dylan winter

Sessions is toast - what next?

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if Gov. Christie has a taste for the Cream of Mushroom soup that is a prerequisite for a position in the cabinet.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NY Times opinion piece co-authored by George Conway -

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html

Excerpt -

Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.

He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.

But Professor Calabresi and the president were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very, very significant consequence today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Let’s see who out there has no sense of shame and would serve as trumps lackey? 

Chris Christie say hi!

Yep. Or Lindsay "Trump's a kook" Graham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nice! said:

Yep. Or Lindsay "Trump's a kook" Graham.

I'm certain of one thing, the new and improved AG will have very malleable morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I'm certain of one thing, the new and improved AG will have very malleable morals.

"Those are my principles and if you don't like them........ well I have others"

Groucho Marx

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Whitaker is apparently even more appalling than first thought. A long history of extreme partisanship. This isn't going to end well.

 

Quote

“The truth is there was no collusion with the Russians and the Trump campaign,” he said in an interview on the Wilkow Majority show. “There was interference by the Russians into the election, but that was not collusion with the campaign. That’s where the left seems to be combining those two issues.”

“The last thing they want right now is for the truth to come out, and for the fact that there’s not a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that the Trump campaign had any illegal or any improper relationships with the Russians. It’s that simple.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/matthew-whitaker-trumps-new-ag-declared-there-was-no-collusion-between-trump-and-russia?ref=scroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. Sen. Jeff Flake isn't acting like an American.

Flake to try to force vote on bill protecting Mueller

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) announced Thursday that he will try to force a vote on legislation protecting special counsel Robert Mueller after President Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions Wednesday.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/415792-flake-to-try-to-force-vote-on-bill-protecting-mueller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Mr Whitaker....... to the reception desk......... Mr Whitaker, the proctologist will see you now.........can we remind you, this is not a short procedure  it could take........... a couple of years............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navig8tor said:

"Those are my principles and if you don't like them........ well I have others"

Groucho Marx

Senator says to his economist/accountant/lawyer, etc. and asks "how much is 1+1?"

Guy closes the drapes, turns off the lights and says "what would you like the answer to be?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Indictments should be served tomorrow including at least Don Jr if not Kush.  Trump will become more apoplectic and hopefully restrained.  The Dems taking majority in January will not stop what Mueller started.  Someone should counsel Trump that he can't pardon his son UNTIL HE IS CONVICTED AS A FELON. Simpleton folks vote for Simpleton leaders.  Trump's support comes from Evangelical, non college-educated males.  You know, hillbillies.  

All Mueller's work has to go though his boss, Whittaker.  I don't think it likely there will be any more indictments. Probably no referrals to state courts either, but I might be wrong on that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

All Mueller's work has to go though his boss, Whittaker.  I don't think it likely there will be any more indictments. Probably no referrals to state courts either, but I might be wrong on that. 

You do know how ugly that will get?  Rhetorical, you get it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I'm not sure if Gov. Christie has a taste for the Cream of Mushroom soup that is a prerequisite for a position in the cabinet.  

I kinda doubt Trump will trust him. Chris has tasted the limelight and is the sort of guy who looks after himself first. Trump loves the uneducated for good reason.

 

  If I were Trump I'd get Mueller neutered before being compelled to get someone confirmed. It would be no surprise if I delayed that for a couple years or so. Could probably drag the process out indefinitely by nominating people like Sean Hannity or Alex Jones or perhaps Kellyanne.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Hopefully they suss you out and beat you to an inch of your miserable life.

no offense meant...

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Don't worry. Lindsey "Holy Hell to Pay" Graham is on this shit and you better believe that when he opens that can of...

Oh shit. No he isn't...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-jeff-sessions-holy-hell_us_5be3f53fe4b0e8438893e219

Now the R's will conveniently close ranks....because NOW the Dems can ask questions....... and...... do something about it.

