Andy McCarthy Asks A Simple Question...

[cowslinger64]

Did...did I shut Rightguide up? Did I win an internet fight?

http://media.collegetimes.com/uploads/2013/10/fight.gif

Nope... vette, que-ball and botanydummy will fight to the death to prove their stupidty.


They "win" arguments by outlasting their opponent, not by being right.


It'd be fun to debate them face to face. I'm sure they'd have much less to say without the anonymity of their monitor.

 

[Liar]

These are the regulations pertaining to the Special counsel:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
§ 600.5 Staff.
§ 600.6 Powers and authority.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
§ 600.10 No creation of rights.

If you go here, they are listed as blue links and can be accessed with a mouse click:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600:

Your link is borked. This one should work.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Can't find anything in there saying that a specific suspected crime must be articulated upon appointment. But a lawyer I'm not.

 

[Oblimo]

These are the regulations pertaining to the Special counsel:

I know what the regulations are.

Where in the regulations is the provision you stipulate exists but I am unable to find?

Would it help you to understand my query if I expressed it thus: The regulations do not require identification of violated statutes to investigate in the charging letter. Your clam that they do is wrong and wrongheaded. Please prove otherwise or shut the fuck up.

 

[Rightguide]

I know what the regulations are.

Where in the regulations is the provision you stipulate exists but I am unable to find?

Would it help you to understand my query if I expressed it thus: The regulations do not require identification of violated statutes to investigate in the charging letter. Your clam that they do is wrong and wrongheaded. Please prove otherwise or shut the fuck up.

I did already with the plain language from the regulation itself. Obviously you are too intellectually impaired or immature to understand the the plain language of the regulation. One of the top federal prosecutors in America wrote that article and he too says it is required, as do many other prominent attorneys. You seem incapable of understanding simple English or the law in general. I have wasted my last minute of spare time trying to help you . I have led you to water, it is up to you to drink.

 

[Rotadom]

I did already with the plain language from the regulation itself. Obviously you are too intellectually impaired or immature to understand the the plain language of the regulation. One of the top federal prosecutors in America wrote that article and he too says it is required, as do many other prominent attorneys. You seem incapable of understanding simple English or the law in general. I have wasted my last minute of spare time trying to help you . I have led you to water, it is up to you to drink.

You sure are an indignant little shit after being proven to be a disingenuous liar several times this week.

 

[Oblimo]

I did already with the plain language from the regulation itself. Obviously you are too intellectually impaired or immature to understand the the plain language of the regulation. One of the top federal prosecutors in America wrote that article and he too says it is required, as do many other prominent attorneys. You seem incapable of understanding simple English or the law in general. I have wasted my last minute of spare time trying to help you . I have led you to water, it is up to you to drink.

Christ, you are an idiot.

Let’s dissect this claim of McCarthy’s, because he’s almost as full of shit as you are, but you are not even understanding what he is saying.

The regulations under which he made the appointment require (a) a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation or prosecution has been committed; (b) a conflict of interest so significant that the Justice Department is unable to investigate this suspected crime in the normal course; and (c) an articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes — which shapes the boundaries of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

He hyperlinks his item (a) to 28 CFR 600.1...

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted...

Do you notice he does not use operative words of the regulation? The reg’s requirement is a determination that a criminal investigation of a person or matter (and that “or matter” is important, because that’s the subject of the Mueller invesitation —it’s a matter, not a specific person or persons) is warranted.

Do you know where McCarthy’s “a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation?” come from?

It’s from the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-270, 108 Stat. 732 (codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 591- 599) (the 1994 Reauthorization Act). By its terms, the 1994 Reauthorization Act required the Attorney General to conduct a “preliminary investigation” to determine whether appointment of an independent counsel was necessary if the Attorney General received “information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate whether” a covered person has violated federal criminal law.

Well, that means you win, right?

Wrong. The Reauthorization Act expired in 1999. And not by accident, either. Both Ken Starr and Janet Reno asked Congress to let it die. And die it did. CFR 600.1 was implemented by the DOJ that same year so that it maintained a mechanism through which it could follow the original Special Counsel legislation from the 60s.

So, immediately, McCarthy is playing a shell game with expired statutory language. Let’s skip his (b) because it’s not in scope of our conversation about regulations requiring a spefic list of crimes. Let’s instead move on to his item (c), where he makes the argument that the AG needs to specify the crimes a Special Counsel is meant to investigate with the famous propositional logic of id est, i.e., “i.e.”

articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes —

Except, oh wait, id est isn’t a logical proposition, it just means “in other words.” So he makes a leap from “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” to a requirement of specifying Federal crimes with the persuasive power of “in other words.”

Or, in other words, horseshit.

