Trump's appointment of Whitaker as AG. Is it legal?

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   For many of us on the left, DT's putting a known anti-Mueller person in the AG's position is simply an attempt to quash the investigation into himself. Legal scholars are already saying the act is unconstitutional at best, and may be illegal at worst. Not to mention Whitaker's being involved in an FBI investigation into his dealings with another company at this time.
   
   
   He hasn't been vetted or confirmed by the senate, much less  respected by those he's placed over in the Justice Department. I look for a short stay as Trump's already distancing himself from Whitaker despite his usual daily lies to the contrary. Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I very highly doubt that there is a "legal scholar" anywhere that will claim that putting in a chief of staff as a temporary head of department is unconstitutional.  Not to mention how unconstitutional could ever be anything but illegal.
      
      Would you have preferred to have had Trump assume the duties until someone could be found?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Wrong again wilderness, as a matter of fact, most reputable legal scholars say Bozo Trump's act of illegality is just that but he wouldn't know it if it bit him because he's obviously never read the constitution because he's really not that interested in laws: THANK God his days of wrecking the USA to its core are numbered: Indictment / Impeachment just around the bend:
         
         I already understand the dwindling number of remaining Trump followers, just like Marshall Applewhite followers don't really go for all that fancy schmancy Harvard jazz unless their leader approves it, but here you go:
         
         "Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe Explains Why Trump’s Attorney General Replacement Is Illegal:
         
         https://theunitedstatesblues.com/harvar … s-illegal/

         replyreport
   2. 83

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the appointment of Matt Whitaker to Acting Attorney General may be unconstitutional.
      
      Section II, Article 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that only the appointment of "inferior" officers may be delegated to the President, courts or Heads of Departments.
      
      Principal officers (those who report directly to the President) must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, i.e. via the Senate nominations process.
      
      ". . . and [the president] 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"(1).
      
      The Attorney General is a principal officer.
      
      To prevent a situation where an important function is not fulfilled due to a vacant post, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) does authorize the President to appoint an official to temporarily perform the function that is vacant, providing they have performed in a role with a similar level of responsibility for at least 90 days within the last year. Matt Whitaker fulfills that criteria, but he has not already been confirmed by the Senate.
      
      Whether that disqualifies his appointment as per the Constitution is an open legal question, but in an opinion for National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. (2016), Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
      
      "Appointing principal officers under the FVRA, however, raises grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate"(2).
      
      In that case, not only was the Acting General Counsel of the NLRB deemed to have been appointed illegally, the court also found that all the actions, including prosecutions, taken by him to be invalid for the period he was in role, because he had no valid authority.
      
      In his concurring opinion for that case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
      
      "Granting the President unilateral power to fill vacancies in high offices might contribute to more efficient Government. But the Appointments Clause is not an empty formality. Although the Framers recognized the potential value of leaving the selection of officers to “one man of discernment” rather than to a fractious, multimember body. . . they also recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the Government. . . "(3)
      
      It would need a court case to determine if Mark Whitaker's appointment is legal, but the doubt around the legality of that appointment means any action directed by him (including prosecution) can be challenged on the grounds that he has no valid authority to perform the role.
      
      Rod Rosenstein fulfills the criteria of the FVRA, and has already been confirmed by the Senate. So there would be no doubt about the legality of him acting as AG.
      
      (1) https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ … transcript
      (2) https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-init … ct-of-1998 (Section 3345)
      (3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/15-1251.pdf ("THOMAS, J., concurring", p.7)

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I must agree, I think it is obvious president Trump immediately distanced himself from Whitaker. Just my opinion but I think the president wanted to through up some smoke to deflect the media away from the election results. I would say it only mildly worked.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This may be true, but from what I understand his own staff was caught by surprise by the move. DT went from knowing Whitaker from denying he knew him several times so far.
         
         Trump had already met with him dozens of times and knew Whitaker wouldn't recuse himself and had previously stated he knew how to stop the Mueller Probe. Apparently Trump was too dumb to realize what chaos this would cause.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I have to agree.  He has caused unnecessary chaos. he should have appointed someone with the proper vetting and credentials.

            replyreport
   4. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This news was released today:
      
      The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion Wednesday supporting President Trump’s appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general, despite criticism from Democrats who have questioned his qualifications to oversee the Russia investigation.
      
      In its opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel said that the president’s appointment of Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was consistent with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (VRA) of 1998.
      
