BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Who is in charge of interpreting and enforcing the issue?

Q4. Who would have standing to challenge the legality of the Whitaker appointment? And when might a court rule on it?

I haven’t yet thought through this question sufficiently, but I assume that anyone who suffers an “injury in fact” by virtue of something Whitaker does would have Article III standing to challenge his appointment in court, at least for purposes of enjoining that action. And as I noted above, almost all of DOJ’s actions are taken pursuant to authorities Congress has assigned to the Attorney General. For example, all litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party or is interested “is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.” 28 U.S.C. § 516. Indeed, if recollection serves, the AG himself technically signs many DOJ legal pleadings, such as briefs. The AG also issues regulations, approves certain seeking certain criminal sentences, and much else. Anyone adversely affected by any of these actions might challenge the legality of Whitaker’s appointment.

As I wrote earlier, however, it might be several months, if ever, before any court, let alone the Supreme Court, adjudicates the questions; it’s far from certain that any such challenge would be successful; and in the meantime Whitaker could have a significant impact at DOJ, and on the Mueller investigation in particular.

Politico drops the news this morning that Trump Jr. “has told friends in recent weeks that he believes he could be indicted.”

The Trump administration relied on a misleadingly edited video from a contributor to the conspiracy site Infowars to help justify removing the credentials of CNN’s chief White House correspondent, a striking escalation in President Trump’s broadsides against the press.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, falsely accused Jim Acosta, the CNN journalist, of “placing his hands on a young woman,” a White House intern, as Mr. Acosta asked questions that irked the president during a formal news conference on Wednesday.

Television footage showed that Mr. Acosta and the intern made brief, benign contact — “Pardon me, ma’am,” the correspondent said — as she tried to take a microphone away from him at Mr. Trump’s behest

We had a relatively strong year for Democrats (with voters energized by resistance to Trump), a very unlikeable Republican incumbent (even many in his own party can't stand Ted Cruz, and Trump himself was on record saying all manner of negative things about him from the 2016 Republican primary), a Democratic donor base giving crazy amounts of money, and a dynamic Democratic candidate. And he still couldn't win in Texas. The time might come when demographic change makes Texas winnable for Dems, but it's gotta be pretty far away on this evidence. And I don't really see how losing a Senate run (in a year where a lot of fundamentals are favorable to your party and against an opponent like Cruz) makes for a good presidential run.

Dare I say that Beto is a young charismatic candidate who could end up generating the enthusiasm of an Obama or a JFK. In any case, Texas is a deeply red state where state wide races are almost never competitive. Beto came within 2 1/2% of beating Cruz, in 2012, Cruz won by 16%. The governor's race went red by 13+% this election after previously winning by 20+% in 2014. There's a majority core of Republican voters who are going to vote Republican no matter who is running. I'm sure you noticed that Republicans elected a dead guy (brothel owner Dennis Hof) for Nevada legislature, avowed white supremacist Steve King for the house, indicted Duncan Hunter for the house, indicted Chris Collins for the house, indicted Ken Paxton for Texas Attorney General (by 4%).

In my opinion, one of the big problems in the US is the phenomenon of “failing upwards.” Someone loses an election or does badly in a management position, and somehow the result is that they get promoted to a more powerful position. The “someone” in these situations is almost always a white male (and “charismatic” is a common adjective for such men).

I would’ve hoped the Democratic Party would be less susceptible to this but the hype around a presidential run for Beto makes me doubt it. Stacey Abrams also appears to have come up just short in a run for statewide office in a very red state, as does Andrew Gillum. In fact their races were even closer (still pending recounts)! I don’t hear anyone talking them up as White House contenders. Surely it’s just because Beto is more “charismatic” (which might or might not be a synonym for white male).

If we’re looking for a white male “savior” we might take a look at Sherrod Brown (who won in increasingly red Ohio, by a landslide). We also have a lot of exciting young politicians with a bit more diversity (like Kamala Harris for example). Sure winning in Texas is hard for a Democrat but I just don’t get the degree of hype.

hen Donald Trump was running for president several eons ago, he claimed in an interview following the departure of noted sleazebag Roger Stone that once elected, he would surround himself “only with the best and most serious people,” or “top-of-the-line professionals.” Since then, we’ve learned that the president’s definition of “top-of-the-line” roughly translates to individuals who think taxpayer money should be viewed as a slush fund for their own personal enrichment; people who don’t know the purpose of the agencies they’ve been appointed to run; slumlords; and alleged spousal abusers. And, in the case of his new acting attorney general, “top-of-the-line professionals” means people who were paid to promote fraud, and who intimidated victims with threats of prison time and bodily harm.

