I also think it lends more credibility when the lawyers file … briefs.
Okay. I hate myself a bit for that one, but there it is.
That’s presumably after the police have taken down the particulars.
and now a special counsel is appointed. this is getting to the bill clinton investigation level. 5 years and now a special counsel.
The Special Counsel is the same person that has been investigating it to-date. I don’t think it will make much of a difference, except in terms of the optics, since the prosecutor (Weiss) hasn’t asked for the power until just now and so seems to have been satisfied that he could do what he wanted to do, without.
Possibly more relevant is that the Prosecution and the Defense (Biden) have said that they fundamentally can’t agree on the terms of the plea deal and need more time to hammer it out.
Here’s a gift link to the Washington Post’s article on the special counsel announcement:
He also immediatly requested Deleware judge to dismiss on ‘wrong venue’ and was going to move the venue elsewhere.
That could explain his request to be special counsel. It expands his jurisdiction out of his home district. (I haven’t read the articles, maybe they covered this). He probably wants a judge who will rubber stamp the original plea deal. (as most would)
Yup, the WaPo article to which I linked mentions it:
Interestingly, the MAGAt wing of the House of Representatives as characterized by Jim Jordan, et. al, are not pleased with this news. It is nearly all I need to know about this appointment.
Already there is outcry that a special counsel must be appointed from outside the DOJ. I expect Merrick Garland is well aware of this and did it anyway. So there must be a workaround and he must have some reason for proceeding in this way despite the… custom? Practice? Or is it an actual rule?
Quick wrap up for Hunter Biden?
I think Garland’s on pretty solid ground:
And – being mindful that Trump supporters will throw anything they can against the wall (thus relieving everybody else of any perceived obligation to give even a nano-shit what they think) – Trump DID appoint David Weiss to babysit Hunter in the first place.d
ETA: Errr. Now, I’m really rethinking whether those qualifications DO or DO NOT support Weiss’s appointment.
[presses ‘pause’]
So …
Patrick Fitzgerald’s appointment as special counsel in 2003 was specifically not made under the 28 CFR 600 regulation.[25] The special counsel regulations specify that a special counsel must be a lawyer from outside the US government, while Fitzgerald was already a federal prosecutor at the time of his appointment.
18pp PDF letter from Comey to Fitzgerald appointing the latter to be Special Counsel
Wasn’t John Durham appointed from inside the DOJ?
He was. He was US Attorney for the State of Connecticut when he was appointed Special Counsel by Bill Barr to investigate the investigators in the Trump-Russia investigation.
Good memory!
I don’t know if that says something about the appointment, or just something about the fundamental difference between the two parties. Democrats were mostly happy when a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Trump. Republicans seem to be upset that a special prosecutor has been named to investigate Hunter Biden.
It seems that Republicans want to get some dirt, any dirt, on Biden, but their rejection of any and all sources of authority (government, courts, journalists, etc.) means they don’t have any forum in which to demonstrate his guilt. They know he did something wrong, and they seem mad that we don’t all just take their word for it.
They didn’t even want real dirt. Just the ghost of dirt that they could weave into a scandal to catch Biden-flies.
They’re surely bothered by the likelihood of a genuine investigation coming up with not much, or possibly nothing.
I don’t think anyone could disagree that HB was involved in unethical and (very likely) illegal activities. But so far I haven’t seen any evidence that JB was involved in illegal activities, and the Repubs are looking like fools here. (And I’m saying this as a conservative-libertarian who did not vote for him.)
I’m not yet ready to go that far. Can you explain the unethical and very illegal conduct? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I just haven’t seen a clear explanation
Being on drugs, in terms of scandalous behavior, doesn’t count here - it’s not the type of influence peddling that is being implied. And just being involved in international business doesn’t strike me as something inherently unethical. If he didn’t pay taxes on legitimate income, it’s an oversight, not proof of nefarious misdeeds.
Yep. The smart ones know that when they do real investigations, they pretty much always come up empty. See, Hillary’s email, Benghazi, Trump’s voter fraud panel after the 2016 election, and others. When that’s contrasted to the Democrats investigations, which always find and lay out clear evidence (See Jan. 6th committee hearings, and everything else Trump-related), the difference is clear.
Keeping their voters completely ignorant is their only hope.
I thought it was agreed that he’d bought a gun while he was addicted to drugs and that there was some issue with his taxes. Apart from that, I haven’t heard of anything new.