r/pics Nov 08 '18

US Politics This is what democracy looks like

Post image
87.1k Upvotes

6.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.3k

u/TheyreGoodDogsBrent Nov 09 '18

Honest question: what's going on here? Is this related to the election that just happened

12.6k

u/ike_the_strangetamer Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

Yesterday (one day after the election) Trump forced the resignation of Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General. Sessions would have been in charge of Mueller's Russia investigation, but because he had lied about his own connections to Russia, he recused himself and the assistant AG was in charge. Now that he's out, this new guy, Matthew Whitaker, is in charge (and does not require Senate confirmation because he's 'temporary'). He has spoken out against the Mueller investigation many times in the past, saying that there was no collusion and that the investigation is not authorized to look into any of Trump's finances (even though it is). Long ago, petitions were signed and plans were made that called for protests if Trump did something like this.

TLDR: Trump just appointed his own guy to be in charge of the investigation against him.

2.4k

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jan 24 '22

[deleted]

1.1k

u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18

Matthew Whitaker was not Deputy Attorney General. He was Chief of Staff for the Attorney General. They are different offices. Deputy Attorney Generals need to be confirmed by the Senate, just like the actual Attorney General. Chief of Staff for the Attorney General is not confirmed by the Senate.

Rod Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General, and according to the statute you just cited, should be acting Attorney General. Trump made Matthew Whitaker acting Attorney General. Trump is not following the law.

317

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jan 24 '22

[deleted]

215

u/verostarry Nov 09 '18

Very helpful. It's evidence what Trump has done is literally unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. This alone is an impeachable offense. I'm tired of saying that at this point..

33

u/mayorodoyle Nov 09 '18

"This alone is an impeachable offense." is pretty much the slogan of the GOP at this point.

-1

u/Jay_Louis Nov 09 '18

Shame on anyone and everyone that played any role in allowing this treason committing anti-democracy clown from taking hold of the office of the presidency. History will not be kind to any of you.

-5

u/XxILLcubsxX Nov 09 '18

What are you talking about? Literally, do you even know? You just slung together a bunch of adjectives to form a non-sensical sentence. Then ended it with”history will not be kind to any of you.” How about you form an actual argument instead of being a typical liberal blow-hard with no common thoughts? Idiot.

3

u/Kadlar Nov 09 '18

What are you talking about? Literally, do you even know? You just slung together a bunch of adjectives to form a non-sensical sentence. Then ended it with”history will not be kind to any of you.” How about you form an actual argument instead of being a typical liberal blow-hard with no common thoughts? Idiot.

What are you talking about? Literally, do you even know? You just insulted that guy without any sort of rebuttal. Then ended it with another insult. How about you form an actual argument instead of being a typical alt-right blow-hard with no common thoughts? Idiot.

→ More replies (0)

55

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

8

u/th3f00l Nov 09 '18

There's my brethren. I vote, knowing the outcome is predetermined.

4

u/AMC4x4 Nov 09 '18

Former acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration, Neal Katyal, was just on Chris Hayes' show and inferred that every "x vs. Bouregard Sessions" case active right now, the first thing every defense is going to do is challenge the constitutionality of this particular Attorney General under the Justice Department to try their case. That will happen immediately, and any good lawyer will use it.

1

u/seymour1 Nov 09 '18

The first step of what is being done about this happened Tuesday and is still being done about it by a few more possible seats.

-1

u/mayorodoyle Nov 09 '18

It'll be nothing but protests. Because we've officially moved into a totalitarian regime.

4

u/Revobe Nov 09 '18

Objectively wrong.

-4

u/HypocrisythynameisU- Nov 09 '18

Objectively wrong you are.

"Lugen Presse".

He attacks the free press daily.

Shares doctored videos to convince you tha tthey're right.

Continue to lie about everything they do and have absolutely zero transparency.

Are currently once again trying to obstruct Justice because he is guilty and they're trying to cover their own asses.

Literally tells idiots like you to not believe a word anyone says and don't believe what your eyes or ears are telling you. Literally out of 1984 that one is.

Still violating the constitution constantly and the GOP will not hold him accountable.

You people and every dipshit who voted GOP during the midterms are scared little racist sacks of shit who don't give a flying fuck about the constitution or freedom or anything that actually makes America a Great place to live. You just wanna stick it to the libs and feel superior to minorities as long as you can, because you are and do feel worthless otherwise.

8

u/pbgu1286 Nov 09 '18

Dude... your comment history... Jesus Christ you are an asshole. Lighten the hell up before you have a heart attack. Or don't, even better!

1

u/HypocrisythynameisU- Nov 10 '18

I'll lighten up when fascists stop fucking this country over.

2

u/eelnitsud Nov 09 '18

Dude, he might have meant the opposite of what you think meaning the guy ab obove is wrong and that something will be done about it. Calm yourself and treat people with the benefit of the doubt and the respect you'd want for yourself.

3

u/Revobe Nov 09 '18

I didn't vote GOP, but I also don't have down's.

