Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

Matthew G. Whitaker Acting AG for Sessions :
#31
Whitaker will be the acting attorney general until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, the acting officer — in this case, Whitaker — may serve “no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs,” or “once a first or second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate, from the date of such nomination for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate.”

Under the FVRA, if the Senate rejects Trump’s nominee for the attorney general vacancy, then Whitaker is allowed to serve for another 210-day period. As acting attorney general, he assumes all responsibilities of the attorney general — which include oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller.

If not Whitaker, then who?

Among the names floated:

Janice Rogers Brown, a former federal appeals judge
Bill Barr, attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993
Steven Bradbury, Transportation Department general counsel
Alex Azar, Health and Human Services secretary
John Sullivan, deputy secretary of state
Noel Francisco, current solicitor general
Chris Christie, a former federal prosecutor and governor of New Jersey, who once said he wanted to be AG
Kris Kobach, hardline conservative Kansas secretary of state who just lost a bid to become the state's governor

Other administration officials who have been already confirmed by the Senate could be appointed by Trump, thus bypassing the Senate.
"We fight for or serve America not because we hate our enemies but because we love our country. We absolutely love the freedoms that we cherish" General Michael T. Flynn.
Heir  likes this!
Reply Share
#32
(11-08-2018, 12:06 AM)It Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 10:43 PM)KOMMA Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 10:19 PM)It Wrote: I like the way this kid looks.

Getting good vibes from him.

Hopefully we will finally see justice carried out for the American people.

The mobs have been unleashed for Thursday.

https://www.infowars.com/leftist-mobs-mo...ns-firing/

Facepalm

Peace cannot be achieved in America with the Liberal Democrat war politics.

All they are going to do is destroy libtarded strongholds. They know better than to come to red areas.

I feel sorry for the innocentt bystanders these leftist slime bags are most likely going to do harm to.


This is odd to Me . These " Social Dissent " and Mob Violence peeps are mostly younger people . Squeal and scream about the situation in Government yet are in the demographic of least engaged in exercising Their Personal Stake in " Government Power " .


[Image: JCanCn4.png]


.
Celebrating Over 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#33
(11-08-2018, 10:30 AM)Heir Wrote:
(11-08-2018, 12:06 AM)It Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 10:43 PM)KOMMA Wrote: The mobs have been unleashed for Thursday.

https://www.infowars.com/leftist-mobs-mo...ns-firing/

Facepalm

Peace cannot be achieved in America with the Liberal Democrat war politics.

All they are going to do is destroy libtarded strongholds. They know better than to come to red areas.

I feel sorry for the innocentt bystanders these leftist slime bags are most likely going to do harm to.


This is odd to Me . These " Social Dissent " and Mob Violence peeps are mostly younger people . Squeal and scream about the situation in Government yet are in the demographic of least engaged in exercising Their Personal Stake in " Government Power " .


[Image: JCanCn4.png]


.

Libtards control what people see hear and learn from birth both in media and in so called education.

These kids are brainwashed to believe they are doing the just thing.

We were all like that once.

That is untill we got older and snapped out of our brainwashing.

This is why libtards constantly tell kids never trust adults. Now its mutated into dont trust adults or whites.
Reply Share
#34
(11-08-2018, 05:03 AM)Aquarius Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 08:40 PM)Luvapottamus Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 07:34 PM)FlyoverCountry Wrote: I know nothing about the guy.  I assume POTUS trusts him

I just did a quick search and found:

Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view

Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.

"I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice?"

— Matt Whitaker, during Iowa Family Leader debate

If elected to the U.S. Senate, former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker says he would only support federal judges who have a Biblical view, and specifically a New Testament view, of justice. "If they have a secular world view, then I'm going to be very concerned about how they judge," Whitaker said at an April 25, 2014, Family Leader debate.

Whitaker didn't return my call to his office, but as a lawyer, one might expect him to know that setting religious conditions for holding a public office would violate the Iowa and U.S. constitutions. He was effectively saying that if elected, he would see no place for a judge of Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or other faith, or of no faith. Yet no one in the audience or on the podium seemed to have a problem with that, and his answer drew applause.


The debate venue had something to do with that. The event was sponsored by the Family Leader, the conservative Christian organization that engineered the ouster by voters in 2010 of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The moderator, blogger Erick Erickson, asked questions designed to compel the four Republican candidates to prove their Christian credentials. And though U.S. senator is a secular office, they mostly obliged.

Candidate Sam Clovis responded to Erickson's question about what criteria he would use to block President Obama's judicial nominees by saying he would vote for a judge who could link "natural law" to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Mark Jacobs said he would look for someone who would "not legislate from the bench." Joni Ernst echoed that view, adding the judge would need to understand that America's laws "all came from God."..

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...923393002/

Oh Boy.

Granted I always look for the bad news first, but that's what's important ain't it?

I see nothing wrong with that, as it is totally in line with the thinking of our Founding Fathers:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams  

They expressly forbade a religious requirement for anybody.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And though there were Christians among them(THE FOUNDING FATHERS), many were Deists.

