So. Do we need to make a new thread for the response to this? Not allowed to talk about in here but I think it’s important to coordinate and spread the word
Yes Trump might legally not have a leg to stand on doing this, but the people responsible in stopping him aren't exactly tripping over themselves to do it.
But that can work both ways. If Whitaker doesn’t have legal authority and Mueller and the DOJ ignore him, who’s gonna stop it?
It’d become a legal issue then and the law isn’t on Trump’s side and he lacks patience for a lengthy legal battle while Mueller indicts Jr.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
While this is all alarming for the prospects of Trump investigations/Mueller, I do want to say I'm glad to see Sessions out of power. He is someone who is consistently outside of the mainstream of immigration enforcement and criminal justice reform.
So if his appointment is illegal, what does that actually mean. Is there anyone to actually enforce that? And if so, is there any reason why the Republican controlled senate, who just picked up even more members in their majority, couldn't just confirm him real quick?
Whitaker is a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, but he was also involved in a Miami-based invention-marketing company the Federal Trade Commission shut down last year after calling it a scam.
World Patent Marketing collected millions of dollars by promising starry-eyed inventors it would turn their inventions into best sellers. Company reps claimed invention ideas were reviewed by an illustrious board that included big names such as Whitaker, Republican Congressman Brian Mast, and time-travel scientist Ronald Mallett. (A Mast spokesman denied that the congressman was on the board and said he never accepted compensation, though he did take a campaign contribution he later returned.)
In reality, at least some of the board members simply took cash without ever meeting with inventors or reviewing any pitches. Some of the supposed innovations the company green-lit already existed, so patent applications were regularly denied. And despite the many supposed success stories listed on its website, virtually none of the firm's clients ever made money.
Cooper and World Patent Marketing settled with the Federal Trade Commission this past May. A judgment of $25,987,192 was entered in favor of the FTC. Cooper and World Patent Marketing were also banned from working in invention promotion.
I know the point of this article was to showcase how he's a lying piece of shit, but you can't just name drop "time-travel scientist" and not explain yourself Miami Times.
So if his appointment is illegal, what does that actually mean. Is there anyone to actually enforce that? And if so, is there any reason why the Republican controlled senate, who just picked up even more members in their majority, couldn't just confirm him real quick?
My guess?
-Republicans won't do shit about it
-Democrats will get mad about it but probably won't be able to exercise any way of changing the outcome.
-Depending on how much Mueller plants on persuing this, he may try to file an injunction against Whitaker if he tries messing with the investigation. This isn't a guarantee and would likely result in going all the way to the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh's happy little hands, but maybe it could buy time?
Whitaker is a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, but he was also involved in a Miami-based invention-marketing company the Federal Trade Commission shut down last year after calling it a scam.
World Patent Marketing collected millions of dollars by promising starry-eyed inventors it would turn their inventions into best sellers. Company reps claimed invention ideas were reviewed by an illustrious board that included big names such as Whitaker, Republican Congressman Brian Mast, and time-travel scientist Ronald Mallett. (A Mast spokesman denied that the congressman was on the board and said he never accepted compensation, though he did take a campaign contribution he later returned.)
In reality, at least some of the board members simply took cash without ever meeting with inventors or reviewing any pitches. Some of the supposed innovations the company green-lit already existed, so patent applications were regularly denied. And despite the many supposed success stories listed on its website, virtually none of the firm's clients ever made money.
Cooper and World Patent Marketing settled with the Federal Trade Commission this past May. A judgment of $25,987,192 was entered in favor of the FTC. Cooper and World Patent Marketing were also banned from working in invention promotion.
I know the point of this article was to showcase how he's a lying piece of shit, but you can't just name drop "time-travel scientist" and not explain yourself Miami Times.
Look, you already got the return on your time-travel investment, and if you don't give us the investment seed now, you will be responsible for the collapse of the time stream due to paradox.
The appointment of Whitaker to perform the DAG’s duties and functions would be a lawful option, because the VRA includes two alternatives to the “first assistant to the office” default rule. Assuming Whitaker has been paid at a salary of least $105,123 per year for the past three months (which is virtually certain), then pursuant to section 3345(a)(3) of the VRA, the President (not Sessions) could appoint Whitaker to perform the functions and duties of the DAG “temporarily in an acting capacity”–which, as I explain below, could be for seven months or considerably longer.
The tenor of section 508—which directly imbues the deputy attorney general with the authorities of the attorney general in the event of a vacancy, and further provides that the associate attorney general “shall” serve as acting attorney general if both the attorney general and the deputy are unavailable—suggests that Congress intended their respective places in the succession order to be mandatory. As a matter of statutory interpretation, this sort of specific direction generally takes precedence over more general provisions. Indeed, section 508 would arguably give the deputy attorney general the authority to “exercise all of the duties” of the attorney general even if another official was designated to act under the VRA, an anomalous result that would leave two officials with potentially conflicting authority. So OLC (or, if there is ensuing litigation, the courts) might conclude that the VRA provides an alternative mechanism to section 508 only when the offices of the deputy and associate attorneys general are vacant. (Reading the statute this way, though, requires concluding that section 508’s clarification that the deputy attorney general “is the first assistant to the Attorney General” for purposes of the VRA does not incorporate the VRA in full.)
Whitaker is a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, but he was also involved in a Miami-based invention-marketing company the Federal Trade Commission shut down last year after calling it a scam.
World Patent Marketing collected millions of dollars by promising starry-eyed inventors it would turn their inventions into best sellers. Company reps claimed invention ideas were reviewed by an illustrious board that included big names such as Whitaker, Republican Congressman Brian Mast, and time-travel scientist Ronald Mallett. (A Mast spokesman denied that the congressman was on the board and said he never accepted compensation, though he did take a campaign contribution he later returned.)
In reality, at least some of the board members simply took cash without ever meeting with inventors or reviewing any pitches. Some of the supposed innovations the company green-lit already existed, so patent applications were regularly denied. And despite the many supposed success stories listed on its website, virtually none of the firm's clients ever made money.
Cooper and World Patent Marketing settled with the Federal Trade Commission this past May. A judgment of $25,987,192 was entered in favor of the FTC. Cooper and World Patent Marketing were also banned from working in invention promotion.
I know the point of this article was to showcase how he's a lying piece of shit, but you can't just name drop "time-travel scientist" and not explain yourself Miami Times.
ABC reporter: https://twitter.com KFaulders/status/1060326468339855360
I think Trump thinks the midterms proved he was good to go on this.
Because Trump.
He’s very likely shot himself in the foot. According to The Hill, if Mueller is fired before they take the House, the Democrats plan to call him in for a hearing to discuss his investigation and any findings in depth.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
Yeah, the statute basically goes:
a.1 The next in line
a.2 A Senate-confirmed appointee
a.3 Basically any agency employee
a.3.A Let me finish: IF they've worked there for at least 90 days out of the last year...
a.3.B As a... GS-15?
For reference: Kellyanne, Seb Gorka, Spicer, and Hope Hicks would all clear that time and salary requirement by a mile if they had been foisted on the DOJ for 90 days, starting 275 days ago.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
I would hope when discussing a position within the federal bureaucracy one would be at least tangentially familiar with, you know, the basics of the federal bureaucracy.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
It’s a pretty non-charitable of saying a specific rank in a civilian government job.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
I mean, no it doesn't.
Money is tied directly to certain experience and education levels in the government. You'll have some crossover in different sections of the government payscale, like experience/education meetups in ranks (A GS-12 Scale 8 makes about the same as a GS13 Scale 2, etc), which is fine because working as intended.
This is a big nothingburger.
jungleroomx on
+10
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
Yeah, the statute basically goes:
a.1 The next in line
a.2 A Senate-confirmed appointee
a.3 Basically any agency employee
a.3.A Let me finish: IF they've worked there for at least 90 days out of the last year...
a.3.B As a... GS-15?
For reference: Kellyanne, Seb Gorka, Spicer, and Hope Hicks would all clear that time and salary requirement by a mile if they had been foisted on the DOJ for 90 days, starting 275 days ago.
Sorry, so is this saying Whitaker is still illegitimate, or not?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
No. It says you have to have been paid equivalent to, or better than a GS 15 (~100k), and only for the 90 days you worked there.
(B) the rate of pay for the position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule
Trump's goon squad make nearly twice that, and its certainly not because they're experienced or particularily talented.
He's not #1, and he's not #2, and #3 is only supposed to be called into play if no #2's can be found.
But number #1 and #2 are the same person. Rosenstein.
Thanks! That's what I thought I was getting, but it seemed like it was initially posted as evidence of legitimacy, so I just wanted to make sure I was following.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
He's not #1, and he's not #2, and #3 is only supposed to be called into play if no #2's can be found.
But number #1 and #2 are the same person. Rosenstein.
It's not a sequence, it's three legal options. 1 is default until/unless the president chooses to exercise 2 or 3.
If it's not a line of succession, or at least an order of preference, what is the point of having a list at all when #3 opens it up to almost anyone?
It's like a restaurant saying their specials are the bacon cheeseburger, the baked salmon, and everything on the menu.
Not sure if still the case; but I found a report from 2000, covering political appointee payscales from 1998-2000. It seems that, at least at the time the Vacancy reform act was written (98), you could qualify for 2, but be in a GS-13 position.
So, 1998 lawmakers probably figured that if norms have allowed you to land a GS-15 or SES job at the relevant agency, you're probably a fine temp. Or if your first day in government started five minutes ago, but the Senate confirmed you, then you're probably not going to dick anything up too badly before a replacement is found.
Seems like another instance of how things are assumed to go in an order but it's only done that way out of tradition and not actually a hard rule because everyone in government is just on the honor system then right?
Posts
I'd take it up with the mods to be safe.
was this deleted, I don't see it on the feed
EDIT: Nevermind found it
But that can work both ways. If Whitaker doesn’t have legal authority and Mueller and the DOJ ignore him, who’s gonna stop it?
It’d become a legal issue then and the law isn’t on Trump’s side and he lacks patience for a lengthy legal battle while Mueller indicts Jr.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I will not miss him.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Trump's Acting Attorney General Was Part of Miami-Based Invention Scam Company
I know the point of this article was to showcase how he's a lying piece of shit, but you can't just name drop "time-travel scientist" and not explain yourself Miami Times.
My guess?
-Republicans won't do shit about it
-Democrats will get mad about it but probably won't be able to exercise any way of changing the outcome.
-Depending on how much Mueller plants on persuing this, he may try to file an injunction against Whitaker if he tries messing with the investigation. This isn't a guarantee and would likely result in going all the way to the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh's happy little hands, but maybe it could buy time?
Sounds like Trump's kind of guy.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Professor at St. John's Law
What a world
https://www.justsecurity.org/54809/replace-rod-rosenstein/
How Whitaker qualifies under the Vacancies reform act (VRA)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/if-attorney-general-fired-who-acts-attorney-general
Explains why the question of if the Vacancies act (VRA) can or cannot supercede the statute specifically about DOJ succession (section 508) is unclear:
did I read that right, did it say "if you're paid enough beforehand, your appointment is legit"?
Swamp: drained!
The alternative is likely his son and son-in-law in prison to start.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. It is an indicator that you've been in the government at the levels theoretically needed for long enough to have the experience needed to perform the duties.
I'm not going to say it is a great indicator. But it is better than letting me do it because I'm a notary and we sometimes have drinks at the same bar.
I think pay is in this case used as a proxy for a particular level of experience and authority.
Hello darkness my old friend...
Read that as if you are at the rank of GS-15 in the civil service.
You can actually make that much at lower levels, depending on years in job (which is probably not applicable here).
More and more I think that George Lucas was right.
If I were to say you couldn’t be a general in the Army without first being a colonel, it sounds fine because a general has to have a minimum time in service of 20 years required.
If I say that you have to be paid $144,000 a year (a brigadier general’s base pay), it’d sound much more nefarious even if it’s the same thing.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
No, don't be silly. This is government work. The professional civil service is structured and codified. You work X job for Y years, you are this rank and get Z pay.
The law basically says "You must be this high up in the civil service to qualify for this job". Which makes sense since the point is that you are supposed to be able to do the job and thus can't just be some random joe.
Mild Confusion sums the issue up pretty well
If you describe something by the actual rank and responsibilities, it's fine.
When you start describing something by the amount of money the person makes, then things don't quite read as legit anymore, because unless you're well versed on the pay structures of the Federal Bureaucracy, it comes across as a very different take, entirely divorced from any idea of actual experience or readiness.
Yeah, the statute basically goes:
a.1 The next in line
a.2 A Senate-confirmed appointee
a.3 Basically any agency employee
a.3.A Let me finish: IF they've worked there for at least 90 days out of the last year...
a.3.B As a... GS-15?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345
For reference: Kellyanne, Seb Gorka, Spicer, and Hope Hicks would all clear that time and salary requirement by a mile if they had been foisted on the DOJ for 90 days, starting 275 days ago.
I would hope when discussing a position within the federal bureaucracy one would be at least tangentially familiar with, you know, the basics of the federal bureaucracy.
I mean, no it doesn't.
Money is tied directly to certain experience and education levels in the government. You'll have some crossover in different sections of the government payscale, like experience/education meetups in ranks (A GS-12 Scale 8 makes about the same as a GS13 Scale 2, etc), which is fine because working as intended.
This is a big nothingburger.
Sorry, so is this saying Whitaker is still illegitimate, or not?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
But number #1 and #2 are the same person. Rosenstein.
No. It says you have to have been paid equivalent to, or better than a GS 15 (~100k), and only for the 90 days you worked there.
Trump's goon squad make nearly twice that, and its certainly not because they're experienced or particularily talented.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/30/trump-white-house-salaries-240149
Thanks! That's what I thought I was getting, but it seemed like it was initially posted as evidence of legitimacy, so I just wanted to make sure I was following.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
It's not a sequence, it's three legal options. 1 is default until/unless the president chooses to exercise 2 or 3.
[Potentially] Legit, unless a court finds that section 508 means options 2 and 3 may not be excercised if 1 is viable.
So to answer your question: Yes.
If it's not a line of succession, or at least an order of preference, what is the point of having a list at all when #3 opens it up to almost anyone?
It's like a restaurant saying their specials are the bacon cheeseburger, the baked salmon, and everything on the menu.
Not sure if still the case; but I found a report from 2000, covering political appointee payscales from 1998-2000. It seems that, at least at the time the Vacancy reform act was written (98), you could qualify for 2, but be in a GS-13 position.
So, 1998 lawmakers probably figured that if norms have allowed you to land a GS-15 or SES job at the relevant agency, you're probably a fine temp. Or if your first day in government started five minutes ago, but the Senate confirmed you, then you're probably not going to dick anything up too badly before a replacement is found.