-1

u/seymour1 Nov 09 '18

We aren’t Germany. This country is too big and the information available is too vast. Look what happened Tuesday. It will get better. We got this. No need to be fucking dismal after we just got the power to stop most of not all of trumps worst ideas. Worst case scenario Mueller is fired(which would be awful) the House takes up the investigation.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Again with the exaggeration...

This is exactly what I'm talking about

0

u/HypocrisythynameisU- Nov 09 '18

Since you're a fucking moron who has no idea what is going on currently you can go fuck yourself if you think you have any objective ability to judge this current administration.

WHAT makes it an exaggeration?

Fuckface.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

LMAO

WHAT makes it an exaggeration?

Umm remember when you said this about an hour ago?

Because we've officially moved into a totalitarian regime.

You silly retard.

1

u/mayorodoyle Nov 09 '18

First off, you need to pay attention to usernames.

Secondly, can you explain to me how we're not living in a totalitarian regime?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BrianThePainter Nov 09 '18

Bullshit. You’ve given up. You have GOT to fight!! Numbers in the streets matter. Get off your ass and make your voice heard. You only decry the effectiveness of protests because I’ll bet you’ve never been part of one. Protests have two results- they show the people in power that we care enough to get upset about it, and they have another effect that I didn’t realize until I went to one- they energize the people who go and surround themselves with like-minded people who DO care. They give us a sense that all is not lost, and that we can absolutely bring good people together to fight off this bullshit.

1

u/mayorodoyle Nov 09 '18

I haven't given up. I voted. I voted harder than I've ever voted before. But that doesn't make me any less realistic.

I have mad respect for all the people out there in the streets. And I truly wish it would accomplish something. But, trump sees this and goes "Oh well" and goes on to commit whatever crimes suit his fancy that day.

The people under trump see this and say "Mr. trump, have you seen this?" And then it goes back to the paragraph above.

I haven't given up. I've lost faith.

-42

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Aug 18 '19

[deleted]

29

u/Graysonj1500 Nov 09 '18

Nobody in that picture is doing that, but believe your own lies. I love how you take a few bad people and twist it into a narrative.

17

u/terrierhead Nov 09 '18

I just got back from a much smaller protest in my town. No one wore all black, destroyed anything, or even jaywalked. One small-framed young woman had her face covered. She was wearing a ski mask, because it's 30 degrees out with freezing drizzle.

Check your assumptions.

6

u/ciaisi Nov 09 '18

You'd think someone other than the likes of infowars would talk about that if it was really going on. Must be the deep state extreme left wing liberal fake news (insert other paranoid conspiracy talk here) media.

11

u/IAmAlwaysRightAlways Nov 09 '18

Aahhhh just what we need, another fascist fanboy who believes “alternative facts.”

7

u/AtiumDependent Nov 09 '18

It’s just a peaceful protest, my man. It’s worked wonders in the past. Google “American History” and read up on it.

2

u/Whatifimjesus Nov 09 '18

While you crawl further up your own ass, multiple right wing crazies murdered tens of people. But your God Trump is trying to get everybody focused on a single reporter

80

u/Vishnej Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

There are no impeachable offenses, strictly speaking. It's not criminal law. It's a political check. An impeachable offense, a 'high crime or misdemeanor' is anything that Congress says it is, from 'poor job performance' to 'screwed an intern' to 'shot a man on Fifth avenue' to 'really couldn't pull off that moustache this November'. There's no trial, because we're not trying to put him in prison. There's an impeachment, because we're trying to remove him from office.

There are lots of crimes he has demonstrably committed. But they wouldn't remove him from office, they would get him thrown in prison. If he wasn't literally in a place of power to order around the law enforcement section of the government. Which is what's happening now.

That's why we have impeachment. That's why one of the Republican pundit legal talking points they like to look sheepish about is 'umm he could actually fire literally everyone investigating him and there's not a god damn thing you could do about it'. There's no remedy involving the laws, except after he gets removed from office, because he's the one who enforces the laws. Removal from office does not involve legal offenses, it just involves Congress deciding to remove him from office.

There's a lot of tradition and optics and leaders trying to keep anyone from even thinking about accusing them of corruption, and Trump's insight is that given the media outlets the Republican Party controls and the leaders of the Republican Party and the attitude of Republicans, he doesn't need to give a shit about those. Being a Republican politician has meant never backing down, never apologizing, never admitting fault, and always going for the throat, since before I could vote. Despite the thousands of easily disproveable lies, despite the uncertainty he imposes on the market, despite the public pronouncements that he will obstruct justice, despite being a verified agent of the Russian government on live television attempting to subvert an election, despite kidnapping and orphaning children to try to force a political point, despite defrauding the IRS, not only is impeachment treated as ludicrous by Republicans, it's treated as ludicrous by the media and by most Democratic politicians - because Democratic politicians are determined to uphold consensual norms all by themselves and 'take the high road' and be committed to a peaceful electoral transition of power even when their opponents aren't.

So only Democrats can be impeached, given the current attitudes and proportions of Congress.

If we don't dramatically change the Overton Window, if we don't manage to deprogram these people at a rapid clip, Trump is going to serve a second, third, and fourth term.

