The Biden Crime Family (a.k.a. "Biden is an honest guy"

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, it did. And your explanation was entirely incorrect. The portion of the Ethics in Government Act regulations regarding Special Counsel actually expired 25 years ago! When they expired, they were replaced with the CFR section that I cited: 28 CFR § 600.3 – Qualifications of the Special Counsel.



Screw your nod of appreciation request. Your arrogance blinds you from the obvious fact that your ass and that hole in the ground are two different things.

This appointment has been made, so you are obviously incorrect, as you always are about everything. As usual, your opinion matters not, as you clearly have incorrect information, or have interpreted incorrectly. Sadly, as a sociopath, you will never admit defeat, which you are incapable of doing.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Noogies

Hunter Biden is a treacherous hustler and a crook.

So what?

Is he a worse crook than Trump? Yes, according to the Repugnants and if not they will provide all the allegations they can think of. Next step obviously is "like son like father".

Naturally, the GOP is keeping their eyes wide shut as court cases against in NY, FL, DC and soon GA roll out.

Trump is promising to insult everyone related to these cases. Just keep donations rolling because his insults costs him big money.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, it did. And your explanation was entirely incorrect. The portion of the Ethics in Government Act regulations regarding Special Counsel actually expired 25 years ago! When they expired, they were replaced with the CFR section that I cited: 28 CFR § 600.3 – Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

Screw your nod of appreciation request. Your arrogance blinds you from the obvious fact that your ass and that hole in the ground are two different things.

Regulations do not (and cannot) replace laws. Laws authorize regulations. The current regulation was written pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515–519. As a regulation intended to provide internal agency policy & procedures applicable only to federal employees (and not the general public), it is exempt from certain aspects of the Administration Procedures Act (e.g., publication of a proposed rule, subsequent public comment and a formal comment resolution process) and therefore does not have the force of (administrative) law.

Accordingly, the agency head (the Attorney General) has the discretion to use whatever portion (if any) of such an internal regulation that he chooses to use (or not use) as has been the case with nearly all recent Special Counsel appointments. It's a non-issue, just wingnuts grasping at straws.

[finnbow]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—An indictment of Hunter Biden would immediately catapult him to the top tier of the Republican Presidential field, a new poll of likely G.O.P. voters indicates.

The poll reveals that, if indicted by the just-appointed special counsel, the President’s son would be in a virtual dead heat with the Republican front-runner, Donald J. Trump.

Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll for the University of Minnesota, noted that Governor Ron DeSantis lags far behind, in third place, because of G.O.P. voters’ queasiness about supporting a candidate who has no indictments.

“If DeSantis goes into the Iowa caucuses unindicted, he’s done,” the pollster said.

Lashing out at the poll, Trump claimed that the “Biden Justice Department” was trying to “rig an indictment for Hunter” so that he could steal the Republican nomination.

“Hunter has done nothing to earn an indictment,” Trump said. “I’ve worked long and hard for all of my indictments. This should never be allowed to happen in this country.”

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Noogies

Hunter Biden is a treacherous hustler and a crook.

So what?

I get it. The treacherous hustlers and a crooks in the GOP don't like the competition.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Accordingly, the agency head (the Attorney General) has the discretion to use whatever portion (if any) of such an internal regulation that he chooses to use (or not use) as has been the case with nearly all recent Special Counsel appointments. It's a non-issue, just wingnuts grasping at straws.

Re: My previous comment

The Reich-wing media sources that he's come to know and love are paid to lie to him but he's so far gone he can't see it.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Noogies

Hunter Biden is a treacherous hustler and a crook.

So what?

That does it. I'll never vote for Hunter Biden. (rolls eyes)

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Regulations do not (and cannot) replace laws. Laws authorize regulations.

I didn't say that it did. I said the provision expired, so there was really nothing to replace. That provision did resurface as 28 CFR § 600.3.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The current regulation was written pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515–519. As a regulation intended to provide internal agency policy & procedures applicable only to federal employees (and not the general public), it is exempt from certain aspects of the Administration Procedures Act (e.g., publication of a proposed rule, subsequent public comment and a formal comment resolution process) and therefore does not have the force of (administrative) law.

Accordingly, the agency head (the Attorney General) has the discretion to use whatever portion (if any) of such an internal regulation that he chooses to use (or not use) as has been the case with nearly all recent Special Counsel appointments. It's a non-issue, just wingnuts grasping at straws.

I think I've found an explanation that addresses it. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...l-announcement

The Garland Order invoked the same statutory authorities, plus the funding provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 530, to appoint Weiss as special counsel. In other words, following Barr (and earlier special counsel appointments, including Robert Mueller’s), he appears to have appointed Weiss pursuant to his general authorities, not the special counsel regulations. And then he made the core special counsel regulations (absent the Section 600.3 “outside the government” requirement”) applicable by reference.

So, Weiss and his predecessors are "independent" Counsel in name only. They really are not independent of serving at the pleasure or direction of the AG.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

....The Garland Order invoked the same statutory authorities, plus the funding provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 530, to appoint Weiss as special counsel. In other words, following Barr (and earlier special counsel appointments, including Robert Mueller’s), he appears to have appointed Weiss pursuant to his general authorities, not the special counsel regulations. And then he made the core special counsel regulations (absent the Section 600.3 “outside the government” requirement”) applicable by reference.

So, pretty much exactly as I said way back when. You should have listened up.

So, Weiss and his predecessors are "independent" Counsel in name only. They really are not independent of serving at the pleasure or direction of the AG.

So, up until now you thought John Durham was independent? LOL.

[Rajoo]

I think the confusion arises from what it was called to what it is now since 1999.
It used to be Independent Counsel and now its Special Counsel appointed by the AG.