1. So BARREL, I have a suggestion for POTUS TRUMP. I have been watching POTUS TRUMP’S daily coronavirus briefings and watching all of the snarky questions from the so-called reporters and I have what may be an intriguing epiphany/idea.
2. What is that PORK?
3. How about bringing all of the media owner moguls from Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Breitbart News, Drudge Report, Infowars, Washington POST, NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Times, etc., etc., to a special multi-hour news briefing to them and the nation and leave all of their low level dog in the manger minions outside for a change?
4. How about talking directly to the media owners?
5. Get them in the same room and review COVID 19 with them and any other matters of interest.
6. And do so face to face and then use ZOOM or Gotomeeting weekly and get them involved in the solution so their dog in the manger minions don’t keep roiling the nation with their negativity.
7. Wow, PORK. That is a spectacular suggestion.
8. BARREL, my bet is that the media owner moguls are more than willing to help the nation and that at the same time they are willing to change the tone of the media from negative to positive and thereby help contain COVID 19 and get the economy back on a fast track.
1. BARREL, BREITBART Owners and Editors, by continuing to publish dog-in-the-manger Cher and Debra Messing and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff criticism of POTUS, lack common sense.
2. Yes, PORK, they are politicizing and monetizing COVID 19.
3. BARREL, by purveying the negative at this time of crisis for the nation, BREITBART, Cher, Debra Messing, Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff have become a major part of the COVID 19 problem.
4. They obviously have never worked in a state or county emergency or humanitarian or hospital operations center where the rubber meets the road.
5. By adding to our stress and anxiety, they obviously don’t get it, lack common sense, and have no compassion.
6. They don’t get it that real people are dying, real people are sick, real families and individuals are stressed, real people are experiencing cabin fever from sheltering in place. Real people, POTUS and his family and VP Pence included, together with medical personnel, with First Responders, with government employees and leaders including our military, are working round the clock to contain COVID 19, and the last thing anyone needs is BREITBART Owner and Editors and Cher and Debra and Nancy and Adam negativity and criticism. Their criticism is simply not helpful.
7. During an emergency and disaster is not the time for negativity. It is the time to rise to the occasion and help strengthen the nation.
8. Now is the time to offer to help – to ask the question “How can I help? Not how can I criticize?
9. Now is the time to do something and say something positive and including POTUS honor those who are working so hard to contain the virus. Now is the time to stop finding fault.
10. Yes, PORK, these people – BREITBART Editors and Cher and Debra Messing and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff clearly are not part of the COVID 19 solution and have become a major part of the problem.
11. By criticizing POTUS, they are criticising FEMA and the CDC, and our medical personnel and First Responders and our military and our great State and County and local Emergency Operations personnel who are laying their lives on the line; by criticizing they are sending negative drivel out during this stressful time when people are suffering and dying from COVID 19.
12. Yes, PORK, Cher and Debra Messing and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and now Breitbart Editors are simply demonstrating their lack of common sense, and their lack of empathy and compassion, most importantly their lack of understanding of the COVID 19 problem, together with their unwillingness to reach out and lend a helping hand.
13. BARREL, I have this little poem that sums it up.
1. BARREL, is Senator Lindsey Graham going to come to the party and take the initiative and investigate and issue subpoenas?
2. I hope so, PORK. I want to know, did Joe Biden misuse his office to enrich his son and family?
3. Did Joe Biden force the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor looking into the company Biden’s son was part of and then admit his perfidy and corruption and laugh about it?
4. Isn’t it obvious to the nation that the Democrats are undone because once again the boomerang smacks them with all of the scandals that are in their camp?
5. So Lindsey, are you going to investigate and validate that there is a set of massive Democrat scandals like Peter Schweizer and Mark Levin say?
6. Is the Biden family corrupt?
7. Did the Biden family obstruct justice?
8. Did Joe Biden blackmail the Ukrainian government and withhold military aid in order to get that prosecutor removed in order to protect his son and protect his future running for President?
9. Did Joe come into office poor and leave rich with money from China and elsewhere – in other words, how did a career politician do just that?
