U.S. Democrats seek hearings on Trump’s ouster of Sessions

[webfact]

U.S. Democrats seek hearings on Trump’s ouster of Sessions

By David Morgan

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (L) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arrive at a summit on crime reduction and public safety in Bethesda, Maryland, U.S., June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripa

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats on Thursday demanded emergency hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate President Donald Trump's ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, calling the move an effort to undermine a federal probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Trump forced the resignation of Sessions on Wednesday, a day after elections in which his fellow Republicans lost control of the House but increased their majority in the Senate.

 

In a letter saying the move placed the country "in the throes of a constitutional crisis," House Judiciary Committee Democrats demanded action from the panel's Republican Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and called for bipartisan legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from any effort to stymie the probe. https://bit.ly/2DaU1nl

 

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte had no comment on the letter.

 

Mueller is investigating Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election and any collusion by Trump's campaign. Trump, who denies any collusion, has long complained about the probe, calling it a witch hunt. He had frequently publicly castigated Sessions for recusing himself last year from the case.

 

Trump named Sessions' chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, as acting attorney general, saying he would soon nominate a permanent replacement for review by the Senate.

 

That drew criticism from Democrats because Whitaker, who would now take over responsibility for overseeing Mueller and his investigation, has been critical of the Mueller probe, saying it should be scaled back.

 

Separately, House Judiciary Democrats called on Whitaker in a letter to recuse himself and keep the Mueller investigation under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official who has given the special counsel full scope to pursue leads. Rosenstein had the role of supervising the probe because of Sessions' recusal. https://bit.ly/2PPqJ4q

 

Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the Mueller probe, the Washington Post reported. Reuters was not able to confirm the report.

 

The Democrats said they also want the Justice Department to protect the integrity of Mueller's investigation and to preserve relevant documents.

 

"The forced firing of Attorney General Sessions appears to be part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour by the president seeking to undermine (the) investigation into Russian interference," said the letter to Goodlatte, written by Representative Jerrold Nadler, the committee’s top Democrat, and 16 other Democrats who sit on the panel.

 

Nadler is expected to become House Judiciary chairman when a Democratic House majority, elected in Tuesday’s midterm elections, takes over in the new Congress that convenes in January.

 

"The president's actions have plunged the country into peril," the Democrats added. "By forcing the firing (of) the attorney general, the president now threatens the rule of law itself."

 

On Wednesday, Goodlatte issued a statement praising Sessions' service as attorney general and wishing Whitaker well in his new role.

 

Bipartisan bills to protect Mueller from politically motivated removal have been introduced in the House and Senate. One was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, making it eligible for a full Senate vote. But no action is expected.

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell blocked consideration of the Senate bill earlier this year. His spokesman said on Thursday that McConnell has no further comment on the legislation.

 

House Democrats said on Wednesday that they would attempt to include a measure protecting Mueller into an appropriations bill that Congress is due to consider later this year.

 

When the Democrats take over the House, they are expected to launch numerous probes of Trump and his administration.

 

Moscow denies interfering in the 2016 election.

 

(Reporting by David Morgan. Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay, Sarah N. Lynch, Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell. Editing by Frances Kerry and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-09

[alanrchase]

Whitaker should fit in well with Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/matthew-whitaker-trump-attorney-general-us-firm

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[connda]

Democrats were handed a mandate: time to get to work on jobs for the working class, healthcare reform, infrastructure, and healing the national divide.  If they spend the next two year playing "get Trump and his deplorable supporters" they'll be creating the conditions for Trump's next term in office and another shift in balance in the House in favor of Republican.  The normal public wants action - not divisiveness. 

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, connda said:

Democrats were handed a mandate: time to get to work on jobs for the working class, healthcare reform, infrastructure, and healing the national divide.  If they spend the next two year playing "get Trump and his deplorable supporters" they'll be creating the conditions for Trump's next term in office and another shift in balance in the House in favor of Republican.  The normal public wants action - not divisiveness. 

First off, you'll be glad hear the the Democrats in the house are preparing a bill to mandate that insurers must insure people with pre-existing conditions at affordable prices.

I'm sure that they will propose infrastructure bills that Republicans will almost certainly defeat. And they will point out that the revenues lost to Republican tax cuts could easily have paid for infrastructure maintenance and upgrade.

