Merrick Garland appoints special prosecutor.

Hawkeye10 said:
The bigger question is this: If what I heard is true that this prosecutor set up Hunters sweetheart deal, which has finally been killed, how is he remotely qualified to be a special prosecutor?

Maybe the purpose is something else.
Click to expand...

No, it's an almost certain bet that he got appointed to drag the investigation out, change the venue to somewhere they can shop a judge that'll rubber stamp whatever is put in front of them all while being able to fend off any Republican request for documents or information on the grounds of "it's an ongoing investigation..."
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it's an almost certain bet that he got appointed to drag the investigation out, change the venue to somewhere they can shop a judge that'll rubber stamp whatever is put in front of them all while being able to fend off any Republican request for documents or information on the grounds of "it's an ongoing investigation..."
Click to expand...

He might have been appointed because he is a proven loyal member of the Revolution, swapping Biden out for Newsom is in our future, and force might need to be applied because Biden thinks he is in charge and has gotten uppidy..... exactly as was the problem with Cuomo.
 
My current best guess is that the swap will happen at the convention, but Biden cant have any idea that he can defy the Revolution....that might be what this special prosecutor is all about.
 
martin said:
Earl likes this post with its invented slur for a quote. Two old guys reliving high school.

Breaks a banning rule, by the way.
Click to expand...

it breaks no rule unless you've changed your name to martini.....more of an insult than a slur......."slur" makes it sound like it wasn't warranted......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
prove why the appointment of special prosecutors is not subject to the laws for appointment of special prosecutors.......
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Durham was illegally appointee by Barr?

Prove that an appointment of a special "prosecutor" is subject to the regulation in 600.3.
The AG is given power to delegate under the law. There is no requirement in the law that anyone called a special prosecutor must be subject to one regulation that gives requirements for special counsels.

The first reason why you would lose in court is you have no legal standing.
If you survive the standing issue you still have a lot to do.
Then you have to prove the definition of inside the government means all federal employees. A rather step climb.
Then you have to prove that anytime the AG delegates his authority it can only be to a special counsel.
Then you have to prove that that anyone called a special counsel is subject to section 600.3.
 
martin said:
Didn't intend to press it. You live here; didn't want to make you homeless. But you're pressing it.
Click to expand...

Dummy, read Rule 16.

16. Quote Box Altering:

One can alter a quote box by removing some of a wall of text to expose the specific part you are responding to, or splitting it apart so you can respond to each item one at a time. However, altering the words posted and changing the meaning of what they said for whatever reason (a joke for instance) is not allowed unless you change the "quoted by" portion of the quote to make it clear that the original poster did not post what you are "making" them say. We will begin by deleting these posts, and if it continues we will get into banning. I will update this rule with changes until it settles in.

Example:

A bad "quote" that we would delete:

Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
Boy I love to Watch folks burn flags, especially if they are also supporting the slaughter of innocents!

An altered "quote" that would not be deleted:

Quote Originally Posted by NOT Dam0cles View Post
Boy I love to Watch folks burn flags, especially if they are also supporting the slaughter of innocents!
 
Garland did not appoint anyone. He gave Weiss expanded powers. As usual, when the Dems show they will not interfere in prosecutions, the rightys see a conspiracy. Anything the Dems do has to be wrong and a coverup. Rightys are nuts.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Gosh, poopiehead. A regulation? You finally realized you were making an idiotic argument?
It's a regulation and not part of the 1978 Government in Ethics Act which is what I have been saying all along.

Now would you like to discuss the legal requirements in following regulations?
Click to expand...

Brain dead morons says what? No one is listening to you moron. :palm:
 
martin said:
The rule is "outside the government". Being federally employed doesn't mean you are part of the United States government. If Dumbo thought before he jumped it might have occurred to him that Jack Smith is also part of the justice department, and remains unchallenged in his special counsel role months following his appointment, as it might have occurred to him that it is beyond unlikely Garland would have chosen someone disqualified by statute to serve as special counsel for Hunter.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Thanks, I looked into it and you are correct. These guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

Weis is the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware. In other words, part of the DOJ. :lolup: Two willful morons on steroids.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The question here is:

If Weiss, as he has previously stated, under oath, had full power to conduct an investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings, and did so, why does he now need special counsel powers to do the same investigation?
Click to expand...

A question that is begging for an answer.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you claiming that Durham was illegally appointee by Barr?

Prove that an appointment of a special "prosecutor" is subject to the regulation in 600.3.
The AG is given power to delegate under the law. There is no requirement in the law that anyone called a special prosecutor must be subject to one regulation that gives requirements for special counsels.

The first reason why you would lose in court is you have no legal standing.
If you survive the standing issue you still have a lot to do.
Then you have to prove the definition of inside the government means all federal employees. A rather step climb.
Then you have to prove that anytime the AG delegates his authority it can only be to a special counsel.
Then you have to prove that that anyone called a special counsel is subject to section 600.3.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Moron bloviating like aa willful moron. :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
A question that is begging for an answer.
Click to expand...

I think it has answered itself. This is just a sham and lie to try and either run out the clock or to do an end run around the judge to get Bagman a sweetheart sentence where he is immune from further prosecution and won't be required to testify on anything about anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top