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.
SAUSA must be sought from the Attorney General. SC's office must seek this status from the AG. It is not some special ability that the SC can unilaterally pronounce. If SAUSA allows one to exercise the same authority as a US Attorney, then for you to promote this as a special power is an admission that the SC lacks the same authority as a US Attorney.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/543
From your same article:
"Against the backdrop of Ellis’ comments, Politico and The Hill read Mueller’s decision to obtain a joint designation of SAUSA for at least four of his attorneys (Andrew Weissmann, Greg Andres, Kyle Freeny, and Scott Meisler) as significant. It is not. Rather, the SAUSA designation allowed the special counsel’s office to comply with the local rules for the Eastern District of Virginia."
So now, according to you, the SC can act as Attorney General AND US Attorney. That's interesting...Does SC have commander in chief powers too?
Ignore click bait headlines and get through to the substance. There is nothing here that is "extra powers"
I've already posted the facts. Durham has independent authority and the ability to appoint his own staff.
You've already established you don't think that's a big deal.
Unless you disagree with that, kindly quit responding and wasting my time.
Oh my goodness! He can appoint his own staff? Why, that is a super power if I've ever seen one! I bet a US Attorney is just stuck with whatever clowns happen to be in the office when they get appointed and get no input as to their staff...
Amazing to me how when your authority is literally written down in a memo by the US Attorney General, and exceeding the boundaries of that memo would be grounds to throw out an indictment, in your mind that constitutes "independent authority."
By very definition, that could not be "independent authority" because the SC is "dependent" on the AG to define the authority that can be exercised. By contrast, authority of a US Attorney is plenary, and is not subject to the consent of the AG unless the statute for the crime explicitly states as much. Which the SC would also have to comply with as well if seeking to prosecute a crime where the statute requires the AG to sign off.
Why are you so vested in this super power theory that you are willing to form the most extravagant, intricate and grandiose mind pretzels to prop up this fantasy? Why is reality unacceptable to you and must be dismissed with prejudice?