      “This Office previously had advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice Official, such as Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General,” the OLC said, noting that Whitaker has been serving at the Justice Department “at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year.”

      replyreport
   5. 78

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is legal.
      http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume … ment/3307/

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That's a legal opinion from the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel.
         
         The actual legality of the president's appointment of Acting AG can only be settled in a court of law.
         
         A motion to issue an injunction against the appointment has been submitted by the State of Maryland, and a decision on that motion will be made in due course.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Do you mean the Trump Impeachment Reason #782 ?

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it is very clear the court will settle this matter.  It would be much simpler if president Trump would just submit someone with all the proper credentials to fill the void.  It is causing an unnecessary uproar, and we all know there are enough of them to suffice.  I do not agree that Rosenstein would not be a good candidate due to his involvement in the FISA dossier investigation that Horowitz is currently involved in.  Need someone without the baggage of current investigations.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yes it would be much simpler if another qualified person were appointed.
               
               As it is, the DoJ will likely have to spend time, money and effort defending Whitaker's appointment in court.
               
               And it's entirely possible a new AG could be appointed before the case about the Acting AG is settled.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Who would you suggest?  Someone that share's Trumps values and goals for the country, will work well with him and is also acceptable to liberals that demand someone with their values and goals?  Starting with a hatred of Donald Trump and a refusal to accept that anything he says or wants is good for the country?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Whether the Acting AG is "acceptable to liberals" or not, is not a matter for the law.
                     
                     Whether the appointment of the Acting AG is lawful or not, is.
                     
                     In terms of candidates, there is a line of succession.
                     
                     If the role of AG is vacant, then the Deputy AG may carry out those responsibilities according to US Code, Title 28 §508(1).
                     
                     The current Deputy AG is Rod Rosenstein. He has been confirmed by the Senate.
                     
                     Failing that, the next in line of succession is the Associate Attorney General, currently Jesse Michael Panuccio. He has been confirmed by the Senate.
                     
                     Failing that, the next in line of succession is the Solicitor General, currently Noel Francisco. He has been confirmed by the Senate.
                     
                     Failing that, the next in line of succession are the Assistant Attorneys General, currently:
                     
                     Makan Delrahim
                     Jody Hunt
                     Eric Dreiband
                     Brian Benczkowski
                     John Demers
                     Jeffrey Bossert Clark
                     Lee J. Lofthus
                     Steven Engel
                     Beth Ann Williams
                     Stephen Boyd
                     
                     I make no comment on the suitability of these individuals, but from a purely legal perspective, there would be no question about the legality of their appointment, as all have been confirmed by the Senate. 
                     
                     (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/508

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually, I meant for a new AG, not acting AG.
                        
                        But the principle remains the same; what person can work with Trump, agrees with his philosophy and goals and yet can work with liberals and agrees with their philosophy and goals?
                        
                        That list is a blank page!  It doesn't matter who Trump chooses as either AG or acting AG, liberals will not be happy and will complain.  The liberal complaints we see that Whitaker will shut down Mueller, or wants to, are a case in point for he never said any such thing.  He merely answered a hypothetical case of how it could be done.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           That's mostly politics, not law.
                           
                           I think the point is, there are numerous people who could have been appointed Acting AG without any legal issues at all.
                           
                           In contrast there is someone who has been very vocal in his support for Trump and criticism of the Mueller investigation, but who's appointment raises serious legal questions.
                           
                           This has ramifications for existing and future government prosecutions or defenses (including Mueller's) because the Acting AG's authority may not be legally valid.
                           
                           The fact Trump appointed Whitaker anyway, indicates his priorities. Evidently, the DoJ being able to do its job as effectively is not among those priorities.

                           replyreport
2. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   He essentially did just that, Dan. Why do you think he did such? Whitaker was placed as Chief of Staff to Sessions so he could--and did--report the goings-on in the Justice Dept. to Trump. Trump's eyes and ears so to speak. Advise and Consent has never been granted to Whitaker by the Senate, thus he's not been vetted for the position.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I repeat: I very highly doubt that there is a "legal scholar" anywhere that will claim that putting in a chief of staff as a temporary head of department is unconstitutional. 
      
      While it is popular to scream out "That's unconstitutional" at every opportunity, it is very, very seldom true.
      
      And no, Whitaker is not named Donald Trump.  He doesn't even wear Trump's clothing or sleep in his bed.  Not even your claims that he was a mole in the office has any resemblance to truth (unless you can produce documentation of that?).
      
      So...would you rather have had the head of the Executive branch step in temporarily until the spot could be filled?  That's what happens in business...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I'm only repeating what the legal scholars said about the appointment, Dan. You failed to say why you think DT made the move? You believe it wasn't to quash the Mueller investigation and was a smart move by Trump?
         
         It's well known being a "mole" for DT was why he was placed in the job and he's reported to DT on dozens of occasions before. Trump said he knew him well...until after he appointed him as AG... then claimed he didn't know him half a dozen times. Which is it?
         
         Comparing this to a business decision is silly at the very least.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Because he needed a head of department immediately.  And Whittaker was the most reasonable temporary fill in.  Who would you have suggested, someone that was familiar with what is going on in the dept (not just the Meuller investigation, and not just anyone wishing that farce to continue for several more years)?
            
            I suppose we could squabble over what a "legal scholar" is - IMO no one that would make such a foolish statement is a scholar of anything at all.
            
            No, it wasn't to quash the investigation.  Yes, it was about as good a move as could be made.  Again, who would you have suggested?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Rosenstein was the practical--as well as-- the customary choice for AG as you may not be aware of. Reasonable for whom. Dan? Why is Trump trying to distance himself now?  I'd imagine neither of us are legal scholars, but I do have a retired judge as a wife.
               
               
               Just because you believe the Mueller investigation is a farce--like your wonderful POTUS--shows your lack of understanding of a thorough investigation. Also like your idol..

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps Rosenstein will be the next AG, after the vetting process.  Or not - I have no idea how well he works with the president, if he gets along with him, shares the feeling that law trumps philosophy, etc.
                  
                  You might want to get your wife to point out the section of the constitution that says the temporary appointment of Whittaker can not be done. 
                  
                  The Mueller investigation, of the Russian Collusion that was his original direction, is long over.  The Mueller witch hunt for any dirt he can find on anyone remotely connected to Trump continues in full force and I expect it will do so until shut down by someone else.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You might want to get your wife to show you where Mueller says the investigation into Russian collusion is "long over"  As far as I can tell he hasn't competed his final report.
                     
                     
                     Trump planned for Whitaker to stall or quash the report as many of us plainly see it. Of course, his base believes anything he says anyway..

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        The get it written, for any investigation into Russian collusion with Trump was over months ago.
                        
                        You see it, yes...in your imagination.   Most of  us understand that making claims without proof isn't real smart.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           So do you have proven claims the Russian probe is over, Dan? If not, most of us understand making such a claim "isn't real smart"

                           replyreport
3. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I was never keen on Sessions. From the outset. And, I highly doubt anyone Trump might have named you'd be keen on. Where is the story here? Trump does something, the left reacts negatively.  Par for the course.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The story was presented in the thread opening. Trump does something clearly unethical at best and his supporters support him.Par for the course.
      
      Why would he hire someone he doesn't know?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         He asked if it was legal. I'm not certain how it could be illegal, and the guy stay in the position for any length of time.
         
         But, let's say the conspiracy nuts are right. It's just a nefarious plan to squash the Mueller investigation. I'd be thrilled, if I was one of you. Because if that happens that's Trump's death knell. He'd lose the support of people like me who think the guy won the election, is president, and deserves leeway to do his job. He'd be dirty and we'd demand impeachment.
         
         It's a win, win. You guys should be chilling your champagne about now. Why, oh why, is the left always looking on the downside?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Because now it's the "upside" for us.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If it's the upside, I don't think you really understand the term.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You don't understand how some of us look at the recent corruption by Trump and his cronies. How could you as you deny anything critical of your idol. He was correct when he said he could shoot someone and not lose any of his "bright" followers.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I could go back and forth but responding to ignorant and inaccurate statements will serve me no purpose.  Enjoy your tirade.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        You seem to consider any thoughts against your own as a tirade. What do you consider your thoughts on the subject as being?
                        
                        Trumps said this himself, so if it was ignorant and inaccurate, blame him.

                        replyreport
   2. 67

      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Here's another BIG part of this evolving story: Nothing less than INSANE, but considering Bozo Trump was reportedly forced to pay millions in settlements for a similar act of atrocity against the public, it's no surprise he has no problem appointing "Weirdo" Whitaker as AG while he's being INVESTIGATED himself by the FBI: INSANITY, INSANITY, INSANITY:
      
      Just when you thought the "BOTTOM" had been reached in this disgusting, mega-corrupt semi-dictatorship of an illegitimate administration, we get another BOMBSHELL like this: UNREAL:
      
      What kind of sleazy loser gets involved in something like this??
      
