Oh, What It Week It Was -- An Employee of the Federal Government Tells Us Who Can "Quip" and Grandma Garland Appoints a New "Special Counsel" Same as the Old Special Counsel

The Former Points to the Law, Claiming "Sovereign Immunity" Even Covers Lies and the Latter Ignores Regulations on Who Can Be "Special Counsel"

Falling under the heading, “You Just Can’t Make It Up,” this week we had two more examples from the crime syndicate of special circumstances that apply only to them and how regulations can be adhered to — or not.

“Sovereign Immunity”

Most, if not all, of you probably heard about the hearing this week in the case of Texas M.D. Mary Talley Bowden, et.al. v. HHS, Xavier Becerra, et.al. This case centers on the use of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 — specifically, a doctor’s right to prescribe it.

At issue is whether the FDA violated federal law when it interfered in the doctor-patient relationship by issuing its directive “Seriously, y’all.. Stop it.” against self-medicating with the drug.

This image minus the text still appears on the FDA website on its page discussing Ivermectin. Dr. Bowden, et.al. asserts that this amounted to interference in the doctor-patient relationship and was, in fact, untrue.

The FDA’s defense? “Sovereign immunity.” In the four-minute clip below, we hear one of the three judges ask,

“Is the FDA ever responsible for making these public statements? Can they, if they make statements that are false, grossly misleading, or wrong, can they ever be held responsible or are they allowed to make statements, whatever statements they want, uh, without any oversight or ability to come against the FDA? Are they immunized for all of their statements?”

Listen to the Department of Justice employee, Ashley Cheung Honold, an attorney, respond. Her voice (God forgive me) coupled with her evasion and seeming unwillingness to answer a direct question make my “evil twin” want to start smashing things.

Hat tip to the Chief Nerd over at threadreaderapp for this clip, as well as others, including a link to the full hearing — if you can stand it.

A quick summary of this hearing is that the DOJ attorney admits that doctors could always prescribe Ivermectin; the FDA wasn’t stopping them. Secondly, even if some statements or parts of statements were unlawful? Sovereign immunity, she says. What the heck is that? It’s code for what the English King, Charles I, proclaimed in 1649:

“No earthly power can justly call me, who am your king, in question as a delinquent.”

Though this notion has evolved since 1649 and is not as absolute as old King Charles asserted, here we are — more than 350 years later — getting lectured to by a minion of the federal government. Did we command doctors to stop prescribing an approved, safe drug? No, no. That ad was just a “quip.” Did the FDA make statements that might have been unlawful, untrue, misleading? Well, maybe, but even if they did, no liability because…SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

If you’re interested in reading others’ take on this travesty, I can suggest John Droz, Jr. over at

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

and another great ‘Stack,

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

Both have done recent posts on this topic, delving deep into its implications. For more on the concept of sovereign immunity and its history, I recommend this and this.

---

Now. On to Who Can Be a “Special Counsel”?

As you’ve also probably read, Grandma Garland, the U.S. Attorney General, has appointed a “Special Counsel” to investigate Hunter Biden. It’s the same guy — David Weiss, Delaware U.S. attorney — who already did. This guy had the plea deal from the first “investigation” thrown out. So Grandma appoints him — again? This time Grandma officially makes him “special counsel?” Here’s a quick article with video — if you can stand it — of Grandma making the announcement.

While there’s an obvious problem with this, there’s another one much less obvious that people seemingly know nothing about — including people who should know — like the U.S. Attorney General. Here — I’ll let the regulation speak for itself. According to Chapter 28 CFR § 600.3

§ 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. (Bold/Italics added.) 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.

(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”

I’m guessing whoever wrote this code was not referring to someone standing outdoors near a U.S. government building. Those English words, in that order, mean that a federal government employee like David Weiss is ineligible to be a “Special Counsel” because he works for the federal government! Same goes for the slime ball Jack Smith!

I saw this section of the Code of Federal Regulations via Cornell’s legal site. Since the small head explosion I had upon reading this, I’ve tried to find anything that might suggest that this section of the code was out of date, had been amended, eliminated, etc. Well, according to the National Archives’ website, this section of the code is up to date as of…Aug 9, 2023.

As far as I know, David Weiss is still a U.S. attorney, which means he’s a part of the United States government. While Jack Smith stepped down from his federal post in Nov 2022, he spent half of his career (or more) as a part of the federal government!

In either case, does that sound like “outside the United States government” to you??

To be fair and accurate, Grandma is violating a regulation vs. a law. This section of code derives from the Code of Federal Regulations (regulatory) vs. from United States Code (statutory). That said, it’s the point of federal regulations to ensure that the law (U.S. statutory code) is upheld.

In this case, I would argue that this section of code, specifically, was enacted to ensure that in the carrying out of its legal mandate, the Department of Justice appoints to Special Counsel only those whose experiential pedigree is unquestioned and unquestionable. Who will be seen as impartial. Who have a professional life separate from the government. Who gained their experience “outside the United States government.”

You just can’t make it up.

---

It seems that day after day, week after week, we find ourselves assaulted by the sheer criminality of the United States government. This week, we had one of our parasites — I mean, employees — at the Department of Justice tells us that sovereign immunity is the FDA’s “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Even if it unlawfully interferes with the practice of medicine. Or issues “misleading” statements. Sounds a lot like that product liability immunity that Congress gave vaccine manufacturers via the 1986 Act and later via the PREP Act. It’s all just so special…It’s good to be special.

Meanwhile, it seems that plain language within the Code of Federal Regulations has been missed or ignored…by? Lawyers within the federal government’s legal apparatus. The Code has a whole section dedicated to the appointment of “special counsels” and no one says a word when U.S. government attorneys get appointed???

---

I know Congressman Matt Gaetz’s district office director. I will be calling him today to alert him — in case he and Congressman Gaetz are unaware of Chapter 28 CFR Part 600 § 600.3. Look into this yourself if interested and call your U.S. representative (or Senator) and let them know. If nothing else, to let them know you know…

Shaking my damned head…