Merrick Garland appoints special prosecutor.

Weiss didn't give Hunter a sweetheart deal. He just didn't proofread his Plea agreement. It was contradictory.

It used language that said, he was still investigating the case, but also used language that limited Hunter's liability on ongoing investigations.

Luckily the Judge caught his oversight!

This kind of thing happens all the time, it ain't no big deal.

I still think there will be a corrected plea agreement offered on the current charges- that doesn't limit Hunter's liability, before this thing goes to trial.

it's no big deal?.......you expect incompetence?.......
 
You do know that Hunter already paid the back taxes he cheated on!

And hardly anyone who applies for a gun and lies on his Background form ever goes to jail, as they are normally just fined on a first offense.

You are being a little stiff on Hunter- don't you think?
Did you know Hunter did not pay his taxes on 2014 and 2015 he did pay taxes on the years after that. But if you try to illegally avoid taxes it is a felony. Hunter tried to illegally claim his prostitute was an office employee then he tried to say his 10K dollar membership to a sex club was a business deduction. So even if he did ultimately pay taxes he still committed a felony.
 
It's section 600.3, Pobre.

Poor Pobre.

Pobre dummy.

Since there is no section 600.3 in the Ethics in Government Act, how can it be section 600.3 in the Ethics in Government Act.

Perhaps you meant to say it is a government regulation What you quoted is from the US Code of REGULATIONS Title 28 section 600.3.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.3
Are you in support of government regulations? Do you think all regulations should be followed to the letter?

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) annual edition is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.
 
Since there is no section 600.3 in the Ethics in Government Act, how can it be section 600.3 in the Ethics in Government Act.

Perhaps you meant to say it is a government regulation What you quoted is from the US Code of REGULATIONS Title 28 section 600.3.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.3
Are you in support of government regulations? Do you think all regulations should be followed to the letter?

Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
There is no section 6003 in the Ethics in Government Act.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...iledact-95-521



TITLE I—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL (§§ 101 – 112)
[TITLE II—REPEALED]
[TITLE III—REPEALED]
TITLE IV—OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS (§§ 401 – 408)
TITLE V—GOVERNMENT-WIDE LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT (§§ 501 – 505)


It seems the only dummy is you at this point.


Earl posted:

It's section 600.3, Pobre.

Poor Pobre.

Pobre dummy.
 
5. The Statute of Limitations Expired on Some Charges

Shapley and Ziegler previously told Congress that prosecutors intentionally slowed the Hunter Biden investigation in order for the statute of limitations to run out on some of the earlier crimes he's been accused of committing.

On Wednesday, Shapley said Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Davis Weiss, who oversaw Hunter Biden's case, allowed the statute of limitations to expire on charges related to income he received while serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

"In November of 2022, the statute of limitations was set to expire for the 2014 and 2015 charges in D.C., which included the 2014 felonies for the attempt to evade or defeat tax and fraud or false statement regarding Burisma income earned by Hunter Biden," Shapley said.

He added, "The statute of limitations had been extended through a tolling agreement with Hunter Biden's defense counsel, and they were willing to extend it past 2022. Weiss allowed those to expire."


Now Weiss is the Special Counsel.

Corruption at Smithsonian levels.


Cocaine Hunter still owes taxes that will never be paid due to slow walking...statute of limitations allows him to walk around with hundreds of thousands of money in his pocket that is owed to the American taxpayers who pay their taxes.
 
Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
There is no section 6003 in the Ethics in Government Act.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...iledact-95-521



TITLE I—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL (§§ 101 – 112)
[TITLE II—REPEALED]
[TITLE III—REPEALED]
TITLE IV—OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS (§§ 401 – 408)
TITLE V—GOVERNMENT-WIDE LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT (§§ 501 – 505)


It seems the only dummy is you at this point.


Earl posted:

It's section 600.3, Pobre.

Poor Pobre.

Pobre dummy.

Jarod said:
where did section 600.3 come from? Dummy.
5a U.S. Code Compiled Act 95-521 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978. Pub. L. 95–521, titles I–V, Oct.

Dummy!

Jarod said:
where did section 600.3 come from? Dummy.
From the Ethics in Government Bill passed by Congress and codified into the US Code.

Now it’s time for the ambulance chaser to tell us that black is really, really white.

Dummy.

Who is the dummy here? You claimed it came from Act 95-521
Here is a link to that act.
https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf
Funny thing about that act passed by Congress, nowhere does it include what you quoted. The numbers 600.3 don't appear in it anywhere.
The words "special counsel" don't appear in it anywhere. The act of 1978 set up the "special prosecutor.' That was repealed in 1999.

