DOJ says Matthew Whitaker can serve as acting attorney general

Driving so not much more to add. We will see. Looks like Trump wins again.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Driving so not much more to add. We will see.

www.foxnews.com...

Oh that will set some off here today.
It doesn't recommend his recusal either....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Driving so not much more to add. We will see. Looks like Trump wins again.

www.foxnews.com...

Ha...love this quote

In the opening line of the opinion the OLC says Trump-appointed Whitaker under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, and further reveals, "This Office previously had advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice Official, such as Mr. Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General..."

So they even told Trump themselves that he could....LOL!

Egg....meet face....

This is going to be funny for those that have been saying it was illegal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Driving so not much more to add. We will see.

www.foxnews.com...

Oh that will set some off here today.
It doesn't recommend his recusal either....

No doubt.

I'll bet there will be raging protests soon as well.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like the one in pelosis office yesterday?
I think most won't even notice this, and those here screaming about it being illegal won't acknowledge it.
After all it is only the doj's opinion.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Driving so not much more to add. We will see.

www.foxnews.com...

Oh that will set some off here today.
It doesn't recommend his recusal either....

We're gonna need more popcorn.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like the one in pelosis office yesterday?
I think most won't even notice this, and those here screaming about it being illegal won't acknowledge it.
After all it is only the doj's opinion.

It's all about "believing" and not reality with that crowd. Their mantra is "this is my truth"....like religious zealots, it is very hard to get them to understand their belief and truth is not reality.

Kind of crazy how much like religious zealots these people are actually....completely indoctrinated in their "belief".

The whole argument for recusal is absurdly hypocritical anyway. If Rosenstein didn't need to recuse himself despite his obvious conflicts, and for that matter if Mueller didn't need to recuse himself despite being BFFs with Comey, then how can you possibly argue that Whittaker needs to recuse himself because he knows one very minor witness?

a reply to: shooterbrody

You can believe they would notice it if the opinion from DOJ was against it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That groups is the group that initially gave Trump the go ahead to appoint Whitaker. This is old news being rehashed. We are still waiting on the ethics office to issue it's opinion on whether or not he should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Plus, there are lawsuits in the works as well.

LINK

a reply to: whywhynot

Oh it would be a party.
With punch and pie, party hats and lemonaide!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


For being a bumbling idiot, OUR President sure seems to know what he is doing.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That groups is the group that initially gave Trump the go ahead to appoint Whitaker. This is old news being rehashed. We are still waiting on the ethics office to issue it's opinion on whether or not he should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Plus, there are lawsuits in the works as well.

LINK

If the ethics officer was OK with Rosenstein overseeing the investigation, despite his personal involvement in the probe, then I don't see what grounds they have to demand Whittaker recuse himself.

After all, the whole purpose of oversite is to try to prevent Mueller from acting like a little tinpot dictator. Whttaker looks like the perfect man for that job.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That groups is the group that initially gave Trump the go ahead to appoint Whitaker. This is old news being rehashed. We are still waiting on the ethics office to issue it's opinion on whether or not he should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Plus, there are lawsuits in the works as well.

LINK

The ethics office is another agency within the Executive Branch, like the DOJ, and it’s head is appointed by the President. In classic form you will disavow a positive report as biased but you would howl in joy and point to a negative report. Typically meaningless.

Oh well then, a lawsuit has been filed! Really! Well that certainly proves that someone has a $100 and time on there hands. Think it may end up in the Supreme Court??

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ohh boy!

I can't wait for all the NPC's to get their updates and start spouting their BS.

This ought to be fun!

I think I can cover this one:

"Orange man bad. DOJ paid for by orange man. DOJ bad. Report bad. Whitaker bad. Russia. Orange. Yearbook. Hair. Healthcare. Reeeeeeeeee!!!!!"

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The part where he was the example will be left out of how many stories?

Either journalist didn’t ask or ignored the answer to begin with

If Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump disqualified them from the investigation, then Matthew Whitaker's public outspoken opinions on the national media stage should disqualify him.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Fox News to File Brief Backing CNN’s Lawsuit Against White House Over Jim Acosta Suspension www.yahoo.com...

That's gonna leave a scar!

If Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump disqualified them from the investigation, then Matthew Whitaker's public outspoken opinions on the national media stage should disqualify him.

is that like Equal justice or something? Yea, It would be super if the world really worked like that. But precedents have been set and all.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Fox News to File Brief Backing CNN’s Lawsuit Against White House Over Jim Acosta Suspension www.yahoo.com...

That's gonna leave a scar!

If Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump disqualified them from the investigation, then Matthew Whitaker's public outspoken opinions on the national media stage should disqualify him.

Not the topic and your grasping doesn't work here, move along NPC.