Sessions Resigns as AG

[Koko78]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But she was to be in DOJ. As was every other Acting AG. She was the next person in line. Unlike Trump's hack who is there for corrupt purposes. 

 

Now, now, your position (as given to you in the DNC talking points memo) is that Whitaker was not approved by the Senate to be the Attorney General. Changing your tune now is pretty laughable.

 

Of course, let's just ignore the statute passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton, that authorized the appointment.

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Now, now, your position (as given to you in the DNC talking points memo) is that Whitaker was not approved by the Senate to be the Attorney General. Changing your tune now is pretty laughable.

 

Of course, let's just ignore the statute passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton, that authorized the appointment.

So that's a "no" he was never approved by the Senate whereas Yates was. 

Thanks  

 

And you are the one taking the talking points, from Mr. You Need An ID to Buy Cereal 

 

You are the cultist, not me 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So that's a "no" he was never approved by the Senate whereas Yates was. 

Thanks  

 

And you are the one taking the talking points, from Mr. You Need An ID to Buy Cereal 

 

You are the cultist, not me 

 

Yates was never approved by the Senate either. Show me where she was ever confirmed to be the Acting Attorney General. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

There's these things, called statutes. They're actually laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. That's kinda how things work. Even a dipschiff like you can maybe figure it out, assuming you're told that it's ok to learn something new.

[Tiberius]

21 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yates was never approved by the Senate either. Show me where she was ever confirmed to be the Acting Attorney General. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

There's these things, called statutes. They're actually laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. That's kinda how things work. Even a dipschiff like you can maybe figure it out, assuming you're told that it's ok to learn something new.

you are just being stupid now. Well, always actually. She was confirmed as Deputy AG and was made acting AG in the normal process of following the line of secession. Your cult leader picked this guy to be the unconfirmed chief of staff of Sessions with the intent to bypass the usual line of secession to purposely violate checks and balances so he can corruptly interfere with the very thing Trump was screaming and ranting about. You are only showing your knavishness by defending this total corrupt act. 

 

[Foxx]

29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

you are just being stupid now. Well, always actually. She was confirmed as Deputy AG and was made acting AG in the normal process of following the line of secession. Your cult leader picked this guy to be the unconfirmed chief of staff of Sessions with the intent to bypass the usual line of secession to purposely violate checks and balances so he can corruptly interfere with the very thing Trump was screaming and ranting about. You are only showing your knavishness by defending this total corrupt act. 

 

just what is it that you are afraid Whitaker might do? declass the FISA's? reign Mueller into the scope of his probe? 

 

your actions tell me that that the Dems are very afraid of what this guy might do to the soft coup group.

[DC Tom]

37 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

you are just being stupid now. Well, always actually. She was confirmed as Deputy AG and was made acting AG in the normal process of following the line of secession. Your cult leader picked this guy to be the unconfirmed chief of staff of Sessions with the intent to bypass the usual line of secession to purposely violate checks and balances so he can corruptly interfere with the very thing Trump was screaming and ranting about. You are only showing your knavishness by defending this total corrupt act. 

 

 

1) "Succession," not "seccession."

2) There IS no "line of succession" for Presidential appointments.  What happens is that the President appoints an acting director, according to the VRA.

3) Senate Confirmations ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.  Being confirmed as Deputy AG does not confirm one as the AG.  

 

 

[Koko78]

47 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

you are just being stupid now. Well, always actually. She was confirmed as Deputy AG and was made acting AG in the normal process of following the line of secession. Your cult leader picked this guy to be the unconfirmed chief of staff of Sessions with the intent to bypass the usual line of secession to purposely violate checks and balances so he can corruptly interfere with the very thing Trump was screaming and ranting about. You are only showing your knavishness by defending this total corrupt act. 

 

 

Yes, she was confirmed to be the Deputy Attorney General. She was never confirmed to be the ACTING Attorney General - the very same complaint that you dumbshits make about Whittaker.

