If the liberals feel that President Trump crossed the line, file a lawsuit! It never stopped you guys before! We need a ruling from the US Supreme Court to stop the nonsense!
Please correct if this is wrong, but I believe there is a statute, not merely a regulation, that specifies that the next in line, i.e., the Deputy Attorney General, will serve until the new Attorney General can be confirmed. Rosenstein, being second in command, has of course already been confirmed by the Senate, and will just step in until a New AG is nominated and confirmed. If I am right about this, the Whitaker guy should be gone in a matter of days. But if everyone just lies down and says" here I am, have me," then who knows? Every time Trump breaks the law, someone with standing has to step up to the plate. Congress is the body with standing here, I would think, assuming a statute is violated. But Congress is not in session until Jan. 3, right. Do ordinary citizens, i.e., "the people," have standing when a statute is violated?
You are correct in that it should be done that way, but Dems are spineless and reps are criminals so here we are.
Well I think one problem is that Congress is not is session, right?. It seems as though politics trumps both statutory law AND the Constitution. I hope that proves to be just an illusion because the courts are so slow. Dems need to send Nancy and Pocahontas in war paint with AK-47s over to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and ask them to kick down the door if no one answers.
How about a more considered approach and realize are 2 sides this argument. You all seemed to have left out this side... "In an opinion issued by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, anyone serving in an acting capacity—even if it is in a role typically considered a “principal” position—is automatically an inferior officer. The Office of Legal Counsel’s argument was rooted in the temporary nature of the acting official’s role." https://www.govexec.com/management/...onstitutionality-trumps-new-acting-ag/152689/ While President Trump clearly acted within his authority when appointing Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, some legal scholars are criticizing the move by questioning the constitutionality of the underlying law. Whitaker, who replaced Jeff Sessions as head of the Justice Department on Wednesday after Trump asked for Sessions’ resignation, has the full force of the office despite his title. Trump named him acting attorney general under a provision of the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act that enables the president to name a senior officer at an agency to serve in a temporary capacity in what is typically a Senate-confirmed position. Whitaker previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff, a non-Senate confirmed position. Some legal scholars have suggested that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution prohibits a non-Senate confirmed political appointee from acting as a “principal officer.” Such an appointment serves as a presidential workaround to the advice and consent role afforded to the Senate, those individuals argue. By agreeing to resign, Sessions at least appeared to eliminate another potentially problematic provision of the vacancies law, which may limit the president’s latitude in naming an acting official when the vacancy resulted from a firing. » Get the best federal news and ideas delivered right to your inbox. Sign uphere. In a New York Times op-ed, law professor and former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal and attorney George Conway (husband to White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway) called Trump’s use of the vacancies law in this case flawed and Whitaker’s appointment unconstitutional. “It defies one of the 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,” they wrote. Because Whitaker has not gone through a confirmation process, they added, “there has been no mechanism for scrutinizing whether he has the character and ability to evenhandedly enforce the law in such a position of grave responsibility.” The Constitution and legal precedent define a “principal officer” as anyone who reports directly to the president. All other appointed personnel are considered “inferior officers.” In an opinion issued by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, anyone serving in an acting capacity—even if it is in a role typically considered a “principal” position—is automatically an inferior officer. The Office of Legal Counsel’s argument was rooted in the temporary nature of the acting official’s role. Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University, agreed with that line of thinking and noted the Federal Vacancies Reform Act traces its roots back to a law Congress passed in 1789. “People leave, people die, people get indicted,” Light said. “Congress always understood that the president needed a bit of freedom to keep government working, but not for indefinite periods. Hence, the time limits on acting appointments.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ump-hillary-clinton-sessions-attorney-general Matthew Whitaker, whom President Donald Trump named as his acting attorney general on Wednesday, privately provided advice to the president last year on how the White House might be able to pressure the Justice Department to investigate the president’s political adversaries, Voxhas learned. Whitaker was an outspoken critic of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe before he became the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions in September 2017. But new information suggests that Whitaker — while working for Sessions — advocated on behalf of, and attempted to facilitate, Trump’s desire to exploit the Justice Department and FBI to investigate the president’s enemies. In May 2018, President Donald Trump demanded that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into whether the FBI “infiltrated or surveilled” his presidential campaign and whether Obama administration officials were involved in this purported effort. Trump, his Republican allies in Congress, and conservative news organizations — most notably Fox News — were making such claims and amplifying those of others, even though they offered scant evidence, if any, that these allegations were true. But two other people with firsthand information about the matter told me that Whitaker, in his conversations with the president, presented himself as a vigorous supporter of Trump’s position and “committed to extract as much as he could from the Justice Department on the president’s behalf.” One administration official with knowledge of the matter told me: “Whitaker let it be known [in the White House] that he was on a team, and that was the president’s team.” Despite this being the case, on Friday as he was leaving on a trip to Paris, Trump told reporters, “I don’t know Matt Whitaker.” He also claimed that he never spoke to the then-DOJ chief of staff about the Mueller investigation: “I didn’t speak to Matt Whitaker about it,” he said. Whitaker also counseled the president in private on how the White House might be able to pressure the Justice Department to name a special counsel to investigate not only allegations of FBI wrongdoing but also Hillary Clinton. Trump wanted the Justice Department to investigate the role that Clinton purportedly played, as secretary of state, in approving the Russian nuclear energy agency’s (Rosatom) purchase of a US uranium mining company. The FBI had earlier investigated the allegations, concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and closed out its investigation. Trump presented no new evidence to the Justice Department that would justify reopening the investigation, and thus senior Justice Department officials considered the president’s request to be a blatant attempt to improperly use the Department and FBI to discredit a political adversary. Yet Whitaker suggested to the White House that he personally was sympathetic to the appointment of a special counsel to investigate these matters, according to the two officials with knowledge of the matter. A Justice Department official told me: “You have to have a predicate to open an investigation, or to reopen a closed case. You have an even higher one, an extraordinary threshold, to appoint a special counsel. If you don’t, what you are doing is unethical as a lawyer.” To placate the president’s demand that a special counsel be named to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in the uranium deal, Rosenstein and other Justice Department officials came up with a similar compromise: Instead of naming a special counsel, Sessions agreed to appoint John Huber, the US attorney for Utah, to review the department’s earlier investigation. If he found evidence of any serious wrongdoing, Huber could then recommend the opening of a formal criminal investigation or even the appointment of a special counsel. A long-time Justice Department trial attorney told me, “This is the first time, perhaps since Watergate, that the department has been asked to review old, closed files about a president’s political opponents. It’s not right that it should have been done at all. Yet you can argue that Sessions did this in the most benign way possible. He did refuse to open a criminal investigation without cause, and he stood firm by refusing to appoint a special counsel.”