Jump to content



Photo

Jeff Sessions resigns..........just aired on Foxnews


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#81 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 23,463 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:44 PM

Also a paid CNN type.


At least he's allowed in White House.

BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#82 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:45 PM

At least he's allowed in White House.


So was Lewandowsky, Priebus,Mooch,etc..😁
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#83 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,189 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 11:56 AM

 

Of course, I would as well if I were them.   The only real questions  are 1) will he recuse himself and 2) if the answer to #1 is no, does he do sh!t to make the probe either fail or take a really long time?

 

Might be another question, whether he can legally serve:

 

 

New York Times

 

Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

 

A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a  very significant consequence today.

 

Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. 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.

 

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.

 

Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

 

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.

 



#84 bandrus1

bandrus1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,916 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:30 PM

Some background on replacement Whitaker. Worked for several years as U.S. Attorney (resigned under Obama). VERY familiar with FEC violations and Clinton Foundation.


And has personal ties to witnesses in the investigation

#85 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,189 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:36 PM

Trump claims he doesn't personally know Whitaker, but:

 

 

Slate

 

Now, only two days after selecting him to be in charge of the Justice Department, Trump is saying he doesn’t know Matt Whitaker:

Matt Whitaker, I don’t know Matt Whitaker. Matt Whitaker worked for Jeff Sessions.  And he was always extremely highly thought of, and he still is. But I didn’t know Matt Whitaker. He worked for Attorney General Sessions.

 

ABC’s Justin Fishel notes that Trump called Whitaker “a great guy” and said the literal words “I know Matt Whitaker” on Fox News in October, an assertion that would seem to conflict with his Friday position about whether he knows Matt Whitaker—which, to remind you, was “I don’t know Matt Whitaker.”

 

 

:lol:



#86 Casual Observer

Casual Observer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 824 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:22 PM

And has personal ties to witnesses in the investigation

As opposed to Rod Rosenstein, who is an actual witness.



#87 Baker Boy

Baker Boy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,379 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:26 PM

Trump claims he doesn't personally know Whitaker, but:
 

 
:lol:


I know hundreds of people that I don’t know personally! What is your point.

#88 Baker Boy

Baker Boy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,379 posts

Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:29 PM

And has personal ties to witnesses in the investigation


All 13 lawyers have a vendetta against Trump?

#89 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:14 PM

Seriously, does Trump have no memory or just not understand how digital video and audio works these days?

They've Trump all over the place even as recently as a few weeks ago on Fox talking about how he knew Whitaker and how Whitaker have been to the Oval Office many times etc

Then they've got him just yesterday or whatever saying over and over and over again how much he doesn't know Matthew Whitaker.

Again, not that is brainless mouth breathing followers apparently have much of a memory either. But for God's sake, you could at least try to weasel your way into some sort of Middle Ground there.

Trump could be wearing a red tie and say 6 times in a row that he's not wearing a red tie and his mindless followers be like he's not wearing a red tie!cookoo
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#90 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:17 PM

http://nymag.com/int...ozen-times.html
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#91 EternalShinyAndChrome

EternalShinyAndChrome

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,618 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:17 PM

Seriously, does Trump have no memory or just not understand how digital video and audio works these days?

They've Trump all over the place even as recently as a few weeks ago on Fox talking about how he knew Whitaker and how Whitaker have been to the Oval Office many times etc

Then they've got him just yesterday or whatever saying over and over and over again how much he doesn't know Matthew Whitaker.

Again, not that is brainless mouth breathing followers apparently have much of a memory either. But for God's sake, you could at least try to weasel your way into some sort of Middle Ground there.

Trump could be wearing a red tie and say 6 times in a row that he's not wearing a red tie and his mindless followers be like he's not wearing a red tie!cookoo

 

What's your point?  What would you like to happen?



#92 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:24 PM

 
What's your point?  What would you like to happen?


Well first off, have enough respect for the electorate not to ###### lie right to their face.
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#93 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:29 PM

I think I'm probably not alone on this. There are probably several men on this board as opposed to keyboard trolls who remember a time when they were young where their dad basically told them "look I don't like what you did, but the fact that you lied about it is why I'm kicking your ass." He made it very clear that he wasn't stupid and that he didn't deserve that kind of disrespect to think he was.