      "Trump's acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings"
      
      "Matthew Whitaker was paid advisory board member for WPM
      Veteran: ‘I spent the money on a dream. I lost everything’"
      
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … fJkaDV87T0

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Jake, you'll get nowhere using facts with Trumpsters! 
         
         Yep Whitaker is the type of criminal Trump favors most as a crony.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I know Randy, I guess I'm overly compassionate and I just feel the obligation to try and save the last remaining Trump followers from the equivalent of this kind of tragedy which is inevitable:
            
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufSDHfYgWpE

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Jake, apparently Faux News hasn't reported on Whitaker's past statements about how he'd go about stopping the Mueller report by cutting off funding and refusing to issue subpoenas or indictments.
               
               I assume this because the Trump base seems ignorant of Whitakers past statements on the subject and his auditioning for the role of AG by taking DT's side. And we know DT's fans love Faux News...

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Best not make statements you cannot support.  Whittaker never said he would do that; he said if Trump or Sessions wanted it done that would be one way.  One could also fire Sessions or even assassinate him.  Or set off a nuke over DC.  Lots of ways to do it...but Trump didn't, now did he?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Does this support it?
                     
                     “So I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment,” Whitaker said, “and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.”
                     
                     It was the second time in the same interview, in fact, that Whitaker brought up the defunding idea. He said Rosenstein could also be pressured to do it.
                     
                     https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 38b3c0e599

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        He said much more at different times Prom, but those on the right don't want to know about it. If it ain't on Fox, it's not worth listening to or believing for most of DT's base.

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     He has set a bomb of sorts by appointing an unqualified person for the office, Dan. Of course Whitaker won't recuse himself from the Mueller probe voluntarily as he's already promised DT he wouldn't if he was chosen.
                     
                     Too bad though, with the majority of Dems controlling the House they can--and already have--contacted the ethics oversight committee to point out his many statements of his love for your hero. Even if he quashes Mueller's report the Dems can subpoena--not only the report--but Whitaker himself to explain his actions.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        No one, except died in the wool Trump haters desperately looking for reasons to hate, expects him to "quash Mueller's report".  Don't look for it to happen.
                        
                        I'm sure that Democrats have, indeed, contacted any and all ethics committees.  And any and all liberal judges they can find.  See first paragraph.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           "Died in the wool" (SIC) Trump fans swallow anything he says Dan, don't you?

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              You know, Randy, this whole thing is about Whittaker and whether his appointment was constitutional...but somehow it very quickly became about Trump, with various claims of what I think of Trump.
                              
                              If that's all you've got I'm not much interested.  If you want to discuss the constitutionality, or even the legality, of Whittakers appointment, say so.  If you want to trade insults and make unsupported claims straight out of your imagination, find another patsy.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Okay Dan, you're not very informative as a political adversary anyway.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 67

                           JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           At this point, two insane nightmarish years into this dangerous practical joke of a semi-dictatorship, Trump "Haters' don't need to dig too far in a desperate attempt to try and find reasons to hate him, the innumerable unambiguous reasons to despise this ignorant, incompetent traitor are right out there in broad daylight:
                           
                           I still don't know the exact reason WHY he continues to commit crime after crime after crime in broad daylight, his latest appointing a stooge to AG who he himself is under FBI INVESTIGATION for Fraud, YES, it's actually TRUE, but likely reasons could be his mental illnesses that perhaps cloud his mind, illnesses which Harvard experts have reported to congress, his obvious narcissistic proclivities, or perhaps maybe deep down inside that little pea brain of his he's just trying to get caught and prosecuted to end his personal NIGHTMARE in hell:

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Jake, only an ignorant Trump fan cannot see DT's goal in appointing this unqualified Suck-up for AG. It's a blatant in-your-face play by the man child.

                              replyreport
   3. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      LtL, of course you cannot see my point in this discussion...

      replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Obstructionist should try "catching up " on the real facts , Mueller's lead investigators have been disbanding for quite awhile , there was no russian Collusion , which was the original focus ,  it already over but for the final paperwork  and even then it's merely possible recommendation towards  any Trump charges or obstructions  .  Mueller's findings are going to be a huge disappointment to snowflakes all across America  .
   
