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.

 

Why Trump could face legal challenges over Whitaker

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

No one was fired.
I believe it is actually 210 days.




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The vast opinion of legal scholars even on Fox news agrees Trump probably cannot put his political puppet Whittaker as AG. Though there is a dispute going on that may have to be decided by the court.



President Trump's decision to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Matthew Whitaker is facing new questions, with two prominent attorneys — including the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway — suggesting that it may be illegal.


It boils down to the constitution versus what they call The Federal Vacancies act versus The Attorney General Succession act. An AG has to be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, according to the constitution. Also, the so-called succession act says the next in line should get the job and that would be Rod Rosenstein.



www.axios.com...

1. The Attorney General Succession Act, Section 508

stipulates that when there is a vacancy in the office of the attorney general, the deputy attorney general — currently Rod Rosenstein — can serve as the attorney general. Next in line would be the associate attorney general.

2. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998
1998 allows the president to choose any senior DOJ official to serve as an acting attorney general as long as that person has already served in a high-level position for 90 days. Whitaker qualifies for the temporary position under this Act.

3. The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Clause 2 is the big caveat that Conway and Katyal argue leaves zero wiggle room for Whitaker. The Constitution specifies that "principal officers" must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.



So what Trump should do is appoint Whitteker and have the Senate confirm him. He may be afraid of that since it would be hard to confirm him with all the questions the Senate would ask him. They might make him pledge NOT to interfere with the Meuller probe. Trump obviouly doesnt want to go through that


Sound and fury... the opinions of said "attorneys" are "interpretive opinions". They have no standing.

The real issue here, is AG was talked into believing he needed to recuse himself by a career civil servant at DOJ that was most certainly a Democrat. That he fell for it is a bit embarrassing.

Dems histrionics seem to be about the Mueller investigation. SEEM to be about Mueller.

In truth, they are not. They are concerned about POTUS Declassification order, and the possibility that Whitaker will approve Declassification, which will make it clear that the "reason" for the Russia investigation was completely manufactured by a faction of the Obama Admin (Actually tarted in 2015, maybe earlier).

They covered their tracks... but not as much as they would have if they thought Hillary could lose. They never imagined she would lose.

Trump won't fire Mueller, for a number of reasons. One reason is the optics of pulling the sheets off the coverups at FBIDOJCIANSA will be intensely obvious with Mueller still in place. Even Mueller will end up having to weigh in on the fraud against the FISC in the FISA documents.

Rod Rosenstein will be lucky to stay out of jail, when it's all done.

I don't think he was one of the conspirators... I think he got himself tangled up in it all, and wasn't sure how to get out.

The primary reason the Dems are so freaked out about Whitaker, is he isn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and there are literally dozens of folks in all those agencies who have very significant legal peril over "SpyGate".



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RadioRobert

Imo as long as it is" temporary" they dont have a leg to stand on.


I tend to disagree. It won't matter for Eaton though. It'll just matter for the next temp AG appointment.

Regardless, it is a tempest in a teapot.

Rosenstein is not getting the job.
The next in line is "acting".
Potus will get wide latitude for his selection as IT IS ACTUALLY his choice and not the legislative branches.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Most of you are on the wishful thinking bandwagon



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You are simply wrong.
Someone has to run the justice dept until potus nominee gets confirmed.
MW is that person.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Kellyanne Conway’s husband calls Trump’s appointment of acting attorney general unconstitutional




George Conway, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s husband, argued Thursday that President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general is unconstitutional and any action he takes while leading the Justice Department will be “invalid” because he lacks Senate confirmation. Conway, who co-authored an op-ed with Neal Katyal in the New York Times, said the Appointments Clause of the Constitution states that principal officers, who are defined as someone who reports only to the president, must be confirmed by the Senate. “It means that President Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid,” Conway and Katyal write.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

It looks like trouble is brewing.
Trump is trying to install a crony.

Even Judge Nap on Fox says this stinks.
edit on 8-11-2018 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RadioRobert

Imo as long as it is" temporary" they dont have a leg to stand on.


I tend to disagree. It won't matter for Eaton though. It'll just matter for the next temp AG appointment.

Regardless, it is a tempest in a teapot.

Rosenstein is not getting the job.
The next in line is "acting".
Potus will get wide latitude for his selection as IT IS ACTUALLY his choice and not the legislative branches.


Nothing to do with Rosenstein, really. The question is if the POTUS is granted the power by VRA which it apparently grants, or if the temporary appointment has to also fulfill the 1953 law for AG succession. The VRA is clear by itself, but not in light of both statutes. Even if a ruling came tomorrow denying Whitaker's eligibility for the position because of the 1953 law, Trump would/could just appoint the most palatable of the options available under the 1953 law. Wouldn't have to be Rosenstein. Even if the court strikes the entire VRA statute, he'd just have to fire people until he got to the one he wants.
edit on 9-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm sure you love it. The longer this charade continues the longer you will be getting paychecks. Enjoy it while it lasts.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Presenting that opinion as fact is the exact same stupidity as you are accusing others of having.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Most of you are on the wishful thinking bandwagon



You may be forgetting a few "actors" in this. Lisa Page. She is a cooperating witness. James Baker. Another cooperating witness.

When the DOJ relegated Rosenstein's suggestion he wear a wire and record the POTUS, as "joking around", not a serious comment, Lisa Page explicitly addressed the comment, and said he was NOT KIDDING.

Apparently James Baker's testimony matched Lisa Page's. If what Trump said about "Rosenstein says he didn't say it" is correct (Rosenstein's denial to POTUS), POTUS KNOWS he's lying. Why he's still there is anyones guess at this point. Up till Wednesday, it was because Sessions left him there.

It is also possible, that Rosenstein is just being shuffled around till he traps himself. Hell, it may be that he's just a craven "yes man".

McCabe is already under criminal referral. You know what though... there is so much political BS wrapped up in everything that goes on in DC, it is entirely possible that the folks caught with their hands in the cookie jar will get deals for playing rolls in whatever wrangling for power is going on in these agencies.

My point is, Rosenstein isn't fit for dog catcher. Anyone R or D that hired him into a position of trust at THIS point, needs their head examined. Stick a fork in him... he's done.
edit on 8-11-2018 by dasman888 because: Zombie white tailed deer...



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yeah, Trump is relying on the one you site. Obviously, he doesn't want to appoint Rosenstein...through the other statute

2. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 allows the president to choose any senior DOJ official to serve as an acting attorney general as long as that person has already served in a high-level position for 90 days. Whitaker qualifies for the temporary position under this Act.

This the one that may be Unconstitutional, I gather for at least Rosenstein went under the advice and consent of the Senate, Whitaker went under advice and consent of Trump.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

What opinion have a said is fact?
I've done no such thing



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Trump, in big trouble here folks

Gets a crony to serve his 90 days and then he gets Sessions to put in his resignation because IF he was just fired Trump could then hire Whittiker, is my understanding, though I may be wrong on this.

That's why Sessions said At your request do I resign, trying to probably trap Trump whoo likely he may hold a deep grudge against.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I suppose another reason Trump may have put Whitaker in... is literally to troll everyone in DC and stir a hornets nest.

Those who follow media, think Mueller's in peril with Whitaker.

Those who know what's going on in DC think THEIR HIDE is in peril... remember, they're terrified the FISA docs and 302s get declassified and un-redacted... then it won't matter about Whitaker... the DOJ/FBI will be exposed, and the Genie can't be put back in the bottle.

This put's Trump in a position to pick a new AG, and get them through the Senate confirmation process FAST.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

VRA has already been used to place an alternate acting AG out of order of the 1953 law. So that is not really the unprecedented part. It's unlikely, but possible, that will be taken up by the court. The unprecedented part is that he isn't qualified at all under the 1953 law because he is not currently serving in a confirmed position (it has has happened before that law, but not after). VRA says he is eligible regardless. Congress has the constitutional authority to grant that power to the POTUS (and they did with VRA). Only question is if VRA has to also be interpreted in the case of the AG in the light of the 1953 law or is a standalone granted power.
edit on 9-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Trump, in big trouble here folks

Gets a crony to serve his 90 days and then he gets Sessions to put in his resignation because IF he was just fired Trump could then hire Whittiker, is my understanding, though I may be wrong on this.

That's why Sessions said At your request do I resign, trying to probably trap Trump whoo likely he may hold a deep grudge against.


You started off so reasonable with this thread.

Sad.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You've been swinging on his nuts for two years. Maybe it's time to swing off and eat a bannana or two. Dance monkey, dance.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The THOUGHTS of Kelly Anne Conway's husband mean no more than yours or mine.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I'd give his opinion a lot more weight than either of yours, but that's just me. He's a graduate of Harvard law, has a JD (doctorate in law) from Yale, and he clerked under Winter on the Court of Appeals for the 2nd circuit.

It doesn't mean he's right or not a windbag, but he's not talking out of his a## after five minutes scouring blogs and wikipedia like the two of you.
edit on 9-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:57 AM
link   
From Justice Clarence Thomas Trumps favorite justice of the Supreme Court
slate.com...



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would almost certainly agree. In a 2017 concurring opinion, Thomas declared that the president may never appoint a principal officer without Senate confirmation, even to fill a vacancy for a limited period. The fact that an appointment is temporary, or that the appointee serves in an “acting” capacity, “does not change the analysis,” Thomas wrote. “I do not think the structural protections of the Appointments Clause can be avoided based on such trivial distinctions.”



I rest my case


Case closed

next case!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join