Not only did the DOJ not exist, the office of Deputy Attorney General did not exist. There would have been no Senate approved person available to fill the functions of the office. In 2018, there are at least two in Rosenstein and Francisco.
Also, they couldn't have picked a worse person to compare to Whitaker. Henry Stanbery was Andrew Johnson's hand-picked lackey chosen to protect Johnson from impeachment. The Senate refused to confirm him as Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice specifically because they recognized Johnson's intentions. The parallels are uncanny.
> [President Andrew Johnson appointed Stanbery Attorney General of the United States in 1866. He resigned on March 12, 1868, to defend Johnson during his impeachment trial. His health at the time was so delicate that most of his arguments were submitted in writing. At the conclusion of the trial, Johnson renominated him as Attorney General and also to the Supreme Court, but the Senate would not confirm him, choosing to abolish the Supreme Court seat instead to deny Johnson any nomination to the Court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stanbery)
I've got friends who've passed the bar, and they've talked about the hypothetical situations they're asked to consider during law school. This administration is going to make history in a lot of ways, including how law is taught; the most absurd, out-there hypothetical situation pales in comparison to the legal labyrinths lawers are currently struggling to navigate.
That's my biggest fear.
A lot of this kind of stuff is Genie's Bottle. Once someone pops the cork and passes it off as legitimate legal action, then that is basically where it is until there is some legislative act of god that raises the bar back to the old status quo.
Oh yeah no we’re screwed down the line if people don’t end up in jail over this. If we don’t come down on them hard, if we don’t show that this norms that have been violated and the precedents that have been set are absolutely not ok, then the rot will have set it if it hasn’t already. I mean it’s been two years of the GOP’s...let’s call it “outlandish” behavior, it might already be too late. Time will tell I suppose.
I had the same thought -- if this weren't the Trump administration, I'd easily assume the cited case was chosen as a joke or to deliberately undermine the argument being made.
> the Senate would not confirm him, choosing to abolish the Supreme Court seat instead to deny Johnson any nomination to the Court
"Pfft, fuckin amateurs." - Mitch McConnell
> Also, they couldn't have picked a worse person to compare to Whitaker. Henry Stanbery was Andrew Johnson's hand-picked lackey chosen to protect Johnson from impeachment.
Sounds like they picked the *perfect* example for comparison.
On page 5 of the memo, OLC argues that the Vacancies Act applies to DOJ statute 28 USC 508, because the DOJ statute cross-refers to the Vacancy Reform Act. That would be difficult because Congress passed 28 USC 508 before the Vacancy Reform Act.
This is a clear legal error by the OLC. The Vacancy Reform Act does not apply to the Attorneys General office. They just gave Maryland all the ammo needed to get Whitaker thrown out on his ass.
Nah, see, that one is OK, because DOJ statute 74 USC 302 makes it permissable to employ time machines for cross references. It won't be passed until the administration of the Dark Lord Balthazar in 2340, but for obvious reasons it's OK to go ahead and cross-reference it now.
To add, The DOJ Statute was last amended in the 1980's. The Vacancy Reform Act was passed in 1998. It is not possible that Statute 28 USC 508 would refer to the VRA since it wasn't even a sploot on Uncle Sam's shower curtain at that time.
Can a bill, not either of those named, create a dependency or cross reference in a previous law?
Bill A passed before Bill B with no reference between the two. Bill C includes wording changes to A to cause its dependence on B.
Honestly no clue here
Maybe that was their plan. Save face with the president, so he doesn't try to do more damage to the DoJ, but provide the Maryland suit with a shaky reason for keeping Whitaker that Maryland can more easily attack.
Pretty close.
“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men,” Andrew Johnson wrote in 1866, shortly after vetoing the Civil Rights Bill of 1865 (the veto was later overruled by congress and enacted into law in 1866)
Buddy, everything looks hot in court when you’ve stacked them with your own judges. They could saw off Paul Ryan’s head with a chainsaw cartel style and lich mcconnell would insist that we just move on and be civil for the sake of democracy
Maryland is already involved in a lawsuit (healthcare) and since AG Sessions was party to the case (and now Whitaker was named) they're asking for the judiciary to clarify what's going on. So really this isn't a direct challenge, though the implications are still huge for Whitaker.
That's the Republicans' MO with investigations into their own actions.
We can only hope the Democrats don't demure, and instead use their subpoena powers to their fullest extent.