Winning ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mark K said:

All Mueller's work has to go though his boss, Whittaker.  I don't think it likely there will be any more indictments. Probably no referrals to state courts either, but I might be wrong on that.

I don't see any reason why the AG can't shut down everything. Indictments don't come with staff. Indictments don't unseal themselves. Records don't preserve themselves. If, hypothetically, Don Jr has been indicted for lying to the FBI, I don't see any mechanism by which a case could move forward against the will of the AG. I'm not a lawyer so I'm probably missing something obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Q Barrett is a law professor at St John's University. He teaches constitutional law, criminal procedure and legal history.

jqbarretttweet.JPG.79a77ea41790510f2ca61ca583b2c4d5.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Trump hires the best people.  Well, as long as best means sucking up and swallowing.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is, the thread title is not quite accurate. Sessions ARE toast.

On 11/8/2018 at 5:25 AM, dogballs Tom said:

And best of all, we got rid of that stupid drug warrior, Sessions. Not the AG, though getting rid of that stupid drug warrior is a cause for celebration.

I mean the OTHER Sessions.
 

Quote

 

At some point, Congress will have to officially recognize what's going on by reconciling federal law, which still prohibits marijuana in any form for any purpose, with state laws that tolerate medical or recreational use. The most straightforward approach I've seen is the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, a one-sentence bill sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) that makes the federal marijuana ban inapplicable to anyone acting in compliance with state law. I was on a drug policy panel with Rohrabacher last week at Reason's 50th anniversary celebration, and he seemed confident that President Trump, who has repeatedly said states should be free to set their own marijuana policies, is prepared to sign that bill or something similar.

The chances that such a bill will get through the House have improved since yesterday. "This was the first election in our lifetimes where the federal results were more important than the state results, from the perspective of marijuana policy nationally," Marijuana Policy Project co-founder Rob Kampia writes. "The Democratic takeover of the U.S. House was the most important outcome, because the House speaker, committee chairs, and subcommittee chairs will all be Democrats for the first time since 2010, with a majority of Democrats populating literally all House committees and subcommittees. While members of Congress in both major parties have become increasingly supportive of good marijuana legislation, approximately 90% of Democrats—and only 25% of Republicans—support such legislation generally."

Emblematic of this shift was the defeat of House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), an unreconstructed drug warrior whom Kampia calls "the sphincter who has constipated all marijuana bills and amendments in the House in recent years." Sessions was defeated by Democrat Colin Allred, a medical marijuana supporter who has criticized Sessions' anti-pot prejudices.

 

Hee hee. That's a colorful and accurate way to put it and sphincter is just a funny word.


As for what's next, blessed relief on the constipation issue and as for the AG, Trump is very creative sometimes and can probably find someone who sucks in more than eight ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's style is more like a Mob Boss than a businessman:  

1. Everything is about the Don, he gets paid first and foremost.  Nothing or nobody is his equal.

2. Expect absolute loyalty from underlings.  Immediately eliminate anyone who fails this test. (no need to return the loyalty)

3. Attack anyone who questions your words or actions. 

4. Tell people pretty lies, then do whatever you were going to do anyway. (con them!)

5. Never admit fault, it shows weakness. Never apologize.  Never feel shame. 

 

Winning is easy if you have no morals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Whitaker might have some issues, judicial, moral just to begin with.........oh wait I forgot having no morals is prerequisite when working for Donnie.

But judicial ....for a potential AG could be a dealbreaker.

Whos next on the list.....anyone without a felony conviction pending or in their past......gosh the pickings are getting lean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Whitaker appointment should be a moot point. Conservatives, originalists... all Americans should all appreciate that our founding document, the Constitution, forbids the president from appointing principal officers, ones that only report to the president, without a nomination process with the Senate. 

So, is the party of Trump any of these? Conservative? Originalists/textualists? Americans? Or are they only interested in MAGA? 