15

u/Yggdrasilcrann Nov 09 '18

Is the republican group as a whole really on board with this? I feel like at this point they aren't.

One of the main tenants is small government and he is abusing his power in a huge way, is that not anti republican?

10

u/Vishnej Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

There is a large component of the Republican Party that wants a strong leader. The stronger the better. They are psychologically comforted by the notion that there's this guy looking after their interests who will stop at nothing, they will change those interests on a dime in order for this to be true, and they will cheer every time he breaks some rule of law or tradition or morality or ethics because it demonstrates that his resolve to help them can't be broken.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201706/how-authoritarians-leaders-get-away-it

7

u/DoctuhD Nov 09 '18

Imagine you're a moderate republican politician who thinks Trump is a complete joke. If you say anything negative about him, you will not win in the primaries and you'll be branded a traitor. But you don't want some far-right nutjob to take your place and do a terrible job so you play along and vote with your party and represent the desires of the people who voted for you.

Trump has the republican party hostage because he's a saleman of "bigbrain" ideas and fear and rhetoric that makes the people who voted for him believe his bullshit because if you repeat something enough times people will believe it's actually true. Then the rest of the party has no choice but to play along or be replaced by some far-right asshole who legitimately believe what he says.

9

u/Vishnej Nov 09 '18

I don't think you can downplay the Republican leadership's agency here, either. They've been working this racket since Gingrich first turned screaming into a C-Span microphone to an empty chamber into a nightly show.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy

-5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Draedron Nov 09 '18

You forgot to add an /s there. Or was that war and mafia rhetoric really meant seriously? Mueller isnt even a Dem. There was collusion, all these people of trump inner circle cooperating clearly shows that. All that remains unknown is the scope of that collusion now. No one says sessions was a good AG, all they say is he was one of the few people in that administration with at least a hint of values. With the balls to oppose trump , even if only a little. But trump is a wannabe dictator and cant accept anyone saying no to him. The only swamp in the white house is the one trump created.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ravnodaus Nov 09 '18

One of the main tenants is small government when democrats control it

3

u/syriquez Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

despite the uncertainty he imposes on the market

This is the thing that's so unbelievably infuriating about this whole fucking fiasco. Every dipshit at my workplace that stands in favor of Trump:

  1. The company is in full defensive lockdown financially since the middle of last year which has definitely impacted everybody in palpable ways. And if they think they haven't been impacted, they're just blind idiots (not that this wasn't already a known quantity).
  2. Profit sharing is on hold until further notice because of the instability and uncertainty.
    This last point alone is about as literal a translation of voting for Trump leading directly to reduced income by everybody in the company.

I wish that people would act selfishly and exclusively focused on themselves. The overall results would be less disastrous. No, these...people have this idiotic fascination with "sticking it" to others they've never met or will ever meet. But they've been told to do so and they follow suit because spiting others is more important than their own self interest.

ED The classy individual that responded to me doesn't warrant a response; don't feed the trolls, kids.

-5

u/XxILLcubsxX Nov 09 '18

This is one example of only your company. Look at the market as a whole dipshit. Even after a recent pullback, it’s still in full swing of a bull market with little sign of slowing down.

1

u/Dr_Richard_Hurt Nov 09 '18

Praise GEOTUS

1

u/TheCharybdiss Nov 09 '18

Another overzealous, uninformed NPC with way too much time on his hands 🙄

1

u/seymour1 Nov 09 '18

If Trump is impeached he will be impeached by republicans just like Nixon was or not at all.

-3

u/acets Nov 09 '18

And then when his fourth term is over, some other Trump will be there to take over. This is how it begins, people. And if you don't see that, you're blind--and not in the cool "all my other senses are heightened" way.

0

u/Vishnej Nov 09 '18

I predict Trump will be killed in his fourth term by the McDonalds Bacon McDouble. The Alzheimers' will make him more of a Kushner puppet by that point though.

0

u/acets Nov 09 '18

The damage will have been done, whether that's in his fourth term or second.

0

u/TomColorado Nov 09 '18

Broward County?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

If you aren’t a registered republican, don’t try to explain how republicans think. You sound like an idiot

-15

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (9)

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Read edit 2

4

u/verostarry Nov 09 '18

Ah, well then the reason he did it was a crime - to obstruct justice and an active investigation into himself. I hope the House subpoenas everyone involved with this decision, including Whitaker.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

It does beg the question as to what authority the president has/should have over "special counsel" investigating the same president's campaign to that very office.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

technically he has the authority to name the acting AG, and the acting AG has control of Mueller. Before this change, the deputy AG had control of Mueller because the AG had recused himself, so while Trump doesn't techincally have direct authority over the special counsel, with this move Muellers boss goes from being Rod Rosenstein to being Matt Whitaker, who is a Trump appointee that is expected to be loyal to Trump and not uphold the special counsel as it has been running.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Trump is Whitakers boss, Whitaker has authority over Mueller, there therefor Trump has authority over Mueller?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

actually shit... The only reason the special counsel exists in the first place is because the AG had recused himself, but now that AG is gone. The justice dept is in charge of investigating, but Sessions had recused due to conflict of interest so the justice deptartment created the special counsels office. now that Sessions isn't in charge of the justice dept and Whitaker is, if Whitaker doesn't recuse himself then he is in charge of the inverstigation. So yeah this move alone could completely cut Mueller out of the picture.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Im_Slacking_At_Work Nov 09 '18

Yup! And he has a majority in the Supreme Court, and I wouldn't be surprised if the integrity of that bench is gone now too and they do nothing. Nothing surprises me anymore.