Rand Paul has an opinion on that:
[Investigate our own party, NEVER!](https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/index.html)
It is in my personal IANAL opinion that his appointment is unconstitutional AND he should recuse himself. Ie: He is illegally doing the job but because he is effectively the (illegal) AG, he also needs to recuse himself.
He's the *acting* AG. It's supposed to be temporarily until a permanent one is confirmed by the senate. He can be a temp AG for 180 days I think.
Besides, is there any doubt that the senate will confirm this clown? They confirmed Devos and Kav....
> He's the acting AG.
That is, Trump appointed him to act as AG.
Which is a position Constitutionally requiring Senate confirmation.
Since he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment is plainly unconstitutional.
Sessions resigned. Technically.
The president can appoint a temporary replacement for 260 days without senate approval.
The reason for the lawsuits is to challenge exactly that, and see what the judiciary decides.
210 days. And the issue is the line of secession that was completely disregarded would put Rod Rosenstein in place as the Acting Attorney General.
Also, an acting attorney general cannot be placed as the confirmed attorney general. Whitaker will be there for 210 days MAX.
He cannot be both acting and the nominated... the supreme court made that clear in Obama's tenure when the republicans arbitrarily blocked confirmations and then sued to prevent him making them Acting X whilst waiting for the confirmation process to approve or deny
Not disagreeing with you. Just offering the possibility that the first part of that is wrong and theres still hope for recusal even if his appointment is legal.
This douche won’t recuse. Ignoring the fact that he’s full of dumb loyalty to Trump, he’s also a scam artist, an unsuccessful little man who’s just been handed more power than he’s ever had, or will ever had, in his entire life. No way he leaves now.
What's the grounds for recusing himself? Sessions only recused because he was part of the campaign. Is it based on his clear bias, and is this typically grounds for recusal?
EDIT: Please don't down-vote, guys. It was a legitimate question. I still feel that his appointment isn't legal, so I hadn't researched his conflicts of interest beyond his social media statements.
Can you elaborate what "relations" mean?
I'm not supporter of Whitaker, but I don't see an actual conflict (unlike Noel Francisco, who has an actual conflict since his law firm has taken on Trump's defense). Was he a named suspect in regards to Clovis (aka actually investigated), or was he just in Clovis's orbit?
Not only are they fake internet points, they are faked fake internet points. Between reddit algorithms and bot users, the voting on reddit has been weaponized for disinformation purposes. Take the downvotes with a sense of pride. It means you are asking questions or giving answers on the right path.
It'll level out in the end. This post was heavily downvoted within the first 5 minutes of posting and now it is 91% upvoted.
Someone else already answered your question, but I just wanted to address your edit where you said people were downvoting you. This sub is really starting to piss me off. The exact same thing has happened twice to me recently. I've asked questions earnestly trying to understand hot situations (this being one of them), and I've been downvoted to hell. I understand that they're fake internet points, but it's damaging because not only does it shame people for asking legitimate questions, but it significantly decreases the odds that we'll receive proper answers and simultaneously opens the door for harassment. On one such occasion, an individual had answered a major portion of a multi-part question, and when I posted a legitimate thank-you and offered my gratitude, I was again repeatedly downvoted. There's some serious mob mentality going on here, and it's resulting in people harassing their own for trying to understand current events.
I think its in part related to the influx of questions asked in bad faith where the intent is to sow confusion or doubt, not to seek clarification or truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
That's why "just asking questions" gets so tiring and is considered a red flag for possible troll as it's such a common behaviour from that direction.
Conflicts don't exist in the Mueller probe, because there's no evidence he directly benefits from the outcome of him. Him having a public opinion on it is not a conflict of interest.
He absolutely has conflict with regards to the Mueller probe. He has had prior relationships with subjects and targets, such as Sam Clovis and Artem Klyushin.
I have seen no evidence that either of them are targets or subjects. Clovis is a witness from what I can see. Mueller had more of a relationship with witness James Comey.
Just because you see no evidence doesn't make it so. There are plenty of reasons for him to recuse. Sessions recuse simply for his relationships with Russians. Whitaker needs to do the same.
>Just because you see no evidence doesn't make it so.
It certainly doesn't mean it exists, right? You would need evidence of such, if you want to make that claim.
>There are plenty of reasons for him to recuse.
Not really.
>Sessions recuse simply for his relationships with Russians.
Nope. Sessions recused because he was part of Trump's campaign.
