Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Question.....
If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?
More important questions....
Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.
Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?
Time will tell.........
“Per Garland’s comments” I note that you don’t recognize that Weiss himself has told congress this as well?
Special counsels still testify before Congress when requested. Both Mueller and Durham did so.
Not during the investigation.
And, multiple whistleblowers and witnesses have directly contradicted what Garland, and Weiss, have said.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.
Yep. It's a sham. You would think Garland would know the rules:
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(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.
Anonymous wrote:Question.....
If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?
More important questions....
Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.
Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?
Time will tell.........
Anonymous wrote:Question.....
If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?
More important questions....
Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.
Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?
Time will tell.........
Anonymous wrote:Also, Special Counsel is supposed to be from OUTSIDE the government. Weiss remains US Attorney. Doesn't qualify.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Question.....
If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?
More important questions....
Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.
Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?
Time will tell.........
“Per Garland’s comments” I note that you don’t recognize that Weiss himself has told congress this as well?
Special counsels still testify before Congress when requested. Both Mueller and Durham did so.
Anonymous wrote:Question.....
If Weiss has always had authority to decide when, where, and who to charge,(per Garland's comments) why does he need this status?
More important questions....
Why Weiss? It has been demonstrated that he was ineffective in handling this case so far. Not only through whistleblower testimony, but as evidenced by the appearance in court.
Is this to protect him from testifying before Congress?
Is this to ensure that charges will be minimal as we have seen thus far?
Is it an effort to protect Joe?
Time will tell.........