman44 said:
OK then, just had a new thought. A special counsel should be someone outside of the government's employ. Does hiring an individual currently employed by the federal government go against the policies governing a special counsel? If correct, does any evidence brought by the special counsel then become fruit of a poison tree, therefore inadmissible?
Click to expand...

You'll have to get that from objective legal minds on the board. There are several legal minds but fewer objective ones.
 
#98
#98
BreatheUT said:
Jesse Waters is discussing it now. Hog may have mentioned this earlier. They want to slow the investigation until closer to the election at least. If Biden wins this thing quietly goes away and state media proclaims the Biden's were innocent the entire time. If Trump wins, in a last ditch effort Biden will pardon his own son from any wrongdoing after bring found guiltyof a minor crime. Then I'm guessing any investigation is off the table. Right now a pardon is too obvious a sign of guilt and would even alert the lemmings something is not right.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But @hog88 may also be right on MO. Just kill me now!
 
#99
#99
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
The Justice Department is refusing to answer whether the President is now subject to the Special Counsel investigation. The failure of AG Garland to expressly expand the mandate to include the influence peddling scandal is glaring...
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC.
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top