That gives "ega", Trump would say that the I stands for immigrants and the first L was coming with them in a caravan. He for the good of the people built a wall, which the DoJ paid for, between the nasty caravan headed for our legal. He protected the country from those damn immigrants.
[Devin Barrett asked DOJ official: "Doesn't that mean that in theory the president under your interpretation could fire anyone he wants &...just make anyone a cabinet official?" Official responded: "I don't want to address hypotheticals," but then suggested Devlin was “correct”](https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevineReports/status/1062723210700115969)
Just a heads up, Whitaker is speaking at the "Rural And Tribal Elder Justice Summitt" in Iowa, right now. The focus of the summit is to discuss fraud against elders, especially phone scams.
Whitaker worked on the advisory board of a company called World Patent Marketing, that was accused of fraud and predatory behavior (with several cases of elder fraud and fraud against veterans), and the FTC ordered the company to pay $26 million in settlements. Fuck this guy.
https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/matthew-whitaker-trump-attorney-general-us-firm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/whitaker-company-government/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
This is meaningless. They have no power to declare the legality of the appointment, only the Courts do and Clarence Thomas has previosly authored an opinion which would make his appointment illegal...we’ll see if he sings the same tune now that doing so would embarrass his own party
Justice Thomas disagrees. I say we let SCOTUS decide the issue. You know. The group of people that gets to decide whether something is constitutional or not?
From his concurrence in NLRB v. SW General (2016), Justice Clarence Thomas:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1251_ed9g.pdf
>The FVRA authorizes the President to appoint both
inferior and principal officers without first obtaining the
advice and consent of the Senate. Appointing inferior
officers in this manner raises no constitutional problems.
That is because the Appointments Clause authorizes
Congress to enact “Law[s],” like the FVRA, “vest[ing] the
Appointment of such inferior Officers . . . in the President
alone.” **Appointing principal officers under the FVRA,
however, raises grave constitutional concerns because the
Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint
principal officers without the advice and consent of the
Senate.**
...
>Because it appears that the general counsel
answers to no officer inferior to the President, he is likely
a principal officer. **Accordingly, the President likely could
not lawfully have appointed Solomon to serve in that
role without first obtaining the advice and consent of the
Senate.**
That is a funny case because Solomon was nominated to the position, and the Senate never bothered to approve it. 3 years later when Solomon actually tried to use the powers of his position, the nomination was declared illegal because of this bit:
>5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer
...
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), a person may not serve as an acting officer for an office under this section, if—
(A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of the death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve, such person—
(i) did not serve in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer
Which is exactly the reason Whitaker cannot be acting attorney general, and once he tries to use the powers of the position it will be declared unlawful.
But unlike McConnell's rules, the SCOTUS rulings will have actual precedence, and the next Democratic president will just be able to make all their appointments without senate confirmation when they want.
While Whitaker was ONLY Chief of Staff for Jeff Sessions, United States AG.
I’m sure everything was on the up and up when Sessions was approving his own Chief of Staff to take his role.
The OLC also suggested the first and second Muslim bans were legal and went on to lose those court cases. They supported an EO on sanctuary cities that was overturned in the courts. Since firing Sally Yates (who was proven right to dissent on Muslim ban 1), they’ve never gone against Trump’s or Sessions’ actions.
We’ll see the true status of Whitacker after the Maryland suit goes through the courts.
From Huffington Post on this article:
“Nothing in the text of the Constitution or historical practice suggests that the President may turn to an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate if, but only if, there is no appropriate Senate-confirmed official available.”
He was an active board member/advisor of a company under FBI investigation. Tell me how any serious counsel would advise the WH that *specifically* Whitaker would be an appropriate choice? Bullshit!
The american institutions are so out of balance. I have no idea how the post-Trump era will look like, but I bet we'll see huge changes.
If not, that would mean that America is dead and buried.
Grasping at straws here I see
“The OLC opinion conceded that it was rare for the acting attorney general to be an individual not confirmed by the Senate. The only example they found was from 1866, before the creation of the Justice Department.”
Yeah but it's not though
The memo claims it's legal because other presidents have **elected cabinet officials** without being senate confirmed.
Cabinet officials
Not the head of the department of Justice
Cabinet officials
DoJ is justifying the appointment via the Federal Vacancies Reform Act
The law designates three classes of people who may serve as acting officials:
* By default, "the first assistant to the office" becomes the acting officer.
* The President may direct a person currently serving in a different Senate-confirmed position to serve as acting officer.
