• 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!

Justice Department defends Whitaker appointment as acting attorney general

Lutherf said:
Garland wasn't being plugged into an "acting" position. He was nominated for a permanent position. That's different than what we have with Whitaker. Furthermore, Garland wasn't going to be approved by the Senate. In that case they chose not to make a political spectacle out of the process, unlike the Democrats did with Kavanaugh who WAS going to be confirmed.
Click to expand...

We know he wouldn't be confirmed, because McConnell and the republicans threw a partisan wrench into a "non-partisan" court confirmation process, and the democrats did the same with Kavanaugh.

McConnell and the derelict republican congress started this mess.
 
Lutherf said:
More media propaganda.

Whitaker was appointed acting AG. The purpose was to fill a vacancy due to Sessions' resignation until such time as a permanent appointment can be made and approved. This should be perfectly fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

I am sure the Dem House will have some questions for Whittaker in Jan. Ahh oversight:lol:
 
yankintx said:
I am sure the Dem House will have some questions for Whittaker in Jan. Ahh oversight:lol:
Click to expand...

Yes. They have proved since November 9th, 2016 that they will investigate anyone about anything until they can find a crime. It's not exactly "justice" and it's not exactly "Constitutional" but as long as they keep saying it's a "job application" instead of a criminal case they'll keep calling it "Democracy".
 
Lutherf said:
The problem with requiring senate approval in a case such as this is that it leaves the position open, perhaps indefinitely if the Senate refuses to approve a nomination. It effectively gives control of much of the Executive branch to the Legislature.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry, Trump only intends to keep Whittaker as acting AG long enough to either fire Mueller or choke off their resources.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes. They have proved since November 9th, 2016 that they will investigate anyone about anything until they can find a crime. It's not exactly "justice" and it's not exactly "Constitutional" but as long as they keep saying it's a "job application" instead of a criminal case they'll keep calling it "Democracy".
Click to expand...

No, they haven't proved that, and everything they've done so far is constitutional.

This really isn't very hard.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes. They have proved since November 9th, 2016 that they will investigate anyone about anything until they can find a crime. It's not exactly "justice" and it's not exactly "Constitutional" but as long as they keep saying it's a "job application" instead of a criminal case they'll keep calling it "Democracy".
Click to expand...

The Republican Congress 2012-2016 set the bench mark with its investigations into Hillary. Ahh karma eh ?
 
yankintx said:
The Republican Congress 2012-2016 set the bench mark with its investigations into Hillary. Ahh karma eh ?
Click to expand...

Well, there is a bit of a difference investigating a crime that was committed and investigating to discover what crime you can find.
 
Lutherf said:
Well, there is a bit of a difference investigating a crime that was committed and investigating to discover what crime you can find.
Click to expand...

A Republican Congress and they got squat lol Didn't Trump promise to reopen that investigation? how did that work out lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom