!!!Panic in DC!!! AG Garland blocks Durham from indicting Corney McCabe for Criminal Conspiracy
(media.greatawakening.win)
T R E A S O N
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (151)
sorted by:
(1) Assuming Durham has solid evidence that Corney and McCrap committed crimes while in office, then he has authority to prosecute.
(2) He also has authority to prosecute anyone who obstructs justice, including the AG.
(3) However, AG can fire the Special Counsel, but only if based on already-established DOJ policy, and must be for cause. A disagreement about whether or not the SC SHOULD prosecute someone is outside the authority of the AG -- that is WHY the SC exists.
(4) Still, the AG COULD fire the SC, but must inform members of the judiciary committees of Congress in doing so (not that doing that would be a big deal).
(5) At that point, does Durham take a case to the SCOTUS? After all, a case is brought in court, the rules of which are determined by SCOTUS, and not the DOJ. Theoretically, SCOTUS could determine that the AG did not have proper authority to fire the SC because there was no cause, and tell the SC and court to proceed.
(6) If SCOTUS does not allow it to proceed, then we have a situation where a SC has evidence of crimes committed by FBI execs, along with already-prosecuted individuals who have been prosecuted and/or made plea deals of guilt that crimes were committed, but yet the AG is blocking the prosecution, and the SCOTUS is also blocking. That would bring it down to: military is the only way to prosecute these criminals.
Just spit ballin'.
Is "optics" still and issue? Because if so, there is no way that normies will have any clue about any of this, and the TV box will tell them what to think about it.
One other interesting thought: SCOTUS has original jurisidiction (can hold a trial, not just act as an appeals court) in any case it wants to. Now, THAT would be a shit show!
SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction in cases between states or involving ambassadors and other high ranking ministers. All other cases are appellate.
The AG does not have the power to overrule or touch the special council. This is a delay move, its pure panic
Wrong.
28 CFR 600.7(d)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
Actually that is my mistake. Its insulated from the DoJ. But AG garland could try and fire him. Not sure if he’ll have good cause, to me it’s still a court battle if they tried to fire him
I believe this is wrong. There was a big thing made of MG saying he was going to allow Durham to proceed in the beginning of this administration. That tells me he could have shut it down whenever he wanted to, but it would not be politically smart. I also mentioned above MG could defund Durham as well.
I did find a good article on the subject but it wasn't entirely clear to me if the AG could fire the SC if the SC has followed all the procedures and regulations that are required. Maybe a lawyer on here could decode this better than me.
Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations
To fire Durham, it would have to be for “cause”. I wouldn’t put anything past this administration though. The AG can’t interfere with Durham’s investigation in anyway. That is the point of the SC.
I agree, but the office of the AG appointed the SC, monitors the SC, and if the SC misses one detail of the regulations governing either the SC or the US Attorneys the SC can easily be fired with cause. If Durham fails to brief MG of some effort/ charge/intention (i.e. tries to hide something for fear the AG will stop it) that will give the AG all the ammo he needs. The SC is not nearly as untouchable legally as some people think. However the AG can't tell the SC he can't do something because he disagrees with the SC as long as what the SC is doing follows the regulations and the action is legal.
The whole Special Counsel or the old Independent Counsel thing is a somewhat grey area and is ripe for abuse from both sides (like using it to get a desired political outcome, or keeping it running for years running up a large drain on taxpayer's money).