Jeff Sessions is out

[_MeDotOrg]

Evidently banning Acosta didn't cool the President's jets when it comes to CNN. Today CNN's Abby Phillips asked if the President wanted Matthew Whittaker to rein in the Muller investigation. A perfectly reasonable question, and probably the question everyone is asking themselves.

Trump paused, gave a little smirk and answered "What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot. You ask a lot of stupid questions." He then walked away, shaking his head with disgust.

Can anyone remember a previous President behaving like this when asked a perfectly reasonable question?

[_Res Ipsa]

I guess she must have not accepted his embrace...

[_Water Dog]

I don't know how you could expect any thinking person to swallow this. Of course we have crimes -- go look at the indictment of hostile foreign agents who attempted to interfere with our elections. On top of that, the DNC was the victim of theft. So, the notion that Mueller lacks "crimes" to investigate is rubbish. Mueller's investigation, started when Republicans held all three branches of government and a Republican attorney general recused himself, has nothing to do with "butthurt." It has to do with serious crimes involving the security of our elections -- something that anyone who purports to love their country should support.

Let's break this down.

You say, "Of course we have crimes," and then proceed to not list any.

You say, "go look at the indictment of hostile foreign agents who attempted to interfere with our elections"

These indictments had nothing to do with the special prosecutor.

You go on to incorrectly cite the timeline. FISA warrants, etc., and the investigation PREDATE Trump being sworn in. No, Republicans didn't control the government. Democrats launched the investigation. How are you so off on basic facts?

The investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with "security of our elections." If it did, it would be investigating DNC as well. It would be investigating both republicans and democrats broadly, including house and senate elections. It's doing none of that. It's not looking at election offices or anything like that. It's looking purely at Trump.

Here's the order.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 1/download

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't know how you could expect any thinking person to swallow this. Of course we have crimes -- go look at the indictment of hostile foreign agents who attempted to interfere with our elections. On top of that, the DNC was the victim of theft. So, the notion that Mueller lacks "crimes" to investigate is rubbish. Mueller's investigation, started when Republicans held all three branches of government and a Republican attorney general recused himself, has nothing to do with "butthurt." It has to do with serious crimes involving the security of our elections -- something that anyone who purports to love their country should support.

Let's break this down.

You say, "Of course we have crimes," and then proceed to not list any.

You say, "go look at the indictment of hostile foreign agents who attempted to interfere with our elections"

These indictments had nothing to do with the special prosecutor.

You go on to incorrectly cite the timeline. FISA warrants, etc., and the investigation PREDATE Trump being sworn in. No, Republicans didn't control the government. Democrats launched the investigation. How are you so off on basic facts?

The investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with "security of our elections." If it did, it would be investigating DNC as well. It would be investigating both republicans and democrats broadly, including house and senate elections. It's doing none of that. It's not looking at election offices or anything like that. It's looking purely at Trump.

Here's the order.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 1/download

The indictments that the special prosecutor obtained from a grand jury have nothing to do with the special prosecutor? Really? You're the one who said we don't have crimes. So I gave you crimes.

Of course the investigation has to do with the security of elections, Denial Dog. You just want to close your eyes to the context. The fact that you have a hard on for investigating anyone with a D by her name doesn't mean that this investigation has nothing to do with election security. At the time the original investigation was launched, there was evidence that the Russians were actively interfering with US elections. That's a crime, as shown by the later indictments.

When the special counsel was appointed, everyone in charge was a Republican. If there were no crimes or evidence of crimes, they could have called if off then and there. But they didn't. Republicans appointed a Republican special counsel, to the near unanimous approval of Republicans. Only now, when you don't like what that special counsel is finding, do you want to kill the investigation. (Well, actually, you were crowing last year that Trump was going to fire Mueller any day now.)

I've said from the beginning, just like with Kavanaugh, let Mueller do the investigation. If he finds no wrongdoing by the Trump campaign, that's good enough for me. I've seen nothing that changes my mind.

[_Water Dog]

The indictments that the special prosecutor obtained from a grand jury have nothing to do with the special prosecutor? Really? You're the one who said we don't have crimes. So I gave you crimes.

You gave me crimes that have nothing to do with the special investigation. As usual, engaging you is a total waste of time.

[_MeDotOrg]

In 2014, when asked what the worst Supreme Court rulings in history were, Matthew Whittaker said:

There are so many. I would start with the idea of Marbury v. Madison. That’s probably a good place to start and the way it’s looked at the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional issues. We’ll move forward from there. All New Deal cases that were expansive of the federal government. Those would be bad. Then all the way up to the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate.

I'll let Res Ipsa give a better explanation of Marbury v Madison, but basically Chief Justice John Marshall carved out the responsibility of the Supreme Court:

it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

The Constitution provided that the Supreme Court possessed the “judicial Power of the United States,” but it did not define what that power entailed. Judge Marshall spelled out that power. Matthew Whittaker believes the courts should be the inferior branch of government.

If there is a lynch pin in Constitutional Law, it is Marbury. But I think we will all begin to see that running over the foundations of American jurisprudence is chump change compared to some of the other things that will probably happen in the next few months.

Can't imagine what Trump sees in this guy ;-)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did WD get an advanced copy of Robert Mueller's report?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

The indictments that the special prosecutor obtained from a grand jury have nothing to do with the special prosecutor? Really? You're the one who said we don't have crimes. So I gave you crimes.

You gave me crimes that have nothing to do with the special investigation. As usual, engaging you is a total waste of time.

Dog, can you actually quote the portion of that order that sets out the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation? (Hint: this is a reading test.)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

U.S. Code, Title 28, Part II, Chapter 31, § 508 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/508

"(a) In case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, or of his absence or disability, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5 the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General."

"(b) When by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, neither the Attorney General nor the Deputy Attorney General is available to exercise the duties of the office of Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General shall act as Attorney General. The Attorney General may designate the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, in further order of succession, to act as Attorney General."

So, you have US Code which is pretty clear on the matter of appointment. However, when juxtaposed against the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 and 3 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-con…/…/article-ii

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

"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."

I suppose the question is does US Code obligate the President to consider it more sacrosanct than his own interpretation of the Constitution. Whatever the case may be, by the time the courts get around to figuring this particular matter out I wonder if Whitaker can shut Mueller down. I have no idea, frankly.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

The most corrupt president in history appointed the person to supervise the investigation of himself, without Senate confirmation. We are in a Constitutional crisis. We are not near one. We are not approaching one. We are IN one.

As Acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker Now Oversees Investigation Into Own Murky Past