This is a pretty clear test of their intentions. Do they want a dictator? Get rid of Democracy? Permitting this precedent to be set is to emasculate Congress, making them wholly subservient to the wishes of the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

The whole Whitaker appointment should be a moot point. Conservatives, originalists... all Americans should all appreciate that our founding document, the Constitution, forbids the president from appointing principal officers, ones that only report to the president, without a nomination process with the Senate. 

So, is the party of Trump any of these? Conservative? Originalists/textualists? Americans? Or are they only interested in MAGA? 

This is a pretty clear test of their intentions. Do they want a dictator? Get rid of Democracy? Permitting this precedent to be set is to emasculate Congress, making them wholly subservient to the wishes of the President.

How'd they do on the last test?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike G said:

So he's now the boss of the people investigating somewhere he worked grifted?

 

FBI Is Investigating Florida Company Where Whitaker Was Advisory-Board Member

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stinks on many levels. This guy is so compromised he hasn't a chance, better to fade back to Bumfuck Iowa and run for Librarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The whole Whitaker appointment should be a moot point. Conservatives, originalists... all Americans should all appreciate that our founding document, the Constitution, forbids the president from appointing principal officers, ones that only report to the president, without a nomination process with the Senate. 

So, is the party of Trump any of these? Conservative? Originalists/textualists? Americans? Or are they only interested in MAGA? 

This is a pretty clear test of their intentions. Do they want a dictator? Get rid of Democracy? Permitting this precedent to be set is to emasculate Congress, making them wholly subservient to the wishes of the President.

Republics are a pretty new and radical form of government. Yeah...the Greeks tried it. Lasted about 200 years (in theory) but was pretty much in the hands of war lords much of the time. Rome? Only for a brief period was it a republic. Rule by committee is tricky stuff. Committees are by nature schizoid.  

 After a very loooooonnnnng drought, it was attempted once more. I think it's semi-success in the 20th century is mostly attributable to prosperity. When things get tough (or people feel things are tough) they leap to a system of government that works for them. What that is depends on which side of the tracks one is on. The rich tend to believe the role of government is to save them from the poor, and the poor believe the role of government is to save them from their condition.  Both crave coherence, the kind that only one-man rule can provide. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 The rich tend to believe the role of government is to save them from the poor, and the poor believe the role of government is to save them from their condition.  Both crave coherence, the kind that only one-man rule can provide.

So they elect an incoherent bankrupt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

So they elect an incoherent bankrupt?

The option being a raving lunatic witch, yes.

What a bizarre system of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kirwan said:

Trump's style is more like a Mob Boss than a businessman:  

1. Everything is about the Don, he gets paid first and foremost.  Nothing or nobody is his equal.

2. Expect absolute loyalty from underlings.  Immediately eliminate anyone who fails this test. (no need to return the loyalty)

3. Attack anyone who questions your words or actions. 

4. Tell people pretty lies, then do whatever you were going to do anyway. (con them!)

5. Never admit fault, it shows weakness. Never apologize.  Never feel shame. 

 

Winning is easy if you have no morals!

When you cut and paste, cite the source or own your stupidity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

The option being a raving lunatic witch, yes.

What a bizarre system of government.

I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The whole Whitaker appointment should be a moot point. Conservatives, originalists... all Americans should all appreciate that our founding document, the Constitution, forbids the president from appointing principal officers, ones that only report to the president, without a nomination process with the Senate. 

So, is the party of Trump any of these? Conservative? Originalists/textualists? Americans? Or are they only interested in MAGA? 

This is a pretty clear test of their intentions. Do they want a dictator? Get rid of Democracy? Permitting this precedent to be set is to emasculate Congress, making them wholly subservient to the wishes of the President.

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hermetic said:

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

If defending the Constitution makes me a drama queen, then I'm Freddie Mercury, baby!

