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.

 

DOJ says Matthew Whitaker can serve as acting attorney general

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.


Meh, all the ethics office can do is add their opinion... whoopitydoo!

They're like assholes!




posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

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??


I don't believe I have called anything biased, are you pulling crap out of your ass again?

I'm simply saying that this news is old and really doesn't have much impact in the grand scheme of things. It is completely valid and is a win for the Trump camp but it is not the end all be all. I hope it ends up in the Supreme Court to be honest because just because a judge is conservative or liberal on matters such as this where there is already a precedent and clear laws they won't rock the boat.

We will see won't we.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

What precedent has been set?

a reply to: Arnie123

Of course it's on topic. You just don't want to address it.

Why shouldn't Mathew Whitaker's personal and very public opinion of the Russia Investigation be just as disqualifying as Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump?



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because one was an Op-ed for public consumption. A declaration "what if".

The other, is biased agents using their political
bias to change the outcome of a federal investigation.

One involves corruption, your people and the other is a public opinion, us.


to subvert an agenda



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Strzok & Page were actively working to create false pretenses for an investigation, and both lied to try to hide it. That's why there were fired. Show me how Whitaker is even remotely comparable to that.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




Strzok & Page were actively working to create false pretenses for an investigation, and both lied to try to hide it.


Well, that's disputable. What false narratives did they create? However, we know that Whitaker HAS presented false and narratives, on the national media stage. Not to mention his disrespect for the legal process he's now the head of.
edit on 14-11-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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

www.foxnews.com...


If the MSM and Democrats are against something, it must be good.

Matthew Whitaker is good.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123



The other, is biased agents using their political
bias to change the outcome of a federal investigation.
One involves corruption, your people and the other is a public opinion, us.


You're accusing Page and Strzok on non-existent facts. There is no evidence that Page and Strzok fabricated anything in the Russia/Trump investigation. Their opinions of Trump alone disqualified them.

Now Whitatker, who has actively and openly shown his bias againt the Mueller investigation and suggested sabotaging it through funding cuts, is in control and able to carry out his biases through his postion and pepetuate Trump's false "witch hunt" and "it's the Dems", false narrative.

Page and Strzok, as far as I know have never been indicted, or sat on the board of a business that was indicted for fraud and curruption like Whitaker has.

edit on 14-11-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




Strzok & Page were actively working to create false pretenses for an investigation, and both lied to try to hide it.


Well, that's disputable. What false narratives did they create? However, we know that Whitaker HAS presented false and narratives, on the national media stage. Not to mention his disrespect for the legal process he's now the head of.
Lmfao, disputable? Well, they were FIRED, as for false pretense? You're being willfully dense.

I'm sorry, what "false and narratives, on the national media stage" are you referring to? Or disrespect? I got it, just pulling crap out again smh.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

What precedent has been set?

a reply to: Arnie123

Of course it's on topic. You just don't want to address it.

Why shouldn't Mathew Whitaker's personal and very public opinion of the Russia Investigation be just as disqualifying as Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump?



No, again equal justice isn't really a thing. Perjury for example. It's only enforceable on republicans. If you are super dense and want to play the "I'm to stupid to know what you mean by that", I'll offer you a few examples, but it's my sincere hope that you at the very least, can understand that aspect.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I mentioned in a previous thread that government laws most often have loopholes so that high ranking officials can utilize them to get what they want and need.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

What precedent has been set?

a reply to: Arnie123

Of course it's on topic. You just don't want to address it.

Why shouldn't Mathew Whitaker's personal and very public opinion of the Russia Investigation be just as disqualifying as Lisa Page's and Peter Strzok's personal opinions of Trump?



No, again equal justice isn't really a thing. Perjury for example. It's only enforceable on republicans. If you are super dense and want to play the "I'm to stupid to know what you mean by that", I'll offer you a few examples, but it's my sincere hope that you at the very least, can understand that aspect.

We just got another example today: Bernie Sanders' wife just skated on the charges she obtained fraudulent loans in the scandal that bankrupted a college she was president of. The US attorney in Vermont told her that the investigation is being closed with no charges.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump got input from the doing it seems before he did this.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is what it appears to me.
I wonder how that will effect the suit the state of maryland filed?



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

And still we have Trump asking first and being told by the doj it's legal. Something I never saw in the earlier articles I read.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is what it appears to me.
I wonder how that will effect the suit the state of maryland filed?

They don't have standing to sue anyway, but this will definitely be evidence against them.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Nah
orange man stupid
orange man make bad pick
court make orange man pick good pick



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: whywhynot

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??


I don't believe I have called anything biased, are you pulling crap out of your ass again?

I'm simply saying that this news is old and really doesn't have much impact in the grand scheme of things. It is completely valid and is a win for the Trump camp but it is not the end all be all. I hope it ends up in the Supreme Court to be honest because just because a judge is conservative or liberal on matters such as this where there is already a precedent and clear laws they won't rock the boat.

We will see won't we.


Old news? This opinion was just released and reported by major news outlets today. So once again you are wrong.

I never called you biased, if you misread what I did say I invite you to reread it. Don’t just pull crap out of your ass.



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.


At least we share the desire for it to end up in the SC. Although I believe it will get dismissed long before that if the judge is fair minded.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only scar would be for you Trump haters who say FOX is hard right. They aren't. This lawsuit is one more piece of evidence.

FOX is for FOX, they report in the way that gives them the best ratings, which is right in the center. When it comes down to it though their actual actions usually favor the left.

Now what does that have to do with the topic? Any thoughts on that?
edit on 14-11-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BlackJackal

And still we have Trump asking first and being told by the doj it's legal. Something I never saw in the earlier articles I read.

The President enjoys provoking Dems/MSM, and he also finds out which Republicans are against him, by making it seem as if he's making decisions without "approval" from proper authorities.


The Justice Department told President Donald Trump that Matthew Whitaker could hold the post of acting attorney general, before Trump appointed him to that post.

News of that preapproval comes as critics have said Trump violated the Constitution by installing the 49-year-old Whitaker on a temporary basis as the nation's top law enforcement official without first getting Senate approval.
More at: www.cnbc.com...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join