DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: 1) Just because you childishly cover your ears and scream "I can't hear anything about corruption here," doesn't mean there is no corrupt intent. You are just playing games with the truth to cover for your corrupt leader. The only evidence I've seen for "corrupt intent" is your mindless repetition ofthe phrase "corrupt intent." Your mindless blather is not evidence. 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: 2) You are arguing an Attorney General doesn't need confirmed by the Senate. Enough said ACTING Attorney General, nitwit. An "acting" anyone doesn't need to be confirmed. That's the law - statutory, upheld by case law, nased on established precedent, all of which has been explained to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: The only evidence I've seen for "corrupt intent" is your mindless repetition ofthe phrase "corrupt intent." Your mindless blather is not evidence. ACTING Attorney General, nitwit. An "acting" anyone doesn't need to be confirmed. That's the law - statutory, upheld by case law, nased on established precedent, all of which has been explained to you. BS, he fired Sessions after claiming he shouldn't have recused himself...that was Trump's argument. Acting?!? What's the difference?!? Nothing! God you are a little pawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: BS, he fired Sessions after claiming he shouldn't have recused himself...that was Trump's argument. Asked for his resignation, which Sessions gave. So Sessions is equally guilty of "corrupt intent" for being party to the mutual decision? 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Acting?!? What's the difference?!? Nothing! God you are a little pawn. Well, for starters...as acting AG, he's not eligible to be nominated to the post of Attorney General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 38 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Asked for his resignation, which Sessions gave. So Sessions is equally guilty of "corrupt intent" for being party to the mutual decision? Well, for starters...as acting AG, he's not eligible to be nominated to the post of Attorney General. After belittling, criticizing and complaining about the guy, over the Russia investigation for over a year. Sessions got sick of it and left, pressured to leave, you know it. For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. So basically none of your arguments should be taken seriously. You will say anything. Tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, Tiberius said: After belittling, criticizing and complaining about the guy, over the Russia investigation for over a year. Sessions got sick of it and left, pressured to leave, you know it. For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. So basically none of your arguments should be taken seriously. You will say anything. Tool Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 43 minutes ago, Hedge said: Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? You do know that you are asking someone so unattached to reality that he doesn't even know when he shitshispants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: For starters? Or is that all? He has the full power of AG, right? Without being confirmed by Senate. Yes. For a limited amount of time. Because he's the ACTING AG. Again, this has all been explained to you multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Yes. For a limited amount of time. Because he's the ACTING AG. Again, this has all been explained to you multiple times. We know. Thus, he’s making you his cat toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 1 hour ago, GG said: We know. Thus, he’s making you his cat toy. You'd think, but no. This is a philosophical investigation. He's very close to inventing a new Gatorman Fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Quote Several legal scholars have submitted an amicus brief in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General of the United States. The amici curiae (which means friends of the court) submitted this brief in the context of Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh‘s (D) challenge of the Whitaker appointment. Frosh has argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have replaced Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, not Whitaker, and has called the move “illegal and unconstitutional.” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/multiple-legal-scholars-just-escalated-the-challenge-of-matthew-whitakers-appointment/ 14 hours ago, Hedge said: Just checking... You do realize this isn't one of those "Last Post Wins" threads, right? Lol, the courts will weigh in on this issue soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Those "legal scholars" are wrong. So's whichever court the Democrats manage to venue-shop their way in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 They are wrong about checks and balances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Still not right, gator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 The reason for Senate confirmation underscores the unconstitutionality of President Trump’s unilateral appointment of Whitaker. Alexander Hamilton elaborated in Federalist 76: “It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature…He would be…afraid to bring forward… candidates who had no other merit than that… of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 It must be a slow day at the laundromat. The Federal Reserve "discussion" was more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It must be a slow day at the laundromat. The Federal Reserve "discussion" was more interesting. I know, being right, like I am, gets boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Still wrong, Otto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 No Tom, you are. You are actually denying the necessity of checks and balances. More proof you will just say anything as long as it supports Trump. No credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Still wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 Quote The legal fallout of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal isn’t quite over yet and now is headed to a confrontation with the Trump administration. In the latest postscript to the decades-old saga, former pro cyclist Floyd Landis is challenging the legitimacy of the acting U.S. attorney general, Matthew Whitaker. The challenge relates to a settlement in the civil fraud lawsuit that Landis filed against Armstrong in 2010. Most of that case ended this year, but part of it had been pending when President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker to replace Jeff Sessions on Nov. 7. After reaching a settlement on that matter last week, Landis now is questioning the validity of the agreement because it required consent from the Justice Department under Whitaker. More: Lance Armstrong wonders why he is scorned and Alex Rodriguez forgiven after doping scandals More: Lance Armstrong settles $100M lawsuit with US government “Though this motion may potentially go against his financial interests, Floyd is basically just trying to do the right thing here,” Landis’ attorney, Paul Scott, told USA TODAY. “The legitimacy of the (attorney general) happened to present itself in his case, so he decided to take a stand on the issue.