Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The Appointments Clause gives Congress the right to delegate to the President "inferior" appointments, which Congress did with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows the appointment of acting officials without Senate Confirmation. Oh ya, I saw the DOJ memo, which used as precedent incidents from the 1860's. Back when travel was slow. Why hasn't he offered anyone for confirmation? Because its an act of obstruction of justice, that's why. This is illegal and is being challenged as such in court. Illegal, unconstitutional and corrupt. Con man, hack and Trump toady all in one. But you defend it.
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh ya, I saw the DOJ memo, which used as precedent incidents from the 1860's. Back when travel was slow. I gave you precedents from 2010. 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Why hasn't he offered anyone for confirmation? Because its an act of obstruction of justice, that's why. Why hasn't he nominated anyone for confirmation by a lame-duck Senate? Because morons like you would say "He can't nominate anyone until the new Senate is in session!" You're not giving honest criticism. You're just running down a list of ignorant excuses. 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: This is illegal and is being challenged as such in court. No, it's not. Appointing someone to an acting position has never before required Senate confirmation. This is entirely a made-up interpretation of the law that is no more than three weeks old. It only became "illegal" because you hate Trump.
Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I gave you precedents from 2010. Re-post again, please 17 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Why hasn't he nominated anyone for confirmation by a lame-duck Senate? Because morons like you would say "He can't nominate anyone until the new Senate is in session!" Oh ya, THAT would be awful. That is a moronic response. 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, it's not. Appointing someone to an acting position has never before required Senate confirmation. This is entirely a made-up interpretation of the law that is no more than three weeks old. It only became "illegal" because you hate Trump. There is no "acting" anything in the Constitution. This was done by Trump for corrupt purposes and you know it. Just like the lie Trump told that he had no idea this guy talked about the Mueller probe. Total lies.
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Re-post again, please No. You read them and dismissed them with "but that's not the AG" *****, which distinction the Constitution doesn't make either. So ***** you and your buffet-style selective misinterpretation of the Constitution, you asshat.
Warren Zevon Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 Looks like DC Tom either thought the cat food was tuna fish again or soaked his depends. Angry and bitter like a Buffalo winter
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 minute ago, peace out said: Looks like DC Tom either thought the cat food was tuna fish again or soaked his depends. Angry and bitter like a Buffalo winter Tuna is cat food. 1
Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, peace out said: Looks like DC Tom either thought the cat food was tuna fish again or soaked his depends. Angry and bitter like a Buffalo winter He sees Trump like this:
keepthefaith Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Re-post again, please Oh ya, THAT would be awful. That is a moronic response. There is no "acting" anything in the Constitution. This was done by Trump for corrupt purposes and you know it. Just like the lie Trump told that he had no idea this guy talked about the Mueller probe. Total lies. This is nothing more than another "issue" raised by the left to keep Trump bad in the news cycle. For your sake I hope courts don't quickly rule in Trump's favor or you'll be looking for your next Trump bad matter pretty quickly. Hopefully the courts have gotten your memo to slow walk this damn thing for months. Meanwhile $22T in debt and climbing, 40% annual health insurance rate increases and the same illegal immigrant and border issues.
3rdnlng Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, westside said: Is your ass still burning from President Trump's trouncing of criminal Hillary? You need to accept the things you cannot change, like the BS russian collusion investigation. The courage to change the things you can, like, maybe the corrupt left wing party. And the wisdom to know the difference. Here is where you might struggle. Sniffing bleach all those years at the laundromat has seriously damaged your ability to think on your own. Get some religion, straighten up your life, move out of your mom's basement and for God sakes, stop sniffing the bleach!! That's so passe, even Gleeful Gator has graduated to swallowing tide pods.
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 39 minutes ago, Tiberius said: There is no "acting" anything in the Constitution. This was done by Trump for corrupt purposes and you know it. 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: The Appointments Clause gives Congress the right to delegate to the President "inferior" appointments, which Congress did with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows the appointment of acting officials without Senate Confirmation.
Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: This is nothing more than another "issue" raised by the left to keep Trump bad in the news cycle. For your sake I hope courts don't quickly rule in Trump's favor or you'll be looking for your next Trump bad matter pretty quickly. Hopefully the courts have gotten your memo to slow walk this damn thing for months. Meanwhile $22T in debt and climbing, 40% annual health insurance rate increases and the same illegal immigrant and border issues. The King simply installing his own Lord of "Justice" to overseas a criminal investigation of the king? Ya, nothing to see here. It's absolutely corrupt and violates the Constitution. Just submit a nominee and vote on him! As if that is so difficult. Won't do it because he wants to obstruct justice. So obvious, such corruption. You guys are jumping the shark tank on this one.
Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Ya sure, and the Lame Duck congress is the Lame excuse for not nominating a replacement. Totally corrupt all the way through. This is an abuse of power. Criminal.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: The Appointments Clause gives Congress the right to delegate to the President "inferior" appointments, which Congress did with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows the appointment of acting officials without Senate Confirmation. But does the constitution or this so-called Appointments Clause mention Whittaker by name? No one wants to address that.
Tiberius Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 What took them so long? Dems taking this to court. Quote “Installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of Schoolhouse Rock would recognize it,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “President Trump is denying Senators our constitutional obligation and opportunity to do our job: scrutinizing the nomination of our nation’s top law enforcement official. The reason is simple: Whitaker would never pass the advice and consent test. In selecting a so-called “constitutional nobody” and thwarting every Senator’s constitutional duty, Trump leaves us no choice but to seek recourse through the courts.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-democrats-sue-to-remove-matt-whitaker-from-the-attorney-general-post?ref=home
3rdnlng Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: What took them so long? Dems taking this to court. https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-democrats-sue-to-remove-matt-whitaker-from-the-attorney-general-post?ref=home Gleeful Gator, you ignorant slut. No one that meets Trump's requirements for AG could win Senate approval before the new congress. Jeff Flake has already stated that he won't vote for a Trump appointee and with the chance that another one or two R's might do the same, a confirmation hearing would be a waste of time. Maybe Whittaker can be the permanent AG come next year and you can cry yourself to sleep every night while sucking on your binky.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Gleeful Gator, you ignorant slut. No one that meets Trump's requirements for AG could win Senate approval before the new congress. Jeff Flake has already stated that he won't vote for a Trump appointee and with the chance that another one or two R's might do the same, a confirmation hearing would be a waste of time. Maybe Whittaker can be the permanent AG come next year and you can cry yourself to sleep every night while sucking on your binky. Political posturing seeking to further delegitimize the President and his government. Some activist court will issue a stay, with the ruling based on the absurd, and will do so after the declass, which the media will then use to spin as illegitimate in the same way they went after those who leaked Clinton's emails, ignoring what was in them. That will be the story. That the SCOTUS eventually overturns the stay will be irrelevant, other than to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is illegitimate.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 Mueller doesn't care. Why is it that the establishment dems do? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5193420-Miller-DC-Cir-USA-Supp.html 4
B-Man Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 Quote John CardilloVerified account @johncardillo 10h10 hours ago MSNBC is losing its mind over Whitaker as acting AG. Whitaker has the dirt on Hillary and sees through the Mueller sham. They’re terrified of him. . 2
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 32 minutes ago, B-Man said: . (and everything on NBC in terms of leak investigations)
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 15 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Gleeful Gator, you ignorant slut. No one that meets Trump's requirements for AG could win Senate approval before the new congress. Jeff Flake has already stated that he won't vote for a Trump appointee and with the chance that another one or two R's might do the same, a confirmation hearing would be a waste of time. Maybe Whittaker can be the permanent AG come next year and you can cry yourself to sleep every night while sucking on your binky. This is really stupid. A Republican Congress won't approve Trump's (Normal) nomination? That's an incredibly lame answer for putting this criminal in charge of Justice. You know this guy is involved in a criminal enterprise, right? 15 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Political posturing seeking to further delegitimize the President and his government. Some activist court will issue a stay, with the ruling based on the absurd, and will do so after the declass, which the media will then use to spin as illegitimate in the same way they went after those who leaked Clinton's emails, ignoring what was in them. That will be the story. That the SCOTUS eventually overturns the stay will be irrelevant, other than to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Who needs that silly old Checks and Balances anyway, right?
Recommended Posts