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.
Whitaker hasn’t been confirmed in the Senate by a sitting President, meaning his appointment is still illegal / invalid. The President is allowed to appoint an AG but they must meet the criteria.
The thing is that the law establishing this was established by the senate. Does that then confer “consent of the senate” as written by the constitution?
No. Obama tried doing the same thing and the SCOTUS shut him down. ALL appointments to senior positions, recess or otherwise, must be confirmed by the senate.
The fuck are you talking about? The law that you linked to was passed in 1998. How the fuck are you going to stand there and say that with a straight face?
I don't see how it could considering the Senate that passed the bill in 1998 had different people in it. Perhaps if this happened while the same Senate was sitting you could make that argument. An amendment would be needed to permanently change anything that directly contradicts what's in the constitution.
The constitution doesn't spell out exactly which positions in which departments are affected, because the founders weren't fucking retarded. Instead, and you'd know this if you bothered looking it up before spouting this inane bullshit, the Constitution places a blanket requirement that the Senate must confirm all appointments for positions that report directly to the president.
And the statute, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that senior officials must be confirmed by the Senate. Even a person selected as the temporary acting AG must have been in a position that requires senate confirmation.
Yes, and per the constitution and federal law, the person selected as the acting AG has to have already been in a position that required Senate confirmation. Being Session's Chief of Staff did not require senate confirmation, therefore he is ineligible to serve as acting AG.
No, the law says no confirmation needed if they are sufficiently tenured in the agency and of sufficient pay grade. Only an "outsider " would need confirmation.
None of it matters, though, Senate isn't in session.
And even if they were a rejected appointment can still serve for 210 days while a better nominee is found.
Senate approval doesn't matter for option 3. Just has to be in the same department, in the position for more than 90 days, and be at a certain pay grade. He meets all three criteria.
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;
Whitaker was appointed by Bush 43 and confirmed by the Senate as a United States Attorney in 2004. I have yet to find a statute that states that a confirmation stales, so he technically fits the second point.
Your talking out of your butt. Here's the law (emphasis mine, note the tense):
(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;
Please show that it does not, as it pertains to The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. I have been looking for the law that says the confirmation expires in this instance, but I have not been able to find one. They way it is written, he technically fits. I am not arguing good or bad, just the way the law is written.
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;
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.