 

(Just kidding) But seriously, I view this appointment as an underhanded, unabashed attempt to subvert our judicial system. This post is not a flunky, he is in charge of our entire judicial system, and to simply contravene the separation of powers to put a political ally in a position of enormous authority is improper. There is no emergency that justifies skipping over available and qualified officials such as Rod Rosenstein who are more than capable of assuming the office who have been through the nomination process. 

Trump is simply testing the limits of what this lame duck congress will let him get away with. He reminds me of my 12 year old, who sometimes misbehaves until he's in big trouble, then retreats. He's testing us, figuring out what he can get away with.

And yes, on FaceBook I've responded to cries for "protest the ouster of sessions" with "why should I care that this vile racist is gone?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
44 minutes ago, hermetic said:

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

If defending the Constitution makes me a drama queen, then I'm Freddie Mercury, baby!

 

(Just kidding) But seriously, I view this appointment as an underhanded, unabashed attempt to subvert our judicial system. This post is not a flunky, he is in charge of our entire judicial system, and to simply contravene the separation of powers to put a political ally in a position of enormous authority is improper. There is no emergency that justifies skipping over available and qualified officials such as Rod Rosenstein who are more than capable of assuming the office who have been through the nomination process. 

Trump is simply testing the limits of what this lame duck congress will let him get away with. He reminds me of my 12 year old, who sometimes misbehaves until he's in big trouble, then retreats. He's testing us, figuring out what he can get away with.

And yes, on FaceBook I've responded to cries for "protest the ouster of sessions" with "why should I care that this vile racist is gone?" 

rosenstein had no chance at the job after mccabe leaked his memo on their meeting

and why would you think that ag's have not been political allies of past presidents?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

This post is not a flunky, he is in charge of our entire judicial system, and to simply contravene the separation of powers to put a political ally in a position of enormous authority is improper.

"I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy". Eric Holder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hermetic said:

rosenstein had no chance at the job after mccabe leaked his memo on their meeting

and why would you think that ag's have not been political allies of past presidents?  

 

6 minutes ago, Dog said:

"I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy". Eric Holder

Note how you two are skipping over the Constitution to support Trump's actions.

The Eric Holder comment can be taken out of context to imply that Holder was improperly protecting Obama from investigations and subverting justice, but notice that you have said nothing that would provide evidence to that effect. This is pure smoke & mirrors, and all you've got. It also doesn't mean that makes Trump's making this recess appointment to do exactly that bad thing justifiable. @Dog only has memes and whataboutism, as usual.

I'm also not saying Rosenstein should have been chosen by Trump, I'm saying that the AG post replacement does not have to be done in an emergency fashion, purposely timed so Congress is not in session. Normally, cabinet officials stay on until a replacement is confirmed. Recess appointments are available to allow for continuity of government when a principal officer dies or resigns suddenly, Congress cannot meet in times of war, or other unique circumstances. If the obvious intent is to interfere with an investigation, and obstruction seems apparent, then anything but a lackey congress would revolt and stop the country from losing its constitutional protections.

Why are you both ignoring precedence and the Constitution? Because you are interested only in the short-term political gains, and don't really care about the future of the country. This is how democracy dies, and why neither of you are patriots. Party before country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drama queen again.

congress be workin til mid december.

session's firing was timed around election day, not congress (not being in) recess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under commented on this thread is how shitty an AG Sessions was.  Who would hire a hack like Whitaker as an assistant. Oh wait...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

Even just for Acting AG, my understanding is that it needs to someone who has been through a confirmation hearing ala Rosenstein or the solicitor general.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.amp.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

When you cut and paste, cite the source or own your stupidity.  

So you don't refute any of my points? 

Trump lies. WaPo stopped counting at 5000, and I heard a number of 30/day during the midterm campaign. 

Trump fires anyone who isn't loyal.  There's a long and very public list, no cite needed. 

Trump attacks the press to the point of declaring the 'enemy of the people'

Trump is hurting farmers and businesses with his Trade War so much he had to bribe them with bailouts. 