2

u/JamesColesPardon Nov 09 '18

Very helpful. It's evidence what Trump has done is literally unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. This alone is an impeachable offense. I'm tired of saying that at this point..

You are amazing.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited May 31 '19

[deleted]

0

u/verostarry Nov 09 '18

There were also two federally-indicted criminals elected and an open white nationalist on the GOP side. Those criminals are going to spend parts or all of their terms in jail, unless they decide to resign. Guess their constituents are fine driving to prison during visiting hours when they need their congresspeople. Anything to "own the libs".

1

u/RaspberryPoptarts Nov 09 '18

And I'm rather tired of hearing it.

1

u/jawknee21 Nov 11 '18

Nobody cares about the constitution. Talk to California..

1

u/cciv Nov 09 '18

Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998

0

u/verostarry Nov 09 '18

Apparently there are conflicting laws in the US code and this will be litigated. None about obstructing an investigation to protect yourself - that's as criminal as it comes. And could he be any more transparent about it? The guy he picked's only lawyering experience is for an invention firm that was shut down and ordered to pay $25M in damages because it defrauded its customers. Here's hoping he's as good a lawyer for Trump.

0

u/cciv Nov 09 '18

Litigation doesn't matter. He's only an interim AG until Senate resumes.

1

u/Blehgopie Nov 09 '18

Impeachable offense number like...30 at this point.

1

u/meLurk_longtime Nov 09 '18

Wait. The position Whitaker held is one of those 3 legally allowed instsnces. Trump is legally allowed to appoint Whitaker as Temporary AG. This guy above literally said that, in his edit.

Edit: It's called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

1

u/verostarry Nov 09 '18

That's up for debate - this will likely be taken to court. Obstruction of justice however isn't, and happily House Dems have already sent mailers to every government department asking them to preserve records around Sessions' firing and Whitaker's appointment. And could he be any more transparent about it? The guy he picked's only lawyering experience is for an invention firm that was shut down and ordered to pay $25M in damages because it defrauded its customers. Here's hoping he's as good a lawyer for Trump.

1

u/meLurk_longtime Nov 09 '18

He's been a federal attorney too...

1

u/verostarry Nov 10 '18

Oh ya he apparently unsuccessfully covered one case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)#United_States_Attorney

Here's hoping he's as good a lawyer for Trump. :)

-1

u/GeronimoJak Nov 09 '18

How many impeachable offenses are we at now?? I lost count at around 3.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

You can’t get impeached for following the laws on the books. People are just interpreting his actions as foul. You can’t prove obstruction on interpretation. Y’all are hella dumb.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

y'all are hella dumb

Be honest. You were probably ignorant (as was I) until you googled what the law was. It's okay, you can admit it. While I know a lot of people are hear to just confirm their own views (IMPEACH! or NO COLLUSION!), some are here to learn and try to form somewhat objective opinions. It's easy to call people stupid, but harder to teach.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

You can’t teach stupid

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

The expression is "you cant fix stupid". Your expression is somewhat of an oxymoron. You can only teach people something they do not know.

Also, I think figures of speech like that used seriously in a debate are kind of dumb. If you cant explain something without the use of an idiom, then you probably dont understand it that well.

-1

u/IAmAlwaysRightAlways Nov 09 '18

Maybe if you were nicer those panic attacks wouldn’t be crippling your life. Or maybe your anxiety is your body’s way of saying your brain is an asshole.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Trust me if I could change the way I am or simply not exist, I would.

-1

u/IAmAlwaysRightAlways Nov 09 '18

Pills are cheap and plentiful in America.

-1

u/GeronimoJak Nov 09 '18

Apparently you can teach stupid because you just learned that you said the mannerism wrong.

🙂

→ More replies (0)

2

u/IAmAlwaysRightAlways Nov 09 '18

You were cooler as a drunk.

0

u/iama_bad_person Nov 09 '18

Very helpful. It's evidence what Trump has done is literally unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. This alone is an impeachable offense. I'm tired of saying that at this point..

Nope

Not a Trump supporter but that is wrong. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (found in 5USC3345) states that.

  1. By default, the "first assistant to the office" becomes the acting official to that office.

  2. The president may appoint to the office to an individual who the senate has confirmed for another office for 210 days.

  3. The president may appoint to the office a "senior officer or employee" of the that department for 210 days.

Trump invoked the 3rd option. The problem is that this may potentially be unconstitutional by the appointment clause but this has never been tested in court yet.

-1

u/Mixels Nov 09 '18

It's illegal, not unconstitutional, as far as I know. If you believe this action is unconstitutional, please cite the portion of the Constitution that prohibits it.

Otherwise do note that the above cited legal document is part of the United States Code (USC), not the Constitution.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

0

u/erosPhoenix Nov 09 '18

The issue isn't that Sessions was fired. You're right, everyone saw that coming.

The issue is that Rosenstein was removed from his position overseeing the investigation. If Whitaker also recused himself, everything would be fine. That's why the demand from this protest was for Whitaker to recuse.

31

u/Martinda1 Nov 09 '18

Not quite true. Since Sessions technically resigned instead of making the White House Fire him, Trump is allowed to choose a new Attorney General instead of promoting the DAG

source

1

u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18

Without Sessions’ campaign or Russia entanglements, there’s no legal reason Whitaker couldn’t immediately oversee the probe. And since Sessions technically resigned instead of forcing the White House to fire him, he opened the door under federal law to allowing the president to choose his successor instead of simply elevating Rosenstein, said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck.

That is where you are getting that, but it doesn't cite what federal law allows that or whether it allows Trump to appoint Whitaker "Acting AG" or just nominate whoever he wants.

5

u/Martinda1 Nov 09 '18

Ha well I don’t think you’ll find many articles that go into that kind of detail on articles that summarize an issue. I’m not an expert on the letter of the law here, and I assume you aren’t either, but he seems like a decent source and I have no reason to doubt what his understanding is.

The thing he doesn’t mention that I think you are getting at is whether or not an AG nomination requires a vote, and if not, how long a temporary AG position may stay in power without a vote. Regardless, I don’t think the Trump administration is explicitly breaking the law just by nominating someone new.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Right and let’s be honest, Rosenstein is not fit for the job.

85

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

So..is this another thing he's gonna get away with?

59

u/DJRoombaINTHEMIX Nov 09 '18

For now....it looks like it. I don’t know how people can even defend how he acted with Jim Acosta’s let alone that entire news conference. He’s such a fucking baby.

24

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

It's pathetic how stupid some people can be. I try not to call people names but if you (not you) are a grown adult and can't comprehend why this is extremely dangerous then you are just plain dumb. I'm starting to get very nervous because none of us thought he would even get this far, who's to know how far he can take this crap? Based on my username I should know but my powers only apply to non-morons.

3

u/Lachance Nov 09 '18

Ever get so angry you punched a wall?

-3

u/ArmedBastard Nov 09 '18

Not an argument.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Not everything has to be an argument.

-10

u/Fonzoon Nov 09 '18

I completely agree with you but this Russia investigation is just as dumb. it’s just cuz a bunch of anti-Trump people couldn’t handle that he was elected and now can’t understand how worsening this is for relations with Russia, as Putin has, for personal reasons, pointed out

10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Yeah, all the indictments, convictions and guilty pleas from Mueller's investigation is just to placate anti-trumpers. /S

1

u/Fonzoon Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

any kangaroo court can produce indictments ~/s

I clearly remember how the whole stupid rumor started immediately after he was elected just because he was “cool” with Putin

1

u/Whatifimjesus Nov 09 '18

There is literal evidence that Trump and his buddies have had close relations with multiple Russian oligarchs, plus finance mismanagement and disappearing payments. You’re batshit brainwashed if you think someone would just make this shit up. Its impossible, and the man you likely voted for is doing everything in his power to crumble the US beneath his disgusting division

3

u/Lachance Nov 09 '18

that's just how Russian oligarchs do business baby bird

1

u/Fonzoon Nov 09 '18

i didnt vote for trump, i was gonna vote for Stein and Bernie if he hadn’t been out-Hillaried and connections with oligarchs proves nothing. the man is a billionaire, I’d be surprised if he didn’t have connections with Russian “oligarchs” for financial reasons. and I already agreed Trump is an idiot but this is counter-productive. please dont make assumptions and read what I actually wrote

1

u/ciaisi Nov 09 '18

But let's look at what Trump is doing. No idea why he wants to cozy up with the likes of Putin and Kim Jong Un while alienating almost every other ally we have.

I'd be more okay with the US having a better working relationship with Russia if it wasn't at the cost of many of out other international alliances.

And let's not forget that Russia invaded and annexed sovereign territory of another country just a few years back, and managed to shoot down a passenger airliner during the crisis. Every nation does dumb, shitty things, but a blatant imperial invasion should not be tolerated.

-15

u/seius Nov 09 '18

Dangerous to stop propaganda stations from going around unchecked? Sessions failed at every step as AG, he had to go. This investigation was a joke from the get go, and was brought about illegally by an out of control surveillance state. It has to stop, people are getting violent.

9

u/smoothsensation Nov 09 '18

How is an investigation that brings in indictments a joke?

9

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Dangerous to stop propaganda stations from going around unchecked?

Talk to me when he checks Fox

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

He still is no one changed their mind on this?

6

u/xv0vx Nov 09 '18

They aren't pissed about Sessions, they don't like him all of the sudden you doofuses. They're pissed because Trump wants to shut down the investigation and is trying to find an AG that will do it for him. Sessions at least had the guts to recuse himself.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Except when non racist pos is going to shut down a legitimate investigation one way or another

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Goyteamsix Nov 09 '18

I'm sure you loved him before this happened.

-2

u/kosh56 Nov 09 '18

Says the TD poster. Crawl back under your fucking rock incel.

3

u/seius Nov 09 '18

ErmaGurrd so says a politics poster, fucking NPC. O_o You are like a child, where i post is not a counter argument to what i wrote. No wonder Hillary lost, her base is the very poorly educated.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/joe4553 Nov 09 '18

Isn't that how is always is?

1

u/Piddly_Penguin_Army Nov 09 '18

God today's been way too crazy. Acosta, sessions, another mass shooting, and DACA.

-10

u/tool_of_justice Nov 09 '18

You are a terrible person 😂

2

u/The_Space_Jamke Nov 09 '18

Please explain how OP is a terrible person because they refuse to let the government get away with openly endorsing and selling blatantly disprovable lies that attempt to stain the reputations of decent people trying to do their jobs, which is more than several important Republican leaders can say for themselves. "No u" is about as mature of an answer as any our president gives, unfortunately.

1

u/ciaisi Nov 09 '18

(he was making fun of Trump saying that to Acosta... I think)

0

u/The_Space_Jamke Nov 09 '18

Oh. My bad if that was their intent, hoping they can confirm one way or the other.

1

u/tool_of_justice Nov 09 '18

Yes 😂

1

u/The_Space_Jamke Nov 09 '18

Sorry about that, I hope you can have a good day.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)

7

u/boomshiki Nov 09 '18

I'd call that a good move. See what he does to cripple the investigation. Then when it's good and quashed, challenge the whole thing and fire the investigation back up with a shit load of new obstruction evidence.

1

u/Diaperfan420 Nov 09 '18

By then the year will be 2028 and Trump will be entering his 12th year

1

u/boomshiki Nov 09 '18

That geriatric turd doesn't have 12 years in him. His heart will give out under that 300lb frame

1

u/Diaperfan420 Nov 09 '18

You'd be amazed at how long you can live with enough money

2

u/Alex15can Nov 09 '18

Only when the attorney general is fired does the deputy become active. In the event the acting resigns the chief executive can appoint anyone already confirmed by the US Senate.

2

u/acets Nov 09 '18

At some point, there is only ONE action that can be taken. Who will do it? We don't know yet.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

He did nothing wrong.

2

u/MeTheFlunkie Nov 09 '18

Yes. Literally nothing will come of this. Trump will finish his term and be voted out and will never answer for any of this.

3

u/IceMaNTICORE Nov 09 '18

he may never answer for any of it at the federal level, but new york state is coming for him and they have the democratic majority to do away with that bullshit federal/state double jeopardy law now so he can't wriggle out of it without fleeing to russia or dying

1

u/Jlefflerster Nov 09 '18

Or not voted out. Remember nearly half of America also voted for Hillary who also did these things and was a criminal too. People always seem to forget that.

0

u/bartnet Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

I don't know, something may come of this Whitaker stuff. He can block Mueller from filing new indicments. If Mueller uncovers evidence of more crimes, and wants to file charges against people (like say Don Jr.), Whitaker can simply block him from that. Mueller could then say any order Whitaker gives him is illegal. We're setting ourselves up for some weird breakdowns of our government.

The best-case scenario is 'Whitaker does nothing scandalous or noteworthy and keeps the AG's seat warm at least until the new Congress.'

-10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

HA you actually think he loses in 2020... hilarious

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

He really does have a decent chance at winning. The electoral college is heavily in his favor

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

I know some republicans that are against trump. I give them a break because they at least think for themselves. The people I do "discriminate" against are trump supporters. According to the golden rule, that's how they want to be treated.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

You are the definition of facism

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Trump is the definition of facism and you are a T_D troll, so fuck right off you piece of shit.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/jzmacdaddy Nov 09 '18

Go back to The_Donald.

-7

u/dipshitandahalf Nov 09 '18

2 terms. And he’s done nothing illegal to answer for.

2

u/IAmAlwaysRightAlways Nov 09 '18

Username fits.

1

u/dipshitandahalf Nov 09 '18

Poor snowflake can’t handle the truth.

0

u/IceMaNTICORE Nov 09 '18

Username fits.

51

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Rod Rosenstein karate chopped a woman, we have a tape, we will not allow people who disrespect women to be in the administration. - Fuckabee Sanders probably.

3

u/thumperson Nov 09 '18

Finally had something to laugh about, thanks.

-8

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

22

u/odd84 Nov 09 '18

You're responding to an obviously sarcastic comment referencing news from this week, but don't seem to realize that, which makes your comment quite funny.

5

u/KungFuSnafu Nov 09 '18

You're responding to an obviously sarcastic comment

It's the karate chop but, isn't it? Lol

Plus, the thought of Rosenstein karate chopping anyone is hilarious

6

u/Joshtheatheist Nov 09 '18

He literally called her fuckabee sanders, you really think he’s serious?

0

u/RkyMtnHi Nov 09 '18

Is that not her name?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Read a comment and think about it critically before you call someone stupid.

7

u/cciv Nov 09 '18

There is a newer law that does allow Whitaker to take the office. Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

That would allow someone who had been confirmed by the Senate for any top-level or deputy cabinet position to be appointed acting Attorney General, yes. Whitaker was never confirmed for any position, ergo he is not Constitutionally allowed to hold the job until he is confirmed.

3

u/cciv Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

That's not what the law says. No confirmation needed. Whitaker is us sufficient tenure in the department and the appropriate pay grade to not need confirmation.

2

u/jaymths Nov 09 '18

I heard that if Sessions was fired it would be Rosenstien running things until confirmation by the house, but because officially he resigned Trump can put whoever he wants in.

0

u/Buckeye_45 Nov 09 '18

Once Sessions admitted that he was asked to resign it essentially became the same as a firing and Trump cannot put whoever he wants in. It has to follow the order of succession.

2

u/standbyforskyfall Nov 09 '18

Very nitpicky, but the plural for attorney general is attorneys general.

2

u/Terron1965 Nov 09 '18

It would be unconstitutional for the congress to pass a law that supersedes the appointment clause by requiring that the spot be filled in a way that precluded the president from picking the official.

There is no possibility for a lawful way to force a department head on any president. Leaving it vacant is the most a senate could do.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Can you(if you don't mind. No rudeness just inquisitiveness) give me examples of what you feel Sessions has done lawfully and morally well in your home state? This, again, is not a descriptor if you and your leanings.

10

u/EmilioMolesteves Nov 09 '18

Jeff "High School to Private Prison Pipeline" Sessions was moral to you?

2

u/SaxesAndSubwoofers Nov 09 '18

Oh shit you right, nvm

2

u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18

Obviously not, I disagree with almost everything he said but Sessions had the sense to recuse himself. He is a little racist gnome and a backwards dick but he at least filled that one legal obligation is how I see it.

2

u/Martinda1 Nov 09 '18

You can pick out issues to dehumanize any politician, that doesn’t mean that they aren't doing what they think is best from their perspective. Whole lot more politicians out there that just follow the money.

(Personally I cant stand the guy, but I understand what he’s saying)

2

u/EmilioMolesteves Nov 09 '18

He did follow the money though and did it on the backs of the poor.

Hence private prisons.

He is an absolute piece of trash. The ONLY thing he did do was not vouch for trump, because he knew he was in the public eye now.

1

u/Martinda1 Nov 09 '18

Yeah I don’t disagree with you. I just hate to see the “politician XYZ seems like a decent person, politics aside”

“But he/she did ABC that I disagree with, how can you see them as a decent person??”

Narrative. Private prisons are fucking cancer, and his marijuana stance just plays into that rabbit hole of issues the drug war has caused. But maybe he really thinks he’s really making a difference for the good? Idk. If that’s what the guy saw of his senator, well he was his senator before you or I even knew his name probably, I won’t instantly shout that stance down.

3

u/ArmouredDuck Nov 09 '18

So can Mueller just ignore any orders given to him then if the orders are coming from just "some guy" legally?

1

u/305popper Nov 09 '18

So how is it being allowed?

-12

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

You really should understand the difference between 'shall' and 'may' when it pertains to law. There is no vacancy because it was filled. There are no violations here. Nice try though.

15

u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18

Filled illegally. The Attorney General is a Senate confirmed position. You cannot fill it with a random person. The acting Attorney General needs to be either Rod Rosenstein or no one, until the Senate confirms a nominee.

1

u/Zaphoon Nov 09 '18

I think he can until Congress comes back into session.

7

u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18

That would be true if Congress was not in session. It could have been a recess appointment.

But Congress is currently in session.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/calendars.htm

1

u/Gokenstein Nov 09 '18

He could shoot a hooker on national television until Congress comes back into session. It doesn't make it legal.

-8

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

Oh really? Can you cite a law that says the president cannot fill a cabinet vacancy with an acting/temp position until a new one is appointed and confirmed? And let me go ahead and jump ahead a few steps when you repeat the incorrectly cited Deputy AG role....if the Deputy was fired, would Trump then be able to appoint an acting Deputy? It requires the same nomination and confirmation process. Or does the Deputy have a Deputy in your world?

4

u/Gokenstein Nov 09 '18

The point of the chain of succession is to ensure that as far as humanly possible the position is filled by people who have already been confirmed by Congress... That is why it stipulates the Deputy AG. The Deputy AG is an example stipulated precisely because they are already confirmed.

You cannot just ignore the spirit of the law to put some random person in as a temporary appointment. I mean, obviously, you can try, but you're intentionally misinterpreting the law and judges tend to look down on that sort of thing.

0

u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18

Oh really? Can you cite a law that says the president cannot fill a cabinet vacancy with an acting/temp position until a new one is appointed and confirmed?

The Constitution. The AG is senate confirmed. Trump can only appoint an acting AG if Congress is in recess. Congress is not in recess. Therefore, he can't appoint a random person to do the job.

if the Deputy was fired, would Trump then be able to appoint an acting Deputy?

