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.
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.
So, it was unnecessary to get into the constitutional pitfalls of the office of special counsel to explain any minor discrepancies, if any, between the US Attorney office and office of special counsel. Because there are none as it relates to these regulations you cited. But also, this is a pointless contention, even if true. We are talking about the protection of internal records from disclosure, and if you were actually correct, they would be inconsequential.
28 CFR § 16.81 covers US Attorneys. What you cited was the office of Attorney General. Notice that they are the same exemptions as the Special counsel.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/16.81
(a) The following systems of records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4), (d), (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e) (5) and (8), (f), and (g):
28 CFR § 700.31
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/700.31
The following system of records is exempt from 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):
It is simply implausible that a special counsel, who is not appointed by the President per the Constitution's appointment clause, and not subject to advice and consent of the Senate per Art. 2 § 2 cl. 2 for officers of the United States could exercise some authority greater than that granted to confirmed officers of the United States - US Attorneys.
28 CFR § 600.6 - Powers and authority.
Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
And the AG's regulations also do not confer powers in excess of those found with US Attorneys for the obvious reason of "officers of the United States" requirements in the Constitution. It is a narrowing and limitation of powers that the SC's office is subject to.
It's clear you can't even identify the differences between these two lines.
5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4), (d), (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e) (5) and (8), (f), and (g)
length: 106
and
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)
length: 110
Also, I'm glad you posted 28 CFR § 600.6 - Powers and authority while making sure to not italicize the most important part of it-
within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, full power and independent authority
The very fact the special counsel has independent authority confers more powers than a standard US Attorney.
What about that fact is so hard for you to admit?
So, yes, a Special Counsel can conduct a thorough investigation of potential crimes committed, to issue subpoenas, and file charges, just like a standard US Attorney can. There's no unique power in that regard.
Can standard US Attorneys create their own staffs without regards to budgetary constraints and with no input from the Department of Justice? Yes or no?
Let's move on.
Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities
In other words, who is Durham accountable to?
Theoretically, the idea of having a special counsel is that he operates independently, though he can still be fired by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
It’s up to Durham, though, to determine how involved he wants Garland to be in this investigation.
That is simply not the case for a standard US Attorney, and that fact alone proves a Special Counsel wields unique powers.
I’m sorry for missing an entirely inconsequential exemption. Why are you acting like this is some kind of significant thing? What is significant about it?
And, just like US Attorneys, neither must consult with the AG on their conduct, duties, and responsibilities. US Attorneys have independent authority too. The decision to charge and what to charge rests with the US Attorney. Unless the offense requires approval by the AG by federal statute; of which there are a few of those. And the SC would not be exempt from complying with those statutes by consulting with the AG. A DOJ regulation in the CFR does not void a statute. About the only thing the AG can do to a US Attorney is direct them to make specific reports.
The President is the one who can fire US Attorneys. The AG cannot.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/541
This is literally the most frivolous discussion. You are basically saying “But! But! But! The Special counsel can have green radio buttons in his car instead of white and gets a Shell gas card instead of Exxon. This PROVES he has extra special super hero powers!”
His authority is NOT unique. It is the same level of authority as a US Attorney. Except that since he isn’t a US Attorney, there are some duties he doesn’t have to perform - like writing reports requested by the AG. But he also doesn’t have carte Blanche to pursue whatever cases he wants - because his prosecutorial powers are limited to the scope defined by the AG - something that NO US Attorney is subject to. The US Attorney has plenary prosecutorial powers in the district they were appointed. The SC has limited prosecutorial powers in any district that might have had a crime within the scope of the SC. A US Attorney can only be appointed and removed by the President. The SC is appointed and removed by the AG.
So why you are so hellbent on finding super powers in the SC office based off of a completely irrelevant and inconsequential exemption from a public records act is beyond me.