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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

And Rosenstein wasn't qualified to appoint a special counsel. The law has no concept of "Recusal" (its a mere norm only) and required a Senate confirmed AG or President himself to appoint a special counsel. Further, it was all started by jealous and angry bitter losers who abused their positions of power (as shown by actual evidence, unlike the crap you guys put out there) and should've never been started in the first place. It was transparently in retaliation to the very legitimate federal investigation of criminal Hillary Clinton

Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller is obviously illegal under the Appointment's clause and the law governing the appointment of special counsels.

Remember, what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Enjoy laying in the bed you've all made.
edit on 11/8/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I would be interested in the actual law itself not just one person's opinion of it.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

You are reading someone's interpretation of the law not the actual law i posted. Again read the law not someone's interpretation of what they think it says.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
I'm not going to post links for petes sake look at your profile.


Translation: I don't have any proof. Weak sauce brohan.


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 consider anyone who considers a Libertarian such as myself to be a leftist as a rightwing nutjob and borderline fascist. I mean who else would be against the Constitutional rights of the individual except an extremist? Right?


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


I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal which are the main attributes of someone who supports a Libertarian viewpoint along with the aforementioned rights.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

www.abovetopsecret.com...&list=posts

Nice way to stand behind your words, go to that link and clink on anything. You have 90% anti-right statements.

What you think you believe isnt what you post, but keep with the edgy patronizing names though you keep proving my point.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Butterfinger


Wow, a link to my profile. You are such a sleuth.

Maybe you want to take a look at when Dear Leader was calling the shots and what I had to say about that halfwit. But no, must be a leftist since I think Cheetolini is an asswipe too. Again, brohan, weak, weak, weak sauce.

You're doing a good job entertaining me with this though. Bravo.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you click on it and randomly select posts to see? It doesnt require any special sleuthing to just see what you post at random. Yeah I'm lazy but every post in your profile is my point.

All of it, for an average of 90% anti-right/conservative. LOL

Quit being disingenuous with yourself.

You lean far to the left, you arent a level headed scale of justice. You are exactly what your avatar advertises about you; A biased radical that hides behind scales of justice as a useless affectation.

Also didnt say 100%, no one is.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: BlackJackal

Swing and a miss.

Fedreal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998



AG Sessions specifically stated that he didn’t resign, he was asked to resign which means he was fired and the PVA doesn’t apply



Requested or not, he resigned. If he refused to resign, then he would be fired, but the technicality is that letter of resignation. He resigned.


Thus the term constructive discharge. "You are fired if you don't resign" is constructive discharge.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

I'm not saying the Court won't rule the AG succession law supersedes it. I'm saying there is nothing "illegal" about the current situation. It's ambiguous. That happens alot because we have a lot of stupid or poorly written laws in the country.

The President/DOJ are exercising power they believe is granted by the VRA for the next 210 days. Until someone on a bench says, "No, it doesn't" or issues a stay pending that ruling, they can/will continue to exercise that authority.


We also have the problem of a forced resignation. The purpose of the restriction is so a president can't install an AG to destroy an investigation. And I am not even talking about Mueller though that is also an issue with witaker having made prior written statements.

It's very possible the court will see sessions statement and equate that with a firing which happens all the time to HR departments.

You are confusing the legal benefit and obligations by terms of employment with what the courts view as being terminated.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

But you have no evidence that is the case. You are assuming.

Simply asking for someone's resignation is not the same as firing them. Otherwise, no letter of resignation would've been required.

Regardless, he has the Constitutional authority to fire the AG at any time he so chooses for any reason he chooses. The AG is a cabinet level political appointment.

There is nothing magical or special about the DOJ. They are merely another Executive ABC agency that is explicitly beholden to the President. Trump was under no obligation to keep Sessions or any other employee. He is also under no obligation, legally, to keep the DOJ independent from the Executive branch. That is a mere norm.

Guess the repressive un-american "More government, Yipee!" crowd should've thought twice before supporting yet another expansion of government when the DOJ was created.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Thats it... He is done. Impeach Trump for fireing someone for being lazy. This has gone on long enough.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The President CAN "destroy" an investigation by merely ordering it be closed. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and the DOJ/FBI/all ABC agencies act directly under his authority to "Enforce and execute laws of the Union"

It doesn't matter whether it was forced or he was outright fired - neither is a crime. Both acts are the right of a chief executive, whose subordinates act SOLELY under his authority. It is his Constitutional right to direct or otherwise manage the DOJ or any other federal ABC EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY as he sees fit.

Separation of powers ensures the Executive Branch itself can't be meddled in by the other branches (and vice versa) but obviously does not apply within the same branch of government


And I am not even talking about Mueller though that is also an issue with witaker having made prior written statements.


Wrong. IT is not an issue. You know why? Because it wasn't an issue when Comey, Strozok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, and the rest of those treasonous scum suckers "made prior written statements" that threw into question their objectivity.



It's very possible the court will see sessions statement and equate that with a firing which happens all the time to HR departments.


Irrelevant. So he gets pension/unemployment/termination benefits? Big whoop. It won't see a court room unless Sessions brings forth a civil law suit to sue the Government for financial benefits. Even then, it won't bring his job back nor will it give Mueller his testicles back.


You are confusing the legal benefit and obligations by terms of employment with what the courts view as being terminated.


I've established Trump had and has the legal authority to terminate any executive branch employee, carry out any lawful executive branch function, exercise a Constitutional right at any time for any reason and direct or otherwise "influence" the DOJ as he sees fit. It is his Branch (and therefore Department/Agency also) to run.

...but hey, enjoy rooting for your neutered farce witch hunt. Some good it did you for the last 2 years

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



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.

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



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Asking someone to resign is actually terminating them. What he did publically to jeff sessions etc..

The AG can be fired but he can't use the recess appointment, and has to use someone confirmed already in the chain, or use an EO.

That is what the argument is anyhow.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.


Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.


Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.


Well there you have it. Two JUDGES said it. They always lie and are not to be believed. Learned that with Kavenaugh. Judges are all liers. Fake news.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Wrong. IT is not an issue. You know why? Because it wasn't an issue when Comey, Strozok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, and the rest of those treasonous scum suckers "made prior written statements" that threw into question their objectivity. 

 


All those people were fired for those statements, you aren't making any legal arguments. Just political ones.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Odd, your fellow Dems seem to understand this point all too well


So if Mueller really has indictments ready to go,

why haven't they been unsealed? The election is over, right? Yeah, there are a couple of important recounts happening, but none of them will turn the Senate blue.

Could it be that Mueller has done all he's going to do? Other than perhaps filing a report with Congress?


Shucks, looks like Mueller wasn't playing some 25D chess game after all



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: agenda51

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.


Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.


Well there you have it. Two JUDGES said it. They always lie and are not to be believed. Learned that with Kavenaugh. Judges are all liers. Fake news.


What does that have to do with the law?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: agenda51

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The Special Counsel led my Mueller is not legal either.
I guess the rules have been changed - by idiots who couldn't take losing the 2016 election.


Well two judges have said it is..including the conservative Ellis.


Well there you have it. Two JUDGES said it. They always lie and are not to be believed. Learned that with Kavenaugh. Judges are all liers. Fake news.


What does that have to do with the law?

LOL... what and where is this law you speak of.




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join