Sessions Resigns as AG

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

But does he really know the nitty gritty of what goes on?

 

If this goes to the judicial branch and this fairytale wraps up Roberts and Ginsburg as you've hinted... Come on.  We are done for as a country and a civil war will be needed.

 

Is it better to live in a pretend democratic republic, or a real one?

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is it better to live in a pretend democratic republic, or a real one?

obviously the pretend one.  when things don't work out it's much more difficult to look at one's own civic actions as part of the problem than to blame #orangemanbad

[Foxx]

we haven't been a Republic for a very long time now.

[Foxx]

the head of American Oversight is a former attorney in the Obama administration.

 

Office of Special Counsel Opens Investigation on Acting AG Matt Whitaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVjCMP7nyBg

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

48 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the head of American Oversight is a former attorney in the Obama administration.

 

Office of Special Counsel Opens Investigation on Acting AG Matt Whitaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVjCMP7nyBg

 

 

How many people at this point trust any investigation to not be a political hatchet job?

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

How many people at this point trust any investigation to not be a political hatchet job?

NLP MSM sheeple?

that's a lot btw......

[B-Man]

Unable to Vanquish Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker Via The Federal Vacancies Reform Act,

Democrats Try The Hatch Act

So threatened are Democrats by Trump ally Matt Whitaker’s new position of power, they’ve been tying themselves into knots trying to oust him from the top job at the DOJ. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s the new normal. Each Trump appointment going forward will receive the Kavanaugh treatment. Democrats will scrutinize every aspect of their lives until they find something – anything – with which to force the nominee to withdraw in disgrace.

 

{snip}

 

Rosenstein acted against DOJ rules and regulations first by opening a special counsel investigation when there was no criminal basis for it. Secondly, DOJ regs require a “scope” of the investigation to be explicitly stated at its inception. Rosenstein failed to assign a scope to Mueller when the probe began. And third, even if there had been a criminal basis, as in Watergate, and a scope had been defined, there remains the requirement that the special counsel be a Washington outsider, which Mueller most definitely was not. So, Rosenstein is 0 for 3.

 

Rosenstein’s replacement by Whitaker is a grave development for the Democrats and that’s what’s driving their desperate measures to discredit him. Whitaker doesn’t need to fire Mueller to influence the investigation. He has many tools available to set limits on Mueller and he will likely hand over the documents that Rosenstein was so reluctant to provide. You can be sure Democrats have devoted many resources to derailing Whitaker and that they are digging deeply into every aspect of his life to nail him. Trump must continue to stand behind him as he did for Kavanaugh. Democrats are right to be afraid. They have much to lose.

[Thurmal34]

Hey, if you suck at selling toilets, wHy not become AG of the US?

[/dev/null]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/john-roberts-donald-trump.html

[boyst]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/john-roberts-donald-trump.html

If this was a TV drama the episode we finished with last week with Roberts leads us in to the next season with high stakes and wondering if Nacho finally gets offed, when Jimmy becomes Jimmy... Etc

 

That Roberts spoke up makes it just incredibly odd.  He is not partisan, at least by the optics.  That he did not publicly admonish RBG is not a surprise but I also doubt he is able to confront her privately, either.  He should have released a statement for that because now he is the one who is obviously making a partisan statement.

 

But, it's also important to note the following:

3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

If you use the search function, you will see this topic has been covered elsewhere.

 

I thought his place was the Wild West. I’ve deleted 7-8 threads, not just those on the topics mentioned in Azalin’s post. I don’t delete to be mean—I just do it when it’s spun way off topic or devolved into just an attack thread (not just on me but others). Which that one did. 

 

I’m proud that deleting a thread about building positive online community brought us all together. We can work on the positivity but ... baby steps!

 

With love and kisses to you all and Season’s Greetings to everyone except LSH who doesn’t want to celebrate the earth’s revolution around the Sun.

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

Experts make a persuasive case President Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general is unconstitutional, as it sidesteps Senate approval; the administration claims otherwise.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-whitaker-20181121-story.html

 

 

 

Quote

 

The courts will sort out who's right. Meantime, the Senate must act as though it has real advise-and-consent hearings to conduct, because there are burning questions that demand answers:

As a talking head, Whitaker harshly criticized the Mueller investigation, and even floated the idea of strangling it of funds. Is he capable of overseeing it objectively or running interference for the President? (Spoiler: He's not.) How can he not recuse himself given his close relationship with Sam Clovis, a co-chairman of the Trump campaign and key witness?

Whitaker was sole employee for an organization called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. A delayed financial disclosure statement (which reportedly was amended five times before being released) shows he was paid some $1.2 million over two years, with FACT's donors concealed from the public. Was it a real non-profit group or a partisan shell with tax-exempt status?

 

Whitaker was on the advisory board of company that paid a $25 million fine to the FTC for scamming thousands of clients. What did he know and when did he know it?

