Skip to comments.Dershowitz Feuds With Blumenthal Over Whitaker: 'I Was in School of Harvard, Not Schoolhouse Rock'
Posted on 11/20/2018 11:42:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants the DOJ inspector general to investigate President Trump's relationship and correspondence with Matthew Whitaker in the wake of his appointment to acting attorney general. Trump gave Whitaker the role after ousting former AG Jeff Sessions. Democrats are outraged for at least two reasons. One, that Whitaker has publicly criticized Robert Mueller's Russia probe and two, that Whitaker did not get Senate approval for the new position. They argue that under the succession statute, the role of acting AG rightfully belongs to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Schumer adds that if Whitaker remains in the role, he should at least recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
"I am particularly concerned about whether Mr. Whitaker may have shared with the White House, or could share in his new role, confidential grand jury or investigative information from the Special Counsel investigation or any criminal investigation,” Schumer wrote to IG Michael Horowitz.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is one of the Democratic senators to sue the White House for "unconstitutionally" promoting Whitaker.
"Installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of School House Rock would recognize it," the senator charged. "Americans prize a system of checks and balances, which President Trump’s dictatorial appointment betrays.”
"Well I was in the school of Harvard, not the Schoolhouse Rock," lawyer Alan Dershowitz replied on Fox News Tuesday.
Dershowitz added why Trump deserves some discretion here.
WATCH: @BillHemmer spoke with @AlanDersh about @IvankaTrump's attorney's statement, a new lawsuit from Senate Democrats challenging Whitaker's appointment #nine2noon pic.twitter.com/LLWlc3vRrd— America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) November 20, 2018
"You have to give the president some discretion to fill vacancies," Dershowitz reasoned, adding that the Democrats’ lawsuit is “too broad” in its scope.
Last week the DOJ released a memo justifying Whitaker's appointment.
Fishing for an excuse for impeachment, they are hoping Trump or Whitaker will fire him.
Agree 100%, and he should drummed out of the senate right in front of the Vietnam Wall.
Statute? The relevant statute is the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, by which Whitaker is authorized.
I’m pretty sure Blumenthal doesn’t want ALL such statutes negated, just temporarily the ones Pres. Trump uses.
Trump and the Senate should match them.
Obama found many ways to skirt the usual protocols
# 15 ~
I had not heard of the Deshowitz/Epstein connection.
Has this been confirmed? Any links?
He was having too much fun to realize it before...
Wow thanks for showing that connection.
I’d like to see some background on that.
These people are sick, the Epstein crowd.
They are being absurd. There are more reasons for Rod and Mueller to recuse than for Whitaker. I swear I don’t understand why there isn’t a 2nd Special Counsel appointed to investigate the intelligence agencies and other candidates involved in the 2016 elections under the exact same pretext as Mueller’s mandate. There are piles of evidence of collusion and meddling in the elections, but none of it that I know of points to Trump.
Having said that, the biggest flaw in the lawsuit these three idiots filed is that I don't see how they can have any legal standing to challenge Whitaker's appointment. They aren't parties to a case that he is prosecuting, so their recourse is to deal with Whitaker in their official capacities as U.S. Senators.
Me, I just think the democrats didn’t win, they cheated and it appears they are getting away with it.
Thanks. I would guess Trump has better legal advice than Blumenthal, whose legal analysis sounds like something conjured out of thin air, like his Vietnam service.
So now the Attorney General cannot “collude” with the President...his direct supervisor who has unquestioned authority to fire him at will?
That’s a very strong emotional argument, and has merit if we are discussing whether or not Dershowitz is a good man. But it has zero to do with the argument he is making on this constitutional issue. He is correct sweetcakes.
Bring that argument back if we ever discuss whether or not he is a good man. Hitler thought smoking was very bad. He was 100% correct on that. It’s like that.
In some cases that’s certainly true. In other cases we made it easy with poor candidates. Also if the analytical articles are true we handed them a ready-made issue “the healthcare failure”. They had something to sell some version of “low cost healthcare for all”. We couldn’t articulate what we wanted. You can’t beat something (Even if its absurd!) with nothing!
There is no evidence that Dershowitz ever had sex multiple times with that 16 year old girl. There is apparently evidence that she was one of the underage girls on Epstein’s island.
Dershowitz was on Epstein’s legal team and did fly various places on Epstein’s plane but I don’t think there is evidence that Dershowitz went to the island.
The argument would have merit if those allegations were true. But there is no evidence that they are true.
It is true that Dershowitz was one of Epstein's lawyers. He feels strongly that all those accused of crimes should have legal counsel even if they were heinous crimes. That position upsets a lot of people.
“I am particularly concerned about whether Mr. Whitaker may have shared with the White House, or could share in his new role, confidential grand jury or investigative information from the Special Counsel investigation or any criminal investigation”
Guess what? There is nothing improper with the AG sharing that information with the President, even if the President is the one under investigation.
A “special counsel” is not an “independent counsel”, he is part of the DOJ, and the DOJ is under the supervision of the President. If the left wants an investigation that is not ultimately under the purview of the Executive, they need to do it through Congress, as the founders intended.
......”Next two years will be spending our tax dollars on investigations, investigations, and more investigations”.....
Well Demorats said they’d make us “pay”.....they aren’t concerned about our money...they see it as their’s and all they’ve lost since Hillary can’t secure their investments as she promised.
This isn’t about power it’s about ‘the money’ power welds.
Schumer is going to loudly complain about what is in his Christmas stocking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.