Sessions' firing is a very good omen.....for democrats

Let's quit pretending that any of Trump's actions have any consequence. He could rape a child on live TV and his supporters would still be there for him. Somehow, people like this guy no matter what he does. It's something I'll never understand.

Mark my words; he WILL oversee the corrupt dismantling of the investigation, and absolutely nothing will come of it. We will slide closer and closer to a people that succumb to a dictator. The U.S. is apparently no different than any other country in that regard. After all, if an idiot like Trump can make gains toward authoritarianism this great, imagine what a truly brilliant and conniving mind could accomplish in the role. It's only a matter of time ...

A fearful president
In a stunning move on the heels of the midterm election, President Trump has forced the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and appointed an outspoken critic of the Mueller investigation — Matthew Whitaker — as acting attorney general, shunting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to the sidelines. This raises the specter of a fearful president attempting to muzzle Special Counsel Robert Mueller or hinder him from revealing whether his 18-month-long grand jury investigation has turned up evidence of criminality implicating Donald Trump or his immediate family.

But a 44-year-old “road map” from the Watergate prosecution shows a potential route for Mr. Mueller to send incriminating evidence directly to Congress. The road map was devised in 1974 by the Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, with our assistance. We wrote the road map — actually a report — to be conveyed to Congress; it was called “Report and Recommendation” and served as a guide to a collection of grand jury evidence contained in a single document. That evidence included still-secret presidential tape recordings that had been acquired through grand jury subpoena — but which had been withheld from Congress by President Nixon.

The recent decision by Washington’s Federal District Court chief judge, Beryl Howell, to release the document from the National Archives provides a historic legal precedent that could be a vehicle for Mr. Mueller and the grand jury assisting him to share the fruits of their investigation into possible criminal conduct within the Trump presidential campaign and subsequent administration.

In all the discussion about Mr. Mueller’s options when he concludes his investigation, little attention has been paid to the potential role of the grand jury. Chief Judge Howell’s decision unsealing the Watergate road map brings new focus on the role the grand jury might play in the dynamics of the endgame. Although the grand jury is a powerful tool for federal prosecutors, it has historic and independent power and operates under the supervision of the federal judiciary. Following the Oct. 20, 1973, “Saturday Night Massacre” — in which President Nixon forced the Justice Department to fire the original special prosecutor, Archibald Cox — the Watergate grand jury played a critical role in forcing the president to back down, hand over the subpoenaed tapes and appoint a new special prosecutor.
 
If you have to ask you are already too far behind.

Jo
That you can’t answer, answers for you.

Who says I can't? I'm just not going to waste time on the well knowns.... That you don't already know answers all.



Jo
People who can prove their claims, do; those who can’t, huff & bluff, like you’re doing.

Only beginners fall for that bait.

Jo
Jo quit while you're behind

Lol.... That's funny.
I refuse to do footwork for the ignorant, the obtuse or the lazy.

If you consider that to be....behind....so be it.

Jo
 
That you can’t answer, answers for you.

Who says I can't? I'm just not going to waste time on the well knowns.... That you don't already know answers all.



Jo
People who can prove their claims, do; those who can’t, huff & bluff, like you’re doing.

Only beginners fall for that bait.

Jo
Jo quit while you're behind

Lol.... That's funny.
I refuse to do footwork for the ignorant, the obtuse or the lazy.

If you consider that to be....behind....so be it.

Jo
Dayum, you must be awfully dizzy from that spin.

:spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

You weren’t asked to do anyone’s “footwork,” you were challenged to show you weren’t bullshitting. The onus to prove you right is on you; no one else. That you ran away from that while squawking all the way revealed you can’t prove what you falsely claim.
 
You posted the confirmation process
That is all. What you have failed to do is
Show that it forbids interim appointments.
I expect that the Senate will be sitting for confirmation very soon. Names have already been floated out. Leaving Rosenstein in charge is not an option.

Jo
None are allowed if the Constitution doesn’t allow for it. It actually does in cases where the Senate is on recess. That’s the only exception given. And the Senate is not on recess.

Oh? I didn't read that in the law you posted at
All. .... You're adding that part.

Jo
Wow, you’re really clueless about the Constitution, huh?

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Still don't see anything expressly forbidden there. You're flailing. Now if it said...only...or
Shall not....or....never..... You would have a point. But alas your claim of unconstitutionality still flounders in theory-land. I understand.... You've suddenly repented and become a strict constitutionalist! You should love Kavanaugh! Ahhh but what's this? You're only strict when it favors you're predilections?
Tsk.... Guess that's why we have the federal bench.

Jo
LOL

Why do you hold me responsible because you’re too stupid to understand what, “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” means?

I hold you to nothing.....but.....you still fail to
Demonstrate that what Trump did is unconstitutional. I expect the authors
Had passing thoughts about clear abstentions and yet the words don't appear there in the Constitution despite your every effort to add them in. Is add an amendmentI forbidding interim appointments. I suspect founding fathers were too smart to be drawn into that trap.

Jo


Let's quit pretending that any of Trump's actions have any consequence. He could rape a child on live TV and his supporters would still be there for him. Somehow, people like this guy no matter what he does. It's something I'll never understand.

Mark my words; he WILL oversee the corrupt dismantling of the investigation, and absolutely nothing will come of it. We will slide closer and closer to a people that succumb to a dictator. The U.S. is apparently no different than any other country in that regard. After all, if an idiot like Trump can make gains toward authoritarianism this great, imagine what a truly brilliant and conniving mind could accomplish in the role. It's only a matter of time ...
Oversee the dismantling of a corrupt investigation that phrase sounds a lot better.

Jo
 
Last edited:
Who says I can't? I'm just not going to waste time on the well knowns.... That you don't already know answers all.



Jo
People who can prove their claims, do; those who can’t, huff & bluff, like you’re doing.

Only beginners fall for that bait.

Jo
Jo quit while you're behind

Lol.... That's funny.
I refuse to do footwork for the ignorant, the obtuse or the lazy.

If you consider that to be....behind....so be it.

Jo
Dayum, you must be awfully dizzy from that spin.

:spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

You weren’t asked to do anyone’s “footwork,” you were challenged to show you weren’t bullshitting. The onus to prove you right is on you; no one else. That you ran away from that while squawking all the way revealed you can’t prove what you falsely claim.

NAh.... You're just lazy... And I'm not going to fix that for you.

Jo
 
Who says I can't? I'm just not going to waste time on the well knowns.... That you don't already know answers all.



Jo
People who can prove their claims, do; those who can’t, huff & bluff, like you’re doing.

Only beginners fall for that bait.

Jo
Jo quit while you're behind

Lol.... That's funny.
I refuse to do footwork for the ignorant, the obtuse or the lazy.

If you consider that to be....behind....so be it.

Jo
Dayum, you must be awfully dizzy from that spin.

:spinner: :spinner: :spinner:

You weren’t asked to do anyone’s “footwork,” you were challenged to show you weren’t bullshitting. The onus to prove you right is on you; no one else. That you ran away from that while squawking all the way revealed you can’t prove what you falsely claim.

Nope ...

No spin....no dizziness....just laziness.
Pretty simple stuff.

Jo
 
First, let's clear up the usual lying spin from the WH that Sessions "resigned".....he was fired.

But, much more important, is the fact that Trump feels the urgent need to "circle the wagons" and THAT is always a prelude to bunker mentality.

Let a Trump lap dog assume the role of AG and undermine the Muller investigation and lets see how that plays out among not only democrats and decent republicans....but also the crucial independent voting bloc.................Besides, Trump cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.......the southern district of NY is beyond Trump's claws.

Will Whitaker recuse himself from the Mueller probe? Whitaker says he will not, but that is the wrong question.

The real question is, will Trump's attack dog interfere in the Mueller probe. Whitaker is far from impartial on the issue and has suggested publicly that an interim A.G. could cut funding for the probe, and that Mueller crossed a red line when he began looking at Trump's finances for a Russian connection, which is a perfectly logical approach to a case involving Russian conspiracy and the Trump election campaign.

The point being, if Whitaker interferes in the Mueller probe, it is perfectly clear Trump is begging to be impeached for obstruction of justice, the ultimate attention getter.

Then there is this. Trump violated the Constitution when he appointed Matthew Whitaker.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states that principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.

The New York Times reports, "A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very significant consequence today.

"It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

"But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power."

Once again, Trump thinks he is an emperor. Once again, the Republican Congress filled with Trump sycophants do nothing about it even when Emperor Trump is usurping their power.

As a card-carrying Republican I say this, thank God the Democrats gained control of the House. The idea of an unchecked Trump for two more years is frightening.

I am an American first and a Republican second. More should feel that way about their party affiliation.

The DOJ issued a defense of Trump's controversial appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general Wednesday, offering several reasons why the appointment is consistent with the Constitution, federal statutes and past precedent.

The 20 page memo from the DOJ says in part, "Whitaker's appointment is consistent with the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, because he had been serving in the Department of Justice at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year as the statute requires."

Leave it to Trump to come up with a problem for the first time in a century. Whitaker is only serving on a temporary basis, so he wasn't required to be confirmed by the Senate ahead of his selection last week, the Justice Department argued. Then the DOJ acknowledged that situation had not come up in over a century. The DOJ found that in 1866, a non-Senate confirmed assistant attorney general served as acting attorney general, before the department was founded.

A separate statute from the 1960's exists that provides a succession plan at the Justice Department, and Trump violated the 1960's law which required Senate confirmation.

Fox's Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees.

"I'm very disappointed to see lawyers who work for Matthew Whitaker go back to 1866 and look for a precedent [to keep him in his job]."

"I don't care what happened in 1866," Napolitano said. "Congress changed the law in the 1960s."

President Andrew Johnson's appointment lasted six days. That is the DOJ's precedent. Whitaker has already lasted longer than that.

Fox News reports, "Napolitano said the statutes governing the appointments of deputy attorneys general were changed in the 1960s because their roles evolved to the point where "we put too much power in their hands."

"He said that the power of the Justice Department cannot "go to a political hack" -- adding that the way to absolve a political appointment of the suspicion of being a "hack" nomination is to have their candidacy confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

"Napolitano added that if Whitaker's appointment is found to be illicit, it would likely make his decisions "null and void" -- which would be problematic if they greatly affect the nation, like a potential constraint of Special Counsel Bob Mueller."

As the political storm around him grows, and after saying he didn't know his appointee, Trump remains absolutely silent on the issue.

That's our President in action.
 

Forum List

Back
Top