Andrew C. McCarthy: Weiss’ appointment as special counsel is a farce and a joke
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of the Biden Justice Department’s Delaware U.S. attorney, David Weiss, as a special counsel is a joke.
To begin with, Weiss is not eligible to be a special counsel under the special-counsel regulations. To be clear, the attorney general has all the authority he needs to assign Weiss to the case (and, indeed, Weiss has been assigned to it throughout Garland’s tenure). But under the regulations that Garland purports to be applying, what makes a special counsel special is that he or she is a lawyer brought in from outside the government, not just outside the Justice Department. …
Of course, if he were to deign to answer questions (as he declined to do today), Garland would point out that that last of the regulations, Section 600.10, makes clear that no one can sue him for refusing to follow the regulations. And that’s right: This is all theater. He is pretending to follow regulations while not following them, hoping you don’t notice but aware that even if you do notice there’s nothing you can do about it. Got that? …
Weiss is the vehicle by which the Biden Justice Department intends to maintain tight control over the so-called Biden investigation.
No surprise there. Weiss has all along compliantly acted as the vehicle by which the Biden Justice Department protects the president, and thus the president’s son, from a credible investigation.
McCarthy goes on to say that another advantage of appointing Weiss as special counsel is that in that capacity he will get to write a report saying that Biden is completely clean.
What Garland did in appointing Weiss is really rather creative in a Machiavellian – or is it Orwellian? or maybe both? – way.
And those who say that Garland can be impeached are correct. But he will not be convicted in the Senate, so it would just be a “Republicans pounce!” story. I’d like to see him impeached, though, on basic principles. He is abusing his power in order to protect the Bidens from a fair investigation, under the guise of ordering one.
Last paragraph: You’d like to “see” him impeached.
The appointment of Weiss is arrogant and insulting.
“And those who say that Garland can be impeached are correct. But he will not be convicted in the Senate, so it would just be a “Republicans pounce!” story. ”
Not quite. Suppose the House impeaches Garland on any charge at all. The moment the impeachment is complete, a facet of the Constitution, Article II Section 2, kicks in viz:
“and he[the Prez —la] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
The moment Garland is impeached, he can’t be pardoned, not by Biden, nor by his successor Fweedom, if Biden dies, resigns, or leaves office in any way, because Garland is impeached. Garland would face prosecution so long as the impeachment hangs overhead. Schumer could remove the impeachment by a pro forma trial which of course will acquit Garland. But McCarthy can just hold onto the impeachment resolution:
” Gee, Chuck, I’m sorry. I’ must have left in my other suit. Don’t you worry, I’ll get it to you fist thing…” (Walks away laughing loudly and raucously while Schumer fumes.”
The other way to raise the impeachment is to let it lapse when this Congress expires in January 2025. A new Congress could impeach him again. Unfortunately, Biden( or Fweedom) will still be Prez then and can sign a pardon faster than the House can impeach.
Even so, I think an impeachment of Garland, stating it would be for the express purpose of keeping him in peril would be worth doing. This method also applies to impeaching Biden as well.
I have changed my mind, in that I used to think impeaching these guys is just a waste of time. But I don’t see what else we can do. And maybe, just maybe, a hint of what’s presented in the hearings will leak out. But not much. The presstitutes today are too far gone; they will suppress anything, to the full extent of their ability.
Leoamery:
The requirement for the high number of conviction votes in the Senate is an insurmountable hurdle for the foreseeable future that would bar any conviction for Garland.
Kate:
Thanks. Will fix the typo.
“The requirement for the high number of conviction votes in the Senate is an insurmountable hurdle for the foreseeable future that would bar any conviction for Garland.”
The conviction I was talking about was a criminal conviction, by DOJ. Such a conviction won’t happen while Biden is Prez and Garland is Atty Genl. But that situation won’t last forever, and toward the end of Biden’s time in office,, I think a slew of pardons will issue from the White House. BUT—
—anyone the House has impeached will NOT be able to be pardoned under that Article II Section 2 provision I cited. That bar to a pardon might give any impeached Biden official some sleepless nights.
leoamery:
You seem to be talking about impeachment and criminal charges in the same breath. What would be the criminal charges you’re talking about, and why would impeachment have any effect on that? The two processes are quite separate. Impeachment and conviction in the Senate are not criminal matters.
It may be too Babylon Bee-ish to note that this special counsel appointment is the exact opposite of the investigation of Trump, where Mueller’s team was 100% staffed with Trump haters, including himself.
At the time, we mostly all saw that as a positive factor, since a conclusion in Trump’s favor could not be painted as favoritism; however, since Democrats as a party have never accepted that Mueller’s report did in fact exonerate Trump, that was a wasted blessing.
