Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[Babbylonian]

I don't know. Its a flaw in the system created by allowing a president who is not accountable to the government or the governing party, and who considers himself to be above the law, to appoint public servants with no oversight.

This is why many are saying that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Attorney General, and if the Attorney General leaves the Deputy AG is supposed to assume those responsibilities. Whitaker, given that he was not confirmed by the Senate and given that the Senate is available to consider appointments, should not be allowed to function in that role until confirmed by the Senate.

In other words, strictly speaking, it's not a flaw in the system. It's a flaw in the people. The President has made an illegal appointment and the Congress that should be protesting, or even impeaching, isn't doing **** about it.

 

[LSSBB]

This is why many are saying that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Attorney General, and if the Attorney General leaves the Deputy AG is supposed to assume those responsibilities. Whitaker, given that he was not confirmed by the Senate and given that the Senate is available to consider appointments, should not be allowed to function in that role until confirmed by the Senate.

In other words, strictly speaking, it's not a flaw in the system. It's a flaw in the people. The President has made an illegal appointment and the Congress that should be protesting, or even impeaching, isn't doing **** about it.

Where are all the tea-partiers who were hanging banners that Obama should be impeached for his executive orders? This goes well beyond that...

 

[pgwenthold]

This is why many are saying that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Attorney General, and if the Attorney General leaves the Deputy AG is supposed to assume those responsibilities. Whitaker, given that he was not confirmed by the Senate and given that the Senate is available to consider appointments, should not be allowed to function in that role until confirmed by the Senate.

In other words, strictly speaking, it's not a flaw in the system. It's a flaw in the people. The President has made an illegal appointment and the Congress that should be protesting, or even impeaching, isn't doing **** about it.

Wait a minute - Whitaker has not been approved by the senate for ANY post? Then there is no way he can be AG, can he?

It was my understanding that, if an appointee resigns, the President can replace that person with anyone who has been approved by the Senate for any position. But if the person is fired, then it has to go back to the Senate. I thought this was why it was important for Sessions to resign, so that Trump could replace him with anyone who has been through Senate confirmation.

But if Whitaker hasn't been through a senate confirmation, how can he hold any post? Or is it just listed as interim and they claim that makes it ok?

 

[Segnosaur]

This is why many are saying that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Attorney General, and if the Attorney General leaves the Deputy AG is supposed to assume those responsibilities. Whitaker, given that he was not confirmed by the Senate and given that the Senate is available to consider appointments, should not be allowed to function in that role until confirmed by the Senate.

In other words, strictly speaking, it's not a flaw in the system. It's a flaw in the people. The President has made an illegal appointment and the Congress that should be protesting, or even impeaching, isn't doing **** about it.

Yes, but I think its reasonable for someone to hope that how a system functions isn't dependent on the integrity of those people involved, and that some sort of mechanism exists that even the most corrupt individuals (such as Stubby McBonespurs) can't violate it.

Granted, all political systems eventually come down to "the people are responsible" and somewhere somebody has to make a decision about who to arrest/prosecute. Its just that we want the person making the decision to be as unbiased as possible (or at least is not beholden to the person the decision is regarding.)

 

[Babbylonian]

Wait a minute - Whitaker has not been approved by the senate for ANY post? Then there is no way he can be AG, can he?

It was my understanding that, if an appointee resigns, the President can replace that person with anyone who has been approved by the Senate for any position. But if the person is fired, then it has to go back to the Senate. I thought this was why it was important for Sessions to resign, so that Trump could replace him with anyone who has been through Senate confirmation.

But if Whitaker hasn't been through a senate confirmation, how can he hold any post? Or is it just listed as interim and they claim that makes it ok?

He can hold any post that does not require Senate confirmation. If the Senate was in recess (between sessions), an emergency appointment could be made of someone who has not been confirmed.

In this case, given the presence of a Senate-confirmed deputy, and since the Senate is still in session and thus available to consider appointments, Whitaker cannot legally be the Attorney General.

