Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Filthy Fernadez

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

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The country is doing quite well these least two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

He was on the board of a company that defrauded people out of $26M

 

Yes, expressing a very one sided biased view on a investigation is grounds for recusal. His job is to oversee fact-finding in an unbiased manner, no matter where those facts lead. So somebody who has on multiple times said the investigation is a witch hunt, would be hard pressed to investigate in an unbiased manner.

 

No I would not agree that Pelosi & Waters cannot vote on articles of impeachment. They are not supposed to be unbiased observers, it's there job to look at the facts and reach conclusions. I would want them to do that honestly and fairly as possible, but they certainly can have opinions on evidence presented so far. If they were to conduct their own investigation and present it to me, I would have to take their bias into consideration when considering any evidence, but that's not what they are doing.

 

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?

 

I'm not going to debate your fringe theories on Rosenstein. He did not have to recuse himself, because he was not a part of President Trumps campaign, like Jeff Sessions, big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 I don't claim to know Trump's plans. However, if you accept Rosenstein as being valid and he was picked by Trump, you should accept Whitaker as well.

 

 

Oh oh, and who was it that asked Mueller to be special counsel? Rosenstein did although he has conflicts having signed one of the illegal FISA warrants. And who was it that had nothing but great things to say about Bob Mueller? Mostly Democrats.

 

 

:wave:

 

 

He was on the board of a company that defrauded people out of $26M

 

Yes, expressing a very one sided biased view on a investigation is grounds for recusal. His job is to oversee fact-finding in an unbiased manner, no matter where those facts lead. So somebody who has on multiple times said the investigation is a witch hunt, would be hard pressed to investigate in an unbiased manner.

 

No I would not agree that Pelosi & Waters cannot vote on articles of impeachment. They are not supposed to be unbiased observers, it's there job to look at the facts and reach conclusions. I would want them to do that honestly and fairly as possible, but they certainly can have opinions on evidence presented so far. If they were to conduct their own investigation and present it to me, I would have to take their bias into consideration when considering any evidence, but that's not what they are doing.

 

 

I'm not going to debate your fringe theories on Rosenstein. He did not have to recuse himself, because he was not a part of President Trumps campaign, like Jeff Sessions, big difference.

 

Then I'd argue you have no integrity. They most certainly ARE supposed to be unbiased at they serve on certain committees that are privy to Top Secret intelligence and part of Oversight. Pelosi is a member of the Gang of Eight FFS.

 

He signed a FISA warrant, was mentioned in Strzok/Page texts in regard to going along with their illegal activities. Those aren't fringe theories and to suggest such at this point indicates you've buried your head in the sand the last 11 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to debate your fringe theories on Rosenstein. He did not have to recuse himself, because he was not a part of President Trumps campaign, like Jeff Sessions, big difference.

 

What is the crime that's being investigated to warrant Sessions needed to be recused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the crime that's being investigated to warrant Sessions needed to be recused?

 

I'm also not going to debate someone who is clearly being intentionally obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×