   Mueller finding ; Quote.
   
   "Gee ,I dunno', Why isn't Hillary the president ?"
   
   Trump haters are so lame.

   replyreport
5. 88

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional
   
   The president is evading the requirement to seek the Senate’s advice and consent for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the person who will oversee the Mueller investigation. - "Mr. Kellyanne Conway"
   
   More
   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opin … ional.html

   replyreport
6. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Hey democrat strategists  , This is what you do ..........
   
   Midterms are over , you won , sort of , Now for the next two years focus on Impeaching Trump for whatever causes , Please ?   Not on healthcare reform , infrastructure , immigration reform ,  the economy ,  foreign policy , The Wall ,  the national debt ...........
   Focus on Impeaching Trump Please ,  While doing so you will guarantee Trump's 2020 reelection  AND the loss of the house majority too .
   
   Impeach Trump Now , Go Maxine !

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh No, Ed! What about your predictions pre-midterms? You just tend to your adoration of Trump and let the House  decide what to do. You don't have the creepy Nunes to protect Trump's cronies and family from answering important questions any longer.

      replyreport
7. 95

   Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

   From CNBC.
   
   "The Justice Department told President Donald Trump that Matthew Whitaker could hold the post of acting attorney general, before Trump appointed him to that post.
   
   Justice Department cleared Matthew Whitaker to be acting attorney general.
   
   Matthew Whitaker can legally continue serving as acting attorney general, the Justice Department said Wednesday."
   
   https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/doj-cle … neral.html

   replyreport
   1. 67

      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's not what the best legal scholars say: The best legal minds are telling any and all individuals within Weirdo Whitaker's purview to disobey any directives until he's removed, just like any and all military personnel now stationed on the border entertaining Bozo Trump's latest dangerous charade, must have been instructed by their commanding officers to DISOBEY Donald's retarded orders to consider a rock thrown by a women as the same as a bullet fired from a gun: It's a retarded comparison which makes Donald look like the cowardly weakling he his, not strong:
      
      Basic law says any military personnel who shoots at a woman, child or man who throws a rock will immediately be court martialed: Sorry, but unlike Russia, you can't just make up laws out of thin air, not even an idiot illegitimate president:
      
      If Bozo Trump understood anything about our Laws and Constitution here in the USA, he'd surely be dumbfounded:

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "Basic law says any military personnel who shoots at a woman, child or man who throws a rock will immediately be court martialed"
         
         Jake, YOU are clueless.
         
         It's obvious you've never been in the military.  Court Martials in the military are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is no such thing as "Basic Law." Who dressed you today?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well Readmikenow, if you grabbed a gun, joined the military like Donald was apparently frightened to death of doing decades ago, and if you drove or flew or walked down to the border and obeyed Bozo's directive, I'd hate to see the legal situation you'd be in:
            
            I'd be shocked to find out the commanding officers at the border have accepted Donald's INSANE Illegal order of treating a stone thrower as a person who is armed with a gun, that's just beyond absurd and ridiculous and just one more reason why he needs to be REMOVED from our oval office ASAP because he constantly proves has no idea about much of anything except apparently how to rip off gullible souls:
            
            Every legal expert understands any troop who fires shot at any unarmed individual at the border who merely tosses a stone citizen or not, will absolutely be in deep deep legal jeopardy: We're talking about war crimes here which apparently means absolutely nothing to Donald:

            replyreport
            1. 95

               Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "War Crime?" You truly need to study up on your law.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Right now, according to reports, our southern border is militarized, even though our down in the dumps, de-moralized troops are simply sitting around playing games to pass the time, awaiting Bozo Trump's phoney fake hoax of a Honduran invasion:
                  
                  If these women, children and men ever get here, which is an open question at this point, and if you don't think the shooting by a military personnel of an innocent person at the border who is merely throwing stones is NOT a war crime I'd suggest you are sadly mistaken:
                  
                  Military personnel are NOT authorized to shoot any civilian throwing stones regardless of what the orange circus clown polluting our oval office says and any commanding officer who does give that order will absolutely be court martialed if caught:

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Mattis and Neilsen, while visiting the troops along the border, stated the soldiers, for the most part, had no weapons except for those MPs guarding those putting up the razor wire fences.
               
