Yoused
up
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 6,932
- Solutions
- 1
Probably not. Hunter is not going to spend one day in the Greybar Hotel, and the conviction is not going to ruin his life, so there is little need.
Hunter Biden Plea Deal
- Thread starter Eric
- Start date
Well, it was an "Alford" plea... : a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
The reporting on this has been a mess, but it seems the prosecutors rejected the Alford and he entered a regular plea:
Also, according to this story, he admitted all the charges were true:
The CNN story also talks about how he wanted to enter the Alford plea.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
Only the ones who were not confirmed by the Senate. Weiss was.
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,132
Nope.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
Not sure what the Nope was for, but Weiss was most certainly confirmed by the Senate and Smith was not.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
That's what the Trump argument was, that Cannon agreed with, that she will probably be overruled on.
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,132
I can't find anything about Weiss being appointed and/or confirmed by the senate.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,132
David C. Weiss - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That was to act as the Attorney General of Deleware, not as special counsel. His appointment to that role came through Garland, same as Smith.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
Correct. But Weiss was confirmed as a United States Attorney, Smith never was which is the basis of his disqualification.
At the time of his appointment, Weiss was a United States Attorney where Smith at the time of his appointment was a regular citizen not even employed by the government..
This will ultimately be decided by at least the Court of Appeals and maybe even SCOTUS. But that is the reasoning behind the argument.
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,132
Once again, no. Special counsel have traditionally been pulled from outside the US government. Bill Barr's appointment of Durham, and Garland's appointment of Weiss were considered outside the norm, since they were selected from active members of the US government.
Per the regulation in question:
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
Yes, that is the REGULATION. It is not a law and has never been passed by Congress. The previous ICA was allowed to expire, so in 1999 AG Reno promulgated the regulation you posted.
Judge Cannon found that the Regulation violated Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires principal officers to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She also found it violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 related to appropriations, but I don't think that has much teeth as the DOJ has leeway in spending allocated funds.
So like I said, this has been appealed to the 11th Circuit and will probably end up at SCOTUS.
Judge Cannon found that the Regulation violated Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires principal officers to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. She also found it violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 related to appropriations, but I don't think that has much teeth as the DOJ has leeway in spending allocated funds.
So like I said, this has been appealed to the 11th Circuit and will probably end up at SCOTUS.
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,132
So basically we're upending decades of established law for Trump. Turns out, Elliot Richardson was breaking Constitutional law when Archibald Cox was appointed as special prosecutor during Watergate. He had been out of office for 8 years when he was chosen.
Same with Robert Mueller.
Same with Kenneth Starr.
Same with Lawrence Walsh.
Turns out that after all this time, all these people were breaking the law. Thank God for Donald Turmp and his asskissing judge to finally show us the errors of our ways, huh?
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,591
The previous Independent Counsel Act was allowed by Congress to expire on 6/30/99. At that point AG Reno put in the regulations you cited.
As for Starr, he acted under the previous ICA, so not relevant. But in the case of the other two, the opposing attorney’s were free to challenge the constitutional authority, but didn’t. Not sure Trump’s attorneys would have either had Thomas not brought it up in the Executive Privilege case.
But Federal & State Regulations are challenged every day in court. And with the recent Chevron Doctrine being overturned, it will be much easier to challenge them.
As for Starr, he acted under the previous ICA, so not relevant. But in the case of the other two, the opposing attorney’s were free to challenge the constitutional authority, but didn’t. Not sure Trump’s attorneys would have either had Thomas not brought it up in the Executive Privilege case.
But Federal & State Regulations are challenged every day in court. And with the recent Chevron Doctrine being overturned, it will be much easier to challenge them.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
Well, Trump must be innocent then. Shame what they’re doing to him, it’s all one big misunderstanding, your eyes and ears deceive you. Good to know we’re finding all of these antiquated laws and loopholes out now, so we can get them all cleared up and nobody can be prosecuted when they take classified info and refuse to return them and obstruct. Or when they start calling Secretaries of States to find them votes, or have big mobs go to the Capitol to “take our country back and fight like hell”. Or make up their business records. Or sexually assault and defame people.
It’s all a witch hunt and he must be innocent. Let’s buy some sneakers, NFTs and pleather-bound bibles to show our support.
It’s all a witch hunt and he must be innocent. Let’s buy some sneakers, NFTs and pleather-bound bibles to show our support.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,141
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
I don't know how any Trump defender can ever talk about law and order with a straight face again.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,141
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
After which Fox News has guaranteed him a prime time show.
www.newsweek.com
FBI source behind fake Hunter Biden 'bribery' claim jailed for 6 years
Alexander Smirnov, a dual U.S. and Israeli citizen, pleaded guilty in a Los Angeles federal court to charges of tax evasion and lying to the FBI.
www.newsweek.com
Similar threads
