Matthew Whitaker Will Not Recuse Himself From Russia Probe and Won’t Approve Presidential Subpoena

[busybee01]

Driving the DemonRATS BAT SHIT CRAZY....Heads exploding, Schumer holding breath until he can get subpoenas back again....just love it!!

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Anything else is indeed a witch-hunt with political motivations, and abusing the prosecuting powers of the government against politicians for the sake of politics IS a real constitutional crisis



Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Read more at thegatewaypundit.com

Why should he recuse himself? He wasn't a big shot in the Trump campaign like Sessions was.

Mueller needs supervision, the gentleman seems to be unable to meet deadlines and hasn't even got back with President Trump over Trump's efforts to get the Russian indictees to speak with his people.

Mr. Whitaker will be able to bust some tail and get some results with this lollygagging gold bricker Mueller.

Because he has made public comments on the investigation. It shows a clear bias.

 

[WEATHER53]

All he needs to do is give Mueller 4 months to wrap it up, present what he’s got, or be gone. Time to end this needless staining of Trump

 

[busybee01]

No it's not. Only the appointment of a permanent attorney general needs to have a confirmation hearing.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Does Whitaker report to anyone except the POTUS?
If not, he requires Senate confirmation before any of his actions will be constitutionally authorized.

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes.

"But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper.

"It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

"If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his 'favorite' sitting justice.

"Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground."

You are taking an OPINION and acting as if it's a fact. The opinion is wrong. The office of acting attorney general is temporary. Like any other temporary office it does not need senate confirmation. You are being sold fake goods.

It goes to the qualifications. Whittaker cannot be acting AG as he has not been confirmed by the Senate. Only the Asst AG or the Solicitor General can be acting AG. Whittaker was not in a position that required Senate confirmation.

 

[karpenter]

Mueller Said He'd Release His Report After Mid-Terms
Well, It's After Mid-Terms
How Long For Him To Not Write His Report

 

[The Purge]

No it's not. Only the appointment of a permanent attorney general needs to have a confirmation hearing.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Does Whitaker report to anyone except the POTUS?
If not, he requires Senate confirmation before any of his actions will be constitutionally authorized.

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes.

"But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper.

"It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

"If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his 'favorite' sitting justice.

"Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground."

You are taking an OPINION and acting as if it's a fact. The opinion is wrong. The office of acting attorney general is temporary. Like any other temporary office it does not need senate confirmation. You are being sold fake goods.

It goes to the qualifications. Whittaker cannot be acting AG as he has not been confirmed by the Senate. Only the Asst AG or the Solicitor General can be acting AG. Whittaker was not in a position that required Senate confirmation.

AnACTING AG has 210 days before he would either be nominated for Senate approval OR ANOTHER ACTING AG can be installed. ANY MEMBER OF GOVT can be installed if they have been with the govt for over 6 months and in a high position...wish you ABNORMALS wouldn't LIE all the time!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

All he needs to do is give Mueller 4 months to wrap it up, present what he’s got, or be gone. Time to end this needless staining of Trump

Yea because it really doesn't matter whether the law was broken or not, does it.

 

[longknife]

George Conway, Kellyanne's husband, has tweeted who gives a shit what this "nobody" has to say as his role is unconstitutional as he has yet to be confirmed by the Senate as AG. He has a n excellent point.

How much longer is that marriage going to last?

 

[longknife]

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Was Trump appointment of Whitaker constitutional?
Not if you believe the Attorney General in a principal officer and therefore subject to Senate confirmation.
"Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional"

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid."

Bovine Excrement!

 

[longknife]

Instead of the typical Snowflake troll post, let's get this on record the way it should be.

Acting AG Matthew Whitaker Will Not Recuse Himself From Russia Probe

and Won’t Approve Democrat Subpoenas of President Trump

Lefties and Dims are already screaming that President Trump can’t appoint him as Acting AG. Many claim Deputy AG Rosenstein is the only one who can step in.


I’m just wondering if all the meetings the president has had with Rosenstein weren’t telling him he wasn’t going to step up to the AG slot.


Dims are calling him to recuse himself from the Mueller probe.


Why should he?


Here’s his comments on the Mueller probe:

According to a CNN article, Mueller’s investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election. According to these reports, “sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election.” The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that “involve Trump associates” are being referred to the special counsel “to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate.”

This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump’s finances or his family’s finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.

And, going a step further:

In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities — the Trump campaign and the Russian government. People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” to characterize special counsel’s authority as broad.

All of this comes from FLASHBACK: Here's What Acting AG Matthew Whitaker Thinks of Rosenstein and the Mueller Investigation

and Acting AG Matthew Whitaker Will Not Recuse Himself From Russia Probe and Won't Approve Democrat Subpoenas of President Trump

President Trump not planning to use resignation of Jeff Sessions to end Mueller probe @ Conway: President Trump not planning to use resignation of Jeff Sessions to end Mueller probe | One America News Network

Which leaves this, I’ve read where he Leftist husband is involved with something legal about Sessions resigning and Whitaker replacing him. How long will she last in the administration – or let her marriage come to a screeching halt?

 

[JLW]

Mueller Said He'd Release His Report After Mid-Terms
Well, It's After Mid-Terms
How Long For Him To Not Write His Report

Yeah, time to get that report out. I agree.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Subpoenas go out all the time to people who aren’t even suspected of crimes. Are you sure you know the difference between a subpoena and a warrant?

 

[georgephillip]

No it's not. Only the appointment of a permanent attorney general needs to have a confirmation hearing.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Does Whitaker report to anyone except the POTUS?
If not, he requires Senate confirmation before any of his actions will be constitutionally authorized.

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes.

"But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper.

"It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

"If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his 'favorite' sitting justice.

"Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground."

You are taking an OPINION and acting as if it's a fact. The opinion is wrong. The office of acting attorney general is temporary. Like any other temporary office it does not need senate confirmation. You are being sold fake goods.

Your OPINION doesn't address, much less answer, the question of whether it is constitutional to rely on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to appoint an official not serving in a Senate confirmed position to act as a principal officer like attorney general.

This question is unresolved and legal experts can be found on both sides.

What would Clarence Thomas say?

Matthew Whitaker's Appointment as Acting Attorney General: Three Lingering Questions

"Some—including Justice Clarence Thomas—have argued that an acting principal officer must be appointed in conformance with the Appointments Clause, i.e., by and with the advice and consent of the Senate: 'Appointing principal officers under the FVRA ... raises grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.'"

 

[georgephillip]

All he needs to do is give Mueller 4 months to wrap it up, present what he’s got, or be gone. Time to end this needless staining of Trump

Trump is a life-long stain on this country:

Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?

"It is becoming increasingly clear that, in the language of business schools, the Trump Organization’s core competency is in profiting from misrepresentation and deceit and, potentially, fraud...."

"The Times published a remarkable report, on October 2nd, that showed that much of the profit the Trump Organization made came not from successful real-estate investment but from defrauding state and federal governments through tax fraud.

"This week, ProPublica and WNYC co-published a stunning story and a 'Trump, Inc.' podcast that can be seen as the international companion to the Times piece."

 

[skookerasbil]

There is no legal authority/mechanism to remove him.... even the legal expert bozos were saying that on CNN this morning. Tough shit on the left. Who's not winning?

 

[The Purge]

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Subpoenas go out all the time to people who aren’t even suspected of crimes. Are you sure you know the difference between a subpoena and a warrant?

I quoted the article, please pay attention if something is wrong complain to the source quoted!

 

[pinqy]

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Subpoenas go out all the time to people who aren’t even suspected of crimes. Are you sure you know the difference between a subpoena and a warrant?

I quoted the article, please pay attention if something is wrong complain to the source quoted!

If you quote something that is factually wrong and do not correct it but endorse it, then you are responsible for the untruth.

 

[The Purge]

All he needs to do is give Mueller 4 months to wrap it up, present what he’s got, or be gone. Time to end this needless staining of Trump

Trump is a life-long stain on this country:

Is Fraud Part of the Trump Organization’s Business Model?

"It is becoming increasingly clear that, in the language of business schools, the Trump Organization’s core competency is in profiting from misrepresentation and deceit and, potentially, fraud...."

"The Times published a remarkable report, on October 2nd, that showed that much of the profit the Trump Organization made came not from successful real-estate investment but from defrauding state and federal governments through tax fraud.

"This week, ProPublica and WNYC co-published a stunning story and a 'Trump, Inc.' podcast that can be seen as the international companion to the Times piece."

The N.Y. Times continues to LIE about Trump...

The New York Times Bombshell That Bombed
Politico

Oct 9, 2018 · The front page of the New York Times from Oct. 3, 2018: a ... It accused President Donald Trump of “outright fraud” involving .

 

[The Purge]

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Subpoenas go out all the time to people who aren’t even suspected of crimes. Are you sure you know the difference between a subpoena and a warrant?

I quoted the article, please pay attention if something is wrong complain to the source quoted!

If you quote something that is factually wrong and do not correct it but endorse it, then you are responsible for the untruth.

No I simply reported it, I have no responsibility for fact or not....that is up to little pissants to decide....there is NO GUARANTEE here about anything all opinion!

 

[Crepitus]

Driving the DemonRATS BAT SHIT CRAZY....Heads exploding, Schumer holding breath until he can get subpoenas back again....just love it!!

Yes, because the only reason to approve a subpoena is if there is strong preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, but also to use the Hillary standard, that there was intent.

Anything else is indeed a witch-hunt with political motivations, and abusing the prosecuting powers of the government against politicians for the sake of politics IS a real constitutional crisis



Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Read more at thegatewaypundit.com

Obstruction of justice, illegal, unconstitutional appointment, the only reason this unqualified hack is there is to protect Cheeto Jesus.

 

[georgephillip]

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.

Was Trump appointment of Whitaker constitutional?
Not if you believe the Attorney General in a principal officer and therefore subject to Senate confirmation.
"Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional"

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid."

Bovine Excrement!