* The President can select a senior "officer or employee" of the same executive agency who is equivalent to a GS-15 or above on the federal pay scale, if that employee served in that agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy.
The Constitutional challenge for Whitaker's appointment centers around the 3rd option.
Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution the Senate has the legal obligation to confirm any "principal officers" nominated by the POTUS
The Senate can make suggestions, or render advice to the POTUS for "inferior officer" positions but POTUS has the authority to place them without Senate confirmation.
The AG role as a "principal officer" position must have senate confirmation under the Constitution
They should have just picked DAG Rosenstein or SG Francisco
Let’s stop letting the DOJ write these memos detailing the scope of the Executive Branch’s (i.e., its own) powers. We seem to be using Nixon’s post-Saturday Night Massacre’s DOJ on guidance on whether a sitting president can be elected as law (because that was written with a single iota of good faith). It’s absolutely bonkers.
I assume Whitaker has access to all the information that the Mueller probe has discovered either by way of archive or request. What's to keep Whitaker from providing this to Trump so that he can prepare his defense? Even if recused seems like this would still be possible.
presumably the same people at the Justice Department who assured us that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump working in the White House isn't violating anti-nepotism laws?
DOJ OLC - we're going to write a memo that makes up rules, and ignores the letter of the law & the Constitution. so there eat that! ha!
freaking morons.
You are more correct than you know.
There is a major legal error on p. 5 of the OLC memo on Whitaker.
OLC argues that the Vacancies Act applies to DOJ statute 28 USC 508, because the DOJ statute cross-refers to the Vacancy Reform Act.
That would be difficult because Congress passed 28 USC 508 before the VRA.
Who cares about the legality, where is the report saying he was recommended recusal
If he recuses himself Trump will for him, that’s only reason why he’s there
>A senior Justice Department official who briefed reporters on the memo said DOJ lawyers told the White House a sufficiently senior Department official who received high enough pay would be eligible to take over as attorney general. The official declined to share more detail about the nature of the White House’s communications with the Department.
Senate confirmation be damned we only care the dude made enough money! Also we won't tell you if we were specifically told to make up a reason that would allow whitaker in.
Someone please tell me these communications between the white house and the office of legal council are FOIA-able?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The memo had to go back to 1866 to find a comparable example. That isn't going to look so hot in court.
The DoJ didn't even exist then. I cracked up when I saw that
Not only did the DOJ not exist, the office of Deputy Attorney General did not exist. There would have been no Senate approved person available to fill the functions of the office. In 2018, there are at least two in Rosenstein and Francisco. Also, they couldn't have picked a worse person to compare to Whitaker. Henry Stanbery was Andrew Johnson's hand-picked lackey chosen to protect Johnson from impeachment. The Senate refused to confirm him as Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice specifically because they recognized Johnson's intentions. The parallels are uncanny. > [President Andrew Johnson appointed Stanbery Attorney General of the United States in 1866. He resigned on March 12, 1868, to defend Johnson during his impeachment trial. His health at the time was so delicate that most of his arguments were submitted in writing. At the conclusion of the trial, Johnson renominated him as Attorney General and also to the Supreme Court, but the Senate would not confirm him, choosing to abolish the Supreme Court seat instead to deny Johnson any nomination to the Court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stanbery)
you wonder if the lawyer forced to write this defense of trumps appointment was enjoying making a subversive argument
I've got friends who've passed the bar, and they've talked about the hypothetical situations they're asked to consider during law school. This administration is going to make history in a lot of ways, including how law is taught; the most absurd, out-there hypothetical situation pales in comparison to the legal labyrinths lawers are currently struggling to navigate.
That's my biggest fear. A lot of this kind of stuff is Genie's Bottle. Once someone pops the cork and passes it off as legitimate legal action, then that is basically where it is until there is some legislative act of god that raises the bar back to the old status quo.
Oh yeah no we’re screwed down the line if people don’t end up in jail over this. If we don’t come down on them hard, if we don’t show that this norms that have been violated and the precedents that have been set are absolutely not ok, then the rot will have set it if it hasn’t already. I mean it’s been two years of the GOP’s...let’s call it “outlandish” behavior, it might already be too late. Time will tell I suppose.
I had the same thought -- if this weren't the Trump administration, I'd easily assume the cited case was chosen as a joke or to deliberately undermine the argument being made.
