[bagster]

I know there is not evidence of wrong doing, nevertheless, could the Dem-controlled House impeach Whitaker?

That's not a dumb question at all. It's a great question. I don't rightly know. And if they can, would it take a Senate "trial" to convict and remove, like for President?

I have no idea. Either way, Whitaker is only good for like 210 days as acting (I think) and then Trump will appoint a permanent AG.

They really want Whitaker to recuse so [RR] will be back in charge so he can squash and block everything as he's done (or tried to do). Notice [RR] couldn't block Session's appointment of Huber?

That's the derp's best case scenario. A recused "Acting AG" and [RR] in charge.

There will be no recusal.

Bagster

[ssschev]

IF Whitaker has put RM on a leash, is Q inferring that RM is a ‘black hat’ and therefore RR is a ‘black hat’?

[CPT Clay]

That’s the derp’s best case scenario. A recused “Acting AG” and [RR] in charge.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
But RR must recuse, he signed one of the FISA requests.

PAIN

[Snowybear]

They can try and impeach Whitaker but without conviction from the Senate it goes nowhere.

It won’t even get there. The Dims can flail about, the SCOTUS will bitch slap them back to reality.

-SB

[ichabod1]

I think that’s the beauty it would take them 180 days just to get an impeachment rolling and by then he’s done. Better bet is to get a federal judge to declare him invalid but that’s dangerous ground because I believe federal judges report to the Attorney Generale.