An Appearance of Impropriety

[Winston]

Do you have a link to that legal standard that you seem to feel exists?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.101




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

Whittaker never said he did not believe Trump conspired with Russia. He said Mueller needed additional authority to go after the unrelated issues ie. Manafort. Wasnt the only person who has said this.

Yes we have audio of him saying he has a predetermined conclusion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

Explain why you believe this to be true.

You seem to think that a person saying that he opposes a particular action in a particular circumstance is grounds to have him barred from a position of authority over that action.

Why does it apply in one circumstance and in not another?

Whitaker has a predetermined conclusion without seeing the facts. Different from your scenario


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

Actually, Trump fired Sessions because he has been a spectacularly ineffective Attorney General...across the board. Trump had absolutely no reason to keep him on.

Laughably absurd any 5 year old who watches the news could tell you you are wrong about Sessions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Laughably absurd any 5 year old who watches the news could tell you you are wrong about Sessions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct.

The majority of the useful idiots have the intellectual acuity of a 5 year old.

Understanding reality requires a bit more than that.

 

[Winston]

Correct.

The majority of the useful idiots have the intellectual acuity of a 5 year old.

Understanding reality requires a bit more than that.

The majority of 5 year olds could watch the news and come away with a more astute analysis than Sessions was fired for poor job performance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least you're honest

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[chuckiechan]

Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.

The only AG the democrats would be satisfied with would be Hillary Clinton.

AFAIK, Trump didn't know Sessons had any plan to recuse himself so he ended up having a cripple in the AG slot.

 

[RileyCoyote]

Says the Obama Slurper. Holder COVERED OBAMA'S ASS from Fast n Furious, the IRS targeting, Uranium One...al the way until Lynch took over.

Yep, not a smidgeon of scandals under Obama and his justice department. He had the most transparent administration ever...NOT!

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes we have audio of him saying he has a predetermined conclusion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What audio?

 

[jnug]

The only AG the democrats would be satisfied with would be Hillary Clinton.

AFAIK, Trump didn't know Sessons had any plan to recuse himself so he ended up having a cripple in the AG slot.

Which of course means Trump was too unscrupulous to think Sessions would do such a thing and too stupid to ask him.

 

[jnug]

What audio?

“The truth is, there was no collusion with the Russians and the Trump campaign,” Whitaker said during a radio interview with “The Wilkow Majority Show” on June 21, 2017.

You can listen to it yourself as Whitaker posted the interview up on youtube. It has been on youtube since then and is still there now. That said it will likely disappear soon just as Whittaker has taken his twitter page private now in order to bury other comments that lead to his predetermination of the case.

It is titled at youtube "Mathew Whitaker on the Wilkow Majority Show".

Again, I would hustle if you are really interested. Whitaker is hurrying to cover his tracks for all the good it will do him.

 

[Winston]

What audio?

It was from an appearance on a radio show.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...atthew-whitaker-collusion-trump-russia-978525

“The truth is, there was no collusion with the Russians and the Trump campaign,” Whitaker said during a radio interview with “The Wilkow Majority Show” on June 21, 2017. “There was interference by the Russians into the election, but that is not the collusion with the campaign and that is where the left seems to be just combining those two issues.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.

Remember when the United States collectively lost its mind when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch asked each other about their grandkids?

Yeah, well...Whittaker.

 

[Winston]

Remember when the United States collectively lost its mind when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch asked each other about their grandkids?

Yeah, well...Whittaker.

Talking about the tarmac meeting? Yeah, I remember.

The only argument the right has now, is not our guy is innocent, but that it's our turn to be corrupt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Athanasius68]

“The truth is, there was no collusion with the Russians and the Trump campaign,” Whitaker said during a radio interview with “The Wilkow Majority Show” on June 21, 2017.

You can listen to it yourself as Whitaker posted the interview up on youtube. It has been on youtube since then and is still there now. That said it will likely disappear soon just as Whittaker has taken his twitter page private now in order to bury other comments that lead to his predetermination of the case.

It is titled at youtube "Mathew Whitaker on the Wilkow Majority Show".

Again, I would hustle if you are really interested. Whitaker is hurrying to cover his tracks for all the good it will do him.

He said there is no "evidence" of collusion between Trump and Russia.
A statement Which seems to have stood the test of time.

