'Dour' White House staff trying to talk Trump out of shutting down Mueller probe as indictments loom

[Miles Archer]

[Blue Owl]

1. Donald Trump is the Man of the Dour

n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. +1

[Harker]

5. Or the dour boor...

depending on your pronunciation.

[yuiyoshida]

3. I just have a feeling that

Matt Whitaker is going to be a pain in ass for America, but it won't stop the house Investigation even if he tries to make Mueller's investigation go away.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Yes, this gives me hope.

What is more the problem is if Whitaker does things to narrow the investigation or cut funding, so the investigation isn't shut down, just crippled. I wonder if the House can do anything about that.

Then when Mueller does issue a report, will the public get to see it? We should. I hope the House can make sure of that.

I'm not confident, though, that Trump will be found to have conspired with Russia. It's very hard to get the guy at the top. They keep an arm's length from the day to day crimes. That's what the inner circle is for.

[yuiyoshida]

6. Seriously, I can see Whitaker destroying evidence for Trump

Lets hope that Mueller has a back up.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Kinda hard to destroy evidence these days.

I worked in litigation as a paralegal for years and handled the evidence. Everything is digitalized, if it's not already, multiple digital copies are made and housed in databases, which are backed up. They are indexed & summarized....also digitalized. And many of the documents (and testimony) are ultimately printed out. All the team members have copies of evidence pertaining to what they are working on.

Whitaker would see summaries of the evidence. Even if he got access to the database and destroyed it or a single piece of evidence, there is a backup. No one piece can go missing without it being noticed. Every document, every email, every photo, every witness statement is summarized and listed and distributed to the team members. Each piece of evidence is assigned a number. If one is removed intentionally, the numbered space indicates that it's intentionally blank.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Doesn't the U.S. Attorney General require Senate approval?

I definitely remember the Senate hearings regarding Sessions, Senator Franken asked particularly tough questions and I know that my (Democratic) senators (Schumer and Gillibrand) voted against approving him.

[Honeycombe8]

9. Trump was advised he can appoint an "acting" AG, which doesn't require Senate approval.

Some in Congress, though, are arguing that the Senate can still require confirmation. Trump's info source (I assume WH counsel) says not. Now some Congress people or the DOJ (I forget who) are expressing concern about Whitaker to the point that I read some Republicans are telling Trump he needs to appoint a real AG, or he needs to go through a Senate hearing so they can ask him questions. They are worried Whitaker's past will taint what happens with Mueller.

But his counsel says an "acting" AG does not need confirmation, so so far, Trump isn't moving to choose a permanent AG or another "acting" AG.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. For how long before he has to replace this temporary "acting" one with a permanent one

Who does require Senate approval? Or can he skirt all the long-standing rules by appointing a series of "acting" positions, each one more objectionable than the next??

Sorry, I really did want to know the answer, this has been bugging me since I remember the Sessions hearings from not that long ago. And I appreciate your answer.

[Honeycombe8]

11. An "acting" AG has some number of days to serve...less than a year.

I forget exactly how many days.

A temporary ("acting" ) AG does not need Senate confirmation, according to the rules, per some legal authorities. That's why Trump did it. Some in Congress are making an argument that they can require a confirmation, nonetheless. That's a legal argument, so if the lawyers don't agree, we cannot know, either.

It seems to me that the WH counsel was correct, though. That's the whole point of appointing a temporary AG...it can be done quickly and without confirmation. The ones who argue against it say the rule is for an emergency situation, though. Which this isn't.

None of this would be an issue, if some Republicans themselves didn't have concerns about Whitaker. They want a permanent AG appointed, or at least someone they approve of. So they'll have to fight that out.

As it stands, Whitaker is the Acting AG, for a certain number of days less than a year, or until Trump appoints a permanent AG.