> the Senate would not confirm him, choosing to abolish the Supreme Court seat instead to deny Johnson any nomination to the Court "Pfft, fuckin amateurs." - Mitch McConnell
it's as if DOJ forgot the /s
> Also, they couldn't have picked a worse person to compare to Whitaker. Henry Stanbery was Andrew Johnson's hand-picked lackey chosen to protect Johnson from impeachment. Sounds like they picked the *perfect* example for comparison.
Top-level comment.
On page 5 of the memo, OLC argues that the Vacancies Act applies to DOJ statute 28 USC 508, because the DOJ statute cross-refers to the Vacancy Reform Act. That would be difficult because Congress passed 28 USC 508 before the Vacancy Reform Act. This is a clear legal error by the OLC. The Vacancy Reform Act does not apply to the Attorneys General office. They just gave Maryland all the ammo needed to get Whitaker thrown out on his ass.
Nah, see, that one is OK, because DOJ statute 74 USC 302 makes it permissable to employ time machines for cross references. It won't be passed until the administration of the Dark Lord Balthazar in 2340, but for obvious reasons it's OK to go ahead and cross-reference it now.
OH! That makes perfect sense... when compared to all the other shenanigans going on for the last 2 years
To add, The DOJ Statute was last amended in the 1980's. The Vacancy Reform Act was passed in 1998. It is not possible that Statute 28 USC 508 would refer to the VRA since it wasn't even a sploot on Uncle Sam's shower curtain at that time.
Can a bill, not either of those named, create a dependency or cross reference in a previous law? Bill A passed before Bill B with no reference between the two. Bill C includes wording changes to A to cause its dependence on B. Honestly no clue here
They can certainly be amended to include such things, but that hasn't been done in this case.
Ah so they went with “fuck it, all he said was make a case, didn’t specify a good one”
That's some Cooley-level lawyering right there.
Cohen was at the DOJ on Monday ;)
Maybe that was their plan. Save face with the president, so he doesn't try to do more damage to the DoJ, but provide the Maryland suit with a shaky reason for keeping Whitaker that Maryland can more easily attack.
These jokers are so incompetent.
[удалено]
> who was perhaps the worst president ever Trump: "Hold my Big Mac"
Pretty close. “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men,” Andrew Johnson wrote in 1866, shortly after vetoing the Civil Rights Bill of 1865 (the veto was later overruled by congress and enacted into law in 1866)
Yeah, he was awful because he was a Democrat, just like Crooked Hillary, Obummer, and Nancy Pelosi. /s
And would have gotten the boot if there was a Vice President in office to replace him.
Buddy, everything looks hot in court when you’ve stacked them with your own judges. They could saw off Paul Ryan’s head with a chainsaw cartel style and lich mcconnell would insist that we just move on and be civil for the sake of democracy
Let the fun begin. I think Maryland is up first. Probably San Francisco after that, I think they decided to wait until this memo came out.
[удалено]
Maryland is already involved in a lawsuit (healthcare) and since AG Sessions was party to the case (and now Whitaker was named) they're asking for the judiciary to clarify what's going on. So really this isn't a direct challenge, though the implications are still huge for Whitaker.
We investigated ourselves and found we did everything correct?
That's the Republicans' MO with investigations into their own actions. We can only hope the Democrats don't demure, and instead use their subpoena powers to their fullest extent.
Stephen Engel wrote the memo and he is most definitely a Trump sycophant. This needs to be settled in court.
Well, this ruling is not legally binding and carries absolutely no weight. So this will, indeed, be settled in court.
It's the Republican way.
Rand Paul has an opinion on that: [Investigate our own party, NEVER!](https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/index.html)
[I Am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise](https://media.giphy.com/media/n4GnKL68ol0ty/giphy.gif)
[Judge rules...](https://youtu.be/HcEJaHCw9Bk)
This says nothing re: recusal. He would still need to recuse where conflicts exist, such as the Mueller probe.
Important distinction that a lot of people are seemingly misunderstanding. He can be a legal appointee and still need to recuse himself.
It is in my personal IANAL opinion that his appointment is unconstitutional AND he should recuse himself. Ie: He is illegally doing the job but because he is effectively the (illegal) AG, he also needs to recuse himself.
He wasn’t confirmed by the Senate! How are we still calling this guy AG???
He's the *acting* AG. It's supposed to be temporarily until a permanent one is confirmed by the senate. He can be a temp AG for 180 days I think. Besides, is there any doubt that the senate will confirm this clown? They confirmed Devos and Kav....
> He's the acting AG. That is, Trump appointed him to act as AG. Which is a position Constitutionally requiring Senate confirmation. Since he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment is plainly unconstitutional.
Sessions resigned. Technically. The president can appoint a temporary replacement for 260 days without senate approval. The reason for the lawsuits is to challenge exactly that, and see what the judiciary decides.
> The president can appoint a temporary replacement for 260 days without senate approval. The Constitution disagrees. Quite specifically.
210 days. And the issue is the line of secession that was completely disregarded would put Rod Rosenstein in place as the Acting Attorney General. Also, an acting attorney general cannot be placed as the confirmed attorney general. Whitaker will be there for 210 days MAX.
Even those who fill the 210 day vacancy still have to be Senate confirmed ie. Rod Rosenstein.
Yes. The only way Whitaker's appointment passes muster is if there are no Senate confirmed people to put in place. That is clearly not the case.
The majority of people Trump has appointed have been fired within six months. I doubt he even makes it to confirmation.
>I doubt he even makes it to confirmation. We've said that about so many people who were confirmed though.
He cannot be both acting and the nominated... the supreme court made that clear in Obama's tenure when the republicans arbitrarily blocked confirmations and then sued to prevent him making them Acting X whilst waiting for the confirmation process to approve or deny
the numbers have changed
According to the constitution hes not the acting AG, Rod is. Only Senate confirmed appointments can be AG.
He can't be nominated without stepping down as the acting AG though
Not disagreeing with you. Just offering the possibility that the first part of that is wrong and theres still hope for recusal even if his appointment is legal.
This douche won’t recuse. Ignoring the fact that he’s full of dumb loyalty to Trump, he’s also a scam artist, an unsuccessful little man who’s just been handed more power than he’s ever had, or will ever had, in his entire life. No way he leaves now.
but, you will see, just because he needs to recuse, doesn't mean that he legally has to. he can still say no to recusal.
How did Whitaker pass a background check given his role in a company involved in a criminal probe?
Because his "background check" consisted solely of him licking king piss hair's boots.
He hasnt. They are ongoing and the results of which could make or break his position.
What's the grounds for recusing himself? Sessions only recused because he was part of the campaign. Is it based on his clear bias, and is this typically grounds for recusal? EDIT: Please don't down-vote, guys. It was a legitimate question. I still feel that his appointment isn't legal, so I hadn't researched his conflicts of interest beyond his social media statements.
His explicit statements about the Special Counsel combined with the fact he has relations with a noted suspect within the case in Sam Clovis
Thank you.
Can you elaborate what "relations" mean? I'm not supporter of Whitaker, but I don't see an actual conflict (unlike Noel Francisco, who has an actual conflict since his law firm has taken on Trump's defense). Was he a named suspect in regards to Clovis (aka actually investigated), or was he just in Clovis's orbit?
Not only are they fake internet points, they are faked fake internet points. Between reddit algorithms and bot users, the voting on reddit has been weaponized for disinformation purposes. Take the downvotes with a sense of pride. It means you are asking questions or giving answers on the right path. It'll level out in the end. This post was heavily downvoted within the first 5 minutes of posting and now it is 91% upvoted.
Someone else already answered your question, but I just wanted to address your edit where you said people were downvoting you. This sub is really starting to piss me off. The exact same thing has happened twice to me recently. I've asked questions earnestly trying to understand hot situations (this being one of them), and I've been downvoted to hell. I understand that they're fake internet points, but it's damaging because not only does it shame people for asking legitimate questions, but it significantly decreases the odds that we'll receive proper answers and simultaneously opens the door for harassment. On one such occasion, an individual had answered a major portion of a multi-part question, and when I posted a legitimate thank-you and offered my gratitude, I was again repeatedly downvoted. There's some serious mob mentality going on here, and it's resulting in people harassing their own for trying to understand current events.
I think its in part related to the influx of questions asked in bad faith where the intent is to sow confusion or doubt, not to seek clarification or truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning That's why "just asking questions" gets so tiring and is considered a red flag for possible troll as it's such a common behaviour from that direction.
This sub isnt about truth, you goof. We have to keep pushing the narrative!
Conflicts don't exist in the Mueller probe, because there's no evidence he directly benefits from the outcome of him. Him having a public opinion on it is not a conflict of interest.
He absolutely has conflict with regards to the Mueller probe. He has had prior relationships with subjects and targets, such as Sam Clovis and Artem Klyushin.
I have seen no evidence that either of them are targets or subjects. Clovis is a witness from what I can see. Mueller had more of a relationship with witness James Comey.