               When asked by a soldier if they were going to have to remove all of the miles of fencing when they left, Mattis didn't reply.   More or less a wasted vacation away from their families during the holiday season for these brave young men.

               replyreport
8. 83

   Don Wposted 5 years ago

   The Office of Legal Counsel has published a memo outlining why, in its opinion, the appointing of the acting AG is lawful(1).
   
   It's still an open legal question though, which can only be determined by the judiciary.
   
   The state of Maryland has issued legal proceedings challenging the appointment of the acting AG(2)(3)(4).
   
   If a judge deems Maryland to have legal standing (i.e. sufficient connection to the relevant law and harm that would result from it being broken) then the judge can (almost certainly will) issue an injunction.
   
   The nature of the junction remains to be seen, but it would likely temporarily prevent the acting AG carrying out the role of acting AG.
   
   Aside from that, any person (or entity) subject to a prosecution directed by the acting AG, can defensively move to dismiss it by legally challenging the authority of the acting AG. In that case, the prosecution would need to be suspended until the legality of the appointment has been determined. This puts any potential future prosecutions that need to be authorised by the acting AG in jeopardy.
   
   If either of the above scenarios do happen, then the role of acting AG will either need to be left vacant, or a different acting AG appointed temporarily, or a different acting AG appointed.
   
   (1)https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … d/full.pdf
   (2) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/l … w-whitaker
   (3) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/p … tment.html
   (4) http://time.com/5453227/maryland-trump- … -whitaker/

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The final authority in this matter is the Justice Department.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If the judge decides Maryland, or any other plaintiff that joins the case, has legal standing (it's very likely they do) and the case can proceed, then it will be for the judiciary to decide whether the appointment was legal or not.
         
         And I'd  be very surprised if the court did not issue an injunction as has been requested(1) while the case is being heard, preventing Whitaker performing the role of acting AG. Not doing so could have dire consequences. E.g. any prosecutions on behalf of the government authorized by Whitaker could be rendered invalid if it is found his appointment was unlawful.
         
         (1) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The MD court has no standing.  They have no legal authority over the decisions of the President of the United States.  Since the Justice Department issued the okay, let the federal judge try and issue an injunction to the Justice Department.  Good luck.  This is a big bunch of smoke and mirrors.  It's nothing but a show.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               The court doesn't need standing. It's not the court suing the government, it's the state of Maryland.
               
               If the District judge grants a preliminary injunction, it's inconceivable that the DoJ would not comply with it. That would essentially be the Executive ignoring the Judiciary, which would escalate the situation to a full blown Constitutional crisis.
               
               It's more likely the government would comply with the injunction, but immediately file a motion with the appellate courts (in this case the 4th circuit) to stay (stop) the injunction.
               
               If the motion to stay was rejected, the government would likely appeal to the Supreme Court. If the motion to stay were granted, Maryland would likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
               
               Either way it would likely be a matter of weeks, if not months, before an ultimate ruling. In the meantime, if the government fails to overturn the preliminary injunction, the Acting AG would not be able to act as the AG while the case is ongoing.
               
               In the case of the role of AG becoming vacant, the duties of the AG would fall to the current Deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, as per federal law(2).
               
               (1) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1
               (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/508

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "Either way it would likely be a matter of weeks, if not months, before an ultimate ruling."
                  
                  This proves my point, it's just for show.  President Donald Trump said he would announce his choice for new Attorney General by January 2019. Then the confirmation process starts. It will be all for nothing pretty soon.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Except that if Dem's don't like his choice (and they won't, whoever it is) they're under pressure to approve and get Whitaker out of there.
                     
                     Funny if he submits Whitaker as the new AG!

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, funny!
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlpo9A--lLs

                        replyreport
                  2. 83

                     Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Not really.
                     
                     Whitaker's appointment has significant administrative implications for a different case Maryland is involved in with the government(1).
                     
                     The state previously filed suit against the AG over his decision not to defend the minimum coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act.
                     
                     As Sessions has now resigned, the Acting AG will be required to direct the government's legal response to that case.
                     
                     The identity of the person legally carrying out the role of Acting AG is obviously crucial to ensure interim orders, judgments etc. are issued to the correct official.
                     
                     It's also crucial to ensure the person in that role has the legal authority to perform the role, as it could be injurious to Maryland if that were not the case.
                     