And as for jobs for the working class, the jobs are there, it's the pay that sucks. Minimum wage increases have proven to be very popular in referenda in republican states. So I imagine that democrats will propose bills for that, too.

And what level of support do you believe that these proposals will get from Republicans in the Senate?

And partisan investigations by the congressional Republicans proved remarkably fruitful for them in the past. Why do you think that wouldn't work for the democrats?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Democrats were handed a mandate: time to get to work on jobs for the working class, healthcare reform, infrastructure, and healing the national divide.  If they spend the next two year playing "get Trump and his deplorable supporters" they'll be creating the conditions for Trump's next term in office and another shift in balance in the House in favor of Republican.  The normal public wants action - not divisiveness. 

“The normal public wants action - not divisiveness.“

 

Putting asside the question ‘on what basis do you know what the normal public want’, what part is Trump playing in this devisiveness?

 

I say, the mandate handed to the Democrats is put an end to Trump’s unchecked power grab.

[Credo]

The checks and balances provision of the constitution also mandates oversight of the Executive branch.   This is done by Congress, and with the Justice Department, that falls on the House of Representatives.   

 

The hand-picked new Attorney General is questionable.   The Attorney General is vetted and approved by the Senate, Matthew Whitaker has NOT been approved by the Senate.   When the Attorney General leaves, it is customary and correct to appoint the Deputy AG, Rosenstein.   Rosenstein has been vetted and has Senate approval.   

 

There are some major Constitutional questions with this appointment.   

It is further complicated IF the appointment was made to obstruct justice and in this case, it would appear that that may very well be the case.

 

[radiochaser]

And just last year, the democrats were claiming that Sessions was a lier and wanted him to resign!
 

'Lying under oath'

Mr Trump's campaign was dogged by allegations that some of his team had met with Russian officials and that Moscow had interfered in the election on his behalf.

Mr Sessions was revealed by the Washington Post to have met Ambassador Sergei Kislyak twice, despite telling his January confirmation hearing that he had had no contacts with the Russians during the campaign.

 

>>--> Democrats have accused him of "lying under oath" and say he must resign.<--<<

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

And just last year, the democrats were claiming that Sessions was a lier and wanted him to resign!
 

'Lying under oath'

Mr Trump's campaign was dogged by allegations that some of his team had met with Russian officials and that Moscow had interfered in the election on his behalf.

Mr Sessions was revealed by the Washington Post to have met Ambassador Sergei Kislyak twice, despite telling his January confirmation hearing that he had had no contacts with the Russians during the campaign.

 

>>--> Democrats have accused him of "lying under oath" and say he must resign.<--<<

 

They're not questioning the firing of Mueller per se. 

"Trump named Sessions' chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, as acting attorney general, saying he would soon nominate a permanent replacement for review by the Senate.

 

That drew criticism from Democrats because Whitaker, who would now take over responsibility for overseeing Mueller and his investigation, has been critical of the Mueller probe, saying it should be scaled back.

 

Separately, House Judiciary Democrats called on Whitaker in a letter to recuse himself and keep the Mueller investigation under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official who has given the special counsel full scope to pursue leads"

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, connda said:

Democrats were handed a mandate: time to get to work on jobs for the working class, healthcare reform, infrastructure, and healing the national divide.  If they spend the next two year playing "get Trump and his deplorable supporters" they'll be creating the conditions for Trump's next term in office and another shift in balance in the House in favor of Republican.  The normal public wants action - not divisiveness. 

That's the kind of double standards and hypocrisy we have come to expect from Trump fans right there.

You guys have such a short memory or do you really not remember 8 years of Republicans disrespecting, delegitimizing and obstructing Obama at every turn? Mitch McConnell is famous for instructing Republicans that Obama was to be a 'one term president' and that they should block anything he puts up regardless of the good it may do the country. A few examples are:-

 

Tax on companies that ship jobs overseas - blocked by Republicans.

Political Ad disclosure Bill - blocked by Republicans.

The Small Business Jobs Act - blocked by Republicans.

Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' - blocked by Republicans.

Benefits for homeless veterans - blocked by Republicans.

Health care for 9/11 first responders - blocked by Republicans.

Wall Street reform - blocked by Republicans.

Oil Spill Liability - blocked by Republicans.

Immigration reform - blocked by Republicans.

Fair Pay Act - blocked by Republicans.

 

I could go on but I think you get the idea. 

 

Personally I hope they block every single one of his initiatives and make him a complete lame duck president just like they did to Obama. Enough of taking the high road. It's time to fight dirty.

 

 

[radiochaser]

Many important government posts must be filled by persons who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., provides that when such an office is vacant, its functions and duties may be performed temporarily in an acting capacity by either the first assistant to the vacant post, under Section 3345(a)(1); a person occupying another office in the Executive Branch that is required to be filled through the process of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, who is designated by the President under Section 3345(a)(2); or a senior official in the same agency designated by the President under Section 3345(a)(3). Section 3345(b) of the FVRA provides as a general rule that “[n]othwithstanding subsection (a)(1),” a person who is nominated to fill a vacant office that is subject to the FVRA may not perform the office’s functions and duties in an acting capacity unless the person served as first assistant to the vacant office for at least 90 days in the year preceding the vacancy. 5 U.S.C. 3345(b)(1).

[bristolboy]

47 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Many important government posts must be filled by persons who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., provides that when such an office is vacant, its functions and duties may be performed temporarily in an acting capacity by either the first assistant to the vacant post, under Section 3345(a)(1); a person occupying another office in the Executive Branch that is required to be filled through the process of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, who is designated by the President under Section 3345(a)(2); or a senior official in the same agency designated by the President under Section 3345(a)(3). Section 3345(b) of the FVRA provides as a general rule that “[n]othwithstanding subsection (a)(1),” a person who is nominated to fill a vacant office that is subject to the FVRA may not perform the office’s functions and duties in an acting capacity unless the person served as first assistant to the vacant office for at least 90 days in the year preceding the vacancy. 5 U.S.C. 3345(b)(1).

While it's true that this statute does allow Presidents to fill posts that aren't principal offices. the Constitution has something very specific to say about principal officers. And it doesn't agree with this statute. 

[Tug]

Sure looks like Donald is trying to stack the deck with this guy he is running scared now because he will be exposed for the fake fraud that he is 

[bristolboy]

Acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker in 2014: All judges should be Christian

Back in 2014, current Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said all court judges should be Christian and non-religious people shouldn’t be appointed for the position.

Making the revealing remarks at a conservative forum in Iowa, where he was angling to be the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Whitaker stated judges needed a “biblical view of justice,” reported The Guardian...

When pressed by event moderator and right-wing blogger Erick Erickson, Whitaker said judges should have a New Testament view of justice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-matthew-whitaker-christian-judges-20181108-story.html

 

But apparently not Presidents.

Edited November 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

That's the kind of double standards and hypocrisy we have come to expect from Trump fans right there.

You guys have such a short memory or do you really not remember 8 years of Republicans disrespecting, delegitimizing and obstructing Obama at every turn? Mitch McConnell is famous for instructing Republicans that Obama was to be a 'one term president' and that they should block anything he puts up regardless of the good it may do the country. A few examples are:-

 

Tax on companies that ship jobs overseas - blocked by Republicans.

Political Ad disclosure Bill - blocked by Republicans.

The Small Business Jobs Act - blocked by Republicans.

Repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' - blocked by Republicans.

Benefits for homeless veterans - blocked by Republicans.

Health care for 9/11 first responders - blocked by Republicans.

Wall Street reform - blocked by Republicans.

Oil Spill Liability - blocked by Republicans.

Immigration reform - blocked by Republicans.

Fair Pay Act - blocked by Republicans.

 

I could go on but I think you get the idea. 

 

Personally I hope they block every single one of his initiatives and make him a complete lame duck president just like they did to Obama. Enough of taking the high road. It's time to fight dirty.

 

 

 

So, if you aspire to be no better than the worst of what the Republicans can come up with, why would anyone vote for you?

 

Also, is "taking the high road" a synonym for being "out of power" and therefore impotent.

Edited November 9, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Sure looks like Donald is trying to stack the deck with this guy he is running scared now because he will be exposed for the fake fraud that he is 

We already now he's a criminally corrupt con man just for a start. But the question is will he get away with it? For that, the jury is out.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker in 2014: All judges should be Christian

Back in 2014, current Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said all court judges should be Christian and non-religious people shouldn’t be appointed for the position.

Making the revealing remarks at a conservative forum in Iowa, where he was angling to be the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Whitaker stated judges needed a “biblical view of justice,” reported The Guardian...

When pressed by event moderator and right-wing blogger Erick Erickson, Whitaker said judges should have a New Testament view of justice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-matthew-whitaker-christian-judges-20181108-story.html

 

But apparently not Presidents.

