Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 10 hours ago, DC Tom said: Is that the next "Acting" Attorney General? There re is no "Acting" anything in the constitution. Totally corrupt
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Is that the next "Acting" Attorney General? There re is no "Acting" anything in the constitution. Totally corrupt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmations_of_Barack_Obama's_Cabinet Quote Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank served as Acting Secretary of Commerce without Senate confirmation following Bryson's resignation in June 2012 until Penny Pritzker's confirmation in June 2013. Quote After more time passed with no motion on her nomination, Obama appointed veteran Labor Department official Edward C. Hugler as Acting Secretary. Quote On July 12, 2013 Napolitano announced she was resigning to take a position as President of the University of California.[187] Her resignation as Secretary of Homeland Security took effect on September 6, 2013, and Rand Beers served as Acting Secretary from that date until Jeh Johnson's confirmation as Secretary in December. Quote Jeffrey Zients served as Acting OMB Director until Sylvia Mathews Burwell's confirmation 15 months later.
boyst Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Is that the next "Acting" Attorney General? There re is no "Acting" anything in the constitution. Totally corrupt ACTING! 2
Nanker Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 55 minutes ago, /dev/null said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmations_of_Barack_Obama's_Cabinet Common man. Everybody knows that Session won the popular vote and has to legally serve out the entire time of the Trump administration. Otherwise, #CORRUPT! 1
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, /dev/null said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmations_of_Barack_Obama's_Cabinet This goes back to motive, Trump is doing this for corrupt purposes. Only Trump cultists think otherwise. The guy is completely unqualified and in fact is nothing more than a political hack sent there to do Donald's bidding. Obama's situation was very different, as it lacked corrupt purposes and even one of the ones you lists is in fact the Senate fault for not confirming. If it came down to brass tacks, I'd just say Obama's officails were unconstitutional, too. They had not been confirmed. But no one seriously thought they were corrupt, so no one cared.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: This goes back to motive, Trump is doing this for corrupt purposes. Only Trump cultists think otherwise. The guy is completely unqualified and in fact is nothing more than a political hack sent there to do Donald's bidding. Obama's situation was very different, as it lacked corrupt purposes and even one of the ones you lists is in fact the Senate fault for not confirming. If it came down to brass tacks, I'd just say Obama's officails were unconstitutional, too. They had not been confirmed. But no one seriously thought they were corrupt, so no one cared. I find it hilarious that these knuckleheads decide to keeping posting the NPC meme and calling people they don't like "NPC's". And yet, they are copying and pasting from 4chan, keep to simple (incorrect) answers, and have the same talking points. Irony is lost upon them. They think it's the next country ISIS takes (after I-raq, I-ran, those secret muslims must be coming from I-rony) ?
Deranged Rhino Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: I find it hilarious that these knuckleheads decide to keeping posting the NPC meme and calling people they don't like "NPC's". And yet, they are copying and pasting from 4chan, keep to simple (incorrect) answers, and have the same talking points. Irony is lost upon them. They think it's the next country ISIS takes (after I-raq, I-ran, those secret muslims must be coming from I-rony) ? Keep to simple and incorrect answers? This from NPCinPhilly who has been shown to be wrong on nearly everything he's ever written on trump Russia collusion and now won't even engage in a discussion about how he was wrong. Its cute when NPCs try to evade their own track records down here. Hilarious but cute.
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Keep to simple and incorrect answers? This from NPCinPhilly who has been shown to be wrong on nearly everything he's ever written on trump Russia collusion and now won't even engage in a discussion about how he was wrong. Its cute when NPCs try to evade their own track records down here. Hilarious but cute. Let's be fair: Philly's whining above was at least original, and not NPC-like. It's bubble-headed, devoid of any thought, rationality, or common sense, and not nearly as funny as he thought it was. But it's clearly not the product of an NPC.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Let's be fair: Philly's whining above was at least original, and not NPC-like. It's bubble-headed, devoid of any thought, rationality, or common sense, and not nearly as funny as he thought it was. But it's clearly not the product of an NPC. Except it was just a dressed up "double dumbass on you" comment.
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 This from the guy who thinks you need ID to buy cereal The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2018
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: Is that the next "Acting" Attorney General? There re is no "Acting" anything in the constitution. Totally corrupt Holy Christ. It's outlined in the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Which, if you'd read it, absolutely allows for Whittaker's appointment in an acting capacity. And you've been given multiple examples where it's been done before. What's not codified anywhere is this idea of "principal" vs. "minor" officials, which you used last week to push a "But that's different!" argument. 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Except it was just a dressed up "double dumbass on you" comment. Entirely my point. NPCs don't dress things up. That's what makes them NPCs. 1
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Holy Christ. It's outlined in the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Which, if you'd read it, absolutely allows for Whittaker's appointment in an acting capacity. And you've been given multiple examples where it's been done before. HA HA, Tom is so ignorant. An Act is not part of the Constitution. Tom thinks an act is part of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President can appoint a principle officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: stupid ***** It's been demonstrated to you repeatedly that he can. And the VRA satisfies the portion of the Constitution that says Congress can delegate such appointment powers to the President as they see fit. But nowhere, in anything - the Constitution, case law, statute, precedent - does anyone ever make a mention of "principal" vs. "minor" officers. Read the law, read the Constitution, and read all the precedents. You have already been given ALL of this information in this thread.
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 even Fox news is bashing this illegal move by Trump http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/14/judge-andrew-napolitano-questions-over-matt-whitaker-attorney-general-appointment 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: It's been demonstrated to you repeatedly that he can. And the VRA satisfies the portion of the Constitution that says Congress can delegate such appointment powers to the President as they see fit. But nowhere, in anything - the Constitution, case law, statute, precedent - does anyone ever make a mention of "principal" vs. "minor" officers. Read the law, read the Constitution, and read all the precedents. You have already been given ALL of this information in this thread. You mean like this? Section 2 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Koko78 Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 31 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Read the law, read the Constitution, and read all the precedents. You have already been given ALL of this information in this thread. They contain big words, are you sure he's capable?
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: They contain big words, are you sure he's capable? Has there ever been an Acting AG before? And you just insulted me.
Koko78 Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Has there ever been an Acting AG before? And you just insulted me. Yes, there has. Many, many times. Sally Yates, for one. Also, it's no longer World Kindness Day. Enjoy your afternoon!
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: Yes, there has. Many, many times. Sally Yates, for one. Also, it's no longer World Kindness Day. Enjoy your afternoon! She was approved by the Senate, though. But ya. This clown they have now was not. Has there ever been an Acting AG not approved by the Senate for job in DOJ?
Koko78 Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: She was approved by the Senate, though. But ya. This clown they have now was not. Has there ever been an Acting AG not approved by the Senate for job in DOJ? She was never approved by the Senate to be the Attorney General.
Tiberius Posted November 15, 2018 Posted November 15, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: She was never approved by the Senate to be the Attorney General. But she was to be in DOJ. As was every other Acting AG. She was the next person in line. Unlike Trump's hack who is there for corrupt purposes.
Recommended Posts