We speak, of course, of Matthew Whitaker, the interim attorney general appointed by Trump after he fired Jeff Sessions for not ending the Russia investigation. It turns out that in addition to his work as a United States attorney and private-practice lawyer, in 2014 Whitaker started serving on the advisory board of a company called World Patent Marketing, which bilked inventors out of millions they thought were going toward patents and licensing deals, and was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission last year. As well as serving in an advisory capacity, Whitaker appeared in promotional videos and photos in which he reviewed invention ideas with W.P.M. owner Scott Cooper, and a December 2014 press release quotes him as saying, “As a former U.S. attorney, I would only align myself with a first-class organization. World Patent Marketing goes beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translates them into action.”

But Whitaker’s most crucial role was arguably in using his prior work as a federal prosecutor to intimidate people when they realized the company was a scam. According to e-mails filed by the F.T.C, in August 2015 Whitaker allegedly responded to a customer who had complained about World Patent Marketing to the Better Business Bureau by telling them, “I am assuming you understand that there could be serious civil and criminal consequences for you. Understand that we take threats like this quite seriously.” Another victim, who tried to get a refund, received an e-mail from a company lawyer who told her, “Since you used e-mail to make your threats, you would be subject to a federal extortion charge, which carries a term of imprisonment of up to two years and potential criminal fines. See 18 U.S.C. ii 875(d).” The pièce de résistance, though, would have to be the correspondence sent to unhappy customers suggesting they keep their grievances to themselves, lest an ex-member of the Israeli Special Ops show up on their doorstep:

Quote

As a reminder, all of these threats were sent by a company that, per the F.T.C., was supposed to be patenting and promoting customers’ products, but in reality “provided almost no service in return,” lost consumers about $26 million, and, in some cases, caused people to lose their life savings. (According to The Wall Street Journal, World Patent Marketing and Cooper settled earlier this year, agreed not to promote any other patent-marketing services, and turned over a Miami Beach waterfront property to the U.S. government.)

Meanwhile, Whitaker was reportedly paid $9,375 in advisory fees between 2014 and 2016, and was owed an additional $7,500 at the time the F.T.C. took action to seize the company.

When Donald Trump was running for president several eons ago, he claimed in an interview following the departure of noted sleazebag Roger Stone that once elected, he would surround himself “only with the best and most serious people,” or “top-of-the-line professionals.” Since then, we’ve learned that the president’s definition of “top-of-the-line” roughly translates to individuals who think taxpayer money should be viewed as a slush fund for their own personal enrichment; people who don’t know the purpose of the agencies they’ve been appointed to run; slumlords; and alleged spousal abusers. And, in the case of his new acting attorney general, “top-of-the-line professionals” means people who were paid to promote fraud, and who intimidated victims with threats of prison time and bodily harm.

We speak, of course, of Matthew Whitaker, the interim attorney general appointed by Trump after he fired Jeff Sessions for not ending the Russia investigation. It turns out that in addition to his work as a United States attorney and private-practice lawyer, in 2014 Whitaker started serving on the advisory board of a company called World Patent Marketing, which bilked inventors out of millions they thought were going toward patents and licensing deals, and was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission last year. As well as serving in an advisory capacity, Whitaker appeared in promotional videos and photos in which he reviewed invention ideas with W.P.M. owner Scott Cooper, and a December 2014 press release quotes him as saying, “As a former U.S. attorney, I would only align myself with a first-class organization. World Patent Marketing goes beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translates them into action.”

But Whitaker’s most crucial role was arguably in using his prior work as a federal prosecutor to intimidate people when they realized the company was a scam. According to e-mails filed by the F.T.C, in August 2015 Whitaker allegedly responded to a customer who had complained about World Patent Marketing to the Better Business Bureau by telling them, “I am assuming you understand that there could be serious civil and criminal consequences for you. Understand that we take threats like this quite seriously.” Another victim, who tried to get a refund, received an e-mail from a company lawyer who told her, “Since you used e-mail to make your threats, you would be subject to a federal extortion charge, which carries a term of imprisonment of up to two years and potential criminal fines. See 18 U.S.C. ii 875(d).” The pièce de résistance, though, would have to be the correspondence sent to unhappy customers suggesting they keep their grievances to themselves, lest an ex-member of the Israeli Special Ops show up on their doorstep:

Quote

As a reminder, all of these threats were sent by a company that, per the F.T.C., was supposed to be patenting and promoting customers’ products, but in reality “provided almost no service in return,” lost consumers about $26 million, and, in some cases, caused people to lose their life savings. (According to The Wall Street Journal, World Patent Marketing and Cooper settled earlier this year, agreed not to promote any other patent-marketing services, and turned over a Miami Beach waterfront property to the U.S. government.)

Meanwhile, Whitaker was reportedly paid $9,375 in advisory fees between 2014 and 2016, and was owed an additional $7,500 at the time the F.T.C. took action to seize the company.

In my opinion, one of the big problems in the US is the phenomenon of “failing upwards.” Someone loses an election or does badly in a management position, and somehow the result is that they get promoted to a more powerful position. The “someone” in these situations is almost always a white male (and “charismatic” is a common adjective for such men).

I would’ve hoped the Democratic Party would be less susceptible to this but the hype around a presidential run for Beto makes me doubt it. Stacey Abrams also appears to have come up just short in a run for statewide office in a very red state, as does Andrew Gillum. In fact their races were even closer (still pending recounts)! I don’t hear anyone talking them up as White House contenders. Surely it’s just because Beto is more “charismatic” (which might or might not be a synonym for white male).

If we’re looking for a white male “savior” we might take a look at Sherrod Brown (who won in increasingly red Ohio, by a landslide). We also have a lot of exciting young politicians with a bit more diversity (like Kamala Harris for example). Sure winning in Texas is hard for a Democrat but I just don’t get the degree of hype.

WASHINGTON — Matthew G. Whitaker, the acting attorney general, served on the advisory board of a Florida company that a federal judge shut down last year and fined nearly $26 million after the government accused it of scamming customers.

The company, World Patent Marketing, “bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars” by promising inventors lucrative patent agreements, according to a complaint filed in Florida by the Federal Trade Commission.

Court documents show that when frustrated consumers tried to get their money back, Scott J. Cooper, the company’s president and founder, used Mr. Whitaker to threaten them as a former federal prosecutor. Mr. Cooper’s company paid Mr. Whitaker nearly $10,000 before it closed.

Democrats don't need Beto.
They need more Brenda Snipes (she's neither male nor white, which comes as a bonus)

Because of her extensive and successful leadership and administrative skills, Dr. Snipes was asked by Governor Jeb Bush to serve out the term of Supervisor of Elections in Broward County. She began this appointment on November 20, 2003

In my opinion, one of the big problems in the US is the phenomenon of “failing upwards.” Someone loses an election or does badly in a management position, and somehow the result is that they get promoted to a more powerful position. The “someone” in these situations is almost always a white male (and “charismatic” is a common adjective for such men).

I would’ve hoped the Democratic Party would be less susceptible to this but the hype around a presidential run for Beto makes me doubt it. Stacey Abrams also appears to have come up just short in a run for statewide office in a very red state, as does Andrew Gillum. In fact their races were even closer (still pending recounts)! I don’t hear anyone talking them up as White House contenders. Surely it’s just because Beto is more “charismatic” (which might or might not be a synonym for white male).

LOL at this:

Ballot box found 2 days after elections in storage area at school

All schools in Broward County should be carefully checked, they will find more boxes.
Rick Scott is hiding votes.

In my opinion, one of the big problems in the US is the phenomenon of “failing upwards.”

Donald Trump did something that seems impossible: He made Jeff Sessions into a sympathetic figure.

The firing of Sessions as attorney general on the day after the election made me realize how much Sessions has been integral to upholding the rule of law in the first two years of the Trump presidency. The core of the rule of law is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and it is Sessions who, despite all of Trump’s personal attacks and insults, insured that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III could continue his investigation.

