Hold on about Whitaker. His appointment may be illegal?

[dutch508]

As the [D]s dig through the trash cans trying to find votes in Florida, there is this:

allgood33 (185 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211398758


Hold on about Whitaker. His appointment may be illegal? AND

remember this. Whitaker has not seen, and does not know the evidence that Mueller has. Now behaving a certain way BEFORE he knows the actual evidence and facts is one thing. BUT once he is briefed and finds out the actual facts and evidence, taking the same actions positions him to be charged with obstructing justice, doesn't it? Am i wrong?

 

Star Member rzemanfl (20,766 posts)

1. I think he will be like Drumpf and refuse to be briefed.

If he thinks it's a "witch hunt" why would he read the flight logs of the brooms? He is a total POS.

Star Member Ilsa (50,098 posts)

2. Plus, he isn't qualified to be there.

His last gig was with a patents company tbat went bankrupt and had to pay a huge fine for fraud.He's scum.

 

[ChuckJ]

Star Member Ilsa (50,098 posts)

2. Plus, he isn't qualified to be there.

His last gig was with a patents company tbat went bankrupt and had to pay a huge fine for fraud.He's scum.

Them darn Republicans! Always putting in people that are not qualified. Next thing you know they'll run for president a dope smoking community organizer who doesn't even know how many states are in the union AND whose only real claim to fame is he can read pretty well.

[Carl]

allgood33 (185 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211398758


Hold on about Whitaker. His appointment may be illegal? AND

remember this. Whitaker has not seen, and does not know the evidence that Mueller has. Now behaving a certain way BEFORE he knows the actual evidence and facts is one thing. BUT once he is briefed and finds out the actual facts and evidence, taking the same actions positions him to be charged with obstructing justice, doesn't it? Am i wrong?

Why don`t we ask Comey about that sort of thing.

[SVPete]

Now behaving a certain way BEFORE he knows the actual evidence and facts is one thing. BUT once he is briefed and finds out the actual facts and evidence, taking the same actions positions him to be charged with obstructing justice, doesn't it? Am i wrong?

The grammar here is word-salad grade.

Is LPC Noob saying that Trump is guilty of ?? and therefore Whitaker should be charged with obstruction of justice? That would be a court verdict short of a valid argument.

Is LPC Noob saying that disagreeing with Mueller's decision to charge Trump with ?? is obstruction of justice? That would be however many indictments short of a valid argument.

DA's have no obligation to proceed with what Assistant DAs want to do, because that's what oversight means. Whitaker has oversight authority until the Senate confirms a new AG. But as my signature says ...

[Old n Grumpy]

Hold on about Whitaker. His appointment may be illegal?

Everything the other side does is illegal to you turds

[DumbAss Tanker]

Illegal how?  Not expecting any cogent basis, it's a rhetorical question.

BUT once he is briefed and finds out the actual facts and evidence, taking the same actions positions him to be charged with obstructing justice, doesn't it? Am i wrong?

A that point he is the head prosecutor, and has the discretion to proceed or refuse to proceed on any and all DOJ cases.  Obstruction isn't applicable.

[DLR Pyro]

It just occurred to me why the DUmmies are having a hard time understanding that President Trump has the legal authority to ask Sessions to resign and to appoint his replacement.  DUmmies for the most part don't work and don't have the understanding of how things go in the workplace.  Those few DUmmies who have jobs cry and hide behind their unions whenever anything like a firing is about to happen.  They don't understand how the real world works.

[SVPete]

Facts don't matter on DU, but for those who could use a good laugh:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/matthew-whittaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-excellent-choice/

Matthew Whitaker joined the Trump Justice Department as Sessions’s chief of staff in October 2017. The date is relevant. The president has named him as acting attorney general under the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (the relevant provisions are codified at Sections 3345 and 3346 of Title 5, U.S. Code). There has been some commentary suggesting that because Whitaker was in a job (chief of staff) that did not require Senate confirmation, he could not become the “acting officer” in a position (AG) that calls for Senate confirmation. Not so. The Vacancies Act enables the president to name an acting officer, who may serve as such for 210 days, as long as the person named has been working at the agency or department for at least 90 days in a fairly high-ranking position. Whitaker qualifies.

Whitaker has excellent credentials and influential backers. He served as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief of staff until 2004, when President Bush appointed him United States attorney for the southern district of Iowa. To get the latter post, Whitaker certainly had to have the approval of Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who even then was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee (which he now chairs). According to a New York Times profile of Whitaker, he was recommended to President Trump by the estimable Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society chief who has been critical to the president’s judicial appointments — perhaps the administration’s signal achievement. Whitaker is said to have very good chemistry with the president, and to have been an effective liaison between the Justice Department and the White House.

So Whitaker is NOT an illegal appointment, and has the experience for the job. That he also has experience outside of government is a strength, IMO, because it entailed working with normal people. Whether this is simply a place-holder appointment or an audition is an interesting question. My guess is that we'll learn some time after the new Senate is seated.