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.
GET IN THEIR FACES.......
Exactly what Schumer & others are doing- again & again.
Pushback will be something they won’t see coming.
“I had not heard of the Deshowitz/Epstein connection.”
Don’t know if it’s ever been confirmed, but for a couple years at least, the connection between Dershowitz and his trips on Lolita Express has been out there floating around.
Dershowitz is probably wrong on anything related to an “acting” appointment under the Vacancies Act of 1998 to a cabinet position reporting directly to the President. There’s a good chance the Whitaker appointment wouldn’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny here.
Dershowitz disagrees with you, Mark Levin disagrees with you, a lot of other lawyers disagree with you, and the DOJ disagrees with you. Plus I read somewhere that this law had been used over 100 times for just this purpose.
So what do you know that they don’t?
But republicans LET Obama get away with that. Democrats would NOT let President Trump get away with that, in a million years. They specialize in attack and obstruct. And changing the rules whenever it benefits them. (Republicans are going to have to stop playing nice with democrats. They just get kicked in the teeth when democrats have power. (And when they don’t)
For one thing, I have a strong and powerful legal mind on my side who may very well end up ruling on any court challenge to Whitaker's appointment:
"We cannot cast aside the separation of powers and the Appointments Clauses important check on executive power for the sake of administrative convenience or efficiency. That the Senate voluntarily relinquished its advice-and-consent power in the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act] does not make this end-run around the Appointments Clause constitutional." -- Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion, NLRB v. SW General, Inc. (2017)
It's important to not that the Vacancies Act may have been used "over 100 times" for Executive Branch appointments, but I'm going to venture to guess that none of them involved the appointment of someone who would be considered a "principal officer" under the Appointment Clause as defined in multiple Supreme Court cases (including the one I cited above).
The bottom line here is this: The U.S. Senate cannot pass a statute that surrenders its constitutional obligation to confirm principal officers in the Executive Branch. If that argument sounds ridiculous, just remember that this is the exact same argument that many legal professionals (maybe even including Mark Levin himself) have made when they object to the "fast-track authority" Congress has given to the Executive Branch to negotiate trade deals.
Joe di Genova, former DC Federal Attorney, disagrees also.
And: If this were Obama, no one would be touching this.
“We cannot cast aside the separation of powers and the Appointments Clauses important check on executive power for the sake of administrative convenience or efficiency. That the Senate voluntarily relinquished its advice-and-consent power in the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act] does not make this end-run around the Appointments Clause constitutional.” — Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion, NLRB v. SW General, Inc. (2017)
Are you sure that wasn’t a dissenting opinion from Thomas? Because it doesn’t seem to jibe with this below.
Because in the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, he says this is OK.
“The Supreme Court did issue a ruling related to the Vacancies Reform Act in 2017. In his majority opinion in National Labor Relations Board V. SW General, Chief Justice John Roberts reviewed the acts history. The general rule is that the first assistant to a vacant office shall become the acting officer. The President may override that default rule by directing either a person serving in a different PAS office or a senior employee within the relevant agency to become the acting officer instead, Roberts said, in a dispute over acting officers becoming nominees to the same office. The Court didnt discuss exceptions to the acts language about how a position became vacant.”
Doesn’t sound like SCOTUS thinks this law is unconstitutional. Or am I missing something?
I think this is from her sworn testimony. I think she is Jane Doe #3. Her name is Virginia Roberts and she was Epsteins favorite underaged sex slave.
I havent read this link, but it looks legit at immediate find. Ive read her testimony before. And yes, I believe her - I have been kept as an underaged girl as well but not quite as high a level of society. I do know that some powerful men, like Dershowitz, supposedly so moral and pure, are one way with everyone else and quite different alone with a young girl.
But Im biased so that is what I tend to post on I Heart Dersh threads.
I say sworn testimony that is highly believable is evidence to me.
And no, he may never have been on the island. Virginia only testified that Dershowitz had intercourse with her at least 5 times, in various places in NY and maybe Connecticut, in New Mexico, and on the plane.
Im a little biased. See my 48.
Thomas' opinion was a concurring opinion, not the majority opinion. He agreed with the finding of the court about the legality of appointing that guy to the NLRB but wanted to lay out a case against the constitutionality of the FVRA as it pertains to principal officers (only) under the Appointments Clause.
His argument is absolutely sound. It's one thing to use the FVRA to appoint someone to act as an "inferior officer" in an acting capacity, but it should not be used to fill a "principal officer" role under any circumstances because the Appointments Clause does not allow that.
that is not sworn testimony but part of an allegation..
How much money will Dems. waste on needless investigations?
They should be investigated for needless political investigations.
So when Roberts said this in that opinion,
The President may override that default rule by directing either a person serving in a different PAS office or a senior employee within the relevant agency to become the acting officer instead, Roberts said,
he was wrong, or what? Isn’t this exactly what was done.
“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants the DOJ inspector general to investigate President Trump’s relationship and correspondence with Matthew Whitaker...”
The way the idiot DOJ inspector general works, there will be a new DOJ appointed long before he even starts the investigation.
Oh, sorry, I didnt read it just wanted to post something that would lead the poster to more info. She did testify though, maybe my link wasnt it.
That was never going to be the case with Sessions' departure, since the DOJ already has a Deputy AG (Rosenstein) who was qualified to fill that role and met the requirements of the Appointments Clause because he had been confirmed to his Deputy AG post by the U.S. Senate.
Dershowitz was on the legal team. No evidence he ever went to Pedo Island.
There is no evidence that Dershowitz was ever on Epstein's Island.
The woman testified that she was on Epstein's island and Epstein had sex with her.
Where did she allegedly have sex with Dershowitz?
Yes they did
The GOP is weak, the bulk of republicans should demand they do their jobs correctly.
Joining local GOP groups and getting in leadership positions may be a good idea.
“Republicans are going to have to stop playing nice with democrats. They just get kicked in the teeth when democrats have power”
Unfortunately the eGOP would rather play second fiddle and let Dems control the political scene.
The corruption is so deep (State, Shadow Gov) republican politicians are comfortable just collecting their graft and perks that make them millionaires after a few years in Congress (both houses or “chambers” as Alexi Occasional Cortex calls them)
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.