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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I made plenty of legal arguments. Did you read my post?

Separation of powers only apply to meddling BETWEEN the 3 branches of government.

The DOJ is a Cabinet/Department level organization under the President. Like the DOD, etc.
The FBI, DEA, BATFE, etc are Agency level organizations under the President & their specific Cabinet level Department

All of which are under the President, as chief executive of the Executive Branch.

There is no law preventing him from taking over the DOJ/FBI (or any other ABC organization) nor is there any law preventing him from discharging them at will or appointing them at will. This is why new FBI special agents can be appointed at will. It is also why they can be discharged at will.

Their contracts say "terminated for cause." However, that is merely employment law which determines whether an individual is eligible for benefits after termination or whether they get nothing but a boot to the curb.

It is NOT the DOJ/FBI's duty to arrest and prosecute violators of US law. That is actually the President, who is charged with "Enforcing and executing laws of the Union." The POTUS then appoints these agents (an agent is simply a person authorized to act on another's behalf) who carry out HIS lawful Constitutional function

The FBI, just as an example, was never defined in the Constitution. It is entirely an invention of past Presidents who needed more manpower to enforce the ever growing USC (which is disgustingly and insultingly large)
edit on 11/8/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:46 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.


Several judges also tried to stop the President's travel ban too. Unfortunately we live in a time of divide. The only thing to look at is the actual law.

That law states clearly that a SC can be appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
We can talk all day about what constitutes evidence, but Rosenstein himself said, quote, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

There is no debate. The appointment did not follow the statute.

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



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: agenda51

The judge saying the case can continue and dismissing the claim Mueller over stepped his authority and the jury charged manafort..



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Several judges also tried to stop the President's travel ban too. Unfortunately we live in a time of divide. The only thing to look at is the actual law.

That law states clearly that a SC can be appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
We can talk all day about what constitutes evidence, but Rosenstein himself said, quote, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

There is no debate. The appointment did not follow the statute.


Your right there is no debate. It was completely legal or judge Ellis would have stopped the prosecution of Manafort.

But alas he is in jail and you are wrong.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Apparently you don't understand how the AG is confirmed or the rules for a new one including a temporary AG.

Because I have no idea what your rhetoric was referring to.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It was actually Rosenstien who overstepped his authority under the Appointment's clause and the law governing special counsels.

It requires the President OR a Senate Confirmed AG to appoint a SC. The law has NO CONCEPT of recusal. There was a Senate Confirmed AG who was more than capable of making the appointment, yet non-Senate confirmed Rosenstein illegally appointed Mueller without having the authority to do so.

Regardless none of that matters now. The President has exercised his authority to take control of Mueller's probe. He didn't opt to do so directly, and instead appointed someone with a reasonable view on the matter. Time for Mueller to pony up his evidence, and when none materializes, time to send him and his team packing. Not back to their old jobs either.

Their clearances should be administratively revoked to ensure they are never given a position of trust/security clearance ever again.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I'm very familiar with how it is done.

And I'm saying there is no problem with how it was done.

Fact is, you don't know Matt wasn't given a promotion to Deputy AG a micro-second before he was appointed Acting AG. You simply do not know that.

Further, much like declassification, the President doesn't have to follow any formal procedure when appointing these folks. He can do it on Twitter, in person, verbal only or even mentally. The law doesn't define how those non-confirmed individuals are to be appointed.


...but I still haven't seen anything more than mere norms or policy. Certainly no one has pointed to the relevant entry in the USC showing where this was unlawful.


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



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You obviously have not read Ellis's 31 page opinion.
He was ruling on a specific issue.

The LAW states, not a judge, that a SC is appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”

Which bit of Rosenstein's statement is confusing to you:
“My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

The SC is not legal - regardless of the scope of Mueller's remit that Ellis was ruling on - which is not the same thing.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
But who cares about laws?

Based on the apparent popularity of sanctuary cities, not many.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: luthier

You obviously have not read Ellis's 31 page opinion.
He was ruling on a specific issue.

The LAW states, not a judge, that a SC is appointed when a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”

Which bit of Rosenstein's statement is confusing to you:
“My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

The SC is not legal - regardless of the scope of Mueller's remit that Ellis was ruling on - which is not the same thing.


Blag blag blah. You have no idea what you are talking about or this would have ended months ago with a legal challenge....



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Oh Oh Spaghetti Ohs 😆




DOJ and DHS Issue New Asylum Rule Applies President’s authority to suspend entry to asylum

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen today announced an Interim Final Rule declaring that those aliens who contravene a presidential suspension or limitation on entry into the United States through the southern border with Mexico issued under section 212(f) or 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be rendered ineligible for asylum.



get ready for the "Whaaa Whaaa" Tussi !!



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
All of it, for an average of 90% anti-right/conservative. LOL


LOLOLOLOLLOL. ( was that enough LOL?) Those are threads you're linking, by the way, not posts, but I'll play along with your rightwing ass.

Like this one:

The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms.

Yup, totally leftist to want to bear arms.

Or this one:

...the security of a free state..

More on gun rights and militias. Totally over the top leftist rhetoric, that.

Oh, I know, you meant this one:

Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge

Too bad I wasn't happy the law didn't struck down since I am a leftist. Hur dur.

Maybe this one:

Constitution Fail - Why you keep doing it and how to prevent it.

That's got to be it since only a leftist would advocate for the rights of the individual as mandated by the United States Constitution. Right?

Could it be this one:

Whose Down With TPP? The Democratic Party.

This is where I discuss how much I don't like that deal and that the Democrats do. Very, very leftist of me.

Maybe this is the one:

The Makers and the Takers

Very Ayn Rand in it's sentiments since I talk about how our tax money is going to mooches. Super leftist if you ask me.

I know, I found it, it's this one:

I Just Voted For A Woman For President Of The United States Of America

Read it and tell me how leftist I am in that one.


You lean far to the left...


You totally caught me, really. Or, just possibly, for a far right fascist, someone who is moderate will always appear to be a leftist.

TL : DR?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (since you like text-speak, maybe it's the small words)







edit on 8-11-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Obviously you aren't playing the binary game you are either a leftist or a racist Republican.

So pick one or else.
edit on 8-11-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Obviously you aren't playing the binary game you are either a leftist or a racist Republican.

So pick one or else.


It's obvious I'm a racist leftist so I think I'll just grab my bike lock and whack some crackers up side the head. Bitches had it coming.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

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.

Wrong, constructive discharge is when a workplace is made intolerable by the employer. Sessions' letter shows no indication of the sort, and actually shows he enjoyed the employment.

His resignation was requested, not forced, not compelled by intolerable work conditions, simply requested. He didn't refuse, and didn't make any claims of workplace hostility/intolerability which would be a cause for constructive discharge, therefore it is a resignation.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Damn white bulger style.

Well I hope you worship Maxine waters then because you either love her and cnn or trump and fox.

Not sure what is so confusing. Just pick one and then print out your personalized narrative and stick to it.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Well I hope you worship Maxine waters...


Who doesn't? She is the gift that keeps on giving.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Advisors serve at the President's pleasure even at the cabinet level. He is free to fire anyone at anytime. To create constructive discharge you'd have to show an underlying legal claim -- ie, he was forced out illegally. It isn't illegal to simply ask for a resignation. Nor was he forced to resign. Like Yates, he had the option of being fired and chose to resign.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks for adding me to your signature?

This all started with a comment, which was challenged by you. I responded to it with my opinion, which was again challenged, and I responded.

I went home yesterday, and it hit me;
We are both adults, strangers.

Why do you require me to prove or justify a snide comment on a message board?

I like your picks, if I were a noob here I'd assume that you were an altruistic centrist that would never lean left?

No, everyone here knows you lean left and Ive seen several conversations like this very one that was had by you and other posters.

I'm fine with being right wing, I'm no extremist so why is that an insult? Quit putting so much weight into a stranger's words abut your online persona.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
No, everyone here knows you lean left and Ive seen several conversations like this very one that was had by you and other posters.


I like that one, I may add that to the other piece of comedy you wrote.

Maybe I should have picked my other lefty threads like cooking or making drinks.

You got a left one in mind besides those? Oh, right, you don't, you just run your mouth.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join