[Bray Wyatt]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yes, she was confirmed to be the Deputy Attorney General. She was never confirmed to be the ACTING Attorney General - the very same complaint that you dumbshits make about Whittaker.

Hows your head feel banging against that wall?

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Hows your head feel banging against that wall?

 

Not bad. It's entertaining watching him fail at mental gymnastics trying to justify the DNC's stupid position.

[GG]

7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not bad. It's entertaining watching him fail at mental gymnastics trying to justify the DNC's stupid position.

No, it is not.

 

Stop replying to the idiot

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, GG said:

No, it is not.

 

Stop replying to the idiot

 

I'm actually kind-of enjoying this exchange.  He's digging himself deeper holes than normal..."principal" vs. "minor" Senate confirmations, simultaneous ignorance of multiple points of Constitutional law and statute, bizarre beliefs in the transferability of Senate confirmations, complete willful ignorance of standing precedent, incoherent nonsense about the "line of secession" in government agencies.

 

He's really going above and beyond on this.  Not so much throwing ***** against the wall, as much as fire-hosing diarrhea against it.

[sabrecrazed]

40 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm actually kind-of enjoying this exchange.  He's digging himself deeper holes than normal..."principal" vs. "minor" Senate confirmations, simultaneous ignorance of multiple points of Constitutional law and statute, bizarre beliefs in the transferability of Senate confirmations, complete willful ignorance of standing precedent, incoherent nonsense about the "line of secession" in government agencies.

 

He's really going above and beyond on this.  Not so much throwing ***** against the wall, as much as fire-hosing diarrhea against it.

 

[boyst]

3 hours ago, sabrecrazed said:

 

It's a fake video

[Niagara]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm actually kind-of enjoying this exchange.  He's digging himself deeper holes than normal..."principal" vs. "minor" Senate confirmations, simultaneous ignorance of multiple points of Constitutional law and statute, bizarre beliefs in the transferability of Senate confirmations, complete willful ignorance of standing precedent, incoherent nonsense about the "line of secession" in government agencies.

 

He's really going above and beyond on this.  Not so much throwing ***** against the wall, as much as fire-hosing diarrhea against it.

I agree that Trump seems to have followed https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345 and eventually 3356 to the letter. However it is one thing to argue with someone who calls himself Tiberius, but pity Kelly Ann for having to live with  someone who writes BS like https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html. It must be discouraging.

Or perhaps U.S. Code § 3345 - Acting officer law is unconstitutional and will require some "judicial review".

Edited November 16, 2018 by Niagara

[sabrecrazed]

2 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

It's a fake video

I guess it's from a show on Netflix. A "mockumentary"... which is fitting when it comes to Tibs.

[Tiberius]

17 hours ago, Foxx said:

just what is it that you are afraid Whitaker might do? declass the FISA's? reign Mueller into the scope of his probe? 

 

your actions tell me that that the Dems are very afraid of what this guy might do to the soft coup group.

A Trump political hack in charge of enforcing laws, ya, what could go wrong? 

 

You are justifying this illegal appointment to head our justice department on the grounds of a conspiracy theory. Ok! 

17 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yes, she was confirmed to be the Deputy Attorney General. She was never confirmed to be the ACTING Attorney General - the very same complaint that you dumbshits make about Whittaker.

Yes, she was confirmed by Senate and Whittaker was not. Thank you! End of story! 

 

 

 How in the world you get that being the same complaint is beyond stupid. Your buddies want you to stop replying because you look really stupid trying to argue this. 

17 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

1) "Succession," not "seccession."

2) There IS no "line of succession" for Presidential appointments.  What happens is that the President appoints an acting director, according to the VRA.

3) Senate Confirmations ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.  Being confirmed as Deputy AG does not confirm one as the AG.  

 

 

There is a line of succession, so you don't know what you are talking about. 

 

Confirmations do not need to be transferable, but they show that Congress has at least vetted this person so we know--unlike with political hack Whittker--that they are simply not there to obstruct justice. This is corruption taking place in the open. 

