Question: I know there is not evidence of wrong doing, nevertheless, could the Dem-controlled House impeach Whitaker? Maybe that’s what all these demands for him to recuse are about...laying the grounds for impeachment? (Sorry if this is a dumb question : ( I’m just trying to think it through...)
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
could the Dem-controlled House impeach Whitaker? Of course, they could impeach his lunch, well not really or really? Senate would have to convict by 2/3 majority, which is unlikely. Even if he recused they could impeach, as that power isn't limited, just need a 'high crime or misdemeanor' which can be whatever the House majority decides.