How is John Durham able to stay on as Special Prosecutor?

[kentuck]

More than a year after Joe Biden is inaugurated as President, John Durham is still lingering around looking for evidence of wrong-doing. Is there a statute of limitations on Special Counsels?

Why isn't William Barr called to explain this charade? No doubt, Trump wants to maintain some sort of investigation against Hillary so he can claim himself a "victim", if he chooses to run again.

But, this seems odd that Garland has not addressed this issue? Is there nothing they can do to stop the fake investigations? Could Garland do the same type of appointment at the end of this Administration, if he would like to continue the investigation about the insurrection, for example?

[Pantagruel]

1. Could Garland do the same type of appointment?

IMHO, it's inevitable given the scope of Trump's crimes and sheer volume of evidence.
And you protect against a GOP cover up.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16357875

[former9thward]

2. The Special Counsel reports to the AG.

The SC has no special protection. He can be fired at anytime by the AG. Garland must be satisfied with the job the SC is doing or else he would be gone. People don't want to hear that.

[msfiddlestix]

4. looks like your thoughts are in conflict with post #3 and vice versa...

Am I misunderstanding each explanation?

I remain puzzled.

[Ocelot II]

5. Special Counsels can't be fired except for cause.

[former9thward]

8. And "cause" is not defined.

It can be not following DOJ policy or pretty much anything.

[kentuck]

10. It does seem that the AG has a lot of latitude in that regard.

Perhaps they think he is a political "positive", so long he is not feeding the hungry wolves?

[Ocelot II]

3. Special prosecutors can't be fired except in specific circumstances.

Barr appointed Durham to be a special prosecutor and not just a regular prosecutor specifically for the reason that he couldn't easily be fired by a new AG.

[msfiddlestix]

6. looks like your thoughts are in conflict with post #2 and vice versa...

looks like your thoughts are in conflict with post #2 and vice versa...

Am I misunderstanding each explanation?

I remain puzzled.

[Ocelot II]

7. Special Counsel regs:

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

[former9thward]

9. Which is a grab bag of reasons.

This is what makes the SC different than the Independent Counsel which expired in the 90s. The ICs were pretty much untouchable and neither Congress or the DOJ wanted that.

[Ocelot II]

11. True. But a special counsel still can't be summarily sacked without providing a reason.

[The Magistrate]

12. I Expect A Clever Wordsmith Could Contrive One, Ma'am

Incompetence and political bias would seem a decent basis for an attempt....

[msfiddlestix]

13. interesting, looks like in this case with Durham, Garland has sufficient cause to terminate

it ain't personal... but just under dereliction of duty alone by:

1: promoting nefarious lies about Hillary's "criminal activities" to television cable personalities

2: Violation of Department Policies (or dereliction of duty) discussing investigations not being charged of any crimes.

3: Dereliction of Duty: to news media outlets with malice intent (provable)

I think there might be more violations but just those three should be enough... what say you?