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2018/11/27/lance-armstrong-former-cyclist-challenges-trump-attorney-general/2122911002/ totally illegitimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 we have a mess at the Justice Department — an unfit and unconfirmed attorney general. Quote “President Donald Trump feels no urgency to nominate a new attorney general and is content with Matthew Whitaker in place as acting head of the Justice Department, said people familiar with his deliberations. He isn’t concerned by demands to move quickly to nominate a successor to fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions from key Republican senators including Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, who is set to take over the panel in January, the people said.” Oh course not, Kings pick ministers that will do their bidding unchecked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Judicial Watch Files Amicus Brief Defending the Appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General Calls Maryland Attorney General’s Request for Federal Judicial Action to Enjoin Whitaker’s Appointment ‘Naked Attempt to Wage Political Battle in the Courts’ (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in support of President Trump’s choice of Matthew Whitaker for acting United States attorney general (State of Maryland v. United States of America, et al. (No. 1:18-cv-02849)). Less than a week after President Trump on November 7 appointed Matthew Whitaker, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as acting attorney general, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, on behalf of the State of Maryland, filed a motion, asking the court to prohibit the administrative substitution of Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions as one of nine defendants in a pending lawsuit. Judicial Watch argues that the “State of Maryland’s naked attempt to wage a political battle in the courts should be denied” and its motion both misstates the law and is fatally flawed on procedural grounds. Judicial Watch argues that the appointment is valid, as acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title are valid “even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.” Judicial Watch contends that “Supreme Court precedent suggests the de facto officer doctrine would apply” and precludes issuance of an injunction in this case. According to the Judicial Watch brief, the doctrine “springs from the fear of chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” ... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: we have a mess at the Justice Department — an unfit and unconfirmed attorney general. Oh course not, Kings pick ministers that will do their bidding unchecked You've been at this for many years now. At what point would your employer offer you a promotion? Maybe give you a once per week column on a fledgling political news site. You'd think by now that just from turnover above you'd they'd give you a shot, no? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 He's got a promotion from scrubbing dirty underwear to sniffing the dry cleaning fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 22 minutes ago, Foxx said: Judicial Watch Files Amicus Brief Defending the Appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General This is not very compelling. Their own argument is basically what they are doing, waging a battle in the courts for this illegal appointment. It's pretty simple, Trump didn't get Senate confirmation, and he can at anytime but just doesn't want to. This is open corruption. Isn't this the group that sues climate scientists? 7 minutes ago, Wacka said: ARF ARF ARF . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 this one is just for you, @Tiberius because i know it drives you nuts. https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1068252473603883008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, Foxx said: this one is just for you, @Tiberius because i know it drives you nuts. https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1068252473603883008 Whittaker is illegally notified as an illegitimate non-confirmed acting attorney general! IMPEACH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 22 hours ago, Foxx said: this one is just for you, @Tiberius because i know it drives you nuts. https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1068252473603883008 He knew a lot in advance! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/acting-attorney-general-whitaker-fielded-early-fraud-complaints-from-customers-at-patent-company-yet-promoted-it-for-years-records-show/2018/11/30/919b76bc-f4a2-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.efec265fdea0 Quote Months after joining the advisory board of a Miami-based patent company in 2014, Matthew G. Whitaker began fielding angry complaints from customers that they were being defrauded, including from a client who showed up at his Iowa office to appeal to him personally for help, records show. Yet Whitaker, now the acting attorney general, remained an active champion of World Patent Marketing for three years — even expressing willingness to star in national television ads promoting the firm, the records show. Internal Federal Trade Commission documents released Friday in response to a public records request reveal the extent of Whitaker’s support for World Patent Marketing, even amid a barrage of warnings about the company’s behavior. The FTC eventually filed a complaint against World Patent Marketing, accusing it of cheating customers and falsely promising it would help them patent and profit from their inventions, according to court filings. Some clients lost their life savings, the agency alleged. In May of this year, a federal court in Florida ordered World Patent Marketing to pay a settlement of more than $25 million and close up shop, records show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 The above story has already been retracted and corrected by Bloomberg. I bet the WaPo waits another day to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The above story has already been retracted and corrected by Bloomberg. I bet the WaPo waits another day to do the same. The whole story has been, or just a minor correction made to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The whole story has been, or just a minor correction made to it? That's not a minor correction. The entire thrust of the story was falsified. He did nothing improper, in fact he acted properly - while the original story said he "appeared to mislead the FTC". That's a major correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not a minor correction. The entire thrust of the story was falsified. He did nothing improper, in fact he acted properly - while the original story said he "appeared to mislead the FTC". That's a major correction. That's not the thrust of the story. He heard countless complaints from investors who were cheated and he kept working there and got even more involved. The dudes a snake oil salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 @Tiberius just for you. https://twitter.com/JarradKushner/status/1068950131918102529 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 17 hours ago, Foxx said: @Tiberius just for you. https://twitter.com/JarradKushner/status/1068950131918102529 Whitaker reminds me of Tommy Boy more than anything. Just some dumb ass in way over his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 On 11/30/2018 at 4:28 PM, Deranged Rhino said: That's not a minor correction. The entire thrust of the story was falsified. He did nothing improper, in fact he acted properly - while the original story said he "appeared to mislead the FTC". That's a major correction. I'd say fabricating a story about the lawfully appointed AG constitutes news most would consider fake. So, either the Post story was intentional, or their sources and vetting suck something awful. Either way, Trump speaks the truth on this issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 26 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Whitaker reminds me of Tommy Boy more than anything. Just some dumb ass in way over his head. i guess time will tell, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, Foxx said: i guess time will tell, eh? Don't confuse Gleeful Gator, time might tell, but can he tell time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts