[Basket_of_Deplorables]

“A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution tells me that the statute on that particular point is flat-out unconstitutional.”

If Trump made him “Attorney General,” you would be correct. But “Acting Attorney General” is NOT “Attorney General.” Not legally. He is temporarily assuming most (but not all!) powers (such as, signing FISA warrents. No can do).

Perfectly legal. And....done deal!

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

And dems know this (appointment perfectly legal), which is why they are pushing for “recusal,” rather than illegal. Though some communist front groups will surely try anyway.

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, I see. So you would have been OK if Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to be the "Acting U.S. Supreme Court Justice" and bypassed the Senate confirmation process?

Get real. LOL.

There is no distinction between an "acting" and a "real" Presidential appointee under the U.S. Constitution.

[Alberta's Child]

I think your characterization here is accurate. See Post #41. Trump doesn't care about the constitutionality of the Whitaker appointment because he doesn't expect Whitaker to carry out any official duties of the U.S. Attorney General.

He's there to: (1) cut Rosenstein out of the loop; (2) gain access to information that has been deliberately been withheld from Congress for months, and (3) advise President Trump on executive orders that relate to DOJ matters.