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.
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.
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??
Strzok & Page were actively working to create false pretenses for an investigation, and both lied to try to hide it.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Driving so not much more to add. We will see. Looks like Trump wins again.
www.foxnews.com...
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.
Lmfao, disputable? Well, they were FIRED, as for false pretense? You're being willfully dense.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
More at: www.cnbc.com...
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.