I have found much of Sessions’ conduct as attorney general to be loathsome. He initiated and defended the illegal and morally bankrupt policy of separating children from their parents at the border. He has threatened cities with loss of federal funds if they don’t cooperate with federal immigration authorities, a policy that several federal courts have declared unconstitutional. Sessions has mandated that those arrested for federal crimes, including drug offenses, be charged to the maximum. He made clear that the Justice Department would no longer bring actions against police departments for having a pattern and practice of violating civil rights.

Despite all of this, Sessions has been crucial in protecting the special counsel’s work. Although Trump repeatedly has called it a “witch hunt” and a “hoax,” it is an essential investigation into crimes that go to the very heart of the integrity of our election system.

Any assertion that the investigation is a witch hunt is belied by its success. So far, it has resulted in 32 indictments or guilty pleas, including guilty pleas from former top-level Trump advisors such as Michael Flynn, Rick Gates and Michael Cohen. Paul Manafort, who managed the president’s 2016 campaign, was convicted by a jury of charges that could keep him in prison for decades.

Mueller’s team, quite appropriately, has not revealed what it has learned or exactly what the lines of the investigation are. But there remains the possibility that it may lead to evidence against Trump’s family or the president himself. It is essential that Mueller not be impeded.

Despite withering attacks by Trump, Sessions never caved to the pressure. Trump repeatedly referred to Sessions as “missing in action” and called him “Mr. Magoo,” referring to a bumbling cartoon character from decades ago. I can think of virtually no instance where a president so viciously criticized a member of his Cabinet.

Trump was most outraged at Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation. But Sessions did exactly the right thing in removing himself.

Mueller’s brief includes looking at whether federal laws were broken in connection with Russia’s involvement in the 2016 campaign. During Sessions’ Senate confirmation process, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, asked the attorney general designate in a questionnaire if he had “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day.” Sessions’ answer was “no.” During the hearings, Sen. Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do if he learned of evidence that someone affiliated with the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. Sessions replied, “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

It was later revealed that Sessions had at least two conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States in July and September 2016. Sessions knew he was a potential target for the investigation, and therefore he was required by ethics rules to recuse himself.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein replaced Sessions as the official to whom Mueller reported. Trump attacked Rosenstein for not limiting the investigation. He attacked Sessions for not controlling Rosenstein and Mueller. But Sessions never flinched, and he never backed down from his recusal. He deserves our admiration for standing up for the rule of law.

With Sessions gone, Mueller’s future is uncertain. The newly appointed Acting Atty. Gen. Matthew Whitaker has been hostile to the investigation and critical of Mueller. When Democrats take control the House of Representatives in January, they are sure to launch oversight hearings related to the musical chairs at Justice, Russian collusion and more. But members of Congress cannot bring criminal indictments, and it is easier for a president to refuse to cooperate with Congress than to resist court orders.

I never imagined I would say this, but we might come to find we miss Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

“I don’t know Matt Whitaker,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he left Washington for a weekend trip to Paris. “Matt Whitaker is a very highly respected man.”

Mr. Whitaker, who now oversees the investigation, has visited the Oval Office several times and is said to have an easy chemistry with the president, according to people familiar with the relationship. [The WH visitors log confirms the visits.]

In my opinion, one of the big problems in the US is the phenomenon of “failing upwards.” Someone loses an election or does badly in a management position, and somehow the result is that they get promoted to a more powerful position. The “someone” in these situations is almost always a white male (and “charismatic” is a common adjective for such men).

I would’ve hoped the Democratic Party would be less susceptible to this but the hype around a presidential run for Beto makes me doubt it. Stacey Abrams also appears to have come up just short in a run for statewide office in a very red state, as does Andrew Gillum. In fact their races were even closer (still pending recounts)! I don’t hear anyone talking them up as White House contenders. Surely it’s just because Beto is more “charismatic” (which might or might not be a synonym for white male).

If we’re looking for a white male “savior” we might take a look at Sherrod Brown (who won in increasingly red Ohio, by a landslide). We also have a lot of exciting young politicians with a bit more diversity (like Kamala Harris for example). Sure winning in Texas is hard for a Democrat but I just don’t get the degree of hype.