And, for the record, Whitaker wasn't even in one of the top three positions in the Department of Justice under the AG. Rosenstein is next in line, the [acting] Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio comes after him (he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate), and Solictor General Noel Francisco (confirmed) rounds out the runners-up category.

Whitaker was chief of staff to the AG and thus isn't any more a candidate to act as AG in his absence than John Kelly would be to act as President if Trump was out of the picture.

 

[pgwenthold]

He can hold any post that does not require Senate confirmation. If the Senate was in recess (between sessions), an emergency appointment could be made of someone who has not been confirmed.

In this case, given the presence of a Senate-confirmed deputy, and since the Senate is still in session and thus available to consider appointments, Whitaker cannot legally be the Attorney General.

And, for the record, Whitaker wasn't even in one of the top three positions in the Department of Justice under the AG. Rosenstein is next in line, the [acting] Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio comes after him (he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate), and Solictor General Noel Francisco (confirmed) rounds out the runners-up category.

Whitaker was chief of staff to the AG and thus isn't any more a candidate to act as AG in his absence than John Kelly would be to act as President if Trump was out of the picture.

To be clear, the President has the right to appoint the AG, and there is no official line of succession. However, the key is that the AG has to be approved by the Senate, unless it is not in session. Therefore, Whitaker would need to have Senate approval in order to be AG. As per my understanding, he could have prior Senate approval for any position in the executive branch and qualify. For example, he could be Deputy Treasurer (I think that needs Senate approval) of all things and still move into AG ahead of Rosenstein. But he doesn't have any Senate approval. To your first sentence, I turn it around: Instead of "He can hold any post that does not require Senate confirmation." I would say it as, "He CANNOT hold any post that DOES require Senate confirmation."

 

[Babbylonian]

Yes, but I think its reasonable for someone to hope that how a system functions isn't dependent on the integrity of those people involved, and that some sort of mechanism exists that even the most corrupt individuals (such as Stubby McBonespurs) can't violate it.

Granted, all political systems eventually come down to "the people are responsible" and somewhere somebody has to make a decision about who to arrest/prosecute. Its just that we want the person making the decision to be as unbiased as possible (or at least is not beholden to the person the decision is regarding.)

It's a reasonable hope, and it's how the system has worked on most of the days since the Constitution was adopted. I honestly can't think of a way, though, to avoid the current situation through writing more laws. The Constitution provides remedies, but if those in charge of applying those remedies won't do so then the only next step is revolution.

The bottom line is that the current person acting as Attorney General is doing so in violation of the Constitution and our elected legislature is, at the moment, allowing it to happen. It's truly insane.

 

[Babbylonian]

To be clear, the President has the right to appoint the AG, and there is no official line of succession.

True enough, though there is a chain of command so that the DOJ can continue to function (orders can be given, money distributed, etc.) until the President [and Senate] can come up with a [legal] replacement.

Instead of "He can hold any post that does not require Senate confirmation." I would say it as, "He CANNOT hold any post that DOES require Senate confirmation."

Yes indeed.

 

[pgwenthold]

True enough, though there is a chain of command so that the DOJ can continue to function (orders can be given, money distributed, etc.) until the President [and Senate] can come up with a [legal] replacement.

That is correct, and if Whitaker had been approved by the Senate for any post, it would be perfectly legal.

But he is not eligible to be AG, and until he is, someone else has to serve in that role. And the Deputy AG is the one who should be.

I had assumed that Whitaker had been approved for something, and the controversy was was whether Sessions had officially resigned or been fired ("asked to resign"). Had he been fired, you can't just fill in with anyone else approved for another position.

If he has not been approved by the Senate, how can he do ANYTHING? Is the Senate that derelict in their responsibility?

 

[Babbylonian]

I had assumed that Whitaker had been approved for something, and the controversy was was whether Sessions had officially resigned or been fired ("asked to resign"). Had he been fired, you can't just fill in with anyone else approved for another position.

The thing is, I don't think Whitaker could be confirmed for a Senate-confirmable DOJ position. For all the partisan game-playing in which the Senate has chosen to engage, being under investigation for participating in a scam and using his record as a government official to intimidate victims of that scam would be too much to overlook.

If he has not been approved by the Senate, how can he do ANYTHING? Is the Senate that derelict in their responsibility?

Absolutely. They should have been on Trump's ass the second he announced the appointment. The House should be drawing up articles of impeachment given the brazen violation of the Constitution. This situation is about as serious as it gets.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, but I think its reasonable for someone to hope that how a system functions isn't dependent on the integrity of those people involved, and that some sort of mechanism exists that even the most corrupt individuals (such as Stubby McBonespurs) can't violate it.
)

What? It sounds like every system is completely dependent on that. If every party refuses to do something,there isn't some magic to compel one of then.

 

[quadraginta]

If he takes any action to stifle the Mueller probe then that would be obstruction of justice, and his previous statements could be used as evidence against him.

He could also be in violation of 18 USC §§ 202 to 209 governing conflicts of interest.

<snip>

Seems like that could be problematic. Wouldn't it, by extension, expose Trump to the same charges?

 

[dudalb]

I predice in December Mueller will play Santa in his punitive role, and a number of people are going to get a piece of coal in their stockings.....

 

[Trebuchet]

The thing is, I don't think Whitaker could be confirmed for a Senate-confirmable DOJ position. For all the partisan game-playing in which the Senate has chosen to engage, being under investigation for participating in a scam and using his record as a government official to intimidate victims of that scam would be too much to overlook..

As opposed to attempted rape, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Babbylonian]

As opposed to attempted rape, which is perfectly fine.

Even I have to acknowledge the difference between a 30+-year-old crime and one committed very recently, of which there is documentary evidence. Don't get me wrong: Rapey McPrepSchool should never have been confirmed, but Whitaker is under active criminal investigation in a state that goes Republican as often as not. I think that difference would spur the Senate Scumbags to take a step back from the brink of pure insanity.

Regardless, we've still got a clear violation of the Constitution by the President. Where the **** are the articles of impeachment?

 

[LSSBB]

Even I have to acknowledge the difference between a 30+-year-old crime and one committed very recently, of which there is documentary evidence. Don't get me wrong: Rapey McPrepSchool should never have been confirmed, but Whitaker is under active criminal investigation in a state that goes Republican as often as not. I think that difference would spur the Senate Scumbags to take a step back from the brink of pure insanity.

Regardless, we've still got a clear violation of the Constitution by the President. Where the **** are the articles of impeachment?

Why I was wondering why the legion of "Impeach Obama!" banner wavers are conspicuously silent...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

President Donald Trump is huddling with his lawyers this week to craft responses to list of written questions from special counsel Robert Mueller, sources close to the president told ABC News on Tuesday.

Trump and his legal team met on Monday in Washington, D.C., to discuss the list of questions from Mueller, and were expected to reconvene on Tuesday, the sources added.

The questions, as ABC News has previously reported, center on alleged Russian meddling during the 2016 election cycle, which Mueller is tasked with investigating. The nearly year and a half long probe by the special counsel stems from allegations of Russia coordinating with members of the Trump presidential campaign.

Linky.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1062400650166837248

George Papadopoulos's lawyers have withdrawn from representing him.

Here's what one of them told me in Sept. when Papadopoulos first started slinging conspiracy theories --->>

I asked Papadopoulos's lawyer, Tom Breen, about George's tweets suggesting Downer meeting was a Steele/British setup.

Breen: "Most of our clients listen and follow all of our advice, some follow most of our advice, some follow some of our advice, some follow none of our advice."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dupe

 

[Zambo]

Yeah, but Russian women are really hot.

I hope you are not infering that KSA women are not hot, that would be unacceptable (unless in the alternative calling Russian women hot is unacceptable). My guess is that a pee video with a Russian woman is as likely in Jedah as Moscow