• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats call for 'emergency hearing' after Sessions outing

If rosenstein isn't conflicted neither is whitaker

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Wrong. Whitaker has been openly, visibly and absolutely against the Mueller investigation and proof of that has been well documented because he's been on television saying exactly those things.
 
Matthew Whitaker is not in the line of succession, that and the fact that he's already vocally displayed bias against the Mueller investigation, should disqualify him from acting as interim AG and he should recuse himself.
If that's the case Mueller team should recuse themselves from the investigation as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Of course he had another choice. He didn't have to recuse himself nor should he of done so, but that's all water under the bridge now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Robert Mueller could challenge the appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general by contending that Jeff Sessions, didn’t leave voluntarily but was forced out by Trump. Mueller could argue in court that Trump effectively fired Sessions after months of verbal abuse, a legal concept known as a 'constructive discharge'. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Trump can appoint an acting official without Senate confirmation if he replaces someone who has been incapacitated or resigned. It doesn’t apply if the previous official was fired. Sessions began his resignation letter by saying he was leaving at Trump’s request.The question is whether he was constructively fired, which means he didn’t resign from his post. That would be determined by a court of law.

Whitaker may have conflicts of interest that would lead to a recusal from overseeing Mueller’s probe. Whitaker chaired the campaign of an Iowa politician, Sam Clovis, who went on to join Trump’s election team and has reportedly been a subject of interest in Mueller’s probe.
 
Being forced to leave is 'ousting', being given no other choice but to resign is being 'forced'. You're comparing apples to apples and they're exactly the same thing. My thread title stands firm at 'ousting'. In 2017 the Democrats insisted that Sessions recuse, which is what he did because he had no other choice, they did not "call for Sessions ousting".

But your title said "outing".
That was merely a minor typo blunder.
But your other statement was an all out ****up.
There were at least 131 of 'em that called for his head.
If you want to see the list it's here ... right after the recusal list. https://mic.com/articles/170118/rep...nation-recuse-trump-russia-perjury#.W8syIQF9A
 
The FBI can't be in any other branch.

I agree, but nonetheless it's a flaw. Whether it's a preventable one or not..... idk.

I still think it's arguable that the FBI as an organization is bordline unconstitutional.
 
Trump is allowed to fire anyone he is allowed to hire.

:lamo

Trump does not have the balls to fire anyone. Brave President Bone Spurs, fake reality show boss, flat out doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to face his own hiring mistakes. That's fact. He may be allowed to fire anyone but personally doesn't have the balls to do it himself. He certainly doesn't have the class or character to do himself.

Look at the long and growing list of ****-ups, half-asses, chancers, grifters, racists, criminals, religionists, dip ****s, morons, ideologues and also rans that the fried chicken eating poltroon has hired. It is amazing when you think about it. Sooner rather than later all those societal dregs have to be let go. But Trump isn't man enough to fire the people he hired. He has Kelly call them on the phone.

Trump began running out of fools when he brought Scaramucci on board as his director of communication. :lamo A street bopper who goes by his street name, "The Mooch". In and out in, what, 10 minutes? That may have been the record to date.

Classly, career minded professionals don't want to work for an idiot. Who's left after considering all of the above? Having been a circus act all of his life Trump knows a lot of clowns.
 
Trump is allowed to fire anyone he is allowed to hire.

Correct. However, firing someone specifically to impede a law enforcement investigation is a crime.
 
If that's the case Mueller team should recuse themselves from the investigation as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Okay, that's so convoluted and obscure that I have no comment.
 
:lamo

Trump does not have the balls to fire anyone. Brave President Bone Spurs, fake reality show boss, flat out doesn't possess the intestinal fortitude to face his own hiring mistakes. That's fact. He may be allowed to fire anyone but personally doesn't have the balls to do it himself. He certainly doesn't have the class or character to do himself.

Look at the long and growing list of ****-ups, half-asses, chancers, grifters, racists, criminals, religionists, dip ****s, morons, ideologues and also rans that the fried chicken eating poltroon has hired. It is amazing when you think about it. Sooner rather than later all those societal dregs have to be let go. But Trump isn't man enough to fire the people he hired. He has Kelly call them on the phone.

Trump began running out of fools when he brought Scaramucci on board as his director of communication. :lamo A street bopper who goes by his street name, "The Mooch". In and out in, what, 10 minutes? That may have been the record to date.