Trump has hired crooks; he just appointed a guy under investigation for fraud to the top Law Enforcement job. He put an abuser on the Supreme court. 

But Repubs don't care about any of this; y'all elected two indicted representatives plus a dead guy because you've been programmed to hate D's so much.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Under commented on this thread is how shitty an AG Sessions was.  Who would hire a hack like Whitaker as an assistant. Oh wait...

white house pressured sessions to pick Whitaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

 

Note how you two are skipping over the Constitution to support Trump's actions.

The Eric Holder comment can be taken out of context to imply that Holder was improperly protecting Obama from investigations and subverting justice, but notice that you have said nothing that would provide evidence to that effect. This is pure smoke & mirrors, and all you've got. It also doesn't mean that makes Trump's making this recess appointment to do exactly that bad thing justifiable. @Dog only has memes and whataboutism, as usual.

I'm also not saying Rosenstein should have been chosen by Trump, I'm saying that the AG post replacement does not have to be done in an emergency fashion, purposely timed so Congress is not in session. Normally, cabinet officials stay on until a replacement is confirmed. Recess appointments are available to allow for continuity of government when a principal officer dies or resigns suddenly, Congress cannot meet in times of war, or other unique circumstances. If the obvious intent is to interfere with an investigation, and obstruction seems apparent, then anything but a lackey congress would revolt and stop the country from losing its constitutional protections.

Why are you both ignoring precedence and the Constitution? Because you are interested only in the short-term political gains, and don't really care about the future of the country. This is how democracy dies, and why neither of you are patriots. Party before country.

You don't think Holder saying he was the president's wing man implies that saw his job as a protector of the president. That after all is the function of a wing man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

Even just for Acting AG, my understanding is that it needs to someone who has been through a confirmation hearing ala Rosenstein or the solicitor general.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.amp.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345

"And that may be the real lesson of the increasingly vocal objections to the Whitaker appointment: For better or worse, Congress in 1998 authorized the president to name agency officials not confirmed by the Senate, like Mr. Whitaker, to exercise the functions even of cabinet officials on an acting, time-limited basis, whether or not Senate-confirmed officials were available. The objections to Mr. Whitaker’s appointment highlight why it may be bad policy to permit such an appointment — and why Congress may be well advised to so modify the law."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hermetic said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345

"And that may be the real lesson of the increasingly vocal objections to the Whitaker appointment: For better or worse, Congress in 1998 authorized the president to name agency officials not confirmed by the Senate, like Mr. Whitaker, to exercise the functions even of cabinet officials on an acting, time-limited basis, whether or not Senate-confirmed officials were available. The objections to Mr. Whitaker’s appointment highlight why it may be bad policy to permit such an appointment — and why Congress may be well advised to so modify the law."

Except that his underling Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate which leaves your argument wanting.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/rosenstein-confirmed-attorney-general-237600 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

j2h2qpwgr0x11.jpg?width=548&auto=webp&s=

Both are true. Thanks for that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

don't be such a drama queen

sessions is gone - something I would think you'd be overjoyed about since he fits into your traitor, nazi, partisan box.

somebody needs to be acting ag until a new ag is nominated and confirmed.

who do you think should have been named acting ag ?

The next ranking person in the department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

You don't think Holder saying he was the president's wing man implies that saw his job as a protector of the president. That after all is the function of a wing man.

You’re slipping. Was Holder confirmed? Thought so. Next doggy-style false equivalence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

The next ranking person in the department.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

You don't think Holder saying he was the president's wing man implies that saw his job as a protector of the president. That after all is the function of a wing man.

You could reduce the load on your keyboard by simply typing "whatabout" every time you want to post.

You know, sort of like Tommy Gun's ".22"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You could reduce the load on your keyboard by simply typing "whatabout" every time you want to post.