 

[Koko78]

46 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

[Stupid crap]

 

A chain of command is not the same thing as a line of succession.

 

Being confirmed by the Senate for a different position means absolutely nothing, not matter how much you dipschiffs want to cross your fingers, close your eyes, and wish upon that little star.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

A chain of command is not the same thing as a line of succession.

 

Being confirmed by the Senate for a different position means absolutely nothing, not matter how much you dipschiffs want to cross your fingers, close your eyes, and wish upon that little star.

If someone is confirmed as Deputy AG in the normal process that is much closer to Constitutional norms than just picking some Trump cultist hack to head the department. You are just being stupid. 

[Koko78]

Oh, please tell us all about your understanding of 'Constitutional norms'.

 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Oh, please tell us all about your understanding of 'Constitutional norms'.

 

[B-Man]

HIGH SNOBBERY FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

According to the Washington Post, acting attorney general Matt Whitaker “stands in vivid contrast to his predecessors whose resumes typically boast judgeships, partnerships at prestigious law firms, and senior roles in the Justice Department. Really?

 

On what court did Janet Reno serve as a judge? None. She was a partner in a Miami law firm for a year. She had never held a position at the Justice Department before becoming attorney general, though she had been the Dade County state attorney.

 

John Ashcroft was never a judge, either. He was a career politician, who had served as the attorney general of Missouri. As far as I can tell, he never worked for the Justice Department before becoming attorney general. Nor had he been a partner in a major law firm.

 

Jeff Sessions was also a career politician. He was never a judge — Democrats saw to that through a smear campaign when President Reagan nominated him. To my knowledge, Sessions was never a partner at a major law firm.

 

Sessions served two years as Alabama’s attorney general before being elected to the Senate. Previously, he had been a U.S. Attorney. Whitaker has also been a U.S. Attorney. In addition, he was chief-of-staff to former attorney general Sessions for more than a year.

 

The Post focuses on Whitaker’s background as a business owner and entrepreneur. That background may make Whitaker unique, but it doesn’t make him less qualified than his predecessors. Experience in business may not be a qualification for the attorney general job, but it certainly isn’t a minus. Arguably, it’s a plus.

 

The Post’s beef with Whitaker isn’t that he hasn’t been a judge or a partner at a major law firm, or that he owned businesses. The Post simply fears that Whitaker will constrain Robert Mueller. Therefore it wanted to run another article disparaging him.

 

The Post’s article is phony. But its snobbery, though selective, is genuine.

[DC Tom]

50 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

A chain of command is not the same thing as a line of succession.

 

Being confirmed by the Senate for a different position means absolutely nothing, not matter how much you dipschiffs want to cross your fingers, close your eyes, and wish upon that little star.

 

To simplify it further, in deference to Otto: the Senate confirms NOMINATIONS, not people.

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

HIGH SNOBBERY FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

According to the Washington Post, acting attorney general Matt Whitaker “stands in vivid contrast to his predecessors whose resumes typically boast judgeships, partnerships at prestigious law firms, and senior roles in the Justice Department. Really?

 

On what court did Janet Reno serve as a judge? None. She was a partner in a Miami law firm for a year. She had never held a position at the Justice Department before becoming attorney general, though she had been the Dade County state attorney.

 

John Ashcroft was never a judge, either. He was a career politician, who had served as the attorney general of Missouri. As far as I can tell, he never worked for the Justice Department before becoming attorney general. Nor had he been a partner in a major law firm.

 

Jeff Sessions was also a career politician. He was never a judge — Democrats saw to that through a smear campaign when President Reagan nominated him. To my knowledge, Sessions was never a partner at a major law firm.

 

Sessions served two years as Alabama’s attorney general before being elected to the Senate. Previously, he had been a U.S. Attorney. Whitaker has also been a U.S. Attorney. In addition, he was chief-of-staff to former attorney general Sessions for more than a year.

 

The Post focuses on Whitaker’s background as a business owner and entrepreneur. That background may make Whitaker unique, but it doesn’t make him less qualified than his predecessors. Experience in business may not be a qualification for the attorney general job, but it certainly isn’t a minus. Arguably, it’s a plus.

 

The Post’s beef with Whitaker isn’t that he hasn’t been a judge or a partner at a major law firm, or that he owned businesses. The Post simply fears that Whitaker will constrain Robert Mueller. Therefore it wanted to run another article disparaging him.

 

The Post’s article is phony. But its snobbery, though selective, is genuine.

He is a political hack, associated with a fraudulent business, and has no experience running any organization like the DOJ. His business "qualifications" are pretty shallow, too. I mean if you are going to push business experience, shouldn't it at least be successful businesses? Not something that was shut down because of fraud. 

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

A Trump political hack in charge of enforcing laws, ya, what could go wrong?

 

Easy answer.  Take a look back at Eric Holder's term.  It's payback time biche. 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

To simplify it further, in deference to Otto: the Senate confirms NOMINATIONS, not people.

Ummmm..... Witaker wasn't even nominated, you moron! 

 

Can't you keep up at all? 

3 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Easy answer.  Take a look back at Eric Holder's term.  It's payback time biche. 

Whataboutism 

 

Lame 

[DC Tom]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He is a political hack, associated with a fraudulent business, and has no experience running any organization like the DOJ. His business "qualifications" are pretty shallow, too. I mean if you are going to push business experience, shouldn't it at least be successful businesses? Not something that was shut down because of fraud. 

 

He was Sessions' chief of staff, and you think he has no experience? 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

If someone is confirmed as Deputy AG in the normal process that is much closer to Constitutional norms than just picking some Trump cultist hack to head the department. You are just being stupid. 

now you're just being stupid. you are expanding the basis to fit your paradigm. if that is the case then my expanding a basis to fit my paradigm is just as valid. get over it.

mornin' Tibs

Edited November 16, 2018 by Foxx

[Tiberius]

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He was Sessions' chief of staff, and you think he has no experience? 

Hack, and you know it 

Admission of guilt? ?

 

Quote

When he was asked Wednesday by the Daily Caller why he had appointed Matthew G. Whitaker as acting attorney general, Trump replied: “Look, as far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had. It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation.” 

 

[Tiberius]

Oh, ya, this isn't a total lie, eh cultists? He just thinks his supporters are stupid

Quote

President Trump on Sunday claimed he was unaware that Matthew Whitaker had been publicly critical of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation prior to picking him to replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

"I did not know that. I did not know he took views on the Mueller investigation as such," Trump said on "Fox News Sunday."

He added that he doesn't believe Whitaker's past statements had any effect on his choice once he learned of the comments.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/417312-trump-says-he-did-not-know-whitaker-was-critical-of-mueller-before

[Tiberius]

And here come the law suits! There maybe many more like this. If he was illegally appointed, his standing in cases hurts the DOJ. 

Quote

A Texas businessman facing a federal criminal case over distribution of substandard pet food ingredients is mounting a novel challenge to President Donald Trump’s hotly debated appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.

Lawyers for former agricultural products executive Doug Haning quietly filed a motion Tuesday asking a federal court in St. Louis to rule that Whitaker’s installation atop the Justice Department, made in the wake of Trump’s ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, was illegal. In theory, such a legal challenge could be pursued by any defendant under federal prosecution.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/15/texas-businessman-challenges-ag-whitaker-993768

[Tiberius]

Our new, unconstitutional, un-vetted, non-Senate confirmed AG use to sell "Masculine toilets" 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/democrats-demand-info-on-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-masculine-toilet-scam

Quote

While the F.T.C. charged that the company promised investors patenting and promotional assistance but in reality “provided almost no service in return” (the company reportedly settled with the agency earlier this year, and agreed not to promote any other patent-marketing services), it appears that there were at least a few products Whitaker & co. threw their weight behind:

In November 2014 . . . World Patent Marketing, announced the “marketing launch” of a “MASCULINE TOILET,” which boasted a specially designed bowl to help “well-endowed men” avoid unwanted contact with porcelain or water. “The average male genitalia is between 5” and 6.”” the firm’s press release said. “However, this invention is designed for those of us who measure longer than that.”