Classly, career minded professionals don't want to work for an idiot. Who's left after considering all of the above? Having been a circus act all of his life Trump knows a lot of clowns.

Didn't read.
 
It really isn't. His sole argument is that it's unconstitutional if the Senate doesn't confirm.
No one, including Conway, objected to Sally Yates being appointed Acting Attorney General in 2017, and in fact, she was a hero when she ordered the Justice Department not to enforce Trump's first travel ban order. She was never confirmed by the Senate.
If it's unconstitutional in this case, it was unconstitutional then. But no one even whispered about it at the time.
Deputy Attorney Generals are confirmed by the senate. Where are you getting your misinformation?

On May 13, 2015, the United States Senate voted 84–12 (4 not voting) to confirm Yates as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the second-highest-ranking position in the Justice Department;

She was deputy AG, she was confirmed by the Senate.

If Trump had appointed deputy AG Rosenstein, as acting AG until he found a replacement, that would be:
- normal, standard operating procedure
- uncontested
- constitutional, as he also received senate confirmation.
 
If he's qualified for the position, and doesn't have a clear conflict of interest, why should having an opinion on the handling of the investigation disqualify him? Note that a clear bias for or against the subject of an investigation can create a conflict of interest, but a difference of opinion on a procedural issue doesn't.
- He's not qualified for the position. He was a ****ing salesmen for a fraudulent company that was just fined $25M for fraud and is now gone.
- He was never confirmed by the Senate
- He has stated on record half a dozen things that evidence clear conflict of interest (not just the temperance, which would be enough in itself!)
- Trump has been obstructing prior to this, this is no accident
 
Last edited:
The article itself, if you read it, specifically used the word 'outed', it was not my creation.

No it doesn't. The article used the term "ousting". Outed means something waaaay different than ousted. Maybe your computer screen has the dropsies.
 
George Conway's piece on why the Whitaker AG appointment is unconstitutional is very good.

Anyone that can't see this as anything more than a blatant power grab is blind. Trump didn't want his power grab to affect the midterms which is why he waited until after.

By "power grab" you mean exercising Presidential authority, that he "grabbed" the office of the presidency?

Instead, what is happening is Democrats in Congress are trying to grab presidential power for themselves in violation of the Constitution.
 
No, I am not interested in being convinced of anything by those with lesser intelligence.

Well that rules out reading anything you post then. :lamo
 
That's why this type of unbridled power is referred to as 'the deep state' and 'the shadow government'. Whether Whitaker can or cannot serve in an interim position is still being decided, but he cannot be appointed to the position on a permanent basis with the confirmation by the Senate.

If a president could just hire or fire whomever he chose then Merrick Garland would be sitting on SC bench today.

Nonsensical. There is no interim or appointment of SCOTUS judges. There is for Executive branch employees, which SCOTUS judges are not.
 
hahaha remember when dems demanded he resign?.....now these idiots love him. These are the idiots the left voted for. Priceless.
 
hahaha remember when dems demanded he resign?.....now these idiots love him. These are the idiots the left voted for. Priceless.
Remember when you posted something true and reasonable? Neither do I. It's not his resignation that's the issue. It's ypassing the deputy AG which is why there is a deputy AG, and it's putting someone with clear conflicts of interest and without qualification, and without senate confirmation, in the highest law enforcement position in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Robert Mueller could challenge the appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general by contending that Jeff Sessions, didn’t leave voluntarily but was forced out by Trump. Mueller could argue in court that Trump effectively fired Sessions after months of verbal abuse, a legal concept known as a 'constructive discharge'. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Trump can appoint an acting official without Senate confirmation if he replaces someone who has been incapacitated or resigned. It doesn’t apply if the previous official was fired. Sessions began his resignation letter by saying he was leaving at Trump’s request.The question is whether he was constructively fired, which means he didn’t resign from his post. That would be determined by a court of law.

Whitaker may have conflicts of interest that would lead to a recusal from overseeing Mueller’s probe. Whitaker chaired the campaign of an Iowa politician, Sam Clovis, who went on to join Trump’s election team and has reportedly been a subject of interest in Mueller’s probe.

The Red part is just flat out wrong. The President, any President, can fire any cabinet officer at any time for any reason. If you can't get past that fact, the rest is just whining.

I think it should be ousting, as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom