Narcolepsy is hitting hard, so I gotta hit and run.
Durham has a plan.
How do you introduce evidence legally?
He's going after the low-hanging fruit first.
You can't indict Hillary without evidence. You can't get evidence without discovery. You can't get discovery without evidence. That's the game the Court plays, and the primary method crooked Judges use to avoid hearing cases -- hiding behind standing and foundational evidence.
It's a common liberal tactic.
"You can't prove it!"
"HERE! Just read this! It's clear as day evidence that Hillary is guilty!"
"I'm not reading anything until you prove your claims!"
...
So, how do you get around this tactic?
Well, discovery of evidence is valid between courts. If one court finds the evidence credible in their discovery phase, it can transfer over to another court.
So, since we can't find a single honest court to hear evidence against Hillary, we must be like Iron man and introduce seemingly unrelated evidential facts before smaller courts. Then, once they are all laid out together, a greater Conspiracy Framework comes into focus.
Please watch until the end:
https://youtu.be/5Rb9hAHifFA?t=151
Durham is putting it together, in a cave... With only a box of scraps.
Each case is gonna seemingly fizzle out and go nowhere. But each one is going to present small matters of fact that allude to a more in-depth conspiracy, until the foundation is laid and all bricks point towards Hillary and Obama.
How do you build a home? Foundation to structure (layers).
Layers (U1, Iran, Human Traffic, Haiti, Corruption, etc etc).
Q already laid out the checklist.
One leads to the other, like stacking bricks.
First comes corruption in the election.
Which leads to Haiti and their blood harvesting.
Which leads to Human Trafficking worldwide.
Which leads to Iran and Alice in the Bloody Wonderland (Saudi Arabia)
Which leads to the U1 deal to frame Russia and spark WW3
Which leads to... "We're saving Israel for last"
Durham is only getting started.
That's bad news if you expected this to end soon.
If each case is about 2-3 weeks, we're looking at about 4-5 months.
Right in time for October.
The Hunt is On.
Not so.
Independent Counsel is exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, as following the normal protocol to gain access to information could tip off government employees they're under investigation if they have inside sources in those departments, help criminals identify confidential sources, etc.
Exemption of the Office of Independent Counsel's Systems of Records Under the Privacy Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/700.31
Here's the link to the main regulations for Independent Counsel-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/chapter-VI
Does this prove that this guy is full of BS then?
If you read the regulation, the purpose is to exempt the files of the Special Counsel from disclosure to the public, or potentially individuals that might be subject to the actions of the Special Counsel.
"Exemption" - exclusion
"of the Office of Independent Counsel's Systems of Records" - what the SC's office collects/produces
"Under the Privacy Act" - the act which governs the rights of individuals covered.
So this one is not some special ability; rather, this is to prevent disclosure of what he/she is doing in that office to the subjects of the investigation and/or the public.
What do you mean if I read the regulation? I'm the one who posted it.
Meanwhile, you're now admitting additional exemptions apply to the Special beyond that of a normal United States Attorney, which was my point to begin with.
If you don't want to define said exemptions as special privileges, that's your prerogative.
And if it's not a special privilege or ability, why don't these exemptions apply to the records of normal United States attorneys?
Because the act itself exempts law enforcement activities from it. Thus the US Attorney's office is not subject to these disclosure requirements already if the matters relate to law enforcement activities. This is specifically to quell any argument that the SC's office is not an arm of law enforcement because it is not a US Attorney. Go ahead and try to get the US Attorney's office to divulge information from an ongoing investigation/prosecution and cite the Privacy Act and see how successful you are in getting it.
The first special counsel statute was declared unconstitutional back in the late 90's. This is what Ken Starr was appointed under. To try to duck the logic of SCOTUS in continuing the program, it was redesigned by empowering the US AG and removing Congress from the equation. But you still have the issue where the President must receive the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint a US Attorney. Which does not happen in the special counsel statute/regulations. Based upon prior SCOTUS rulings, it is presumed that a narrow scope of investigatory/prosecutorial power precludes the need to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, as well as the consideration that the SC's office is actually a US Attorney. As a consequence, certain laws/regulations applicable to the US Attorney's office do not necessarily carry over to the office of SC. So this regulation solves it.
So no, I am admitting no such thing. Exactly how making the SC on equal footing with a US Attorney as it relates to the public disclosure of investigatory activities is somehow a special privilege, you'll have to enlighten me.
Here are the exemptions for standard US Attorneys-
5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4); (d); (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e)(5); and (g):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/16.70
Here are the exemptions for Independent Counsel-
5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2) and (3); (e)(4) (G), (H) and (I); (e) (5) and (8); (f); and (g):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/700.31
There are two additional exemptions for Independent Counsel, namely (I) and (e)(8). If they had equal footing, they would have the exact same exemptions.