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.

 

Top Supreme Court lawyer: Whitaker appointment 'constitutional crisis'

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Oh, it's not over. Don't believe for one second that Whitaker is safe in his position.


However, Judge Ezra ruled even if Whitaker's appointment wasn't valid, there are still Justice Department lawyers who have authority to prosecute Valencia.


That's a pretty wishy washy ruling, lol!




posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't seem to actually care about whether it is Constitutional or not, but rather in getting a certain outcome.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Whitaker's appoint is unconstitutional. I care about that. I don't like that Trump bypassed Rosenstein in Whitaker's appointment, because it looks like he's trying to appoint someone who will try to stymie the Mueller investigation, as Whitaker has publicly suggested he would do. But, if the Senate goes ahead and holds hearings and confirms Whitaker, so be it.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, YOU say it is, so far everyone that matters has said it is fine. You don't want to find out whether it is or not, you have made up your mind and you want the outcome you desire, not the truth.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




No, YOU say it is, so far everyone that matters has said it is fine.


This isn't about me. It's about one more time that President Trump spits on the Constitution and the rule of law.

BTW, "everyone that matters" will be the judges that are charged with hearing the complaint, when it's filed, against Whitaker's unconsttutional appointment. "Everyone that matters" isn't the judge who ruled "Even if Whitaker's appointment is unconstitutional..." it doesn't constitute a "get out of jail" card.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheOne7
This is worth a read.



Conflicts of interest, if Rosenstein was made AG?

Oh, let me count the ways.

So... the commentary has a couple problems... 1.) it's total horsesh** 2.) the commentator is a LAWYER, and a partisan one at that.

PLEASE FOLLOW - So... what this commentator is "selling", is that The Executive, can not appoint whomever he wants as the AG? He CAN, however being a cabinet level position, a PERMANENT AG must pass Senate Confirmation process.

However... as a temporary AG, Whitaker is completely legit.

Rod Rosenstein can NOT be AG. Far too many conflicts of interest. He should have never been allowed to appoint Mueller, and was conflicted there. God only knows why Sessions put Rosenstein there... but it was a pathetic appointment, given Rosenstein's own involvement in the shenanigans going on inside DOJ/FBI

The other thing worth mentioning... when Sessions first left, everyone was in hysterics about Whitaker firing Mueller.

That's flat out BS. Trump will not be firing Mueller, when he has the ability to embarrass Mueller, his team... Adam Schiff, and damn near the entire Obama campaign by releasing unredacted FISA memos AND FBI 302s.

Trump is a troll... pure and simple... and the media sure manages to fall for it a LOT.

Now... anyone who has looked at what is publicly available information wise, KNOWS Trump will not be firing Mueller. If the Mueller investigation is shown, irrefutably, to be fabrication... sure, I could see it being ridiculed out of existence.

But I think it is more likely it will get wrapped up, and then be exposed by Operation Crossfire Hurricane beng ripped wide open.
edit on Mon Dec 3 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote Quote Crash Course



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Whitaker's appoint is unconstitutional. I care about that. I don't like that Trump bypassed Rosenstein in Whitaker's appointment, because it looks like he's trying to appoint someone who will try to stymie the Mueller investigation, as Whitaker has publicly suggested he would do. But, if the Senate goes ahead and holds hearings and confirms Whitaker, so be it.




You are being sold a bill of goods by left-stream media. Whitaker will not be messing with the Mueller investigation.

AND, that is not the reason everyone is so upset about Whittaker being temp AG. They are upset, because Whitaker is a ferocious bulldog on the law, and not afraid to apply it.

They are also afraid, because Rosenstein's days of running interference on investigations involving United States Attorney John Huber and his prosecutors, is OVER.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheOne7
a reply to: seeker1963

You are totally posting feelings and ignoring the substance of my linked article.

I dare you to read it and the act.


Did you say Act?

An act isn’t law 😂



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

The only Constitutional Crisis is another branch of government (either legislative or judicial) attempting to infringe upon the separation of powers and meddle in the affairs of another branch of government.

The President can put whomever he wants in that position. Clearly Rosenstein was not qualified to assume it, considering his total and gross incompetence/negligence in allowing the criminal conspiracy against Trump to continue. The plug should be pulled immediately, and all involved should be terminated/have their clearances revoked until the anti-Americans are all out.


Each branch of government has checks and balances on the others. Did you walk out of class on day 2 of middle school civics?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: dasman888

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Whitaker's appoint is unconstitutional. I care about that. I don't like that Trump bypassed Rosenstein in Whitaker's appointment, because it looks like he's trying to appoint someone who will try to stymie the Mueller investigation, as Whitaker has publicly suggested he would do. But, if the Senate goes ahead and holds hearings and confirms Whitaker, so be it.




You are being sold a bill of goods by left-stream media. Whitaker will not be messing with the Mueller investigation.

AND, that is not the reason everyone is so upset about Whittaker being temp AG. They are upset, because Whitaker is a ferocious bulldog on the law, and not afraid to apply it.

They are also afraid, because Rosenstein's days of running interference on investigations involving United States Attorney John Huber and his prosecutors, is OVER.


You hit the nail on the head.

the liberals, democrats and anti trump put their hopes on muller because he has had no restrictions and not held to any legal account.

now with this appointment muller doesnt fear firing directly . But fears he has to show LEGAL EVIDENCE why his investigation can continue.
He cant claim "there is evidence of a crime (specifically ILLEGAL collusion with the russians) just need more time to find it" ...or words to the effect.

So in short Whitaker can LEGALLY shut muller down by putting the LEGAL ownious on him to PROVIDE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION/PROOF why the investigation should go on and IF HE CANT...legal game over.

In short under him the "blank check and unlimited time" is no longer valid.

Scrounger



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheOne7

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheOne7

Sessions resigned.


www.nbcnews.com...

There is a difference in forced resignation and resigning. The main difference is how does the person feel about how they left.


the LAW doesnt differenciate between "forced resignation and resigning"
Because "force" is ILLEGAL and must be proven.
ones "feeling" is irrelivant because its AN OPINION.

forced is if he was FIRED.
he clearly was not.
trump can ask and he was free to IGNORE HIM.

He in the end , no matter what he said and/or wrote, is not EVIDENCE BUT OPINON in the eyes of the law.

sorry but you fail.

scrounger



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheOne7
a reply to: seeker1963

You are totally posting feelings and ignoring the substance of my linked article.

I dare you to read it and the act.


I have read the article

what you fail to grasp its an OPINION by a LAWYER
yes the lawyer has won SOME cases in the supreme court.

But last I checked THE CONSTITUTION a lawyers OPINON has ZERO weight under the eyes of the law.

the SUPREME COURT does.
unless YOU or this lawyer can PROVIDE SUPREME COURT RULINGS that support HIS OPINON then your claims this is illegal has NO LEGAL STANDING.

in short no matter how much you claim this is the truth , no matter how many cases the lawyer has won, does not make your opinion the truth.

Scrounger



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join