                     E.g. if Whitaker decided to reverse the DoJ decision on the ACA, that would provide Maryland with the result it seeks. But Whitaker's decision could later be deemed invalid, if his appointment was found to be unlawful.
                     
                     So Maryland is requesting an injunction to substitute Whitaker for someone who's authority cannot later be deemed invalid, in order to ensure decisions made in relation to the case are not compromised.
                     
                     All that to say,  Maryland is not doing just it for show.
                     
                     (1) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1

                     replyreport
9. 83

   Don Wposted 5 years ago

   Attorneys representing someone in a gun rights case have petitioned for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether Whitaker's appointment is legal on the grounds that there is:
   
   " . . . a significant national interest in avoiding the prospect that every district and immigration judge in the nation could, in relatively short order, be presented with the controversy over which person to substitute as Acting Attorney General".
   
   Also
   
   "On Wednesday, attorneys in an immigration case before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals asked the court to issue a temporary order that to block the government from moving forward in the case with Whitaker serving as acting attorney general."(3)
   
   The question over the validity of the Acting AG's authority is having an impact on cases the government are currently prosecuting or defending.
   
   (1) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/16/poli … index.html
   (2) https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-t … KKCN1NL2KZ
   (3) https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/417 … hite-house

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That liberals don't like him is unquestionable.  That his appointment may impact cases currently under consideration is unquestionable.
      
      The only thing that IS questionable is if the appointment was legal - it would seem to be but that will, of course, depend on the courts.  Liberal courts will say "Hell no!" and it will go to the SCOTUS...if it isn't moot long before it gets past the second judge and that will likely depend on whether Democrats accept any other suggestion.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         So you don't see it as an 'in your face' by Trump, Dan? And do you really believe DT didn't know what Whitaker had said previous to his appointment? I mean seriously?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I believe it is typical Democratic posturing - that if they liked him there would be no complaints filed.
            
            All the furor, then, is nothing but political posturing for political purposes.  It has zero to do with the legality of the appointment, with the qualifications of the man, or with anything but partisan politics.
            
            No one who actually cares to think can believe otherwise.  Now can they?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Apparently you're not aware of Whitaker's questionable past nor his having to update his financial disclosure 5 times in two weeks and is still not through. His involvement in a non-profit company netted him over a million dollars and is under FBI investigation as we speak.
               
               He suddenly became more wealthy when he became Sesssions' chief of staff and was placed there to be a mole for DT. There's more about the guy you claim is getting a raw deal if you simply watch any news site except Fox. I know it's a lot to ask....
               
               And some from the right are also concerned about him.

               replyreport
      2. 83

         Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If the recent record of the Supreme Court is anything to go by, it will very likely find in favor of the government. It's very unlikely the addition of Kavanaugh will change that in favor of a plaintiff.
         
         "That his appointment may impact cases currently under consideration is unquestionable".
         
         I think this is the crux of the matter.
         
         It's almost a certainty that White House Counsel advised Whitaker's appointment might be legally challenged, and therefore his authority legally questionable (even with the favorable opinion from the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel).
         
         Evidently Trump's priorities do not include ensuring the DoJ is able to function as effectively as possible though, because until the case is litigated either way, every decision made by the Acting AG is legally questionable, and potentially reversible.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And every case Whitaker gets involved in means the defendant's attorney can/will use the tact of claiming Whitaker was not legally approved by the senate to make matters even worse, Don.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, and it's already happening.
               
               "On Wednesday, attorneys in an immigration case before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals asked the court to issue a temporary order that to block the government from moving forward in the case with Whitaker serving as acting attorney general."
               
               https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/417 … hite-house

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Whitaker is basically a time-out until January when the Dems take over the House. He'll be called before them and it won't bode well for Donnie's chances with Mueller's obstruction probe.

                  replyreport
10. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    When it comes to DJT 's court and top administration picks , every single one of them , all of a sudden every lowly obstructionist  on hubpage forums is constitutional attorney ?
    
    It's kind of funny .

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       What's really funny is how many of DJT's admin picks have come and gone, many under scandalous circumstances. Yuk yuk yuk! 

       replyreport
11. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    What Trump NEEDS to eliminate are Obama  federal court socialist judges , federal office holdovers still obstructing .........Wish he'd get off his butt and fire them all , make his US transformation back to an American government far easier .

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah right, the way things are going for your hero he'll be lucky to make it through his first term, much less avoid prison.

       replyreport
12. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    So says the resounding voice of TDS .

    replyreport