Started By
Message

re: DOJ says Matthew Whitaker can serve as acting attorney general

Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:01 am to
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146574 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:01 am to
didn't Whit meet with the ethics lawyers already? or is that today?
Posted by Sidicous
Middle of Nowhere
Member since Aug 2015
17127 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:02 am to
quote:

The announcement that we really need to wait for happens after Whitaker meets with the ethics lawyer. Then DOJ announces that Whitaker can oversee the Mueller probe.
To paraphrase one of the "truly great thinkers of the modern era": If you like your job, you can keep your job.
Posted by HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Member since Feb 2017
12458 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:11 am to
quote:

he has been wrong on more than one thing. I stick to my assertion counselor, he is an idiot.

okay.... so it is not political, his legal opinion has been called out so he is an idiot. they are all idiots in DC but Nap is a Fox news idiot.

better?




Man, how many times does this have to pointed out to you? It is a mistake to continually call those who twist and turn facts to try to justify their own behavior or call out the behavior of others idiots? They aren't idiots, they know EXACTLY what they are doing . What they are hoping is that a large enough percentage of the population are idiots and won't realize what they are doing.

There is a reason the swamp is waging an all out war on Trump, too bad so many Americans don't see it.
Posted by rumproast
Member since Dec 2003
12093 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:17 am to
I have never even understood what the issue was here. The statute is crystal clear. I don't even know what Napolitano believed the language of the statute could possibly mean other than what it actually says...:

quote:

(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office— (1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; (2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or (3) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if— (A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve of the applicable officer, the officer or employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and (B) the rate of pay for the position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.


Plain as damn day. Did he serve with the agency for at least 90 days during the last 365? Check. Did the president appoint him? Check. Is the position equal to or above the minimum rate of pay? Check. That is all that is required. Period.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 10:22 am
Posted by TennesseeFan25
Honolulu
Member since May 2016
8391 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:21 am to
I dont understand how legal opinions can differ. The law is supposed to be black and white so why is there room for any interpretation?
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32213 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:23 am to
quote:

judge Nap is an idiot.


Only since Trump. He was once pretty straight shooting. Exudes an obvious bias now (shouldn't say now because I quit all tv news). I guess I read his biased comments on here and they rarely play out to be correct.
Posted by rumproast
Member since Dec 2003
12093 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:24 am to
You can have ambiguities in the law....or unique fact patterns that are outside of the norm for what the purpose of the statute was. But here, there is no ambiguity. Unless they are arguing there is a conflicting statute somewhere, I don't see what the fuss is about....
Posted by YankeeBama
Milwaukee
Member since Sep 2017
4741 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:24 am to
Boom
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146574 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:37 am to
they knew all along Whitaker was legal. they have moved along...

colonoscopy is next after they review his tax records...



it is like the dogma of certain non dem judges will be questioned, but all dem judges ( and govt appointments) don't get raked over the coals to waste time in silliness.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 10:38 am
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram