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

[Crixus]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

 

[User901]

I sit here and read all these Democrap supporter replies to massively incriminating evidence against the people they support and all these moron Democrat supporters got for a retort when you face them with all this criminal actions by Dem politicians is insanely stupid accusations of racsim. That is LITERALLY all they got for an argument. It's the most pathetic bullshit anybody has ever seen. In other words, they got absolutely nothing for a reply, but they will rather die than concede that the people that represent them are corrupt no good pieces of shit.

 

[eagle1462010]

I sit here and read all these Democrap supporter replies to massively incriminating evidence against the people they support and all these moron Democrat supporters got for a retort when you face them with all this criminal actions by Dem politicians is insanely stupid accusations of racsim. That is LITERALLY all they got for a argument. It's the most pathetic bullshit anybody has ever seen.

Dems are PATHETIC...................and this is and always has been a cover up so these Traitors get by the statues of limitations on their crimes.............

The evidence against them in a real court and they go under the jail...................of course they deny this...........Traitors one and all that I just posted.......

 

[Care4all]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position (or Soliciter general) while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate. Our CONSTITUTION states this. specifically.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

 

[eagle1462010]

He is a temporary appointment..............

and

 

[Crixus]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

 

[Care4all]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

[eagle1462010]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Well that's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't.............to settle these legal disputes...........in the meantime.........oh well...........

Who just appointed 2 Justices............so sorry.

 

[Crixus]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Ex- Judg Napalatno is wrong allot and he is an EX- Judge for a reason. He is also a plonker. And I challenge you to find one glowing remark I have ever made about Fox News. I hated Fox before hating Fox was cool. Nothing but info bimbos playin smart person. Stupid worthless twats all. Except for Bret Bear and that one old dude who is on on the weekend. Not unconstitutional at all. Temporary appointment. All good.

 

[Crixus]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Well that's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't.............to settle these legal disputes...........in the meantime.........oh well...........

Who just appointed 2 Justices............so sorry.

And just think of all those lower court judges that will get through now that the senate is out of demtards grasp. How I love the heartburn it gives them.

 

[Care4all]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Well that's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't.............to settle these legal disputes...........in the meantime.........oh well...........

Who just appointed 2 Justices............so sorry.

you think supreme court justices are Trump's pawns? or will they follow what the Constitution states,

no person holding a Principle Position, and the AG is a Principle position, can hold the position without advice and consent of the Senate

a person holding a principle position is a person who reports directly to the president, with no other person above them to report to, but the President.

Maryland and 19 other states signing on to them, are suing and no doubt, they will win.

 

[Care4all]

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Well that's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't.............to settle these legal disputes...........in the meantime.........oh well...........

Who just appointed 2 Justices............so sorry.

And just think of all those lower court judges that will get through now that the senate is out of demtards grasp. How I love the heartburn it gives them.

where have you been? The Senate has been a Republican Majority for years and years.... nothing new.

 

[eagle1462010]

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Well that's why we have the Judicial Branch of gov't.............to settle these legal disputes...........in the meantime.........oh well...........

Who just appointed 2 Justices............so sorry.

you think supreme court justices are Trump's pawns? or will they follow what the Constitution states,

no person holding a Principle Position, and the AG is a Principle position, can hold the position without advice and consent of the Senate

a person holding a principle position is a person who reports directly to the president, with no other person above them to report to, but the President.

Maryland and 19 other states signing on to them, are suing and no doubt, they will win.

I think they will interpret the constitution on a temporary fill in............

Why we have 3 branches of gov't..........

There are disagreements on this............NO???

So now it will get decided by the courts.............

So next we get another circus act for a confirmation proceeding like the last one...............

 

[Care4all]

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

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Ex- Judg Napalatno is wrong allot and he is an EX- Judge for a reason. He is also a plonker. And I challenge you to find one glowing remark I have ever made about Fox News. I hated Fox score hating Fox was cool. Nothing but info bimbos playin smart person. Stupid worthless twats all. Except for Bret Bear and that one old dude who is on on the weekend. Not unconstitutional at all. Temporary appointment. All good.

agree with everything but the temporary! the constitution gives no allowance for an exception

AND there is a SPECIFIC LAW that states who the TEMPORARY replacement of the AG must be...

AND the replacement Act that Trump is using to say it is ok, is for all positions that ARE NOT Principle positions....

 

[Care4all]

Team Trump is going to lose this one..... I'd bet money on it....

 

[Crixus]

DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal



DOJ Memo: Acting Attorney General Whitaker's Appointment Is Legal

and they are WRONG and will lose in court because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and even if it were not unconstitutional (which it is)

because a general act does not negate a specific law.... very poor lawyering by the DOJ

the law states specifically for the Attorney general replacement it must be the Deputy Attorney general filling the position while the president makes his new pick.... because the Deputy has already been given advise and consent of the Senate.

the position can not be held by ANYONE who has not be given Advice and consent of the Senate.

Whitaker has not been given consent by the Senate.

He sits, unconstitutionally and can not be the President's Patsy.

You haven’t been right yet in any of your assertions where Trump is concurred. I know it’s hard to see, but it’s happening. Those up in Washington and the media have the same problem. Congress has ZERO say here. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. But just in case Trump should make him a Czar. Bammer liked doing that. Worked for him.

sure, whatever...
even your beloved Fox News Judge Napolitano STATES that Whitaker in the position



IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Ex- Judg Napalatno is wrong allot and he is an EX- Judge for a reason. He is also a plonker. And I challenge you to find one glowing remark I have ever made about Fox News. I hated Fox score hating Fox was cool. Nothing but info bimbos playin smart person. Stupid worthless twats all. Except for Bret Bear and that one old dude who is on on the weekend. Not unconstitutional at all. Temporary appointment. All good.

agree with everything but the temporary! the constitution gives no allowance for an exception

AND there is a SPECIFIC LAW that states who the TEMPORARY replacement of the AG must be...

AND the replacement Act that Trump is using to say it is ok, is for all positions that ARE NOT Principle positions....

And that’s why they have court. We can jab ribs all we want but it’s them that will settle it weather we like it or not. Either way nothing is going to bother the investigation. Muller will do his thing. He will slap a campaign finance thing on Trump and roll up a couple more guys on process crimes with Paul M as his only GET after it’s all done. I just hope it gets normal up there.

 

[The Purge]

John Bies, former deputy assistant attorney general in Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a Lawfare piece that Thomas' opinion takes a more realistic approach than the Office of Legal Counsel in determining whether an acting official should be considered temporary “when it can result in exercise of all of the office’s duties over a long period of time.” Whitaker can serve as acting AG for 210 days, though the clock resets once Trump nominates someone to serve in the position permanently. Bies called the constitutionality of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act for the appointment of a non-Senate confirmed official into a principal role an “open question,” and said he will almost certainly take action that gives someone standing to “litigate the validity of his appointment.”

Thomas also suggested that the judicial branch will have the final word on a situation such as Whitaker’s.

“Courts inevitably will be called upon to determine whether the Constitution permits the appointment of principal officers pursuant to the [Vacancies Act] without Senate confirmation,” Thomas wrote.

 

[georgephillip]

I know most liberals aren't man enough to admit when they're wrong so they'll find anyone, even Conways husband, to say they are right. And you're reading the clause wrong, yes an acting principal officer must be approved by the Senate, but the appointment clause clearly states that they can be appointed for 90 days without senate approval.

Most conservatives don't know the difference between right and wrong, witness their rancid reverence for a racist pussy grabber.

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

"A 19th-century Supreme Court opinion does hold that a statute that permitted a diplomatic vice counsel to serve 'for a limited time, and under special and temporary conditions' as counsel during the temporary absence of the counsel (a principal officer) did not somehow transform the vice counsel “into the superior and permanent official” in violation of the Appointments Clause.

"Here, of course, Whitaker has been appointed only to act temporarily as attorney general until a new attorney general is appointed (by confirmation or during a recess), not to permanently serve as attorney general.

"But there are no limitations on his ability to exercise the full statutory powers and authorities of the attorney general, and practically speaking, Whitaker could serve as acting attorney general for most of the remainder of the president’s first term—although the FVRA typically limits acting appointments to 210 days, that time period can be extended if the president sends a nomination for another person to be attorney general to the Senate."

DOJ says you WRONG MUTHAFUKA. You gonna admit it and be a man? I don't expect you to. You're a liberal. You can't even figure out what fucking bathroom to use.

Fess up, Twinkie.
Do you actually believe this spineless POS has even read the US Constitution?

"Is the Appointment Constitutional?

"The president’s decision to appoint a Department of Justice employee who is not Senate-confirmed to act as attorney general under the FVRA raises an esoteric but unresolved constitutional issue.

"The Appointments Clause of the Constitution provides that the president can nominate and, 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,' appoint officers of the United States.

"It further allows that 'Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'

"Consequently, while the clause permits Congress to authorize the appointment of 'inferior officers' by the president alone or by the head of a department, it requires that any 'principal officer” be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.'"

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

 

[longknife]

Justice Department Says Trump Has Power to Name Whitaker

I’ve seen this in at least a dozen different sites and all report the same.

The Office of Legal Counsel said a president can “depart from the succession order” that was established by one federal law by relying on a separate law, known as the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The opinion concluded that the Republican president was on solid constitutional ground as well.

And the kicker is, the husband of the president’s councilor, Kelleyanne Conway, is leading the legal effort to invalidate the appointment.

More of this particular article @ Justice Department Says Trump Has Power to Name Whitaker

George Conway Launches Anti-Trump Group for Conservative Attorneys @ George Conway Launches Anti-Trump Group for Conservative Attorneys

Wow! What a marriage that must be. They have 4 kids, ages unknown.

 

[georgephillip]

Hacking the Appointments Clause

"I’m not sufficiently steeped in the history or jurisprudence of the appointments clause to have a strong view either way on the legality of Whitaker’s elevation, but it does at least seem to run contrary to the spirit and intention of the Appointments Clause as articulated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 76, which gives the following rationale for requiring Senate confirmation for the highest posts in the executive branch..."

Trump's loyalty is to his brand, not the Constitution or "We the People."

When House subpoenas begin flying into the West Wing in two months, Trump's true character will be revealed to all who are willing to watch.