You know, sort of like Tommy Gun's ".22"

I just assume he's saying "dogballs" whenever he posts. Dogballs dogballs dogballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog, can you outline what was wrong with Eric Holder saying that he was President Obama’s wingman? I recall that the House Republicans censured him for the gun walking thing that Bush started but that was about it. Talk to Tommy Dogballs for the deets.

Floor’s your, canine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345

"And that may be the real lesson of the increasingly vocal objections to the Whitaker appointment: For better or worse, Congress in 1998 authorized the president to name agency officials not confirmed by the Senate, like Mr. Whitaker, to exercise the functions even of cabinet officials on an acting, time-limited basis, whether or not Senate-confirmed officials were available. The objections to Mr. Whitaker’s appointment highlight why it may be bad policy to permit such an appointment — and why Congress may be well advised to so modify the law."

Except that his underling Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate which leaves your argument wanting.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/rosenstein-confirmed-attorney-general-237600 

I don't think whitacker is qualified to be ag - I never heard of the guy before Wednesday - but the linked law (federal vacancies reform act of 1998) seems to allow the president to name him as temporary ag.

and again, rosenstein is not getting the job after the mccabe memo leak

from the linked nyt article:

"In the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Congress elaborated on those missing pieces. When a senior executive branch officer “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office,” the statute authorizes the president to choose either that official’s “first assistant” (in this case, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein); any other currently serving government officer who was confirmed by the Senate; or any senior official, like Mr. Whitaker, who served in the same department as the vacant office for at least 90 of the previous 365 days “to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I don't think whitacker is qualified to be ag - I never heard of the guy before Wednesday - but the linked law (federal vacancies reform act of 1998) seems to allow the president to name him as temporary ag.

and again, rosenstein is not getting the job after the mccabe memo leak

from the linked nyt article:

"In the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Congress elaborated on those missing pieces. When a senior executive branch officer “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office,” the statute authorizes the president to choose either that official’s “first assistant” (in this case, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein); any other currently serving government officer who was confirmed by the Senate; or any senior official, like Mr. Whitaker, who served in the same department as the vacant office for at least 90 of the previous 365 days “to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity.”

If the law applies, he has less than 210 days to serve. Probably much less after the FBI is done examining the scam business he worked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing for Trump is Mueller's report, should it be done anytime soon, will pass directly into the hands of Whitaker and from Whitaker to Trump and Trump alone. Whitaker's office and Trump have the power to decide if there is anything in there which could be harmful to the US, or maybe that it's a load of BS and not worth releasing. He could also classify the entire thing or edit out anything he, the POTUS, deems as information which could compromise sources and/or methods.   

  

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mark K said:

The key thing for Trump is Mueller's report, should it be done anytime soon, will pass directly into the hands of Whitaker and from Whitaker to Trump and Trump alone. Whitaker's office and Trump have the power to decide if there is anything in there which could be harmful to the US, or maybe that it's a load of BS and not worth releasing. He could also classify the entire thing or edit out anything he, the POTUS, deems as information which could compromise sources and/or methods.  

 

If this is the case, why are we spending all of the money to have this report made, if they can simply squash it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

If this is the case, why are we spending all of the money to have this report made, if they can simply squash it?

 I doubt he will squash it entirely. Somewhere in the document the word "innocent" is probably written. Redact all but that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mark K said:

The key thing for Trump is Mueller's report, should it be done anytime soon, will pass directly into the hands of Whitaker and from Whitaker to Trump and Trump alone. Whitaker's office and Trump have the power to decide if there is anything in there which could be harmful to the US, or maybe that it's a load of BS and not worth releasing. He could also classify the entire thing or edit out anything he, the POTUS, deems as information which could compromise sources and/or methods.   

  

   

 

I don't think that's correct.  mueller gives his report to the doj, who is required to submit a summary to congress

I've never read anyone say the donald gets to see it first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I don't think that's correct.  mueller gives his report to the doj, who is required to submit a summary to congress

I've never read anyone say the donald gets to see it first

Trump just put Whitaker in charge of the doj, and Trump is Whitaker's boss. 