 

[jnug]

He said there is no "evidence" of collusion between Trump and Russia.
A statement Which seems to have stood the test of time.

Irrelevant...a silly answer I am sorry to say. Actually no answer at all.

I will say to your post the same thing that I have said to other posters making the same silly argument. You are asking us to disprove a negative in making such an argument. My kids learned that you can't disprove a negative when they were 6 years old.

 

[Athanasius68]

Irrelevant...a silly answer I am sorry to say. Actually no answer at all.

I will say to your post the same thing that I have said to other posters making the same silly argument. You are asking us to disprove a negative in making such an argument. My kids learned that you can't disprove a negative when they were 6 years old.

There is no negative here being asked to be disproved. Collusion has to be proved. Not the other way around.

And besides, if we are going to go down the route of 'we dont know what Mueller knows' then Whittaker would STILL be stuck as biased and thus unqualified.

Whittaker said what he said as a private citizen. There is no reason to suggest he would bring that to his temporary job.

 

[jnug]

There is no negative here being asked to be disproved. Collusion has to be proved. Not the other way around.

And besides, if we are going to go down the route of 'we dont know what Mueller knows' then Whittaker would STILL be stuck as biased and thus unqualified.

Whittaker said what he said as a private citizen. There is no reason to suggest he would bring that to his temporary job.

You are asking people to deal with a contention that Mueller has nothing because YOU have not seen it yet from an Investigation that is not as yet competed. That is asking them to disprove a negative. Stop for God sake. You can't be this obtuse or can you be?

Lets not go around in the same circle "its been long enough". The Starr Clinton Investigation was over 1,100 days and Watergate was 930 days. STOP!

 

[SoCal]

Hilariously disingenuous from an Obama/Holder/Lynch apologist...

A disingenuous poster defending a disingenuous appointment to stop investigating crimes by a disingenuous orange racoon. Not funny.

What's funny (and creepy) is Trump cancelling an event "because I have a bad hair day"...

 

[Athanasius68]

You are asking people to deal with a contention that Mueller has nothing because YOU have not seen it yet from an Investigation that is not as yet competed. That is asking them to disprove a negative. Stop for God sake. You can't be this obtuse or can you be?

Lets not go around in the same circle "its been long enough". The Starr Clinton Investigation was over 1,100 days and Watergate was 930 days. STOP!

Oh please! If Mueller had collusion he wouldnt be wasting his time on all this extraneous stuff he has been doing.

 

[jnug]

Oh please! If Mueller had collusion he wouldnt be wasting his time on all this extraneous stuff he has been doing.

Another disprove a negative argument. You have no clue, none...nada...zippo and neither do I and neither does anybody else but Mueller at this point and this is nowhere near as long as other investigations of this type so that argument is garbage as well.

But go ahead.....I don't get carpal tunnel so I can key with the best of them. You have energy if nothing else.

 

[SoCal]

Oh please! If Mueller had collusion he wouldnt be wasting his time on all this extraneous stuff he has been doing.

Extraneous criminal 'stuff', otherwise known as crimes.

It's understandable that you'd call it 'collusion', you've heard the orange one repeat it daily for two years, in reality he's being investigated for conspiracy to defraud.

Mueller is closing in so you'll understand the difference when he's prosecuted and btw, prosecuting criminals is never a waste of time...

 

[Athanasius68]

Extraneous criminal 'stuff', otherwise known as crimes.

It's understandable that you'd call it 'collusion', you've heard the orange one repeat it daily for two years, in reality he's being investigated for conspiracy to defraud.

Mueller is closing in so you'll understand the difference when he's prosecuted and btw, prosecuting criminals is never a waste of time...

We have been hearing the "closing in" line since day 1.
Mueller wasnt appointed to prosecute Manafort on events that happened prior to 2016. The regular Justice Dept through its regular channels could have done that.

 

[Athanasius68]

Another disprove a negative argument. You have no clue, none...nada...zippo and neither do I and neither does anybody else but Mueller at this point and this is nowhere near as long as other investigations of this type so that argument is garbage as well.

But go ahead.....I don't get carpal tunnel so I can key with the best of them. You have energy if nothing else.

Nowhere as near as long as investigation of what type? It cuts both ways.