Who is Matthew Whitaker? Does he have a right to serve as AG? Should he recuse?

[MikeMcMann]

Who is Matthew Whitaker? Does he have a right to serve as AG? Should he recuse himself? Is he incompetent?


Lets start here...

The POTUS claims to not know Matt Whitaker.

You can hear him make that clear, over and over, in this video at the 2 minute mark

Spoiler

Except at 1.06 of the same video we get a Fox interview excerpt done a month before where he tells them he knows Matt Whitaker and he is a "great guy".

So I am guess we can agree Trump knows Matt Whitaker and was just lying and move past that point... but you never know.

------------

it seems abundantly clear that Matt Whitaker has strong views about Mueller investigation and he spoke regularly in interview about how he would end it or choke it off by starving it of funds or other. He has called it a witch hunt and lynch mob amongst other things. He has also stated that has been proven that the Russians did not interfere in the election (0.49) which goes directly against what the FBI, The Director of National Intelligence, The Director of Homeland security, who have definitely said there was interference, who he would now oversee as AAG

It also seems clear he is a big Trump supporter and often used the same words Trump did when Matt was speaking in interviews in what many see as him 'applying for a job' with Trump, knowing Trump would watch those interviews.

So this thread will have many areas to examine. First off is Matt Whitaker qualified to be made the AAG.

He was not in the line of succession for the job and had not been confirmed by the Senate (4.40) and the expectation would have been that someone like Sally Yates or Rosenstein would have been the type of AAG pick. The President simply does not have this authority (6.10)

Spoiler

-----------

So overall in Matt, we have a guy who has proudly stated his bias against the investigation, who is an unapologetic Trump defender and who was not available via the constitutional process to even get the job.

I'll leave aside his prior alleged abuse of office to prosecute a political rival which failed miserably and his statements that he considers the courts a lesser level or branch of gov't and his stated belief that all judges should be Christian and they need to follow a "biblical view of Justice" or they cannot be trusted.

----------

So let's discuss Matt Whitaker.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Pic looks like a solid American. I'm good.

 

[Hognoxious]

What's wrong with a Christian view of justice? After all, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Perhaps TS prefers the promotion of Sharia Law style justice. No thank you.

 

[Seano]

What's wrong with a Christian view of justice? After all, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. .

I don't think a lot of people actually get that.

 

[hillelslovak87]

What's wrong with a Christian view of justice? After all, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Perhaps TS prefers the promotion of Sharia Law style justice. No thank you.

America is a secular Republic, end of story. The 1st amendment to the constitution bars any and all religious test or promotion in the civic sphere.

Whittaker, for that alone, should be disqualified. He is clearly a Trump lackey who has demonstrated a supreme lack in measure that should preclude him from the position.

His appointment was also unconstitutional.

As Clarence Thomas stated, in the refusal of an Obama appointment:

I recognize that the “burdens on governmental processes” that the Appointments Clause imposes may “often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 959 (1983). Granting the President unilateral power to fill vacancies in high offices might contribute to more efficient Government. But the Appointments Clause is not an empty formality. Although the Framers recognized the potential value of leaving the selection of officers to “one man of discernment” rather than to a fractious, multimember body, see The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), they also recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the Government, see id., at 513; 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1524, p. 376 (1833). The Framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked,” Chadha, supra, at 959, and they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of Government would never be consolidated in one body, see The Federalist No. 51, p. 348. They thus empowered the Senate to confirm principal officers on the view that “the necessity of its co-operation in the business of appointments will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of ” the President. The Federalist No. 76, at 514; 3 Story, supra, §1525, at 376–377. We cannot cast aside the separation of powers and the Appointments Clause’s important check on executive power for the sake of administrative convenience or efficiency. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 736 (1986).

 

[AndroidRage]

Pic looks like a solid American. I'm good.

You should go fap to it.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I don't think a lot of people actually get that.

Because it's not at all true. The men who founded the nation, christian or not, were men of the enlightenment, whose movement enshrined the values of Voltaire, Paine and Spinoza. Paine, specifically, was somewhat of an ethical friend and teacher to men like Jefferson and Madison (an ardent christian), two of the most influential framers, and coincidentally the two men who successfully fought to keep religion out of the civic space, both in their states, and on a federal level.

I don't think you guys get that.

 

[Darkballs]

I don't think a lot of people actually get that.

Educated people often differ to the separation of powers and a clear history of keeping religion out of government.

 

[Hognoxious]

America is a secular Republic, end of story. The 1st amendment to the constitution bars any and all religious test or promotion in the civic sphere.

Whittaker, for that alone, should be disqualified. He is clearly a Trump lackey who has demonstrated a supreme lack in measure that should preclude him from the position.

His appointment was also unconstitutional.

As Clarence Thomas stated, in the refusal of an Obama appointment:

I recognize that the “burdens on governmental processes” that the Appointments Clause imposes may “often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 959 (1983). Granting the President unilateral power to fill vacancies in high offices might contribute to more efficient Government. But the Appointments Clause is not an empty formality. Although the Framers recognized the potential value of leaving the selection of officers to “one man of discernment” rather than to a fractious, multimember body, see The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), they also recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the Government, see id., at 513; 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1524, p. 376 (1833). The Framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked,” Chadha, supra, at 959, and they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of Government would never be consolidated in one body, see The Federalist No. 51, p. 348. They thus empowered the Senate to confirm principal officers on the view that “the necessity of its co-operation in the business of appointments will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of ” the President. The Federalist No. 76, at 514; 3 Story, supra, §1525, at 376–377. We cannot cast aside the separation of powers and the Appointments Clause’s important check on executive power for the sake of administrative convenience or efficiency. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 736 (1986).

