• 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

Since advise and consent is part of the Constitution, what laws is KC talking about?

That's what I am wondering....I swear, lately it seems as though even our elected members are making it up as they go...
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6e6db8-e380-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html

In May of this year, a federal court in Florida*ordered*the company to pay a settlement of more than $25 million and close up shop, records show. The company did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

Whitaker’s sudden elevation this week to replace fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions has put new scrutiny on his involvement with the shuttered company, whose advisory board he joined in 2014, shortly after making a failed run for U.S. Senate in Iowa.

----------

The only white collar crooks our president doesn't know are the ones who haven't been investigated yet.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Well said. Criminal shat, all of them. And now criminals running the country and even law enforcement. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Trump ruination of our country.
 
hahaha remember when dems demanded he resign?.....now these idiots love him. These are the idiots the left voted for. Priceless.

If not for double standards dims would have no standards at all.
 
This is the problem of the FBI being a part of the executive branch.

It is a flaw in our system. I don't think there is anything illegal/unconstitutional about it.... unless you think the existence of the FBI as an organization is unconstitutional.... which I think actually has some merit.
It is a flaw. And it's been well pointed-out over the years, to no avail.
 
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.
I think it becomes an interesting legal point, though:

If it's found that he cannot be permanently appointed, can he legally be acting said capacity?
 
No, I am not interested in being convinced of anything by those with lesser intelligence.

It's a debate forum. Sometimes people will say stuff you disagree with. If that's a problem, I suggest going back to XBOX Live chat.
 
It's a debate forum. Sometimes people will say stuff you disagree with. If that's a problem, I suggest going back to XBOX Live chat.

Yep, and I recognize their fervor, so I don't bother. Why should I try to convince you of anything? I am here to voice my opinion and if you want to argue or disagree, go for it, nobody is stopping you. Enjoy!
 
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..
Sure but it doesn't mean doing so is legal, or won't be undone. If it violates the law, we can seek remedy for it. Even if it just violates DOJ policy, there may be remedy...at the very least some political remedy. A president can appoint anyone he wants, but if he takes a bribe to do it for example, and he's caught, it would likely result in impeachment and removal of the person he appointed as a bride. Until you admit there are uses of power that are wrong, and criminal, it's just misinformation on your part.
 
Democrats claim Sessions' firing was an effort by President Donald Trump to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is being urged by Democrats to recuse himself from the probe.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/415707-house-dems-call-for-emergency-hearing-after-sessions-ousting-urge

House Dems call for 'emergency hearing' after Sessions ousting, urge acting AG to recuse himself

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are calling for an emergency hearing after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he was resigning at President Trump's request on Wednesday.

House Judiciary Democrats are demanding answers for Sessions's ousting in letters written to the panel's GOP chairman and Sessions's replacement, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, respectively.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats pressed Whitaker, who was Trump's pick to serve as acting attorney general, and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) on Thursday about how the shake-up at the highest levels of the Justice Department (DOJ) will impact special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

In their letter to Whitaker, the Democrats warned that a "constitutional crisis" could ensue if the Mueller probe is not protected, urging the new top cop to recuse himself and place Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein back in the supervisory role for the probe.

“There is little doubt that President Trump’s decision to force the firing of Attorney General Sessions places Special Counsel Mueller’s inquiry at grave risk,” Democrats' letter to Whitaker reads.

So lemme make sure I've got this straight...

Whittaker was on an advisory board for the company and got paid $10k but somehow or other he's responsible for maybe, possibly, defrauding people into shelling out thousands of dollars?

Oh wait!

If I read farther down the article I see the problem.

As he was advising World Patent Marketing, Whitaker ran a conservative watchdog group called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. The group lodged numerous ethics complaints and calls for investigations, targeting Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, as well as some Republicans.

It isn't so much the tangential association with the patent company that's the issue but the Conservative Watchdog thing that's an issue. Of course, since the group also complained about some Republicans that, by itself, wasn't enough to come up with a complaint about the guy.
 
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.

And in this case, the only thing I've heard that he's vocalized is an interest in wrapping it up, which doesn't even indicate a bias 'for' or 'against' the investigation. With 2 1/2 years of investigation, including 1 1/2 of a special council, it's time to paint or get off the ladder.
Proper & thorough investigations are driving by facts, evidence, and events; not artificial time constraints! :doh
 
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.
I think your first two paragraphs will be dependent upon Sessions statements and testimony to the incident, hopefully sooner than January. Sessions resignation letter would seem to indicate he's not happy with these events.

The big question is, "Did Trump get to him"? We don't know what Trump offered Sessions as his consolation prize, but with Trump's official and political power, along with his personal and immense wealth, including that of the Trump Org, Trump has a helluva' a lot to (perhaps legally) bribe with.

The
 
: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.
This started way before, even way before Manfort or even Micheal Cohen.

This is a lifetime association of sleaze and criminality, going back to his (Trump's) father and guys like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone. Trump is of the same cloth, and not deserved of the Oval Office.
 
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.

Mueller was appointed when Comey. Rosenstein was involved in that decision.
In other words, Whittaker has an opinion. Rosenstein was involved. Rosenstein has the far greater conflict between the two.
 
Sally Yates was confirmed by the Senate as a DOJ officer, she was the Deputy AG.

Deputy Attorney Generals are confirmed by the senate. Where are you getting your misinformation?



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.

From the article:

His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation. (Yes, he was confirmed as a federal prosecutor in Iowa, in 2004, but Mr. Trump can’t cut and paste that old, lapsed confirmation to today.)

She was not confirmed in the office to which she was appointed. Confirmations as to other offices don't "stick" when appointed to a new one.
 
If rosenstein isn't conflicted neither is whitaker

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

This has wider reaching implications than just the Russia/Trump stuff. ANY decision he makes as acting AG will be on shaky legal ground because he isn’t confirmed by the Senate. The reason the Deputy AG is confirmed by Senate is to avoid these issues in the event the AG is terminated or steps down.
 
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.
Nah. They have the constitutional power of investigation & oversight. It's what they do. They're the ears & eyes of The People.
 
This has wider reaching implications than just the Russia/Trump stuff. ANY decision he makes as acting AG will be on shaky legal ground because he isn’t confirmed by the Senate. The reason the Deputy AG is confirmed by Senate is to avoid these issues in the event the AG is terminated or steps down.

No. The Vacancies Act allows him to run the department for 210 days without having been confirmed, provided he had been in the department for at least 90 days before hand.
Whittaker qualifies.
 
He claims he didn't know Manafort or Putin, as well, and we saw how that turned-out for him ...

He literally said on Fox & Friends last month that he knows Whitaker lmaooo. Direct quote:

Well, I never talk about that, but I can tell you Matt Whitaker’s a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker.

Does anyone here that supports Trump even care or ask why he's doing this? No.
 
This has wider reaching implications than just the Russia/Trump stuff. ANY decision he makes as acting AG will be on shaky legal ground because he isn’t confirmed by the Senate. The reason the Deputy AG is confirmed by Senate is to avoid these issues in the event the AG is terminated or steps down.
Exactly! If, post hoc, Whitaker's acting tenure is found to illegitimate, then it opens all his actions to refutation. What a freakin' mess Trump is making - again!
 
No. The Vacancies Act allows him to run the department for 210 days without having been confirmed, provided he had been in the department for at least 90 days before hand.
Whittaker qualifies.
It might interesting to know if that 90 day requirement is absolute, or if it is predicated to being contiguous with the current appointment. I really don't know, bit it could be determinate here.
 
No. The Vacancies Act allows him to run the department for 210 days without having been confirmed, provided he had been in the department for at least 90 days before hand.
Whittaker qualifies.

The Vacancies Act allows for the President to appoint the “first assistant” to the vacant position to fill the role temporarily. That is the Deputy Attorney General. It also allows him to appoint any other person in a Senate confirmed position to fill the role temporarily. For example, he could temporarily put one of his other Cabinet members in the position. Whittaker doesn’t meet these requirements, and thus is going to create a lot of legal uncertainty and a lot of opportunity for defense attorneys in federal cases to gum things up.
 
- 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

Very partisan response.

Calling him a salesman is a stretch. He's a former US attorney and was chief of staff for Sessions. He's amply qualified to be acting AG until a permanent one is appointed. And no, he wasn't confirmed for this position, but that's not a requirement.

What are the 'half a dozen things' he's said that provide 'evidence clear conflict of interest'?
 
Back
Top Bottom