Merrick Garland appoints special prosecutor.

PostmodernProphet said:
???.....and real lawyers know that makes no difference......
Click to expand...

It would make no difference in a court of law if you give the wrong citation for your argument? Do you think lawyers can just make up citations without consequences?

If you went into a court and tried to argue that Weiss' appointment as a special counsel violated the Government in Ethics Act of 1978, do you think you would win?
 
TOP said:
How are you? Our HS band street concerts have been the last couple of evenings...you'd enjoy them...(The only "problem" is that On Wisconsin fight song of theirs...lol) Hope you , yours, and the pups are doing well...thanks for rescuing...;)
Click to expand...

Doing GREAT! Hey.....Gotta LOVE the song though!! :cool:

 
Lionfish said:
Two years ago it was the right thing to do and if the corrupt FBI had not hidden the laptop story, we would not be in the current mess this country is currently.

1691839619942-png.1350091
Click to expand...

He should have had his knee pads on...
 
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...

Would you like to tell us why the more obvious things are the more you assholes deny them?
 
Jarod said:
Who says the special prosecutor shall be selected from outside the justice department?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Thanks, I looked into it and you are correct. These guys are idiots.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It would make no difference in a court of law if you give the wrong citation for your argument? Do you think lawyers can just make up citations without consequences?

If you went into a court and tried to argue that Weiss' appointment as a special counsel violated the Government in Ethics Act of 1978, do you think you would win?
Click to expand...
I didn't give the wrong citation......it would make no difference whether you knew which law you violated......the one you were wrong about or the one that actually existed.......either way, you have violated the law.....if I went to court and said the appointment of Weiss violated the law that I found for you, I would win......
 
Jarod said:
Thanks, I looked into it and you are correct. These guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

lol.....if you actually looked into it you could tell us where you found it.......I expect you looked into your toilet, had a piss and came back to post......prove me wrong......
 
Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
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...

exellent point.....why has Garland appointed TWO special counsels in violation of the CFR?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't give the wrong citation......it would make no difference whether you knew which law you violated......the one you were wrong about or the one that actually existed.......either way, you have violated the law.....if I went to court and said the appointment of Weiss violated the law that I found for you, I would win......
Click to expand...

I'll bet you wouldn't.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You might want to follow your link and read it since it proves that the regulation is not part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act as Earl claimed.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
Click to expand...

Pobre said 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.
 
I am not assuming that this will not be impactful, there are indications that the Biden Crime Family has become uppity so leverage might be required to do the swap, one assumes to Newsom.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Why did Barr appoint Durham violation of the CFR?

Does this mean that the people that were charged by Durham can sue Barr and Durham for violation of their civil rights since Barr and Durham violated the law?
Click to expand...

prove why the appointment of special prosecutors is not subject to the laws for appointment of special prosecutors.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't give the wrong citation......it would make no difference whether you knew which law you violated......the one you were wrong about or the one that actually existed.......either way, you have violated the law.....if I went to court and said the appointment of Weiss violated the law that I found for you, I would win......
Click to expand...

If you went to court and said anything you would get taken from the courtroom.
 
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?
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top