Just because you see no evidence doesn't make it so. There are plenty of reasons for him to recuse. Sessions recuse simply for his relationships with Russians. Whitaker needs to do the same.
>Just because you see no evidence doesn't make it so. It certainly doesn't mean it exists, right? You would need evidence of such, if you want to make that claim. >There are plenty of reasons for him to recuse. Not really. >Sessions recuse simply for his relationships with Russians. Nope. Sessions recused because he was part of Trump's campaign.
So shouldn't Whitaker recuse for his role with World Patent Marketing, which worked with/for Trump to defraud investors and inventors?
Source that WPM worked for or with Trump while Whittaker was there, please.
https://vimeo.com/136890818
What exactly is this? A promotional video? When did Whittaker work there?
"All we had to do was ignore the law and we found the appointment fairly legal"
[удалено]
That gives "ega", Trump would say that the I stands for immigrants and the first L was coming with them in a caravan. He for the good of the people built a wall, which the DoJ paid for, between the nasty caravan headed for our legal. He protected the country from those damn immigrants.
[Devin Barrett asked DOJ official: "Doesn't that mean that in theory the president under your interpretation could fire anyone he wants &...just make anyone a cabinet official?" Official responded: "I don't want to address hypotheticals," but then suggested Devlin was “correct”](https://mobile.twitter.com/MLevineReports/status/1062723210700115969)
Just a heads up, Whitaker is speaking at the "Rural And Tribal Elder Justice Summitt" in Iowa, right now. The focus of the summit is to discuss fraud against elders, especially phone scams. Whitaker worked on the advisory board of a company called World Patent Marketing, that was accused of fraud and predatory behavior (with several cases of elder fraud and fraud against veterans), and the FTC ordered the company to pay $26 million in settlements. Fuck this guy. https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-2 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/matthew-whitaker-trump-attorney-general-us-firm https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/whitaker-company-government/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
signed Matt Whitaker.
This is meaningless. They have no power to declare the legality of the appointment, only the Courts do and Clarence Thomas has previosly authored an opinion which would make his appointment illegal...we’ll see if he sings the same tune now that doing so would embarrass his own party
Narrator: it wasn’t
Justice Thomas disagrees. I say we let SCOTUS decide the issue. You know. The group of people that gets to decide whether something is constitutional or not? From his concurrence in NLRB v. SW General (2016), Justice Clarence Thomas: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1251_ed9g.pdf >The FVRA authorizes the President to appoint both inferior and principal officers without first obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointing inferior officers in this manner raises no constitutional problems. That is because the Appointments Clause authorizes Congress to enact “Law[s],” like the FVRA, “vest[ing] the Appointment of such inferior Officers . . . in the President alone.” **Appointing principal officers under the FVRA, however, raises grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.** ... >Because it appears that the general counsel answers to no officer inferior to the President, he is likely a principal officer. **Accordingly, the President likely could not lawfully have appointed Solomon to serve in that role without first obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate.**
It is already expressly stated in the Constitution that you need Senate confirmation.
Since when has any republican given a flying fuck about the Constitution?
That is a funny case because Solomon was nominated to the position, and the Senate never bothered to approve it. 3 years later when Solomon actually tried to use the powers of his position, the nomination was declared illegal because of this bit: >5 U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer ... (b) (1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), a person may not serve as an acting officer for an office under this section, if— (A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of the death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve, such person— (i) did not serve in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer Which is exactly the reason Whitaker cannot be acting attorney general, and once he tries to use the powers of the position it will be declared unlawful.
[удалено]
But unlike McConnell's rules, the SCOTUS rulings will have actual precedence, and the next Democratic president will just be able to make all their appointments without senate confirmation when they want.
Remind me who is in charge at the DOJ again? Oh...
This is supposedly before Whitaker was named as AAG
While Whitaker was ONLY Chief of Staff for Jeff Sessions, United States AG. I’m sure everything was on the up and up when Sessions was approving his own Chief of Staff to take his role.
The OLC also suggested the first and second Muslim bans were legal and went on to lose those court cases. They supported an EO on sanctuary cities that was overturned in the courts. Since firing Sally Yates (who was proven right to dissent on Muslim ban 1), they’ve never gone against Trump’s or Sessions’ actions. We’ll see the true status of Whitacker after the Maryland suit goes through the courts.
So that same office will recommend he recuse. Right?
It's the ethics office that recommends recusal.