In my dad's morality, and now mine, there may be things you do that I don't like. But at least respect me enough not to lie to my ###### face when I know better. That's just plain disrespect.

My dad only had to tell me that once and I felt lower than bug ######. I completely understood what you meant by you didn't deserve to have me thinking that he was so dumb as to believe my stupid ass lues. I ###### up plenty after that. And there are times he didn't ask a question that he didn't want the answer to. But I don't think I ever told the substantial lie to him after that. It's all about respect.
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#94 Hardcore troubadour

Hardcore troubadour

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,473 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:36 PM

The country is doing quite well these least two years.

#95 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,189 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:37 PM

So POTUS, while under investigation by the Justice Dept, hires somebody under investigation by the Justice Dept to head up the Justice Dept.   

 

I predict this all ends well.



#96 Hardcore troubadour

Hardcore troubadour

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,473 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:40 PM

So POTUS, while under investigation by the Justice Dept, hires somebody under investigation by the Justice Dept to head up the Justice Dept.   
 
I predict this all ends well.


Another libtard crying that Sessions is gone. Laughable. He was a racist unfit for the job not long ago.

#97 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:41 PM

The country is doing quite well these least two years.


What specific policy do you attribute that to?
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#98 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:43 PM

So POTUS, while under investigation by the Justice Dept, hires somebody under investigation by the Justice Dept to head up the Justice Dept.   
 
I predict this all ends well.


Yeah, from first reporting, he's just a shade less dirty than that guy in Trump's cabinet who made a fortune by foreclosing on scam reverse mortgages marketed to old people. But he's close!

But seeing as how I Trump paid what? Millions of dollars to get out of his own personal Trump University scam? These aren't deal breakers by any means.
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#99 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:45 PM

Another libtard crying that Sessions is gone. Laughable. He was a racist unfit for the job not long ago.


Lol.

You live in a very simple binary world don't you? God look at you you big liberal! First you were bitching about the rattlesnake and now you're bitching about the cobra! Lol
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker

#100 Hardcore troubadour

Hardcore troubadour

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,473 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 03:46 PM

What specific policy do you attribute that to?


Tax cuts, less people on welfare and more people working, deregulation, better trade deals, military and police improved morale, not being preached at by the mocha joka anymore.

#101 drobeski

drobeski

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 60,847 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 04:49 PM

Tax cuts, less people on welfare and more people working, deregulation, better trade deals, military and police improved morale, not being preached at by the mocha joka anymore.

isis virtually eliminated from the news

#102 Ray Lewis's Limo Driver

Ray Lewis's Limo Driver

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 52,963 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 09:08 PM

So POTUS, while under investigation by the Justice Dept, hires somebody under investigation by the Justice Dept to head up the Justice Dept.   

 

I predict this all ends well.

 

It is absolutely juicy, media will eat this up and the Dems should be able to make hay from it.  All the time and energy they waste on this stuff, it must be incredibly frustrating to not seem to be able to take this guy down


To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

 

 


#103 cbfalcon

cbfalcon

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 18,647 posts

Posted 10 November 2018 - 10:35 PM

 
It is absolutely juicy, media will eat this up and the Dems should be able to make hay from it.  All the time and energy they waste on this stuff, it must be incredibly frustrating to not seem to be able to take this guy down



Valid post. It is very frustrating. This I admit.
I like steak

#104 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 23,463 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:45 AM

https://www.foxnews....ttorney-general

 

DOJ Lawyers find that Whitaker appointment is valid and legal.


BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#105 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,189 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:54 AM

https://www.foxnews....ttorney-general

 

DOJ Lawyers find that Whitaker appointment is valid and legal.

 

Whitaker's DOJ finding justification for Whitakers appointment is a theory that will have to be put in front of the courts.



#106 lickin_starfish

lickin_starfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,349 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:09 AM

 

Whitaker's DOJ finding justification for Whitakers appointment is a theory that will have to be put in front of the courts.

They should take it to the Supreme Court!


Tool fan

#107 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 23,463 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:11 AM

 

Whitaker's DOJ finding justification for Whitakers appointment is a theory that will have to be put in front of the courts.

 

Not true. Federal Vacancies Reform Act (VRA) of 1998 allows for it.

 


“This Office previously had advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice Official, such as Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General,” the OLC said, noting that Whitaker has been serving at the Justice Department “at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year.”
 
But a senior Justice Department official said this week that when reviewing Whitaker’s appointment, the OLC had to research back to 1866 to find a similar instance where a non-Senate confirmed individual sat as acting attorney general. The Justice Department wasn’t created until 1870, though an attorney general existed prior to that.
 
The official told Fox News that the issue was “constitutionality” of the appointment.
 
“What we’re talking about here is constitutionality,” the official said. “VRA unquestionably gives the president the option to do it.”

 

Let me ask you something; why so you appear to be opposed to Whitaker? Is it because Trump picked him or because the Dems/talking heads are against him?


BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#108 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,189 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:24 AM

 

Not true. Federal Vacancies Reform Act (VRA) of 1998 allows for it.

 

 

 

Let me ask you something; why so you appear to be opposed to Whitaker? Is it because Trump picked him or because the Dems/talking heads are against him?

 

Not true??? because the department he runs, was able to justify him running it.    Others disagree, this will see a courtroom.

 

Stop with the because Trump appointed him/talking heads stuff.  Don't ask me a question than imply I'm a sheep, too dumb to think for myself.   

 

But since you asked, first off, Whitaker's is under investigation by the FBI, not disqualifying, but something I look at as a negative.  His public stance for the last year on the Mueller investigation and advocating for Trump to fire Sessions and hire somebody who will choke off the investigation is such a conflict of interest he should automatically be recused from overseeing.   His views on Marbury v Madison, religious tests for judges and what looks to be a broad abuse of his power against Matt McCoy are all good reasons that he should be disqualified.   



#109 lickin_starfish

lickin_starfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,349 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:31 AM

 

 His views... are good reasons that he should be disqualified.   

 

When the Left disagrees with someone's views, they believe in silencing them.


Tool fan

#110 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 23,463 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:36 AM

 

Not true??? because the department he runs, was able to justify him running it.    Others disagree, this will see a courtroom.

 

Stop with the because Trump appointed him/talking heads stuff.  Don't ask me a question than imply I'm a sheep, too dumb to think for myself.   

 

But since you asked, first off, Whitaker's is under investigation by the FBI, not disqualifying, but something I look at as a negative.  His public stance for the last year on the Mueller investigation and advocating for Trump to fire Sessions and hire somebody who will choke off the investigation is such a conflict of interest he should automatically be recused from overseeing.   His views on Marbury v Madison, religious tests for judges and what looks to be a broad abuse of his power against Matt McCoy are all good reasons that he should be disqualified.   

 

What is he under investigation by the FBI for? 

 

And expressing a view on the investigation is grounds for recusal? Then I guess you'd agree Pelosi, Maxine, etc.............ALL cannot vote on any articles of impeachment right? 


BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#111 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 23,463 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:39 AM

They simply don't want Whitaker in there because he will be the one deciding what's declassified, what the Executive Summary of the FISA Report by DOJ I.G. will be, etc.........

 

Sessions recusal has forced everything to go through Rod Rosenstein who is way more conflicted than ANYONE in the Trump Administration.

 

Mike, why are you okay with Rod Rosenstein not recusing?


BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#112 wiffleball

wiffleball

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 68,932 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:16 PM

They simply don't want Whitaker in there because he will be the one deciding what's declassified, what the Executive Summary of the FISA Report by DOJ I.G. will be, etc.........
 
Sessions recusal has forced everything to go through Rod Rosenstein who is way more conflicted than ANYONE in the Trump Administration.
 
Mike, why are you okay with Rod Rosenstein not recusing?

"Sessions recusal has forced everything to go through Rod Rosenstein who is way more conflicted than ANYONE in the Trump Administration."

... Again, Rod Rosenstein was personally selected by Donald Trump and his advisors. Funny how all this confliction never came up in the vetting process, no? lol


Oh oh, and who was it that asked Mueller to be special counsel? And who was it that had nothing but great things to say about Bob Mueller?


Too funny
Users currently on :ignore: BudBro,Flahawker