Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tweeted: When the Senate convenes next week, @ChrisCoons and I will ask for unanimous consent to bring S.2644, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, to a vote on the Senate floor. After the firing of The AG, it is more important than ever to protect the Special Counsel. — Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) November 8, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Trump’s appointment of Matthew G. Whitaker looks even worse as conservative lawyers like John Yoo weigh in: “The Constitution says that principal officers must go through appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court made clear that the Attorney General is a principal officer. Therefore, Whittaker cannot serve as acting Attorney General despite the Vacancies Act (which does provide for him to be acting AG) — the statute is unconstitutional when applied in this way.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump’s appointment of Matthew G. Whitaker looks even worse as conservative lawyers like John Yoo weigh in: “The Constitution says that principal officers must go through appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court made clear that the Attorney General is a principal officer. Therefore, Whittaker cannot serve as acting Attorney General despite the Vacancies Act (which does provide for him to be acting AG) — the statute is unconstitutional when applied in this way.” Complete and utter *****. Acting principal officers have never been required to be approved by the Senate before. For example: Kathleen McGettian was a 25-year government employee, named as the acting OPM director without any Senate hearing or confirmation. Several other OPM acting directors were named from the OPM General Counsel role, which is not Senate approved either. Nobody complained then...because a Senate hearing has never been required for an "acting" position. This is nothing more than people looking for any reason to complain about Trump just because he's Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Complete and utter *****. Acting principal officers have never been required to be approved by the Senate before. For example: Kathleen McGettian was a 25-year government employee, named as the acting OPM director without any Senate hearing or confirmation. Several other OPM acting directors were named from the OPM General Counsel role, which is not Senate approved either. Nobody complained then...because a Senate hearing has never been required for an "acting" position. This is nothing more than people looking for any reason to complain about Trump just because he's Trump. You will say anything to defend a Republican. Nobody said anything then because OPM is no where near as important as the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. This is as corrupt as the day is long. But continue on with your "They are picking on my Trump" garbage, its pretty funny to read! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You will say anything to defend a Republican. Nobody said anything then because OPM is no where near as important as the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. This is as corrupt as the day is long. But continue on with your "They are picking on my Trump" garbage, its pretty funny to read! ? Cite one instance where an 'acting' principle officer has ever needed Senate confirmation to be an acting principle officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Complete and utter *****. Acting principal officers have never been required to be approved by the Senate before. For example: Kathleen McGettian was a 25-year government employee, named as the acting OPM director without any Senate hearing or confirmation. Several other OPM acting directors were named from the OPM General Counsel role, which is not Senate approved either. Nobody complained then...because a Senate hearing has never been required for an "acting" position. This is nothing more than people looking for any reason to complain about Trump just because he's Trump. Whitaker scares the pants off them. As he should. Thinking he's going to be the pick in the end. They'll keep parading Christie and Rudy and other nominees for the next week to keep people guessing, but they're all going to be false leads for the media to freak out about. Pain coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Cite one instance where an 'acting' principle officer has ever needed Senate confirmation to be an acting principle officer. From the article I posted earlier: Quote If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate. But I suppose KoKo wants to hide behind the fact this guy is just "acting" but that won't hold water. He's Trump's choice and can't act on this without confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: From the article I posted earlier: But I suppose KoKo wants to hide behind the fact this guy is just "acting" but that won't hold water. He's Trump's choice and can't act on this without confirmation. He sure can. For 200+ days. Get ready for what's about to hit. It won't be pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He sure can. For 200+ days. Get ready for what's about to hit. It won't be pretty. It won't work. Criminal Trump will face justice one way or another. Even if he gets away with this for awhile, he will still be facing criminal prosecution when he leaves office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: It won't work. Criminal Trump will face justice one way or another. Even if he gets away with this for awhile, he will still be facing criminal prosecution when he leaves office We'll revisit this post in 2024. I have a feeling it will end up being as incorrect as your claims he would be removed from office before 2020 for conspiring to steal the election with Putin, or my claim that HRC would win the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We'll revisit this post in 2024. I have a feeling it will end up being as incorrect as your claims he would be removed from office before 2020 for conspiring to steal the election with Putin, or my claim that HRC would win the election. I have always known an impeachment is impossible. I mean impeachment AND conviction ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Get ready for what's about to hit. It won't be pretty. You've been saying this since the imminent memo almost a year ago. Life has been pretty since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Just now, peace out said: You've been saying this since the imminent memo almost a year ago. Life has been pretty since. You're not paying close enough attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're not paying close enough attention. Actually, he is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieJizzle22 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Was this guy the Robert E Lee statue that got taken down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is poised to take control of the House Judiciary Committee in January, said Sunday that he plans to call acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker as his first witness. The hearing would focus on Whitaker’s “expressed hostility” to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, which Nadler called “a real threat to the integrity of that investigation.” The Democrat said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he is prepared to subpoena Whitaker if necessary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nadler-whitaker-will-be-first-witness-summoned-by-the-judiciary-committee/2018/11/11/d5ad40ac-e5bf-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.79cdc6a8f891 If this corrupt clown refuses to recuse himself the Democrats should impeach him and throw it over into the senate for a trial. Let the Republicans vote against getting rid of a corrupt, unqualified fool who has obviously been appointed to do the illegal bidding of this president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 How can they impeach him? I thought the dipschiff lefty narrative was currently that he cannot be the Acting AG, because he wasn't confirmed by the Senate... to be the Acting AG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Doesn’t Whitaker know? You don’t have to show up if called............................. Dems taught me that. Of course if he is called, I have little doubt that he will go and look professional, while the dem "representatives" cry like selfish children . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts