Legal Challenges to Whitaker appointment

[independentusa]

Nonsense. The assistant USAG is named by the AG..the Senate has no voice it, so it "does wash".. Regardless the POTUS is not required to named the asst.AG as successor, or even acting USAG.

Can't read?


which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.

This can not override the requirements of the Constitution that says any principle position has to be filled by someone who has been confirmed by the Senate. The AG is one of those positions. Tell me you don't think any law can over ride the constitution.

 

[Bullseye]

This can not override the requirements of the Constitution that says any principle position has to be filled by someone who has been confirmed by the Senate. The AG is one of those positions. Tell me you don't think any law can over ride the constitution.

There's a link about that explains the situation.


ETA: Here's the link

Bottom line is that it's not as cut and dried as you want it to be.

 

[independentusa]

I thought you said FOX. Just because there's an 'x' in there name doesn't mean they are the same.

Your link also says:

Again, the CONSTITUTION of the United States says that anyone filling a principle position, the AG IS one, has to have been confirmed by the Senate. It does not say you can fill one with a temp without confirmation, it says anyone filling this position. You can site all the laws you want, laws can not over ride the constitution.

 

[Bullseye]

Again, the CONSTITUTION of the United States says that anyone filling a principle position, the AG IS one, has to have been confirmed by the Senate. It does not say you can fill one with a temp without confirmation, it says anyone filling this position. You can site all the laws you want, laws can not over ride the constitution.

AGAIN as my post and link above shows it's not that simple, as the link clearly indicates. And use a little common sense - do you seriously claim those laws cited in the link would be allowed to stand IF they hadn't already been tested constitutionally? There are quotes from some pretty high-powered legal minds that say Trump can do what he did.


Also, do you seriously think that if, as we've been told several times, Mueller is going to present his report by the end of the year Whitaker would do anything to stop that? You guys just love inventing things to agonize about don't you?

 

[jnug]

AGAIN as my post and link above shows it's not that simple, as the link clearly indicates. And use a little common sense - do you seriously claim those laws cited in the link would be allowed to stand IF they hadn't already been tested constitutionally? There are quotes from some pretty high-powered legal minds that say Trump can do what he did.


Also, do you seriously think that if, as we've been told several times, Mueller is going to present his report by the end of the year Whitaker would do anything to stop that? You guys just love inventing things to agonize about don't you?

Depends on who is about to get Indicted. There is every chance that Don Jr is going to be Indicted. Apparently he expects to be as does Roger Stone.

But it is not cut and dried. That much is true. However before the Court, the Administration Brief would be pretty lean compared to the Brief in opposition. The question is the one I posed earlier. Who has Standing before the Court to bring the case?

 

[Bullseye]

Depends on who is about to get Indicted. There is every chance that Don Jr is going to be Indicted. Apparently he expects to be as does Roger Stone

So what? Are you seriously claiming Whitaker would step in and shut down the investigation?

[quote[jnug]
But it is not cut and dried. That much is true. However before the Court, the Administration Brief would be pretty lean compared to the Brief in opposition. The question is the one I posed earlier. Who has Standing before the Court to bring the case?[/QUOTE] Interesting question. Way beyond me.

 

[jnug]

So what? Are you seriously claiming Whitaker would step in and shut down the investigation?

[quote[jnug]
But it is not cut and dried. That much is true. However before the Court, the Administration Brief would be pretty lean compared to the Brief in opposition. The question is the one I posed earlier. Who has Standing before the Court to bring the case?

Interesting question. Way beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Whitaker does not have to shut down the Investigation to stop Mueller from Indicting unless Mueller has started the Grand Jury process for a particular Indictment before Whitaker took over. Mueller has to go to his boss, before now Rosenstein in order to get a sign off to proceed to Grand Jury and Indictment.

Every Federal Indictment names the same authority, the AG unless the AG has recused himself. Now at least if Rosenstein no longer controls the Mueller Investigation, if everything was not now an utter and complete mess, by rights, Mueller should have to go to Whitaker.

In fact, since Whitaker is a fake AG, whether acting AG or temporary, he very likely is fake, every new Federal case being brought forward right now has to stop in its tracks because the AG on that Indictment is a fake AG. That should go over like a lead balloon. Some day Donald will figure out he isn't in the NY Real Estate Development business, at least for now.

 

[roughdraft274]

Believe whatever bull**** you want to makeup..I CITED THE ACTUAL LAW.

You werent even aware that the assistant AGs require senate approval and you expect to be taken as an expert on this? Seriously?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[OscarLevant]

No...the President will appoint a USAG that is his political ally, as has EVERY POTUS IN HISTORY, and said nominee, will be EASILY APPROVED BY THE GOP-ENHANCED SENATE, as well....same with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.


Meanwhile the Dumb-o-crats plan to "keep investigating Russia", even after the Witch Hunt admits that there was, no collusion...at least BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.


