Disinformation: David Weiss is NOT a Special Counsel

This is a massive hoodwink by Attorney General Merrick Garland, and most of the media fell for it and are plunging headlong into this disinformation campaign.

US Attorney David Weiss is NOT a Special Counsel. That's not my opinion. That is a fact following straight from the Attorney General's letter appointing Mr. Weiss "Special Counsel."

Here's the letter itself so you can verify anything I say here and don't have to listen to the fake media characterizations of the appointment. It is very short and it is not written in complicated legal language. Anyone can read it and understand it.

Here's the meat and potatoes of the appointment. All I omitted was the letterhead and the signature block:




So wait, the Attorney General's letter says he's appointing Weiss Special Counsel. How can he not be a Special Counsel then? Pretty simple, the letter implicitly states it does not follow the relevant federal code for appointment of a Special Counsel.

Take a look at subparagraph d:

Sections 600.4 to 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

What are Sections 600.1, 600.2, and 600.3 which are not applicable to this appointment? My bolding:

600.1 is Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel
600.2 is Alternatives available to the Attorney General
600.3 is Qualifications of the Special Counsel

Why doesn't 600.3, Qualifications of the Special Counsel apply? Quite simply because Weiss doesn't qualify to be a Special Counsel under the law.

Link to 28 CFR 600

Let's take a look at what Section 600.3 says about the qualifications of a Special Counsel, my bolding:

§ 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 decisionmaking, 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.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

This would obviously be a huge problem for appointing Weiss. His reputation for integrity and impartiality has been called into question by whistleblowers from his own investigative team in congressional testimony. They essentially accused him of lying when he publicly stated AG Garland was correct that he had all the authority he needed, and also said the investigation has been protecting the Bidens.

Biden defenders will of course write that off as just an accusation, but then look at the last bolded part. Appointment as a Special Counsel would have required a thorough investigation into those accusations of lack of integrity and bias, which is the last thing Democrats want.

And the 2nd bolded part leaves no room for any interpretation or equivocation. The Special Counsel shall be from outside the government. For those of you who are unaware, the word "shall" in a legal document is a strict requirement. It MUST be followed. It is not a suggestion.

***ASIDE***
Before I go on, I just want to address a common dishonest and/or ill-informed talking point Biden defenders bring up in this case:

Weiss was appointed by Trump. This excuse relies on a lack of knowledge about how the government functions. The implication is that Trump appointed Weiss, so Weiss must be more favorable to Republicans and less favorable to Democrats. This is false. Presidents appoint literally thousands of people to government positions during a single term in office. It's simply not physically possible for any President to personally vet and meet every single appointee. In fact, the majority of the appointments are simply recommended to the President, the President's staff does a cursory vetting to make sure the recommended person is qualified for the job to which they are being appointed (note the irony there), and then the President signs off on it. The President often does not personally know the appointee and has never met them.

In the case of Weiss, he was recommended to President Trump by the two Democrat senators of Delaware. He was appointed by Trump, but chosen by Delaware Democrats. So the entire premise of this counterargument that Weiss will be tough on Democrats because he was appointed by Trump is false, and as I said, relies on a complete lack of understanding of how such appointments are made.

Further, I'll point out that a lot of Democrat pundits and politicians have used this excuse. That makes them either a) completely uninformed, in which case their analysis should not be trusted, or b) they know it's a nonsensical argument but dishonestly present it anyway, in which case their analysis should not be trusted. Worth noting those same untrustworthy people not long ago swore upside down the plea deal being offered Hunter was not unusual or preferential to the defendant, which was debunked in court. How can you trust them on this?

***


So, finally, why would the AG not follow the law? Regardless of whatever excuse you come up for why he had to appoint Weiss, it doesn't follow the law. Attorneys General don't normally disregard the law for no reason. What could possibly be his motivation for circumventing the law and falsely representing Weiss as a Special Counsel when he is, factually, not a Special Counsel?

The most obvious explanation to me is that it was imperative to specifically appoint Weiss because Weiss has shown a pattern of being friendly to the Bidens. Following the law and bringing in an outside lawyer could potentially put the Bidens in jeopardy. It was safer to just put on this charade to give the public the false impression the Bidens have been thoroughly investigated. They needed Weiss--who drug his feet on a relatively simple investigation so that the statutes of limitations would run out on the tax crimes in the mid 2010s which would be most dangerous to Joe. He crafted a plea deal that was unprecedentedly preferential to the defendant, by the government's own admission in court. He participated in Garland's lie about having all the authorities he needed. He is not impartial and cannot be trusted, as is required by the law for a Special Counsel appointment, so in typical Democrat fashion they just decided some parts of the law would not be followed because they were politically inconvenient.

a reply to: face23785

"Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."

"In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600). ... They are internal Department of Justice regulations deriving their power from various acts of Congress, such as U.S. Code, Title 28, section 510 (28 U.S.C. 510)."


In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600).[6] The regulations restrict the power to fire the special counsel into the hands of the attorney general alone, and they forbid the firing of the special counsel without good cause. They are internal Department of Justice regulations deriving their power from various acts of Congress, such as U.S. Code, Title 28, section 510 (28 U.S.C. 510).

In other words, the original law you quoted and which you think Merrick Garland violated, has expired.

a reply to: face23785

If the roles were reversed and this were an investigation into Trump, or any conservative political figure, law suits would have already been filed and every effort to block Weiss's appointment would be in the news 24/7.

There are far too many RINO's and sissies in the Republican party; good luck trying to vote them out.

"Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."

That shows just how far the planning to co-op the political system in the USA goes. The window of opportunity to clean house may have already closed; time will tell.

It's taken a highly coordinated effort and decades to bring America to its knees, and the MSM non-thinking crowd doesn't even realize we're no longer standing.

Unfortunately, 'freedom' has left Americans too lazy and dumb to think for themselves. It's getting awfully close to time to pay the fiddler.

a reply to: 1947boomer

If youre going to copy and paste from Wikipedia, you should cite wikipedia.


Why didnt you source wikipedia?

a reply to: face23785

28 USC 509, 510, 515, & 533 all give the AG the authority to do what Garland did. The same statutes were used to justify the appointment of Durham as special counsel despite being US Attorney for Connecticut.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: face23785

"Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."

"In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600). ... They are internal Department of Justice regulations deriving their power from various acts of Congress, such as U.S. Code, Title 28, section 510 (28 U.S.C. 510)."


In 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600).[6] The regulations restrict the power to fire the special counsel into the hands of the attorney general alone, and they forbid the firing of the special counsel without good cause. They are internal Department of Justice regulations deriving their power from various acts of Congress, such as U.S. Code, Title 28, section 510 (28 U.S.C. 510).

In other words, the original law you quoted and which you think Merrick Garland violated, has expired.

I wrote a huge paragraph in response to this. I deleted it. I am tired of writing the same thing over and over again. This is it. Biden needs to step down. Now. No more games. No more nonsense. We are all tired of it. We are tired of listening to the excuses trotted out for this old slobbering blathering fool. Let Kamala pardon him and his jack ass son. Thats what will probably happen anyway.

a reply to: face23785

"The Special Counsel shall be from outside the government."

Like Durham?

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: face23785

There are far too many RINO's and sissies in the Republican party; good luck trying to vote them out.

Yeah, about that voting thing.....it's merely ceremonial nowadays, kinda like the paper crown you get from Burger King. But by all means, let's pat ourselves on the back for not only letting it become what it is, but also for willfully ignoring the holes in the system that remain. Great work all!

No party of any flavor is going to shut off the autopilot that affords them power, wealth and unwarranted honor and prestige. They work together to create the division that justifies their "work" in Con-gress. Problem Reaction Solution.

Anyone bored yet?

a reply to: 1947boomer

C+ attempt at spin.

This government document confirms CFR is legally binding. The AG has no authority to ignore it.

You guys still believe no one is above the law right? Or is that just a talking point? (Yes, we know it's just a talking point.)

a reply to: face23785

So the Durham Report is null and void?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: face23785

So the Durham Report is null and void?

If you can find a single post of me touting the Durham report, that might be relevant. Otherwise it looks like a deliberate attempt to derail the thread. I'll kindly ask you to refrain from that.

I will also ask you something I asked you in the other thread on this that you dodged:

If the law is ignored once, do you think that's grounds to keep ignoring it?

a reply to: face23785

As I pointed out above, the USC(you know, that thing that actually has punishments tied to it if you violate it) gives the AG authority to do what Garland did.

Solid use of a Skyrim meme though. If you haven't played Baldur's Gate 3 yet I highly recommend it. Skyrim is probably the last game that's given me such a "I could do the main quest, but what's over here!" feeling.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: face23785

So the Durham Report is null and void?

I would think so, mainly because it was pointless. They pointed out crimes and then refused to prosecute them. Maybe that is why, maybe the used Durham because he was an insider. Sadly only a few Republicans called him out on his pointless report when he gave it. Uniparty isn't a conspiracy bub.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: face23785

As I pointed out above, the USC(you know, that thing that actually has punishments tied to it if you violate it) gives the AG authority to do what Garland did.

Solid use of a Skyrim meme though. If you haven't played Baldur's Gate 3 yet I highly recommend it. Skyrim is probably the last game that's given me such a "I could do the main quest, but what's over here!" feeling.

Solid use of a reference to a specific paragraph that allows the AG to disregard the legally-binding CFR. Oh wait, you didn't. I eagerly await you finding it.

I'll admit, I still don't understand the alt-right opposition to this special counsel.

1. He was appointed by Donald Trump in 2018 to be the lead investigator in the Hunter Biden investigation.
2. He said he was told he could ask to be given SC authority if he saw the need for it
3. He asked the current AG for that position and that authority and was given it promptly

What am I missing? Why is this Trump appointee a bad thing?

He's literally been in charge of this investigation for all these years since 2018, when Trump put him there.

originally posted by: Mahogany
I'll admit, I still don't understand the alt-right opposition to this special counsel.

1. He was appointed by Donald Trump in 2018 to be the lead investigator in the Hunter Biden investigation.

Trump appointed Weiss specifically to investigate Hunter Biden? That's news to me. Got a link?

a reply to: face23785

He was appointed in 2018 by Donald Trump first to become a US Attorney, and then when the investigation into Hunter Biden was opened up he was appointed the lead investigator.

He has been the lead Hunter Biden investigator since the beginning. No one else has ever taken over the investigation.

He asked to now be appointed SC and he was.

Same guy for years now.

In 2021 when this administration took over, it is customary to ask the old attorneys to resign. David Weiss was asked to stay on and continue the Hunter Biden investigation, to avoid any semblance of impropriety.

a reply to: face23785

You guys still believe no Republican is above the law right?

Fixed it for you.

a reply to: 1947boomer

then why did garland write it in the document?

on purpose chaos created

they will do it anyway even if illegal

the point and goal will be met by the time the courts strike it

bye bye