In the likely event that Senate Republicans are too shy, incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is champing at the bit. Go go go.

 

 

GO GO GO!!!

[Deranged Rhino]

Re the wish that Whitaker gets forced out:

 

 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Re the wish that Whitaker gets forced out:

 

 

He's totally corrupt, why wouldn't you want him gone?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He's totally corrupt, why wouldn't you want him gone?

 

* I have yet to see any evidence, besides hyperbole, that he's corrupt. 

* The appointment was legal and constitutional, backed by precedent and multiple DOJ opinions on the matter.

* The only people who want him gone seem to be those most complicit in the illegal spying on Americans and political opponents - which makes me suspect their motives aren't exactly what you think.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

* I have yet to see any evidence, besides hyperbole, that he's corrupt. 

* The appointment was legal and constitutional, backed by precedent and multiple DOJ opinions on the matter.

* The only people who want him gone seem to be those most complicit in the illegal spying on Americans and political opponents - which makes me suspect their motives aren't exactly what you think.

Do you think it was corrupt of him to threaten people that complained about the business he was associated with that was cheating people and ended up paying a huge fine and is still under investigation? That ties him in directly to the corrupt enterprise. You really want him as an Attorney General?? 

 

If anyone needs the above explained further, just say the word 

 

And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Do you think it was corrupt of him to threaten people that complained about the business he was associated with that was cheating people and ended up paying a huge fine and is still under investigation? That ties him in directly to the corrupt enterprise. You really want him as an Attorney General?? 

 

I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role.

 

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

 And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances

 

The constitution, the DOJ, Congress, and the past several presidential administrations disagree with this assessment. The appointment was legal, did not violate the constitution, and will stand. 

 

The question you should be asking is why a formerly unknown DOJ attorney is being painted as a monstrous threat to the world at large by the same people who have been clamoring for two years (without evidence) that Russia stole an election by co-opting Trump. The answer to that gives their intent away  

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And the appointment was not legal, it violated at the most basic level our Constitutional principles of checks and balances

 

No, it did not.  It's a legal appointment.  How many times does it have to be explained until you get it?

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role.

 

 

He literally can't be AG.  The Supreme Court decided that someone in an acting position can't be nominated to fill that position full-time, as THAT would be unconstitutional.

[Tiberius]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

No, it did not.  It's a legal appointment.  How many times does it have to be explained until you get it?

No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not legal. 

 

And this is a violation of checks and balances, anyway. 

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I find those charges woefully uninformed. And he's not going to be AG. He's acting AG until a replacement is found and confirmed. He has 200+ days to serve in that role.

 

 

You do? You know the company had many charges against it, was fined $25 million dollars and Whitaker did threaten the people that complained about the corrupt practices? The company was a complete fraudYou have no problem with that just because its Trump's guy??

 

How is that uninformed? 

 

I won't even get into the million dollars he earned for a "Charity." This guy is an empty suit being used by Trump to subvert justice, plain and simple. 

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The constitution, the DOJ, Congress, and the past several presidential administrations disagree with this assessment. The appointment was legal, did not violate the constitution, and will stand. 

 

The question you should be asking is why a formerly unknown DOJ attorney is being painted as a monstrous threat to the world at large by the same people who have been clamoring for two years (without evidence) that Russia stole an election by co-opting Trump. The answer to that gives their intent away  

The Constitution says he needs to be appointed with advice and consent of the senate, which he does not have. There is no "Acting" appointment clause of the constitution. \\You saying Congress agrees with this?? Where are you getting that from? 

 

There is plenty of evidence Russia interfered with the election. And evidence Trump wanted the help. And evidence they got help. That's why everyone is up in arms about this unconstitutional power grab to install a criminal to oversee our justice department. . 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not legal. 

 

And this is a violation of checks and balances, anyway. 

 

1) You have to demonstrate "corrupt intent" before you can claim that.

 

2) No it isn't.  Again, it's been explained to you multiple times.

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

No it is not. How many times do you need it explained to you that things done with corrupt intent are not 

The Constitution says he needs to be appointed with advice and consent of the senate, which he does not have. There is no "Acting" appointment clause of the constitution. \\You saying Congress agrees with this??

 

Congress passed a law allowing acting appointments that do not have to be approved by the Senate.  The law is Constitutional, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  Again, this has already been explained to you 

[Tiberius]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

1) You have to demonstrate "corrupt intent" before you can claim that.

 

2) No it isn't.  Again, it's been explained to you multiple times.

1) Just because you childishly cover your ears and scream "I can't hear anything about corruption here," doesn't mean there is no corrupt intent. You are just playing games with the truth to cover for your corrupt leader. 

 

2) You are arguing an Attorney General doesn't need confirmed by the Senate. Enough said