HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Impatience with Garland's...

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:35 PM

Impatience with Garland's pace of prosecution

We all share it but I've counseled patience for multiple reasons found here.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16157873

The ONE argument I can't easily refute is why hasn't MG appointed a special counsel?
Admittedly I don't know the current rule regarding a SC appointment but I do know it's harder to get one since Clinton got railroaded.

Anyone know the rules about getting a SC.

21 replies, 1512 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:42 PM

1. Special Counsel

Not difficult at all. Mueller was a Special Counsel, appointed by the Attorney General and reporting to the Deputy Attorney General. So in this case, Garland would be the one to appoint, and DAG Lisa Monaco would be the Special Counsel’s direct boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:50 PM

2. The SC process is a lot more difficult than writing a trendy meme, that for sure!

 

Which is about all we're hearing from those great wise minds of leadership.

Trendy memes, quotes & bullshit statements are easy.
Regaing an SC balance is far from doable with the lack of support Biden would need.
Considering the opposing support he has right now, the SC new-hire would be as bad as what we have now.

It's doubtful he'd get the one we need.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:50 PM

3. Maybe MG knows there is no DIRECT evidence tying trump to Jan 6.

 

Further, two investigations might appear too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:51 PM

4. This seems obvious

but maybe we'll be surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:54 PM

5. +++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:56 PM

6. MG is right to let the J6 committee proceed 1st.

 

Last edited Sun Dec 19, 2021, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

He's not going to run 2 countering investigations at the same time.
They will be stronger when run consecutively.
J6 can refer to DOJ, their findings on criminality.

This is smart considering who they're all dealing with.
Its an international criminal organization, not a simple legal fix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:59 PM

8. Correct

I think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 10:32 PM

18. Run concurrent? I don't think you meant that. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 19, 2021, 12:26 AM

20. Thank you. Lets change that to consecutive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 06:58 PM

7. Just found this

LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Title 28 - Judicial Administration CHAPTER VI - OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
CFR
prev | next
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Maybe MG determined there's no "conflict of interest" for his DOJ ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 07:16 PM

9. Saying there is a conflict of interest would undermine the

DOJ’s handling of any case involving anyone tied to the Trump administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #7)


Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 07:25 PM

10. He's had plenty of time. There should've been scores of indictments...

by now. We saw the seditious rally and the insurrection that followed it on national TV. We also saw the inaction to stop it by the trump cabal.

We need a more active, aggresive AG. IMO there was a sense among Dems that Garland was owed something because McTurtle stole his SCOTUS seat, but of all the Biden administration appointments, AG was the wrong one for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 07:30 PM

11. Consider the consequences

of firing MG. We don't want that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 08:00 PM

14. It's too late to fire him. Someone putting a fire under him would help though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 11:28 PM

19. And by someone, you mean Biden?

I'm sure it's crossed Biden's mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 19, 2021, 02:28 AM

21. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Original post)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 07:45 PM

12. Add to this concern the fact that everyone who has been convicted and sentenced so

far has received very light sentences for the high crime of treason and I wonder how
long we're gonna let this go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abqtommy (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 07:59 PM

13. Technically, I think the crime

is sedition , not treason. Statutes/penalties are different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 18, 2021, 08:10 PM

15. Okay, I found this information from Merriam-Webster online:

Examples of sedition in a Sentence:

He was also charged with terrorism and sedition, both of which can result in life in prison. — Washington Post, 15 Nov. 2021

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition

I just don't like all this pussy-footing that's going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abqtommy (Reply #15)

Reply to this thread