The difference between; Independent Counsel v Special Counsel & AG Garland’s Jan 5, 2022 “speech” on the anniversary of Jan6th’s deadly domestic terror attack
The difference between; Independent Counsel v Special Counsel & AG Garland’s Jan 5, 2022 “speech” on the anniversary of Jan6th’s deadly domestic terror attack
Well you’re about to have a quick education THIRSTY TWITTER users amplifying disinformation. If you do NOT know the difference then don’t tweet in all caps. Caprice? Also Sean Hannity is so screwed
Disinformation is dangerous and…
..if you are amplifying (either knowingly or unknowingly) blatantly obvious disinformation than you are part of the destructive and dangerous disinformation ecosystem. Tweeting in all caps is a sign of “I’m thirsty -pay attention to me” but ever notice how agents of disinformation operate? They wrap their tweets with a tiny kernel of truth and then double wrap in trash. By blindly retweeting this kind of nonsense —again you then become part of the disinformation problem…
Agents of disinformation have a pattern of behavior:
Tweet in ALL caps, because that’s a tried and true method of getting attention.
Never provide followers with any actual evidence, documents, Memorandum, CFR, US Code…
Cherry pick from public reporting but never disclose that you’re regurgitating other reporters “work”
Use the incorrect terminology -there are in fact various differences between an Independent Prosecutor/Counsel and an appointment of a Special Counsel (we’ll get into that in more detail later in this article)
Then link to a generalized Agency homepage as if there’s a hidden clue
It was widely reported Attorney General Garland would give a speech
The Hill Published this article on January 3, 2021 at 7:17AM (the time date stamp is important because it means the reporter worked on that article on January 2, 2022)
Political-wire essentially re-published a quick story on January 3, 2022 at 6:23PM DC local time
Jan 3, 2022 the Washington Post was the first to report
Yet that person tweeted it as if it’s new or breaking news but here’s the primary flaw in the aforementioned tweet - there is nothing and I mean nothing in the various mainstream media articles published in the past 36 hours that even infer AG Garland would appoint an Independent Counsel.
Not to belabor this point, but nothing and I mean nothing in that aforementioned Washington Post article even remotely insinuates that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s speech will be to announce the appointment of an Independent Counsel or a Special Counsel. Quite literally it is in the second and third paragraph of the January 3, 2022 Washington Post article
…In announcing the address, scheduled for the day before the anniversary of the attack, the Justice Department said Garland would “update the American people on the Justice Department’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible” and “reaffirm the department’s unwavering commitment to defend Americans and American democracy from violence and threats of violence.”
Garland will not speak about specific people or charges, according to a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity Monday because the speech had not yet been officially announced.
Attorney General Garland’s Jan 5th speech 2:30PM
Attorney General Garland’s January 5, 2022 speech will occur in the DOJ’s Great Hall. AG Garland’s speech will also be streamed via the Justice Department’s website -alternatively you can also watch the speech via the DOJ’s YouTube Channel or via their @TheJusticsDept twitter account. Or via CSPAN
Below are other resources because apparently Blue QANON (we talked about this in painful detail in April 2021 for the life of me I do not understand why she continues her disinformation charade with impunity but I suppose grifters gotta grift. Blue QANON believes our Attorney General should resign because “he isn’t updating the American people” and that “he’s corrupt” or that “
USAO-DC database https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
The GWU’s database https://extremism.gwu.edu/Capitol-Hill-Cases
FREE online case info https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/ (personally speaking Recap does tend to lag behind and sometimes it can take a few days for case/docket to fully load which is why I prefer the ECF but it’s costly AF)
If you do not know the difference between an Independent Counsel (IC) v Special Counsel (SC)
…then you really have no business tweeting about it. NONE. Twitter is rife with conspiracy theories, chaos agents and drowning with people’s desire to have their tweet go viral. And facts have a very hard time cutting through the ever growing cacophony of scream goats.
To be fair a vast majority of laypeople use those terms interchangeably. In my industry when we encounter this is the wild, for us it’s akin to nails on a chalkboard. In fact I typically roll my eyes and say under my breath; “did you get your JD from Trump Uni or Google Law…” because we actually know the difference between a IC & SC. Moreover many of us in this industry know the complete and complicated history of IC (think post watergate) and SC (think CFR which was promulgated using the statutory language)
Post Watergate and the history of both IC & SC
In the post Watergate world Congress decided to pass ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 (EIGA-1978) or see DOJ-OJP link for actual PDF. To be clear Congress allowed that 1978 law to sunset in 1999 -what occurred next was the DOJ promulgated CFRs. Notwithstanding I cannot believe that so many on twitter do not even understand the basics of US Code v CFRs ←that’s like third grade civics classroom lessons. Nonetheless I suppose a very brief refresher course is in order:
C.F.R. is an acronym for Code of Federal Regulations. Generally speaking a CFR is an Agency’s administrative rules used to execute and/or interpret what Congress puts in US Code. CFS generally carry the weight of law...it was promulgated from.
U.S.C. is an acronym for Code of Laws of the United States of America. Meaning codification of laws. Our U.S.C. has 53 chapters and covers an extraordinary amount of subjects.
As it relates to the U.S.C. secular to the Department of Justice, see U.S.C. Chapter 18 et seq
Fun Fact: after the codification of EIGA-1978. Pursuant to title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978; from 1978 until 1983 the correct term was “special prosecutor” post 1983 that term was changed to “Independent counsel” …again title VI of the EIGA-1978 established the following procedure:
The EIGA-1978 (title VI) directed the Attorney General to petition a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals-DC. This three-judge-panel was vested with the power to name an independent counsel. But with one very important caveat:
…upon the receipt of credible allegations of criminal misconduct by certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government whose prosecution by the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest
In 1994 Congress reauthorized the EIGA-1978 see June 30, 1994, P.L. 103-270, 108 Stat. 732(pdf), which expired under the five-year “sunset” provision on June 30, 1999 —again the EIGA-1978, Title VI had previously lapsed and Congress reauthorized, the 1994 reauthorization was the last and final authorization… and one could argue that “Independent Counsels” are no longer an option, as the DOJ promulgated the Special Counsel CFR after the 1999 expiration.
Again in 1999 Congress allowed title VI to expire. Which proves the point of the falsity of said tweet. That even if EIGA-1978-Title VI was still active it never vested the Attorney General with the power to appoint an “independent counsel”
Also Fun Fact: the last special prosecutor was appointed by president Nixon, but the catalyst of why Congress later codified and refined said statute was largely a reaction to Nixon’s firing of a special prosecutor, after they subpoenas the now infamous “Nixon tapes”… Special Prosecutors use to (note the past tense) had the power prosecute without the prerequisite oversight by the Attorney General. Again “special prosecutors” 1978 until 1983, thereafter known as “independent counsels” —incidentally title VI gave both the Attorney General and Congress the power to remove an “independent counsel” -but again Congress allowed title VI of EIGA-1978 to expire.
Now that you have knowledge concerning C.F.R.s v U.S.C. —here’s where that knowledge comes in to sharper focus: 28 C.F.R. 600 et seq
Under 28 C.F.R. 600 et seq the Attorney General has the power to appoint a “special counsel” but with several major caveats:
…from outside of the Department of Justice who acts as a special employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General, however, may also appoint an individual as a special counsel, and may invest that individual with a greater degree of independence and autonomy to conduct investigations and prosecutions, regardless of any “special counsel” regulations
Previous/notable Appointments of “special prosecutor”, “independent counsel” and “special counsel”
In 1973 then Attorney General Elliot Richardson named Archibald Cox to be the “special prosecutor” for the “Watergate” investigation..see 1973 NYTs article
In 1994 -then Attorney General Janet Reno named a “regulatory” independent counsel Robert Fisk to investigate allegations concerning the matter known as “Whitewater” -see January 20, 1994 DOJ-OPA Press Release/Transcript
In 2003, then Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation of the leak of the identity of a CIA agent - subsequently thereafter then Deputy Attorney General Comey named U.S. Attorney
Patrick Fitzgerald to be special counsel “with all the authority of the Attorney General” to pursue that matter. See December 30, 2003 DOJ-OPA Release
In 2017, after the recusal of then Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert S Mueller III as special counsel concerning the Trump Campaign, Russia, any coordination between both the campaign and Russia. See May 17, 2017 DOJ-OPA Press Release
In 2019, then Trump’s consigliere —I mean Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham as a “special counsel” to basically undercut the massive undertaking by Special Counsel Mueller’s team/office. See October 19, 2019 DOJ-OPA Press Release.
A far more exhaustive list of appointments can be found via this PBS Frontline link -the point is Special Prosecutors, superseded by Independent Counsel, which was later superseded by 28 C.F.R. 600 et seq Special Counsel.
A few days ago I published this article and if you scroll to the bottom of the article you’ll note the newly released DOJ-OUSA-DC data concerning the deadly Domestic Terror attack, that lead to the death of eight individuals, five of whom were law enforcement officers
And lastly here’s your daily prerequisite saltwater therapy -managed to snap this video shortly before we left the beach to head back to the DMV (DC MD VA)…
Last Fun Fact: …late last night, we started to head back to DC. Thankfully my boss & coworkers sent me an urgent text message (around 1AM) that under no condition was I to get on 95. Thankfully the client (albeit begrudgingly) agreed to a virtually meeting. So with those developments, we decided to turned around and headed back to the beach house. I don’t know if 95 has reopened. I was busy writing and editing this article.
Unbeknownst to me the new car has “adaptive/dynamic navigation” feature. At the time I hadn’t activated that feature. Luckily the manufacturer’s concierge service remote activated that feature and then remotely downloaded several routes which avoided 95 near Ladysmith. Those reroutes took us to I95 North, to I64 to I81 to I66 -it was about 79 miles of detours but we made decent time, less than seven hours and boy it is nice to be home.
Just to reiterate Attorney General Merrick Garland’s January 5, 2022 speech is scheduled fir 2:30PM (today) and you can view his speech via:
speech will streamed via the Justice Department’s website
you can also watch the speech via the DOJ’s YouTube Channel or
via their @TheJusticsDept twitter account.
I hope you found this information helpful but as you can see I’m over individuals putting false information out there into the ethos and no one seems to have the desire to instantly fact check the disinformation…
Game over Sean -you are screwed & can’t hide behind the 1st Amendment protections for journalists
You are not a journalist, you as a purveyor of disinformation, lies and spread hate faster than the omicron variant…ICYMI the House Select Committee on Jan6th -made it official by THOMPSON & CHENEY REQUEST INFORMATION FROM SEAN HANNITY - the letter which reads in part:
…in possession of dozens of text messages you sent to and received from former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows…
The Select Committee is in possession of dozens of text messages you sent to and received from former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows and others related to the 2020 election and President Trump’s efforts to contest the outcome of the vote. At this time, we are specifically focused on a series of your communications with President Trump, White House staff and President Trump’s legal team between December 31, 2020, and January 20, 2021.
For example, on December 31, 2020, you texted Mr. Meadows the following: The Select Committee is in possession of dozens of text messages you sent to and received from former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows and others related to the 2020 election and President Trump’s efforts to contest the outcome of the vote. At this time, we are specifically focused on a series of your communications with President Trump, White House staff and President Trump’s legal team between December 31, 2020, and January 20, 2021. For example, on December 31, 2020, you texted Mr. Meadows the following:
“We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6 th. [sic] He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Go to Fl and watch Joe mess up daily. Stay engaged. When he speaks people will listen.”
And this is why sometimes I put the important facts at the very end of the article because it helps my readers to better understand the contextual communiques.
-Filey
Thank you for dissecting this very annoying pattern of attention-seeking. It's overly fatigue-inducing to keep climbing a crest, then getting deflated. And, Hannity? I could almost hear his sphincter slamming shut repeatedly yesterday. Appreciate you.
Consistently great work - thanks