https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html Cliffs: position has to be approved by the Senate, even those in a temporary capacity
Well, golly gee! Without even having to open the link, I see that the article was in the "opinion" section. You know what they say about "opinions."
For similar argument https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-counsel-muellers-power-status-idUSKCN1NE00B
Gee, you mean there might be a constitutional issue appointing the janitor as a principle without senate approval? Flashback: Trump also tried to appoint the White House physician to head veterans affairs. If there is an over/under on how long until Whitaker gets pulled I’m going with under a week.
Thing is, any investigation damage between now and confirmation (whoever that is) should technically be unlawful. I wonder if Whitaker is aware of the mess he's getting into.
If Republicans had no double standards, they'd have no standards at all. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...onstitutional-scholar-explains-why-ncna934351 Republicans claim bill protecting Mueller is unconstitutional. A constitutional scholar explains why they're wrong. Passing a bill to safeguard the special counsel's investigation is both legally sound and necessary for maintaining the integrity of American democracy.
This isn't a republican thing, it's a both party thing. Or need I bring up all the democrat politicians who commit sexual abuse/misconduct and there isn't a peep from the democratic party...
I notice that you skipped over the fact that the article relies upon the opinions of someone who says that Mueller's appointment also requires senate review and approval. Except Mueller will never go through that process but there is every intention of putting the next AG nominee before the senate. See if you can spot the difference.