I don't even know where to begin with this. Sorry bro, you don't know about our founding history.

 

[Seano]

Educated people often differ to the separation of powers and a clear history of keeping religion out of government.

Thats not the topic here and his little to do with what I said.

A belief in the law you enforce is a positive thing, actually.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Pic looks like a solid American. I'm good.

Yes, white skinhead. Classic American.

 

[Darkballs]

Thats not the topic here and his little to do with what I said.

A belief in the law you enforce is a positive thing, actually.

I agree. But we don't have "christian" or "biblical" law in this country.

But keep telling us how we need it in one post, but then drone on about how you'll never care about trumps adultery in another.

 

[dontsnitch]

America is a secular Republic, end of story. The 1st amendment to the constitution bars any and all religious test or promotion in the civic sphere.

Whittaker, for that alone, should be disqualified. He is clearly a Trump lackey who has demonstrated a supreme lack in measure that should preclude him from the position.

His appointment was also unconstitutional.

As Clarence Thomas stated, in the refusal of an Obama appointment:

I recognize that the “burdens on governmental processes” that the Appointments Clause imposes may “often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 959 (1983). Granting the President unilateral power to fill vacancies in high offices might contribute to more efficient Government. But the Appointments Clause is not an empty formality. Although the Framers recognized the potential value of leaving the selection of officers to “one man of discernment” rather than to a fractious, multimember body, see The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), they also recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the Government, see id., at 513; 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1524, p. 376 (1833). The Framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked,” Chadha, supra, at 959, and they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of Government would never be consolidated in one body, see The Federalist No. 51, p. 348. They thus empowered the Senate to confirm principal officers on the view that “the necessity of its co-operation in the business of appointments will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of ” the President. The Federalist No. 76, at 514; 3 Story, supra, §1525, at 376–377. We cannot cast aside the separation of powers and the Appointments Clause’s important check on executive power for the sake of administrative convenience or efficiency. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 736 (1986).

Church and State can be separate and yet share similar principles even in a secular republic. The West is intrinsically linked to Judeo Christian values whether one likes it or not.

 

[Hognoxious]

Educated people often differ to the separation of powers and a clear history of keeping religion out of government.

Judeo Christian principles were a part of our founding principles. Many of the Founding Fathers were actually outspoken Christians. The intent of our forefathers was that the government can not force you how to worship like was taking place under British rule.

 

[andnowweknow]

The guy will not recuse, it would be a disaster for Trump. But it's a disaster for Trump having an obvious partisan with already negative expressed views on the Russia investigation in the AG position.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

What's wrong with a Christian view of justice? After all, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Perhaps TS prefers the promotion of Sharia Law style justice. No thank you.

Judaeo-Christian principles and views of justice were around in the dark ages, it was the enlightenment that lead to the ideas and ideals that the US was founded upon. Perhaps you favor literal witch hunts though?

 

[hillelslovak87]

I don't even know where to begin with this. Sorry bro, you don't know about our founding history.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
Here is a little primer on the establishment clause.

The whole point of the Secular Republic is that there is no promotion or discouragement of any religion. That way, we don't see a situation like we saw before the constitution, with Jews and Catholics denied civic status in certain states, and credulous people falling victim to religious craze after religious craze in what later became known as the Burned over District.

And the fuckers who wrote the constitution think you're a palatine boor.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803]”
― James Madison

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Adams submitted and signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]

“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

[Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103]

“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”

If you picked up more than a single book every day, you might learn about the history of your nation, and what the men who founded it did so in service of. Then you would avoid sounding a fool in the 21st century, when, unlike them, you have instant access to all of their writings, along with the works of the giants they toddled upon.

 

[Seano]

Because it's not at all true. The men who founded the nation, christian or not, were men of the enlightenment, whose movement enshrined the values of Voltaire, Paine and Spinoza. Paine, specifically, was somewhat of an ethical friend and teacher to men like Jefferson and Madison (an ardent christian), two of the most influential framers, and coincidentally the two men who successfully fought to keep religion out of the civic space, both in their states, and on a federal level.

I don't think you guys get that.

You're incorrect.Our founding father's were clearly influenced by Chrisitian/biblical morals. Its clownish to try to say that our country and its laws are not based on christian/biblical principles. Everything from marriage laws to swearing on the bible on court is proof of that.

 

[Hognoxious]

Judaeo-Christian principles and views of justice were around in the dark ages, it was the enlightenment that lead to the ideas and ideals that the US was founded upon. Perhaps you favor literal witch hunts though?

Wrong

 

[Seano]

I agree. But we don't have "christian" or "biblical" law in this country.

But keep telling us how we need it in one post, but then drone on about how you'll never care about trumps adultery in another.

Didn't say that. I said our laws are based and influenced by religious principles.