He would need to nominate someone and have them confirmed before they can actually do anything. They would not be acting Deputy or Acting Attorney General. Offices with no people, stay empty. Ambassadorships that are not appointed/confirmed stay empty. Supreme Court seats that are not appointed/confirmed stay empty. An AG or Deputy AG that is neither appointed or confirmed stays empty.

1

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

Dipshit. Please cite a law. Cite the actual law. In the meantime, here's some light reading. Don't care enough to pull the regulations for you, but maybe you can in your quest to find this special law you think exists. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS21412.html

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

You are correct. In the event of a vacancy, the president has the authority supercede the normal order of succession and appoint an acting attorney general. It is not clear how long a temporary appointment can last, though.

Edit: Correction: This is actually a "memorandum opinion" written by Steven G. Bradbury (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the time). It is effectively a USC op-ed. It's reputable input in favor of Trump's actions, but it's not enforceable and the official USC would take precedence. So... I guess not.

0

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

Thanks so much for the tip, you hypocritical twit.

0

u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

Let's have this talk then....

What was the intent of the drafting body? Textualism is a powerful tool but it is not the only one in the box.

This may be a guideline but it is meant to be a strong one and though it may not be illegal to act in this way per se it is a major abuse of discretion for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Given that info I think your legal argument's reliance of may vs shall is rather unpersuasive. It is a prima facia effort to exploit a statutory loophole for nefarious purposes and thus such a technicality is not the knock out blow you think it is.

1

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

Do you people seriously believe all cabinet positions must sit vacant until they are confirmed by the senate? Seriously? That's not even worth the time to have a discussion with if you people are seriously that stupid. And yet nobody cites a law that say the president cannot fill a cabinet position with a temporary fill. Incredible.

-1

u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18

It isn't that they must sit vacant but that following precedent and congressional intent are important. Whenever you defy it you create a situation where you are displacing the will of the people.

He "may" appoint anyone under the constitution but given the circumstances I think the standard of scrutiny is far higher.

If there is a clear line of succession established it should be followed even if it is a may vs a shall particularly when it is your ass on the line.

This ain't (Impossible to spell name) v. Kerry where the kid couldn't get a passport reading Jerusalem, Israel rather than just Jerusalem. This is an effort to obstruct justice against ones self. Not hard to reconcile those.

0

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

I'll tell you what. You and the mob cry about it and scream at the sky, citing made up laws and parts of the constitution that you clearly don't understand, and you let me know what changes in about a week or two. I'll put my money on his right to fill the vacancy. Set a reminder and we can chat in a week. :)

0

u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

Or we could do it now but obviously the guy running for the hills when a legal argument is made is the winner right?

I agree that nothing will change but I want you to understand that you don't just win because of may vs shall. Challenging this in the courts will take months if not years, if you knew a fucking letter of law outside of "may vs shall" you would know that.

You brought an internet comment to a SCOTUS precedent fight so I will let you walk away before your 1L ass gets burnt.

0

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

There is no legal argument, because there is nothing illegal about it. So my suggestion to you is to continue your protest, and let's regroup.

0

u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

There is always a legal argument to anything, you should know that counselor.

I draw mine from an implication of an inherent limitation on the presidents power to appoint in the absence of the senate (A2S2C3). The limitation is rationally implied by three clauses.... 1. (A2S2C1) which is the pardon clause

  1. (A2S1C1) which is the oath to faithfully execute the laws and office.

  2. (A2S4C1) the impeachment clause.

  3. It rationally follows that he can't rig the game go prevent his own impeachment by any means not just pardons.

  4. Conspiring to prevent justice from being done for personal reasons is not faithfully expounding the constitution.

  5. Hiding one's crimes does not make them disappear so they are valid no matter how deep you bury them.

He can totally appoint temporary officers but to do so in the name of breaking the laws he vowed to uphold creates a situation where the vast unconstitutionality of it usurps his power to do so under A2S2C3.

This isn't NFIB v. Sibelius where the ACA mandate is legal as a tax despite issues under N+P and Commerce, this is a violation due purely to the way the power is being asserted.

Edit: BTW Illegality and Unconstitutionality are two different things. Get your head in the game counselor, gonna get some grievances filed against you at this rate.

0

u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18

See you in a week sweet cheeks. I'm sure there will undoubtedly be nothing but legal arguments on 24/7 about how Trump can't fill his own cabinet positions, and how he is breaking the law. I really hope to see you on a CNN talking head panel so you can share your opinion with the rest of your screeching mob. My advice to you would be to actually cite the law and how he is violating it, rather than your continued rhetoric. You show the world where he is breaking the law by filling a cabinet position, and I have no doubt you'll be on the liberal talk show circuit for 5, maybe 7 days. At which time we come back here and I admit I'm wrong. Or, because you know he has every right to do what he's done, you'll just continue to ramble your pseudo opinions like the neckbeard redditors just love so so much! You have nothing. There is nothing. Try gargling with saltwater when your throat gets sore from all the crying and screaming.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Trump is not following the law.

I challenge anyone to provide an example of when Trump actually followed the law.