An investigation into the Obama Swamp/DNC/Hillary Campaign would yield a FAR DIFFERENT VERDICT...but, as we all, know the RUSSIAN-o-CRATS aren't about to probe THAT , ARE THEY?

A political Ally is one thing but appointing AG head who's publicly given views favoring you-- giving forgone conclusions of investigations you are the subject of is altogether another matter, that is corruption.

 

[Pedestrian]

He has not been appointed; he is ACTING USAG...let's see the LINK with the QUOTE, which , I notice, you CONVENIENTLY NEGTLECTED TO PROVIDE.


Why would you do that?

Doesn't matter. Any pres. could just appt. yes, appt. to AAG because the keyword here is acting. If he acts like an AG, he is an AG.

Plus trump could appt. nothing but temps for 4 years...none approved by the senate.

 

[Pedestrian]

No...the President will appoint a USAG that is his political ally, as has EVERY POTUS IN HISTORY, and said nominee, will be EASILY APPROVED BY THE GOP-ENHANCED SENATE, as well....same with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.


Meanwhile the Dumb-o-crats plan to "keep investigating Russia", even after the Witch Hunt admits that there was, no collusion...at least BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.


An investigation into the Obama Swamp/DNC/Hillary Campaign would yield a FAR DIFFERENT VERDICT...but, as we all, know the RUSSIAN-o-CRATS aren't about to probe THAT , ARE THEY?

Well, now we know what you...want to believe.

 

[Luckyone]

A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

I have no idea, I am no legal expert but it does need to be mentioned that the naming of Whitaker (who is not qualified for the post) who is a confirmed supporter of Trump and has clearly stated that he believes Mueller's probe is a witch hunt. This is now the man in charge of the Mueller probe. It's like putting a pedophile in charge of a kindergarten school. You know he will take advantage of the position for his enablers benefit.

How much more can Trump laugh into people's faces than actually openly putting a man in a position where he can defy the principles of the Constitution and get away with it for Trump's own personal benefit? It is like pointing a gun at an unarmed person and saying I am going to kill you and get away with it. Trump has no respect for anyone other than himself.

and then, have all his supporters say that he is right and everyone else saying it is wrong are wrong.

Talk about a nation that has become the laughingstock of the world and one that has lost all the respect and honor that was built with blood, sweat, and tears over 240 years. We are now a nation run by a clown, a buffoon and even worse, a scam artist.

 

[marke]

A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

Nothing. He will release the documents Rosenstein has been illegally hiding from Congress and whether he continues on the job after that is not all that important.

 

[Pedestrian]

Nonsense. The assistant USAG is named by the AG..the Senate has no voice it, so it "does wash".. Regardless the POTUS is not required to named the asst.AG as successor, or even acting USAG.

Can't read?


which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.

You are wrong. It is that simple. All assist. AGs must get senate approval.

The most obvious and least controversial succession scenario would be for President Trump to follow the terms of the DOJ succession statute
and his own executive order on DOJ succession, under both of which the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, would automatically become the acting attorney general pending the confirmation of Sessions’ successor.

 

[independentusa]

You are wrong. It is that simple. All assist. AGs must get senate approval.

The most obvious and least controversial succession scenario would be for President Trump to follow the terms of the DOJ succession statute
and his own executive order on DOJ succession, under both of which the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, would automatically become the acting attorney general pending the confirmation of Sessions’ successor.

Once again, for principle positions the constitution requires you to be confirmed by the Senate. It does not say but not in the case of a law passed by congress. Even several very right wing experts say it is unconstitutional.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Unless Trump fires him and then hires another "temporary" AG... or even same one as "new" one... right?

Trump is the embodiment why this country needs more laws and regulations...

He won't, the senate will confirm him well within the window.

 

[jnug]

The Senate, even a GOP run Senate would not confirm Whitaker for Dog Catcher. He has legal problems of his own for one thing.

Even the VRA deeper into the language disallows the Whitaker appointment. So the exact law referenced does not allow Whitaker to be acting AG.

Mueller however is acting in his capacity as the Special Counsel and Rosenstein is in fact acting in his capacity as the Deputy AG. Therefore both of them can continue in their capacities without interference from Whitaker. Whitaker does not have the authority to force Rosenstein to hand over documents and Whitaker won't be confirmed to anything. This is a scam wrapped in a sham. I can only assume that Whitaker hopes to gain favor with Trump and either pull off this miracle of a scam or fall into a pile of Trump money when it fails. One warning to you Mr. Whitaker, you are treading on very shaky legal ground here. You are going to run your butt right into an indictment yourself .....STUPID!

This is unraveling quickly. Talk about a desperate move. I am inclined to think the only thing that prompted this is Trump family members close to Indictment as Donald himself can't be close to Indictment.

i suspect virtually anything can be a tripwire that unravels this whole scam quickly, even as little as a litigant in a federal case forcing the Justice Dept to its knees over having a fake AG could do it.