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Trump just put Whitaker in charge of the doj, and Trump is Whitaker's boss. 

   

 

He's been the boss of the DOJ all along

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

The key thing for Trump is Mueller's report, should it be done anytime soon, will pass directly into the hands of Whitaker and from Whitaker to Trump and Trump alone. Whitaker's office and Trump have the power to decide if there is anything in there which could be harmful to the US, or maybe that it's a load of BS and not worth releasing. He could also classify the entire thing or edit out anything he, the POTUS, deems as information which could compromise sources and/or methods.   

  

   

 

That’s a slightly terrifying thought!  What ever happened to checks and balances?

 what’s are Mueller’s options?  hold onto it and hope that Whitaker doesn’t last that long? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

That’s a slightly terrifying thought!  What ever happened to checks and balances?

 what’s are Mueller’s options?  hold onto it and hope that Whitaker doesn’t last that long? 

Do what all political hacks do... leak the document........ and blame someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mark K said:
35 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I don't think that's correct.  mueller gives his report to the doj, who is required to submit a summary to congress

I've never read anyone say the donald gets to see it first

Trump just put Whitaker in charge of the doj, and Trump is Whitaker's boss. 

28 CFR 600.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

28 CFR 600.9

(c), specifically. 

 Thanks for supporting my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:
7 minutes ago, hermetic said:

28 CFR 600.9

(c), specifically. 

 Thanks for supporting my point. 

thanks for making me look it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

Do what all political hacks do... leak the document........ and blame someone else. 

That thought had crossed my mind as well, there’d be a witch hunt to find out who was responsible if it happens. Can’t see it happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

That thought had crossed my mind as well, there’d be a witch hunt to find out who was responsible if it happens. Can’t see it happening. 

Sanctuary for whistleblowers! Fuck these assholes deciding what we need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mad said:

That’s a slightly terrifying thought!  What ever happened to checks and balances?

 what’s are Mueller’s options?  hold onto it and hope that Whitaker doesn’t last that long? 

Mueller IMO will do everything by the book. I think he will feel he has to because if he does any different it would open up questions about his credibility and thereby the credibility of the report.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:
17 hours ago, mad said:

That’s a slightly terrifying thought!  What ever happened to checks and balances?

 what’s are Mueller’s options?  hold onto it and hope that Whitaker doesn’t last that long? 

Mueller IMO will do everything by the book. I think he will feel he has to because if he does any different it would open up questions about his credibility and thereby the credibility of the report.   

once mueller hands in his report, he and his team become mere citizens again

they can certainly feel free to appear before congress and answer questions - publicly (non classified) or privately (classified)

and I'm sure that he and his team are writing the report in a manner such that the main body is as free of classified data as possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mark K said:

Mueller IMO will do everything by the book. I think he will feel he has to because if he does any different it would open up questions about his credibility and thereby the credibility of the report.   

 

3 hours ago, hermetic said:

once mueller hands in his report, he and his team become mere citizens again

they can certainly feel free to appear before congress and answer questions - publicly (non classified) or privately (classified)

and I'm sure that he and his team are writing the report in a manner such that the main body is as free of classified data as possible

Let’s hope it’s a combination of both. Hate to see the whole investigation get buried 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mad said:

 

Let’s hope it’s a combination of both. Hate to see the whole investigation get buried 

surely they can only delay and it will eventually emerge

 

Trump knows that but he is a classic day trader

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, hermetic said:

I don't think that's correct.  mueller gives his report to the doj, who is required to submit a summary to congress

I've never read anyone say the donald gets to see it first

Didn't happen with Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

surely they can only delay and it will eventually emerge

 

Trump knows that but he is a classic day trader

 

D

I have no idea how US law and the constitution deals with this scenario, doubtful the founding fathers would have ever have foreseen this happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
22 hours ago, hermetic said:

I don't think that's correct.  mueller gives his report to the doj, who is required to submit a summary to congress

I've never read anyone say the donald gets to see it first

Didn't happen with Nixon.

nor clinton - but those were under the special prosecutor laws

mueller is a special counsel, so some unforeseen trickery regarding the reporting process can't be dismissed off hand.  like mark said, classification could get out of hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hermetic said:

once mueller hands in his report, he and his team become mere citizens again

they can certainly feel free to appear before congress and answer questions - publicly (non classified) or privately (classified)

and I'm sure that he and his team are writing the report in a manner such that the main body is as free of classified data as possible

The POTUS is the ultimate authority on classification. He can classify or declassify anything. Roswell, Diego effin' Garcia, Area 5F1, the thirteen herbs and spices. ANYTHING!  

What Mueller's people would or would not say can be dismissed as lugenpresse. If they reveal any classified information it may be be criminal, if not treasonous, but most certainly dismissal-from-government-service worthy lugenpresse. 

   

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:
7 hours ago, hermetic said:

once mueller hands in his report, he and his team become mere citizens again

they can certainly feel free to appear before congress and answer questions - publicly (non classified) or privately (classified)

and I'm sure that he and his team are writing the report in a manner such that the main body is as free of classified data as possible

The POTUS is the ultimate authority on classification. He can classify or declassify anything. Roswell, Diego effin' Garcia, Area 5F1, the thirteen herbs and spices. ANYTHING!  

What Mueller's people would or would not say can be dismissed as lugenpresse. If they reveal any classified information it may be be criminal, if not treasonous, but most certainly dismissal-from-government-service worthy lugenpresse. 

you seem hell bent on this conspiracy theory that trump will classify the whole report.  that's silly, he might as well resign

no matter the classification he puts on either the summary or the report itself, select members of congress have a need to know - so they'll get to read it.  if trump tries to stop that, he might as well resign

select members of congress can schedule classified briefings with mueller and his team based on a need to know.  if trump tries to stop that, he might as well resign

now, would the above conspiracies allow trump to keep the summary and report from public eyes?  sure.  for now.  but if trump tries that, he may as well resign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

you seem hell bent on this conspiracy theory that trump will classify the whole report.  that's silly, he might as well resign

no matter the classification he puts on either the summary or the report itself, select members of congress have a need to know - so they'll get to read it.  if trump tries to stop that, he might as well resign

select members of congress can schedule classified briefings with mueller and his team based on a need to know.  if trump tries to stop that, he might as well resign

now, would the above conspiracies allow trump to keep the summary and report from public eyes?  sure.  for now.  but if trump tries that, he may as well resign

 You brought up the subject of classification. 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mad said:

I have no idea how US law and the constitution deals with this scenario, doubtful the founding fathers would have ever have foreseen this happening. 

Well, they did put in both the impeachment and the emoluments clause, so they suspected some one like the Great Pumpkin might come down the pike.  They were smart guys.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 3:10 AM, Dog said:

You don't think Holder saying he was the president's wing man implies that saw his job as a protector of the president. That after all is the function of a wing man.

That is what your wing man does? Mine points out the hot women at the bar. No wonder you're such a bitter old fuck, your life really must suck if they're there for your "protection".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Well, they did put in both the impeachment and the emoluments clause, so they suspected some one like the Great Pumpkin might come down the pike.  They were smart guys.  

And like most "smart guys", their brilliance blinded them to simple common sense. Blind freddy could have predicted the electoral college would become the joke it is today once a two party system eventually established itself. His blind dog could predict that a two party system would mean Congress refusing to do their job as long as it gave the other party any kind of advantage. 

Impeachment, emoluments clause, and even appointing SCOTUS judges all fall flat on their face when the government refuses to do it's job and they're the ones in charge of policing themselves doing that job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites