Matt Whitaker’s Appointment May Be Illegal, Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano Says

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Taxonomy26, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. rcfoolinca288

    rcfoolinca288 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    14,301
    Likes Received:
    6,629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you fret now. KellyAnne will set her husband straight and get on TV, and spin her way out of it. She have been a great at perpetrating fake news.
     
  2. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh?? Your question was, "Are you also saying the Senate will not impeach Trump, no matter the evidence?" I ignored your misunderstanding that the Senate does not impeach -- the House does -- by tries the impeachment. Anyhow, I answered, no, the senate will not convict Trump of any impeachment brought by the house.
     
  3. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First, the president can appoint anybody he wants to any position, subject only by the appointments clause. Section 508 says, as you say, the Deputy AG may assume the duties of the AG. It does not say "must" as you later assert. The president could let that ride or he could appoint someone else. Technically if the AG resigns effective 10am on a specific day, at 10:01am the Deputy AG will be in charge until the president appoints someone else, be that at 10:02am or a month later.
    The FVRA says the president can appoint a person to a vacated senior position (generally requiring senate confirmation) if that person has already been confirmed albeit for a different senior position, such as Whitaker's previous confirmation as US Attorney. Why you say the FVRA does not apply in this case escapes me.
     
  4. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It, 508, is explained, your post debunked in my post you quoted.
    `
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  5. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No matter the evidence? You still actually have not answered.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  6. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you mean like he moved the white house to Bangkok and dynamited the Capitol while congress was in session? Are you asking about real evidence? Or fairy tale make believe evidence, which a rabid Democrat house is more than capable of impeaching over?
     
  7. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,452
    Likes Received:
    32,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol.

    No kidding.
    :roflol:

    Impeaching? :roflol:
     
  8. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Real evidence of criminal activity.

    I don't think you're going to answer. My question has been clear from the beginning. And you are dodging it.
     
  9. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have not seen the Democrats act rabid yet. However the GOP guys during the Benghazi hearings when Clinton testified for ten hours were acting like unhinged lunatics only to be far surpassed by themselves in the Rosenstein, Strzok hearings. I hope the Democrats never act like Gowdy, Jordan, Gohmert, or any of the rest of those rabid dogs. We shall see.
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  10. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You keep hiding behind the tree. The question will the "senate not convict no matter what the evidence is" is a fallacy. As I implied, working in this Alice in Wonderland situation, I think the senate will convict Trump if he is impeached for moving the white house to Bangkok, or for blowing up the Capitol. But then you shifted to "real evidence of criminal activity." Yet that would include blowing up the Capitol. If you are saying real evidence of actual pragmatic and normal criminal activity, that is unanswerable because nothing like that exists.
     
  11. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You need to open your eyes more often. There is an interesting and sometimes entertaining stuff going on. How about Hillary exhorting Democrats to do not be civil until we regain power? How about Maxine Waters exhorting her followers to get out there, find Republicans, get in their face and tell them they are not wanted? How about Sen. Blumenthal making Trump's filling a vacant cabinet post equivalent to the Nazi's 1938 Night of Broken Glass? How about etc,, etc, etc, etc? Not rabid enough for you? Not as rabid as Hillary lying under oath to a congressional committee? More rabid than Gowdy, et al questioning Hillary for committing an impeachable offense and lying her ass off to the American public about a military attack against American sovereign soil?
    Surely you jest.
     
  12. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I don’t gest...Making offhand comments to a reporter does not equate to the disgusting display put on by Gowdy and his jackals during HCs testimony or the way rabid dogs Jordan and that idiot Gohmert attacked Rosenstein and Strzok. I hope that the Dems show a lot more class and decorum that this dickheads.
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  13. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A question cannot be a fallacy. If you are going to live in my country, please learn the language.

    Like i said, you aren't going to to answer. And that's fine...your non answer is an amswer...
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  14. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .... right up there with your non question.......
     
  15. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny, nobody else seemed to go into a tailspin over it... just you. By design, of course. Trump cultists just can't really be honest, in certain situations. Thus, the tapdance.
     
  16. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Our Justice Department no longer needs a Human Resources department, now they audition future Atty General's on CNN if you defend Dirty Donald and he sees you, within a year you can be the Atty General.
     
    Mamasaid likes this.
  17. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Questions are not fallacies. The far right's refusals to engage in discussion on whether Trump will be impeached is shameful. My own opinion is that he will not be impeached but may be indicted after he leaves office.
     
  18. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For one example, the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is a fallacy, pure and simple. The question in dispute is not do I think the house will impeach, which is a straight forward question, but the question, "would the senate not convict no matter what the evidence is" is fallacious. (Though I actually did answer that question. I said it Trump was impeached for clear evidence of dynamiting the Capitol, the senate would likely convict.)
    Your statement, "The far right's refusals to engage in discussion on whether Trump will be impeached is shameful" is almost fallacious but it is 100% ignorantly wrong. I, for one, have discussed this many times. To repeat I think there is a better than 50% chance the House will impeach Trump. I think there is a 90% chance the House will open impeachment hearings on Trump very early in the new session. Following that there is a 75% chance of impeachment hearings on Kavanaugh, a 60% chance for Clarence Thomas, and, if Trump is impeached, a 60% chance they will hold hearings on Pence impeachment. Please stop the crap about refusing to discuss.
     
  19. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rightness goes with statements that do not apply to the OP.
     

Share This Page