Kellyanne Conway’s husband calls Trump’s appointment of acting attorney general unconstitutional

SNIP
George Conway, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s husband, argued Thursday that President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general is unconstitutional and any action he takes while leading the Justice Department will be “invalid” because he lacks Senate confirmation.

“We cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason. Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation,” they write. “For the president to install Mr. Whitaker as our chief law enforcement officer is to betray the entire structure of our charter document.”
ENDSNIP

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...t-of-acting-attorney-general-unconstitutional

Sounds logical to me.... Never heard of an Attorney General serving without Senate approval... It's one thing if the existing AG died and you need somebody to serve while awaiting confirmation of somebody else, but that's not happening here, is it?

Wonder how Mueller is going to handle this situation? And don't give me the "he has to work for a new boss" routine... somebody who has been around as long as Mueller will likely only give full compliance to somebody he respects.

Sort of related, do you think George and Kellyanne sleep in the same room?? They don't seem to agree on a whole helluva lot...

 

Maybe they should ask Barbara Streisand what she thinks about the new AG.

 

Cryptic... I thought Babs was moving to Canada at some point....

Care to explain? She loves balding sycophants??

 

According to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act the President may appoint anyone to an appointed position for 210 days before confirmation is necessary.

 

Mueller and Rosenstein have already had a "what is going to happen to you, Whittaker, if you screw up" talk with him.

 

Maybe yes.. maybe no

This is a tough read unless you are a lawyer, but it's worth it.... good summary on the recusal as well...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/matthew...ng-attorney-general-three-lingering-questions

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vacancies_Reform_Act_of_1998

leftists just want to be able to keep the oppositions' critical vacancies open as long as possible.

they are, after all, ideologically bound to destroying 'fundamentally transforming' these United States, and harassing, disrupting and obstructing the lawful disposition of their enemy's authority is a means to those ends.

aka: #Resist

 

Never know till you try.

 

What's the difference? The Attorney General In Name Only has been dead for almost two years.

Sounds like grounds for termination for me.

On the other hand, the Grand Insurance Agent can resign if he doesn't want to work for his new boss...

 

In other words George C. doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

This guy is entitled to his opinion but its weird to make tweets against your own wifes boss. Very strange. Its so strange that maybe its all orchestrated ad some reverse pshycology move that Trump orchestrated. Bless Donald J Trump...pure genius!

 

Im waiting for Kanye and Snoop to weigh in.

 

Well, Larry Tribe is on board as well... certainly you'd have to give more substance to his legal opinion over, say, the legal mind of Donnie J Trump....

Laurence Tribe‏Verified account @tribelaw
This op-ed by @neal_katyal and @gtconway3d makes the same argument I made on @KatyTurNBC and @camanpour on PBS and CNNi today. Senators have standing to sue under Art II sec 2 cl 2 just as in Blumenthal v. Trump, even if others with standing opt not to:

 

That's Bull Pshyt....

Why is that weird??.... he's a lawyer... he understands the law, unlike anybody in this administration, including the Presidents personal lawyer/press man

 

napoliantano says whitaker is unqualified.

 

"Legally" unqualified, although his general qualifications would probably be in question as well

SNIP
He said there are only three ways someone can become acting attorney general: if they are the deputy attorney general and the president signs an executive order to make them acting attorney general, if they are already at the Justice Department in a job that both required and received Senate confirmation or if the Senate in in recess, they can be a recess appointment.

He said none of those apply in this case, as Whitaker is not deputy attorney general, he did not receive Senate confirmation for his current role at the DOJ and the Senate is not in recess.
ENDSNIP

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/...-qualify-under-law-be-acting-attorney-general

 

Like you, Tribe is as biased as they come.

 

Thanks.... I don't get compared to Lawrence Tribe everyday...

Doesn't make him wrong.... just makes you afraid....

 

Ain't nary a thing to worry about then.

 

Ah yes when you cant debate accuse the other side of being "afraid" or "hateful" or that doesnt work just smear them..

Tactics like this got Trump elected.. Not Russians, Not hacking, Not Marvin the Martian.. You did and people like you.

 

Before we go into the Article One control of the AG,


HUGH HEWITT: Now, the thing that the Senator, who is a friend, doesn't get is that if the Attorney General resigns or is fired, the President under the Vacancies Act can move over Dan Coats, Alex Acosta from HHS-- I mean, from Labor, Secretary Azar from HHS, any of the fine lawyers in the administration for 210 days. And then if he nominates a new Attorney General, say, a Mike Luttig, who was the runner up to be the Chief Justice, then another 210 days. So you have 420 days of an acting Attorney General, who would be in charge of the Russia investigation.....snip~


http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses/jeff-sessions-president-trump-and-the-department-of-justice


Hugh Hewitt Former WH Counsel.....says Conway doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

 

If Whittaker understands the counsel.

 

An acting AG can for a period of time.

 

Under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the Attorney General is nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution provides that civil officers of the United States, which would include the Attorney General, may be impeached by Congress for treason, bribery, or "high crimes and misdemeanors".[3] The Attorney General may be removed at will by the President under the Supreme Court decision Myers v. United States, which found that the President may remove executive branch officials without the consent of the Senate or any other entity. The common law further suggests that the President has the power to remove an official engaged in purely executive functions or an official whose duties immediately affect the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, (Bowsher v. Synar, 1986).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

 

Bowsher v. Synar, 1986. An interesting case, yes. If the President is being investigated for criminal behavior, the second suggestion fails.