This sort of blatant in-your-face high crime is where counter-revolutions find the tinder for the fire. The prosecutions of POTUS Trump are the loose sparks.
This is not going to end well.
If the GOP has the commitment to impeaching any rogue and arrogant officials it had better full court press, townhall, to convince the general voter that the bureaucracy it out of control and a direct threat to everyday America lives. Garland has allegedly used the FBI to investigate parents at schoolboard meeting.
Neo, impeachment would prevent any pardon for any underlying crimes. I don’t know what if any crimes Garland has committed. That will need the highest power of investigation. So switch the focus to Biden. It could be that the phone calls Hunter made to Biden in the presence of the ‘partners’ could be construed as “honest services fraud”:
https://www.findlaw.Com/criminal/criminal-charges/honest-services-fraud.htm
Biden says to himself, no problem I’ll just pardon myself and Hunter. But if Biden is impeached, he can’t pardon himself, because he is impeached. He could still pardon Hunter but not himself, thanks to the Article II Section 2 provision I cited.
I think this imbroglio is approaching a point where pardons might seem desirable. Since the presidential pardon power is close to unfettered, as the nation found out when Ford pardoned Nixon, I think impeaching people to forestall a pardon is in order. Had Nixon been impeached before resigning, Ford could not have pardoned Nixon, until the House had withdrawn the impeachment resolutions.
Certainly we know that Hunter is in legal peril. If Hunter is in trouble for, say, bribery or honest services fraud, it seems likely to me that Biden would be in a similar pickle. A self pardon would rescue Biden. But if he’s impeached, Biden can’t pardon himself.
You may not think the Bidens are near a time when pardons are in the works. You might be right. But forestalling a self-pardon by impeaching Biden seems to me a worthwhile cause. It is clumsy, and futile from the point of getting a Senate conviction. But stopping a self-pardon by impeaching Biden seems necessary to me.
Many thanks for letting me take up so many electrons here.
We are truly in George Orwell’s world when a move designed to benefit Hunter and Joe is taken by many in the media as getting tough on them.
There is some dispute about the constitutional phrase, “except in Cases of impeachment.” I would assume that it meant that a presidential pardon can’t overturn or undo an impeachment, not that a president couldn’t pardon an impeached official to prevent a criminal prosecution. Some people believe that it means that an impeached (but not yet convicted and removed) president can’t issue pardons at all, but the consensus appears to be that that interpretation is wrong.
Two different readings of the document; Neo’s reading (and the one that I’m inclined to agree with) is that an impeachment charge is entirely separate from a criminal charge, even if both are addressing the same underlying actions. That is, the president cannot use a pardon to end an impeachment proceeding, but can pardon any other federal charge; that pardoned charge can still be used as the basis for an impeachment.
Pretty sure Congress can impeach someone for something a court already acquitted, too; impeachment is ultimately a political act, rather than a judicial one, even if it apes some judicial forms.
Leoamery:
No, impeachment does not prevent those things.
mccarthy just sickens me, the way he has accepted every one of these stupid gambits for six years,
no you can’t effectively make biden accountable because he has krisha, protection from the security services, he is a figurehead because he fronts dark deeds against the body politic, the gope did much to ‘fortify’ him endorsing not only garland but monaco and clark, they unanimously approved judge chutkin who is a character you could only imagine in the old mission impossible series,
LAWS ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE
I find leoamory’s comments helpful and I hold nothing for Neo’s one-line response, which tells me dang little.
The House GOP is becoming more conserving of the Constitution, slowly.
Cicero:
I had responded to him earlier in the thread, as had “Boobah” at 6:53 PM,, explaining why impeachment and criminal matters are quite separate. In my later comment I was merely reiterating that fact, which Boobah had explained.
Thank God that Garland did not end on the Supreme Court although he does lots of damage where he is. I suspect these corrupt officials assume history will be written by the Left. Just as Roosevelt had his biography written by Schlesinger who libeled Harding and Coolidge.
Just as Roosevelt had his biography written by Schlesinger who libeled Harding and Coolidge.
==
It was Frederick Lewis Allen who kicked off the historiography to which you’re referring. His book was published in 1931, when Schelsinger was 14 years old.
==
I’m recalling a poll published ca. 1981 of alleged historians’ ranking of presidents which put Harding on the bottom and Coolidge 3d from the bottom. I suspect selection factors are at work in these polls, as serious historians get the questionnaires and roundfile them while people like Arthur Schlesinger answer them. The thing is, the bill of particulars contra Herbert Hoover (as President) is very much worth pondering and Harding had at least two out-and-out crooks in his cabinet. (Pretty penny ante compared to what we’re experiencing today, to be sure).
==
The activities of Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress (1933-47) merit a critique, just not one which trades on nonsense (as some of them do). Ditto the Johnson regime, where atrociously bad policy was pursued by Democratic pols at every level of government.
“… I don’t know what if any crimes Garland has committed…”
Isn’t he supposed to be upholding the Constitution?
The rule of law?
(But then I suppose that’s precisely why the word “upholding” must be redefined—-a Democratic Party specialty—as “IGNORING” or even “FLOUTING”; and/or precisely why the Constitution—and the rule of law—must be “IMPROVED”…or “BROUGHT UP TO DATE”…or should that be “FORTIFIED”(?)…so that the entire country may BENEFIT from the “improvements” and “fortification”(?) that have blessed practically each and every Democratic-Party-run city and state…oh, and the southern border, too!…not to mention the definite “BENEFITS” of President Fentanyl’s fortifying Fentanyl policies!!!)
I find it disturbing that the media now covers a convening of a Grand Jury (Georgia) as if it was a trial.
As I understand the rules of what can be presented to a GJ, there just about aren’t any!
For example, I understand that Trump’s infamous telephone call to the Governor of Georgia was clearly focused on illegal votes, and the Governor’s protestations of his inability to go after them, not on the manufacture of new votes as has been portrayed in the media. This has been achieved by simply omitting any media coverage of the early parts of the call.
So, could not the Grand Jury simply be fed the same truncated version of the call, and dutifully return an indictment? As the media hyperventilates over this, Trump is then summarily convicted in the minds of 50% of the people, because of the assumption that compelling evidence of a crime was found!
Silly me (though, admittedly, it’s not always easy to keep track)…I forgot to mention Garland’s persecution/intimidation of parents who for some apparently incomprehensible reason do not wish their kids to be indoctrinated—intimidated, damaged, ruined—with CRE propaganda or emotionally and physically assaulted by trans cultists…
…And also forgot those who don’t especially appreciate his persecution/intimidation of Christians (and others) who don’t quite agree with “Biden”‘s full-bore policies of destruction WRT America, its people and its values.
…Which, one should assume, falls perfectly into the “Biden”‘s definition of “Upholding the Constitution” and the “Rule of Law”….
(To be sure, “destruction”—in best “Biden” fashion—has been redefined as “IMPROVEMENT” and/or “ASSISTANCE” and/or “BUILD BACK BETTER”…)
Should one mention the full frontal assault on SCOTUS (or at least those who don’t agree with “Biden”)?
“…disturbing…”
“Merely” the methodology and policies of the always reliable Stalinist media.
Reliably Stalinist, that is.
(You know, “Pravda on the Hudson/Potomac/Geographical Feature of Choice”, etc…
…where character assassination is a finely-honed art form!)
example here
https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1690735782787772416
Trump will win the Republican nomination, despite being less capable then in 2020 or 2016.
But he’s a victim of gov’t lies, Dem Deep State bureaucrat lies, and is on track to be a martyr.
All voters need to know that voting for Republicans for Senate & House is more important than President, since the Dems are likely to violate laws to stop Trump – possibly also to elect other Dems.
Best to be done now is to point out, over and over, how the US problems today are primarily due to bad Dem policies of the last 50 years. Voters need to vote anti-Dem, anti-Woke, anti-Deep State. All are worse than Trump.
Naomi’s article was spot on – Dems who hate Trump are making the US into a banana Republic. A dictatorship of the Deep State.
they put a golem (apologies to golems) in the senate, and a man like warnock who prophaned imho the shrine that is ebenezer baptist church, turtle will make sure only his mustidae (weasels) get a pass,
ee cervantes:
Warnock and his kin are closer to skunks (they have their purpose) IMO.
I stand corrected, they spent 400 million dollars to keep this castro loving hamas (redacting) sharpton inlaw in the senate, a crook of this highest order,
thats why i’m on board with tuberville’s honey badger routine, most everyone else
is team possum
yes I know the good reverend was on the left spectrum, but essentially an honest man, he may have had some poor judgement in the end, but understandable,
All voters need to know that voting for Republicans for Senate & House is more important than President, since the Dems are likely to violate laws to stop Trump – possibly also to elect other Dems.
Yes. I think the presidency is lost but the House and Senate are not. We saw how the fraud is done in Arizona in 2022. The Governor candidate of the Dems, a Soros creature, was also in charge of the election. On Election Day, inexplicably, the voting machines malfunctioned. Arizona has a complex ballot so the voting machines were printers that printed each ballot. Two good R candidates lost. The voting machine problems were almost exclusively confined to GOP districts on Election Day. Lots of mail-in ballots were cast. My wife and I used two to vote at an early voting site which had ID verification.
The voting machines were all tested the day before the election. No problems were noted.