Quote:Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from Latin "deus" meaning "god") is a philosophical belief that posits that God exists as an uncaused First Cause ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but does not interfere directly with the created world. Equivalently, deism can also be defined as the view which posits God's existence as the cause of all things, and admits its perfection (and usually the existence of natural law and Providence) but rejects divine revelation or direct intervention of God in the universe by miracles. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator or absolute principle of the universe.[3][4][5]

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

And they pretty much plagiarized the constitution from the Iroquois Confederacy, who had zero Christians among them.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc...res331.pdf

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...31/summary

Your guy threw out the establishment clause to pander to evangelicals in order to win votes.

You like him because Trump picked him and you are a Christian.

I think he should retake the bar exam.

Chuckle
Reply Share
#35
(11-08-2018, 12:54 PM)Luvapottamus Wrote:
(11-08-2018, 05:03 AM)Aquarius Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 08:40 PM)Luvapottamus Wrote: I just did a quick search and found:

Matthew Whitaker's troubling opinion: Judges need a biblical view

Editor's note: This column was originally published on May 4, 2014.

"I'd like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice?"

— Matt Whitaker, during Iowa Family Leader debate

If elected to the U.S. Senate, former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker says he would only support federal judges who have a Biblical view, and specifically a New Testament view, of justice. "If they have a secular world view, then I'm going to be very concerned about how they judge," Whitaker said at an April 25, 2014, Family Leader debate.

Whitaker didn't return my call to his office, but as a lawyer, one might expect him to know that setting religious conditions for holding a public office would violate the Iowa and U.S. constitutions. He was effectively saying that if elected, he would see no place for a judge of Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic or other faith, or of no faith. Yet no one in the audience or on the podium seemed to have a problem with that, and his answer drew applause.


The debate venue had something to do with that. The event was sponsored by the Family Leader, the conservative Christian organization that engineered the ouster by voters in 2010 of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The moderator, blogger Erick Erickson, asked questions designed to compel the four Republican candidates to prove their Christian credentials. And though U.S. senator is a secular office, they mostly obliged.

Candidate Sam Clovis responded to Erickson's question about what criteria he would use to block President Obama's judicial nominees by saying he would vote for a judge who could link "natural law" to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Mark Jacobs said he would look for someone who would "not legislate from the bench." Joni Ernst echoed that view, adding the judge would need to understand that America's laws "all came from God."..

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...923393002/

Oh Boy.

Granted I always look for the bad news first, but that's what's important ain't it?

I see nothing wrong with that, as it is totally in line with the thinking of our Founding Fathers:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams  

They expressly forbade a religious requirement for anybody.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And though there were Christians among them(THE FOUNDING FATHERS), many were Deists.

Quote:Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from Latin "deus" meaning "god") is a philosophical belief that posits that God exists as an uncaused First Cause ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but does not interfere directly with the created world. Equivalently, deism can also be defined as the view which posits God's existence as the cause of all things, and admits its perfection (and usually the existence of natural law and Providence) but rejects divine revelation or direct intervention of God in the universe by miracles. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator or absolute principle of the universe.[3][4][5]

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

And they pretty much plagiarized the constitution from the Iroquois Confederacy, who had zero Christians among them.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc...res331.pdf

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...31/summary

Your guy threw out the establishment clause to pander to evangelicals in order to win votes.

You like him because Trump picked him and you are a Christian.

I think he should retake the bar exam.

Chuckle

I like him, and I'm not a Christian.

Do you not like him because he's a Christian?
---------

Autumn is the last time of the year Nature gets to display her brilliant artwork, before the icy hands of Winter steal it away.
Aquarius, SassyFringette  likes this!
Reply Share
#36
(11-08-2018, 01:39 PM)Deplorably Nameless Wrote: I like him, and I'm not a Christian.

Do you not like him because he's a Christian?

I don't like him or dislike him, and I'm sort of a Christian.

Chuckle

I am always wary of every political appointee, so when I hear about a new one, I look them up for problems.

First time I ever heard of this guy was yesterday, and my first search yielded an unconstitutional position.

If you don't support the first amendment you aren't fit to take the oath that you intend to DEFEND AND PRESERVE it.

Unless you repudiate your opposition to it.

Convincingly.

He's going to have a problem doing that.

Looks like a typical political hack to me, and we need better than that.
SlowLoris  likes this!
Reply Share
#37
https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1...6320038912
Reply Share
#38
Acting AG Matthew Whitaker Will Not Recuse Himself From Russia Probe and Won’t Approve Democrat Subpoenas of President Trump

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com
1 min read

Snip

Whitaker also took over the Mueller probe, bumping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from the position.
Democrat lawmakers panicked after Rosenstein lost control over the Mueller witch hunt and called for Whitaker to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
Nancy Pelosi called for Whitaker to recuse himself and for Congress to take immediate action to protect the rule of law.

Snip
Democrat Senator Gillibrand called for Whitaker to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

Democrat Senator Kamala Harris also called for Whitaker to recuse himself.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11...-subpoena/
Leave the gun, take the Cannoli.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHzh0PvMWTI
Aquarius, SassyFringette  likes this!
Reply Share
#39
... and I call for Harris and Gillibrand to go piss up a rope!
Heir, SassyFringette, WNC  likes this!
Reply Share
#40
(11-08-2018, 05:49 PM)Guest Wrote: ... and I call for Harris and Gillibrand to go piss up a rope!

Seconded! I LIKE this guy!
Heir, SassyFringette  likes this!
Reply Share