Yep. He's a crackpot. Picked based on his bias. We're in a crisis now. 

 

Quote

Matthew Whitaker is a crackpot

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matthew-whitaker-is-a-crackpot/2018/11/08/69e8e190-e395-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html

[johnnybangkok]

19 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

So, if you aspire to be no better than the worst of what the Republicans can come up with, why would anyone vote for you?

 

Also, is "taking the high road" asynonym for being "out of power" and therefore impotent.

Well obviously the Dems are no longer 'impotent'. By gaining the House they now have real power to block Trump's agenda and all they need to do is copy what the Republicans did with the help of the Tea Party back in 2010. 

My point however is that yes, it would be lovely to work to a higher standard than Republicans (a particularly low bar at best) but why should this be just a one-sided agreement that the Dems have to stick to? The GOP had their chance to 'take the high road' but not only did they not choose this path, they deliberately and systematically undermined a democratically elected POTUS regardless of how sane and beneficial his proposals were. Now the shoe is on the other foot, all we are hearing from the Trump fans is the Dems need to do the 'right thing' for the 'good of the country'. These are the very same people who were quite happy to be obstructionists to anything suggested by Obama.

The hypocrisy is galling.   

Edited November 9, 2018 by johnnybangkok

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Well obviously the Dems are no longer 'impotent'. By gaining the House they now have real power to block Trump's agenda and all they need to do is copy what the Republicans did with the help of the Tea Party back in 2010. 

My point however is that yes, it would be lovely to work to a higher standard than Republicans (a particularly low bar at best) but why should this be just a one-sided agreement that the Dems have to stick to? The GOP had their chance to 'take the high road' but not only did they not choose this path, they deliberately and systematically undermined a democratically elected POTUS regardless of how sane and beneficial the proposal was. Now the shoe is on the other foot, all we are hearing from the Trump fans is the Dems need to do the 'right thing' for the 'good of the country'. These are the very same people who were quite happy to be obstructionists to anything suggested by Obama.

The hypocrisy is galling.   

 

What is it that you imagine Trumps agenda is?  Now that he's helped the richest get richer his work that can be impacted by Congress is largely done.  Treaties, trade deals, military engagements he will pursue, or not, without any substantive input from Congress.

[Redline]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Sure looks like Donald is trying to stack the deck with this guy he is running scared now because he will be exposed for the fake fraud that he is 

And his family 

[johnnybangkok]

35 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What is it that you imagine Trumps agenda is?  Now that he's helped the richest get richer his work that can be impacted by Congress is largely done.  Treaties, trade deals, military engagements he will pursue, or not, without any substantive input from Congress.

He is still trying to change immigration, LGBTQ rights, healthcare, infrastructure spending, welfare and the influence of the church in politics. 

So yeah. A couple of biggies still left.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

He is still trying to change immigration, LGBTQ rights, healthcare, infrastructure spending, welfare and the influence of the church in politics. 

So yeah. A couple of biggies still left.

 

That's not real stuff. That's just the hook.

 

Actually, infrastructure spending is real and if the Democrats and Republicans can agree which of their in common benefactors can benefit from it and they can lay the cost on the middle class, they may just get it done.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

That's not real stuff. That's just the hook.

 

Actually, infrastructure spending is real and if the Democrats and Republicans can agree which of their in common benefactors can benefit from it and they can lay the cost on the middle class, they may just get it done.

Really? The Republicans have shown no wllingness to pay for real infrastructure.  What they have proposed is to give projects with profitable potential to the private sector. Remember Trump's promise to spend 1 trillion in infrastructure spending? Twice that amount went to cutting taxes, mostly for the wealthiest Americans.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Really? The Republicans have shown no wllingness to pay for real infrastructure.  What they have proposed is to give projects with profitable potential to the private sector. Remember Trump's promise to spend 1 trillion in infrastructure spending? Twice that amount went to cutting taxes, mostly for the wealthiest Americans.

 

Right. Toll roads don't affect the rich, so who pays for it? And you don't need the private sector to fundit either. Near Seattle toll lanes on a public highway are as much as $10 each way per day depending on trafficconditions. A monthly pass is $30 for a publicly funded road where some drivers are more equal than others.

[mtls2005]

Jeff Sessions, the only Confederate Monument Trump is in favor of removing.