The special toilet was not the firm’s only notable offering. It marketed a slew of oddball inventions, including a “theoretical time travel commodity tied directly to price of Bitcoin.” Called Time Travel X and marketed as “a technology, an investment vehicle and a community of users,” the cryptocurrency never materialized. The firm also pitched Sasquatch dolls, promoting them with a video claiming that “DNA evidence collected in 2013 proves that Bigfoot does exist.”

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Our new, unconstitutional, un-vetted, non-Senate confirmed AG use to sell "Masculine toilets" 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/democrats-demand-info-on-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-masculine-toilet-scam

 

 

You do realize Whitaker has been approved by the Senate before... right?

 

And look at who was in the Senate at the time - most of the same people:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-02-03/pdf/CREC-2004-02-03-pt1-PgS547-2.pdfhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRECB-2009-pt17/pdf/CRECB-2009-pt17-Pg22761-6.pdfhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-04-01/pdf/CREC-2004-04-01-pt1-PgS3594-2.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-06-03/pdf/CREC-2004-06-03-pt1-PgS6465.pdfhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-06-03/pdf/CREC-2004-06-03-pt1-PgS6467-5.pdfhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-02-03/pdf/CREC-2004-02-03-pt1-PgD50.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-06-03/pdf/CREC-2004-06-03-pt1-PgS6465.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-02-03/pdf/CREC-2004-02-03-pt1-PgD50.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-06-03/pdf/CREC-2004-06-03-pt1-PgS6467-5.pdf

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You do realize Whitaker has been approved by the Senate before... right?

 

 

Play fair - This was 10 years before the "company" he worked with was under investigation.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, peace out said:

 

Play fair - This was 10 years before the "company" he worked with was under investigation.

 

It was, without question. I'm just sharing information in case he was unaware. Based on his posts today, I'm reading Tibs as thinking the Senate never weighed in on Whitaker at all (considering he held Yates up as an example earlier of someone who was Senate confirmed - though her confirmation was for a different position, like Whitaker). Just trying to help a guy out. 

[DC Tom]

It doesn't matter.  ACTING appointments do not need approval. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

It doesn't matter.  ACTING appointments do not need approval. 

 

100%

 

But the talking point has shifted now (not from just Tibs) from one inaccuracy (that confirmation is required) to a new one: the Senate has never weighed in on Whitaker at all. 

[DC Tom]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

100%

 

But the talking point has shifted now (not from just Tibs) from one inaccuracy (that confirmation is required) to a new one: the Senate has never weighed in on Whitaker at all. 

 

Who gives a ***** how the talking points shift.  He's trying to distract from the facs that he's 1) wrong, and 2) an !@#$.  And you're falling for it.

 

Don't be the MSNBC to his Trump.

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

It doesn't matter.  ACTING appointments do not need approval. 

Where does it say that in the Constitution? 

 

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Where does it say that in the Constitution? 

 

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. 

 

 

The Appointments Clause gives Congress the right to delegate to the President "inferior" appointments, which Congress did with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows the appointment of acting officials without Senate Confirmation.  

 

 

[outsidethebox]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Where does it say that in the Constitution? 

 

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. 

Is your ass still burning from President Trump's trouncing of criminal Hillary? 

You need to accept the things you cannot change,  like the BS russian collusion investigation. 

The courage to change the things you can, like, maybe the corrupt left wing party.

And the wisdom to know the difference. Here is where you might struggle. Sniffing bleach all those years at the laundromat has seriously damaged your ability to think on your own. 

Get some religion, straighten up your life, move out of your mom's basement and for God sakes, stop sniffing the bleach!!