[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

An attorney generals legal authority to appoint someone to run a special investigation does not come from the regulation. It comes from statutes enacted by Congress. Those laws do not say that appointee has to come from outside government.

Garland invoked his statutory authority to appoint Weiss to run the Hunter inquiry, then decreed that the portions of the special counsel reg that provide protections/duties would apply. He did not appoint him pursuant to the regulation just as Barr did not for Durham.

in 2003, when Acting AG James Comey named a sitting US attorney, Pat Fitzgerald, SC for the Valerie Plame affair, he did not invoke the reg at all. Comey invoked statutory authority & simply delegated AG powers to Fitzgerald.

As noted above, Barrs naming of then-sitting US attorney John Durham as special counsel to investigate the Russia inquiry was similarly structured - invoke statute to appoint, then say only the protective and duties portions of the regulation apply.

And Mueller, though from outside of the government, was also appointed per statute (not the regulation) with only the regulations protections and authorities cited.

In short, for years AGs from both parties have not felt constrained by the Janet Reno era regulation and have generally only used the protections and authorities contained therein and relied upon the statute (i.e., the law as opposed to an internally- generated regulation) for the appointment itself.

FYI, regulations only have the force of law if authorized by statute and promulgated in strict compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (Notice and Comment Rulemaking). Regs issued for internal use are effectively recommended organizational SOPs that are not legally binding. So yes, as Chick asserts, you are too dumb to understand the historical application of the laws and regs regarding the appointment of a Special Counsel.

Thank you for listening to my TED talk.

Thank you, Pat. Our friend Whell is very cornfuzled as usual.