Section 600.3 of Title 28 of FEDERAL REGULATIONS is where the quote was found.
Federal regulations are not part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.
Title 28 Section 600 of the Federal REGULATIONS was created in 1999. 1999 is not 1978.
Section 600 was created because the special prosecutor was repealed so the DoJ created a regulation to create a special counsel.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
§ 600.5 Staff.
§ 600.6 Powers and authority.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
§ 600.10 No creation of rights.

Authority:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515–519.
Source:
64 FR 37042, July 9, 1999, unless otherwise noted.
 
Who is the dummy here? You claimed it came from Act 95-521
Here is a link to that act.
https://www.congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf
Funny thing about that act passed by Congress, nowhere does it include what you quoted. The numbers 600.3 don't appear in it anywhere.
The words "special counsel" don't appear in it anywhere. The act of 1978 set up the "special prosecutor.' That was repealed in 1999.

Section 600.3 of Title 28 of FEDERAL REGULATIONS is where the quote was found.
Federal regulations are not part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.
Title 28 Section 600 of the Federal REGULATIONS was created in 1999. 1999 is not 1978.
Section 600 was created because the special prosecutor was repealed so the DoJ created a regulation to create a special counsel.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Yes, Pobre, it's Section 600.3...not Section 6003, as you erroneously posted.

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

CFR


Dummy.
 
Now you can say that the plea deal with Hunter Biden is dead. Merrick Garland has appointed a special prosecutor to handle the case. That was the right thing to do.

28 CFR § 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 decision making, 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.


Let's start with the most obvious.

He holds the office of United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, a federal government position which disqualifies him right there.

Then we have the issue of devoting all of his time to the Hunter Biden case since it is so complex that it took years to investigate which only ended on a plea deal that was squashed by the courts and leads us to where it is now.

It's another bold slap in your face to all citizens when this Administration has broken so many laws and Amendments. If Jarod had a brain, which he doesn't, he would be embarrassed defending these corrupt leftists and Garland in particular. Only fools think precedents won't be applied to them once engaged in.
 
Sure, least now they will be investigating facts instead of innuendo

Regardless, the MAGA militia is already blasting it cause Weiss, who was the Trump appointee and already has knowledge of the case, is to be the Special Prosecutor. They wanted Sean Hannity

:lolup: Ignorant dunce doesn't know what he is bloviating about.
 
28 CFR § 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 decision making, 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.


Let's start with the most obvious.

He holds the office of United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, a federal government position which disqualifies him right there.

Then we have the issue of devoting all of his time to the Hunter Biden case since it is so complex that it took years to investigate which only ended on a plea deal that was squashed by the courts and leads us to where it is now.

It's another bold slap in your face to all citizens when this Administration has broken so many laws and Amendments. If Jarod had a brain, which he doesn't, he would be embarrassed defending these corrupt leftists and Garland in particular. Only fools think precedents won't be applied to them once engaged in.

Indeed.

Pobre says it's 28 CFR § 6003.

"Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
"There is no section 6003 in the Ethics in Government Act."

Poor Pobre.
 
What’s wrong with Weiss?

He holds the office of United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, a federal government position which disqualifies him according to Federal Regulations. Why do leftist hacks think Democrats are above the law?
 
According to them, Weiss gave Biden the supposed sweetheart deal and hates Trump, as I said, they want a Jimmy Jordan or a legal equivalent

Correct. He is also a government employee which violates 28 CFR § 600.3 -Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
 
There is no legal equivalent to a punk like Jordan.

From everything we've seen there's nothing in Hunter that seriously taints his father and little that's criminal with Hunter. Don't see a reason to attack Garland over this. The appointment might not help in any way, or it may, but how can it hurt?

Nothing but lies from this uneducated dunce. :palm:
 
Weiss didn't give Hunter a sweetheart deal. He just didn't proofread his Plea agreement. It was contradictory.

You're too stupid to comprehend how stupid that is. :palm:

It used language that said, he was still investigating the case, but also used language that limited Hunter's liability on ongoing investigations.

Luckily the Judge caught his oversight!

This kind of thing happens all the time, it ain't no big deal.

I still think there will be a corrected plea agreement offered on the current charges- that doesn't limit Hunter's liability, before this thing goes to trial.

Moron alert! :rofl2:
 
Back
Top