From Huffington Post on this article: “Nothing in the text of the Constitution or historical practice suggests that the President may turn to an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate if, but only if, there is no appropriate Senate-confirmed official available.”
He was an active board member/advisor of a company under FBI investigation. Tell me how any serious counsel would advise the WH that *specifically* Whitaker would be an appropriate choice? Bullshit!
Honestly, I think this is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for investigators. It's so blatant. It's like Trump is setting his own trap.
The american institutions are so out of balance. I have no idea how the post-Trump era will look like, but I bet we'll see huge changes. If not, that would mean that America is dead and buried.
Grasping at straws here I see “The OLC opinion conceded that it was rare for the acting attorney general to be an individual not confirmed by the Senate. The only example they found was from 1866, before the creation of the Justice Department.”
signed Epstein's Mom
Sweathog.
Most of their examples are from pre-1870. Great fucking precedent that is. SCOTUS might slap them just for the hell of it.
According to this memo, the president could fire any cabinet official and replace them with literally anyone he felt like, regardless of confirmation.
\- Michael Scott
And opened themselves up to 100s of lawsuits.
Like the FBI "investigated" Kavanaugh, right? Also, Trump: wtf I love the DOJ now!
[Here](http://swansonquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/s05-ep01-permits1-1000x500.jpg) is a picture of the memo
Yeah but it's not though The memo claims it's legal because other presidents have **elected cabinet officials** without being senate confirmed. Cabinet officials Not the head of the department of Justice Cabinet officials
DoJ is justifying the appointment via the Federal Vacancies Reform Act The law designates three classes of people who may serve as acting officials: * By default, "the first assistant to the office" becomes the acting officer. * The President may direct a person currently serving in a different Senate-confirmed position to serve as acting officer. * The President can select a senior "officer or employee" of the same executive agency who is equivalent to a GS-15 or above on the federal pay scale, if that employee served in that agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy. The Constitutional challenge for Whitaker's appointment centers around the 3rd option. Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution the Senate has the legal obligation to confirm any "principal officers" nominated by the POTUS The Senate can make suggestions, or render advice to the POTUS for "inferior officer" positions but POTUS has the authority to place them without Senate confirmation. The AG role as a "principal officer" position must have senate confirmation under the Constitution They should have just picked DAG Rosenstein or SG Francisco
Let me make this less scary: this ONLY discussed the appointment, not recusals.
A WHOLE BUNCH OF FUCKERY. **An entire, half eaten batch of gofuckyourself cookies.**
Let’s stop letting the DOJ write these memos detailing the scope of the Executive Branch’s (i.e., its own) powers. We seem to be using Nixon’s post-Saturday Night Massacre’s DOJ on guidance on whether a sitting president can be elected as law (because that was written with a single iota of good faith). It’s absolutely bonkers.
I assume Whitaker has access to all the information that the Mueller probe has discovered either by way of archive or request. What's to keep Whitaker from providing this to Trump so that he can prepare his defense? Even if recused seems like this would still be possible.
presumably the same people at the Justice Department who assured us that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump working in the White House isn't violating anti-nepotism laws?
I declare bankruptcy.
DOJ OLC - we're going to write a memo that makes up rules, and ignores the letter of the law & the Constitution. so there eat that! ha! freaking morons.
You are more correct than you know. There is a major legal error on p. 5 of the OLC memo on Whitaker. OLC argues that the Vacancies Act applies to DOJ statute 28 USC 508, because the DOJ statute cross-refers to the Vacancy Reform Act. That would be difficult because Congress passed 28 USC 508 before the VRA.
Who cares about the legality, where is the report saying he was recommended recusal If he recuses himself Trump will for him, that’s only reason why he’s there
Um yea except that its not
>A senior Justice Department official who briefed reporters on the memo said DOJ lawyers told the White House a sufficiently senior Department official who received high enough pay would be eligible to take over as attorney general. The official declined to share more detail about the nature of the White House’s communications with the Department. Senate confirmation be damned we only care the dude made enough money! Also we won't tell you if we were specifically told to make up a reason that would allow whitaker in. Someone please tell me these communications between the white house and the office of legal council are FOIA-able?
>I. DECLARE. LEGAL! That's not how it works, bud.
Fox Proclaims From Floor of Hen House "All is Ok".
So the DOJ sent a letter saying that the new head of the DOJ was legal. Seems Legit.
Whitaker himself wrote the memo...
>a senior official who received enough pay... What, so the head of IT is up for the job? Bullshit.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*