I guess I have to give you the quote again. This is from the memorandum decision by the US District Court in the case of United States v. Manafort. Maybe I need to make it more clear to you somehow:

Furthermore, although the regulations require the Attorney General to provide a Special Counsel with a factual statement of the matters to be investigated, notably missing from the regulation is any requirement that the Attorney General specify any particular crime or statutes that are believed to have been violated.

McCarthy is full of shit. You are full of shit. I suggest you read the memorandum decision, because it excoriates the existing regulations as themselves full of shit, before doing the necessary and applying them anyway rather than inventing things based on expired legislation, and McCarthy would have been much better off making an argument that the current regulations are craptastic, and that at this point in the investigation Rosenstein has an obligation to list the crimes Mueller is authorized to look into. (The judge even strongly suggests someone make the argument that original Special Counsel statute itself is Unconstitutional, quoting a Scalia dissent where he opens the window for it.)

McCarthy’d still be wrong, because a Special Counsel has the “additional jurisdiction” to bring any charges as long as they have a non-laughable connection to the factual statement that started the investigation in the first place. (Which is another thing the judge in US v. Manafort thinks is craptastic but is stuck with unless Manafort had the balls and purse to challenge the Constitutionality of the SC statue all the way to SCOTUS, which he didn’t. The pussy.)

Oh, and it looks like McCarthy failed to mention the August 2nd 2017 Scope Memorandum Rosenstein issued to Mueller, further specifying what the original charging letter was talking about. I don’t think the entire Scope Memo has been released to the public, but here’s some of the stuff it said specifically about Manafort:

[c]ommitted a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law;

[c]ommitted a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych[.]

TL;DR McCarthy is full of deliberate shit. You’re full of ignorant shit. The applicable regulations are pieces of shit. The whole system is shit!

But your boy is still fucked. Too bad, so sad.

 

[cowslinger64]

Christ, you are an idiot.

Let’s dissect this claim of McCarthy’s, because he’s almost as full of shit as you are, but you are not even understanding what he is saying.



He hyperlinks his item (a) to 28 CFR 600.1...



Do you notice he does not use operative words of the statute? The statute’s requirement is a determination that a criminal investigation of a person or matter (and that “or matter” is important, because that’s the subject of the Mueller invesitation —it’s a matter, not a specific person or persons) is warranted.

Do you know where McCarthy’s “a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation?” come from?

It’s from Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-270, 108 Stat. 732 (codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 591- 599) (the 1994 Reauthorization Act). By its terms, the 1994 Reauthorization Act required the Attorney General to conduct a “preliminary investigation” to determine whether appointment of an independent counsel was necessary if the Attorney General received “information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate whether” a covered person has violated federal criminal law.

Well, that means you win, right?

Wrong. The Reauthorization Act expired in 1999. And not by accident, either. Both Ken Starr and Janet Reno asked Congress to let it die. And die it did. CFR 600.1 was implemented by the DOJ that same year so that it maintained a mechanism through which it could follow the original Special Counsel legislation from the 60s.

So, immediately, McCarthy is playing a shell game with expired statutory language. Let’s skip his (b) because it’s not in scope of our conversation, about regulations requiring a spefic list of crimes. Let’s instead move on to his item (c), where he makes the argument that the AG needs to specify the crimes a Special Counsel is meant to investigate with the famous propositional logic of id est, i.e., “i.e.”



Except, oh wait, id est isn’t a logical proposition, it just means “in other words.” So he makes a leap from “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” to a requirement of specifying Federal crimes with the persuasive power of “in other words.”

Or, in other words, horseshit.

I guess I have to give you the quote again. This is from the memorandum descision by the US District Court in the case of United States v. Manafort. Maybe I need to make it more clear to you somehow:


McCarthy is full of shit. You are full of shit. I suggest you read the memorandum decision, because it excoriates the existing regulations as themselves full of shit, before doing the necessary and applying them anyway rather than inventing things based on expired legislation, and McCarthy would have been much better off making an argument that the current regulations are craptastic, and that at this point in the investigation Rosenstein has an obligation to list the crimes Mueller is authorized to look into. (The judge even strongly suggests someone make the argument that original Special Counsel statute itself, quoting a Scalia dissent where he opens the window for it.)

McCarthy’d still be wrong, because a Special Counsel has the “additional jurisdiction” to bring any charges as long as they have a non-laughable connection to the factual statement that started the investigation in the first place. (Which is another thing the judge in US v. Manafort thinks is craptastic but is stuck with unless Manafort had the balls and purse to challenge the Constitutionality of the SC statue all the way to SCOTUS, which he didn’t. The pussy.)

Oh, and it looks like McCarthy failed to mention the August 2nd 2017 Scope Memorandum Rosenstein issued to Mueller, further specifying what the original charging letter was talking about. I don’t think the entire Scope Memo has been released to the public, but here’s some of the stuff it said specifically about Manafort:



TL;DR McCarthy is full of deliberate shit. You’re full of ignorant shit. The applicable regulations are pieces of shit. The whole system is shit!

But your boy is still fucked. Too bad, so sad.

Lol.. that was a great reply. I tried doing similarly with vette and she pussed out and put me on ignore, I also did the same with que-ball and all I got out of him was a bunch of nonsensical bullshit, along with his continued claim of vast intellectual superiority... even tho there was none of that. Those two douchebags along with botanydummy have taken stupid, ignorant, and obtuse to all new levels.

 

[Oblimo]

Lol.. that was a great reply.

I couldn’t leave him thinking the plain language of the regulation said something it plainly didn’t.

Hopefully his further inanity won’t be as tantalizingly ignorant to me.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

 

[cowslinger64]

I couldn’t leave him thinking the plain language of the regulation said something it plainly didn’t.

Hopefully his further inanity won’t be as tantalizingly ignorant to me.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I GUARANTEE he will continue to think just that. lol

 

[Oblimo]

...

I declare victory and depart the field.

 

[Rightguide]

Lisa Page testified investigators had no proof of collusion when Robert Mueller was appointed: Report
by Daniel Chaitin
September 16, 2018 01:36 PM

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted earlier this summer that more than nine months into the federal Russia probe, investigators had found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

"I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question," Page told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition in July, according to Fox News. The transcript shows Page stopped mid-answer, asking to consult with her counsel.

"It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point," she went on to say. "But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum."

Page had been answering a line of questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who was pressing her on a May 2017 text exchange with former FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an affair.

In a statement to Fox News, Ratcliffe said he "cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview," before adding: "But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sion-when-robert-mueller-was-appointed-report

 

[Rightguide]

...

I declare victory and depart the field.

You just can't help yourself, can you? Anyone who says the following isn't worthy of a response:

"Let’s dissect this claim of McCarthy’s, because he’s almost as full of shit as you are"

 

[cowslinger64]

You just can't help yourself, can you? Anyone who says the following isn't worthy of a response:

"Let’s dissect this claim of McCarthy’s, because he’s almost as full of shit as you are"

Another of querys alts comes back..and is still annoyingly full of shit..and thick with the gop bukkakke.

 

[Kirkrapine]

For precisely what federal crimes is the president of the United States under investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department?

Criminal conspiracy and treason.

 

[Rightguide]

Criminal conspiracy and treason.

That is a lie.

 

[Kirkrapine]

That is a lie.

Those are the crimes of which Trump might be and very probably is guilty. "Collusion" is not a crime because the law calls it "conspiracy," which is a crime. And entering into a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power is treason.

 

[Rightguide]

Those are the crimes of which Trump might be and very probably is guilty. "Collusion" is not a crime because the law calls it "conspiracy," which is a crime. And entering into a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power is treason.

You lied. The President has never been investigated for either charge. The Attorney General has never authorized the Special Counsel to investigate Democrat wet dreams.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You lied. The President has never been investigated for either charge. The Attorney General has never authorized the Special Counsel to investigate Democrat wet dreams.

The Special Counsel is expressly authorized (1) to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the possibility of Trump Campaign collusion/conspiracy in same; and (2) to follow that investigation wherever it may lead him, even into apparently unrelated activities and charges, such as money laundering or tax evasion. We have no knowledge, as yet, of what particular charges Mueller might recommend based on his findings, which are not yet published, but I hope will be before election day. You do hope so too, don't you?

 

[phrodeau]

You lied. The President has never been investigated for either charge. The Attorney General has never authorized the Special Counsel to investigate Democrat wet dreams.

Be sure to tell Andy. He doesn't seem to know.

 

[Rightguide]

The Special Counsel is expressly authorized (1) to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the possibility of Trump Campaign collusion/conspiracy in same; and (2) to follow that investigation wherever it may lead him, even into apparently unrelated activities and charges, such as money laundering or tax evasion. We have no knowledge, as yet, of what particular charges Mueller might recommend based on his findings, which are not yet published, but I hope will be before election day.

You are ill informed. There was never any evidence of Russian Collusion and thus no justification for the appointment of the Special Counsel. This on the testimony of McCabes FBI attorney, Lisa Page, and the glaring lack of an iota of evidence.

 

[doowdniw]

Criminal conspiracy and treason.

I think conspiracy to defraud the United States may be closer to the mark.

But I won't be surprised if RICO, money laundering and tax evasion are included, too.

 

[Rightguide]

I think conspiracy to defraud the United States may be closer to the mark.

But I won't be surprised if RICO, money laundering and tax evasion are included, too.

^^^

BS

 

[Kirkrapine]

Lisa Page testified investigators had no proof of collusion when Robert Mueller was appointed: Report

Even the media had proof of collusion when Mueller was appointed.

 

[doowdniw]

^^^

BS

Convince a lot of people with that argument?

 

[Rotadom]

That is a lie.

This one too.

Convince a lot of people with that argument?