It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump's pick to be acting Attorney General does not qualify under the law

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




 and that you still think that pointing out that the Mueller investigation is overstepping its original intent is a "bias."


I think the guy just stated that an investigation should focus within its scope.

Yeah thats super racist and mean. It may even be a hate crime.

You cant say that. Dont you know that Trump is racist and hates gay people? I hear he is an actual Nazi. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, Mueller cant be told what to do. He runs the country now.


edit on 11 8 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a provision of the Vacancies Act limits the conditions under which an individual may serve in both an acting capacity and as the nominee to the same position. The court’s opinion appears to allow an individual to serve on this basis only if the individual has served as the first assistant to the vacant position for more than 90 of the preceding 365 days or if the individual is serving as first assistant, and that position itself requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

You appear to have missed a part. Whittiker has not been nominated for anything.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

It is not legally distinct in this case. Being forced to quit is still what the clause is talking about. They didnt wqnt the president to stack the justice dept like Nixon was trying.


But he was not forced to quit. He could have said, "No, Mr. President. I will faithfully fulfill my duties until relieved". He did not. He resigned instead. Functionally the same, yes. Legally distinct.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
This is a bunch of hullabaloo.
The "official" line of succession for United States Attorney General is:

United States Deputy Attorney General: Rod Rosenstein who was "acting" in place of sessions as he recused himself in the mueller investigation and other issues: it has been reported that Rod has been removed from being in charge of the mueller investigation: that places his spot in the line of succession in doubt imo.

United States Associate Attorney General: Jesse Michael Panuccio is the ACTING Associate Attorney General of the United States; as he is merely ACTING no one in this position has been confirmed appearantly.

Other Officers potentially designated by the Attorney General (in no particular order):
Solicitor General of the United States
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division
Assistant Attorney General, Justice Management Division
Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs

It appears to me there is no actual clear line of succession and the president may "temporarily" fill the vacancy at his discretion. A lawsuit may be filed but by the time it worked its way to the SCOTUS I suspect the actual nominee would be confirmed by the gop controlled senate.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Look up at the reply right above this one bud. The Vacancy Act is not your savior, here is an excerpt for you:


Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a provision of the Vacancies Act limits the conditions under which an individual may serve in both an acting capacity and as the nominee to the same position. The court’s opinion appears to allow an individual to serve on this basis only if the individual has served as the first assistant to the vacant position for more than 90 of the preceding 365 days or if the individual is serving as first assistant, and that position itself requires the advice and consent of the Senate.


Are you ready to admit you are wrong yet?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

No, because you keep citing an interpretation on whether Whitaker could serve as acting AG and still be the nominee, which is completely neither here or there on the matter because there is no plan to make him the nominee.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier
Be nice to have a libertarian like Napolitano who loves America and the constitution for a change of pace.


I wish he'd run for President.

He's one of the only people on Fox that I don't want to smash their skull in with a sledge hammer.



Here you go, back to where we started. Ive never seen you post anything about wanting to smash in CNN or NYT heads in.










posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Do you not understand what the word temporary means?
Also you should look up the word "appears".
from what you quoted:



The court’s opinion appears

That is someones opinion, not law.
Good luck with that.

As I posted :



It appears to me there is no actual clear line of succession and the president may "temporarily" fill the vacancy at his discretion. A lawsuit may be filed but by the time it worked its way to the SCOTUS I suspect the actual nominee would be confirmed by the gop controlled senate.


You are full of your own uninformed opinion.
Good luck with that.

Funny no dems have given the opinion you are championing.



edit on 8/11/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

This happens on both sides. Someone tweets a bad "interpretation" of a small segment of law , and suddenly there are hundreds of law experts chiming in parroting it.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Here you go, back to where we started. Ive never seen you post anything about wanting to smash in CNN or NYT heads in.


I want to smash most of the people at CNN's heads in too. Throw in MSNBC for good measure.

That the best you got my far rightwing friend?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier
Be nice to have a libertarian like Napolitano who loves America and the constitution for a change of pace.


I wish he'd run for President.

He's one of the only people on Fox that I don't want to smash their skull in with a sledge hammer.

Yeah they should be more like CNN.


The only difference between the two is where their bias lays, and who they're willing to sell out/bolster.


Its not even close . CNN is a joke of fake news. I dont like FOX much but man CNN is so bad.

Hell, even Larry King is dissing CNN these days. (Yesterday, he said "CNN stopped doing news a long time ago.") That's how pathetic they are.


It's funny, everyone here criticizes CNN but praises Fox. That's super rich. You know the News Organization that called Obama's 50th birthday the "Hip Hop BBQ". Or that Obama attended Muslim School in Indonesia.


when you say "everyone here" you really don't mean that right? That would be stupid to say. I'm sure you mean it in a "I didn't really mean it like that" kind of way.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just glanced through your post history, I cant shake the impression that you are very incredulous and patronizing to right leaning posters. I'm not going to post links for petes sake look at your profile.

I guess if you consider me a Rightwinger then by the same kind of evidence, falling short of your prolific posting regimen you actually do look like a left leaning person.

I give my unsolicited opinions here with mostly thinly veiled jokes, much like you. If I'm a righty, then you're definitely a lefty.

Youre not trying to say youre right even down the middle are you? Really?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Again you have comprehension problems i all ready explained he has been in his position for over 90 days and qualifies. What you are reading is the requirements for temporary apointment. Also requires they be at least GS 15 as well.

I suggest you stop trying to interpret law its beyond you.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The last thing I posted are the requirements to be a temporary candidate. They exclude Whitaker. Read the link



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No he doesn't understand the term temporary also keeps trying to use the point he cant be appointed as the AG by congress but ignores the fact he can be made active AG until a replacement is found.

Either english isnt his 1st language or hes purposefully trying to confuse the issues.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: RadioRobert

The last thing I posted are the requirements to be a temporary candidate. They exclude Whitaker. Read the link


No you haven't I've shown you to be wrong over and over. Is those goal posts getting heavy or are you willing to admit you miss interpreted the law?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: BlackJackal

Again you have comprehension problems i all ready explained he has been in his position for over 90 days and qualifies. What you are reading is the requirements for temporary apointment. Also requires they be at least GS 15 as well.

I suggest you stop trying to interpret law its beyond you.


It really is getting old having people who cannot read lecture me about reading comprehension. Let's break this down for you kindergarten style, shall we?

Here is the quote:


Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a provision of the Vacancies Act limits the conditions under which an individual may serve in both an acting capacity and as the nominee to the same position. The court’s opinion appears to allow an individual to serve on this basis only if the individual has served as the first assistant to the vacant position for more than 90 of the preceding 365 days or if the individual is serving as first assistant, and that position itself requires the advice and consent of the Senate.


Let's break it down:


if the individual has served as the first assistant to the vacant position for more than 90 of the preceding 365 days


The first assistant means the Deputy Attorney General not the chief of staff to the Attorney General, so he doesn't meet that requirement.


or if the individual is serving as first assistant, and that position itself requires the advice and consent of the Senate.


He is not serving as the first assistant and he has not been confirmed by the Senate.

So please, by all means, explain your interpretation.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




appears

You seem to have missed that part.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: RadioRobert

The last thing I posted are the requirements to be a temporary candidate. They exclude Whitaker. Read the link


Perhaps as a Russian bot, English syntax isn't your thing.



conditions under which an individual may serve in both an acting capacity and as the nominee to the same position. 


The citation deals with the condition underwhich Witaker could serve as both the the acting AG and as the nominee to the same position (AG).
He is not and will not be the nominee for AG, so you're way out in in left field (that's a baseball term; google it. I'm not sure what the equivalent idiom is in Russian).

There are decent arguments for making the case that the temporary assignment should be limited to the AG succession act list. None of your posts are making those arguments. You are just making noise.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

How do you know part of his promotion wasn't a stop over at Deputy AG (an unconfirmed position) and then Acting AG by Executive Order?

Further, where is Judge Nap getting this from? This sounds like norms/procedure vs. an actual law. In this case, the DOJ is entirely under the President's umbrella (its chief office is a cabinet level political appointee). All of these alphabet soup agencies/departments are.

He doesn't have to put anyone in that position, and confirmation is only required for the Attorney General not the Acting AG. Further, he has the authority to shutter the DOJ entirely if he saw fit. The DOJ is not a Constitutionally defined construct, it was implemented by the President to assist him in carrying out the duties he is charged with (namely, executing and enforcing the laws created by Congress)

Neutering Mueller was the best thing he could've done. This has been discredited and debunked six ways from Sunday. No serious person buys the BS Russia narrative any longer.

edit on 11/8/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join