10. Did Hunter Biden and John Kerry’s son and Joe Biden and John Kerry walk away with $1.5 billion from China?
11. Is it accurate that there really is no whistle-blower just somebody who thought it up?
12. By the way, who leaked and committed a crime by leaking President Trump’s conversation with foreign leaders?
13. Lindsey, are you going to come to the party and take some initiative and appoint a special counsel and look into Biden and his son and John Kerry’s son and John Kerry?
14. Where are you Lindsey Graham? Where is your backbone? You stood up for Kavanaugh. Isn’t it time for you to stand up for POTUS Trump and help him fight the battle and not let this Democrat charade continue.
15. So Senator Lindsey Graham, isn’t it time to take the gloves off and if there is corruption on the part of the Bidens and others stand up and be counted and deal with it?
BARREL, are you interested in voting for Joe Biden? No, PORK. I have 103 reasons not to.
Then BARREL, who has a chance of beating POTUS Trump in 2020?
PORK, I follow the news regularly – Fox, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Drudge, Breitbart, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and I have no interest whatsoever in voting for Joe.
I find the following negatives about Joe in the news in one form or another:
1. Joe is a gaffe disaster waiting to happen. His 1973 full audio has shown up with his “politicians are more virtuous than doctors,” his slavery joke, his woman joke, his self-praise repeatedly, his admission that he is a “phony liberal.”
2. He’s a career federal government politician.
3. Amy Lappos, the congressional aide accused him of inappropriately touching her.
4. He’s ancient.
5. Anita Hill sexual harassment inquisition on his watch was a debacle.
6. He apologizes for mishandling things thereby admitting he mishandled things.
7. His apologies are too little too late.
8. Biden’s brother and the $1.5 billion government contract conflict of interest looms large.
9. Biden’s son, Hunter, joining the board of the Ukrainian gas producer conflict of interest looms way too large.
10. Biden’s son Hunter’s with the $billion from China intersects Joe’s political office conflict of interest according to Peter Sweizer.
11. He is big on paid speaking gigs.
12. He bragged about his role in policies that have devastated black communities.
13. Caitlyn Caruso is on record that he inappropriately touched her.
14. He can’t keep his hands off young girls.
15. His China conflicts are fatal.
16. He claimed he was a civil rights activist when he wasn’t.
17. Now he’s tied to a climate plan plagiarism “scandal.”
18. He had to know and thus was complicit in FISA surveillance of POTUS Trump. One news note says his National Security Advisor was present in the Oval office with Obama so Joe could be kept up to speed when the Russian narrative and surveillance and “take down of Trump” was discussed and furthered. From Isikoff and Corn new book: Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, chaired the principals meeting, which the authors write included Kahl, who served as Biden’s national security adviser from October 2014 to January 2017. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/06/book-joe-bidens-national-security-advisor-participated-in-secretive-early-russia-probe-meetings/
19. Joe was complicit in all of Obama’s failed policies. E.g. the health care debacle – the you can keep your own provider prevarication.
20. He apparently unsuccessfully considered running for president five times.
21. He carries the name Creepy Uncle Joe.
22. Creepy is a hard name to live down.
23. D.J. Hill is another woman who is on record accusing him.
24. He packs decades of old school negative political baggage.
25. He can’t point to anything of real value he did while he was Vice President – before or after.
26. He failed in his run for President in 1984.
27. He failed in his run for President in 1988.
28. He failed in his run for President in 2008.
29. The party just did not rise to the occasion and support him which tells me when push finally comes to shove Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the rest of the DNC and the party won’t do so this time either.
30. He now pushes the false narrative that he is “the most progressive candidate” which he is not.
31. Per Peter Sweizer, he is really just focused on money making ventures.
32. He can’t help drain the swamp and get rid of corruption in Washington because he is the inside player who is up to his elbows in the swamp of corruption in Washington.
33. He can’t fix the mess in Washington because he is the personification of the mess in Washington.
34. He can’t run on Obama’s legacy because Obama thinly if at all endorses him and besides Obama has a highly questionable legacy.
35. He failed relative to Iraq.
36. He failed relative to Libya Ben Ghazi.
37. One news account says he helped give us ISIS.
38. He did indeed given the fact that he helped Obama give the Iranians billions which they use to fund their military and fight us by sponsoring terrorism.
39. He is a repeat of the H. Clinton debacle.
40. He is an Iraq hawk guilty of spending trillions of our money down the middle east military industrial complex rat hole.
41. He is in the banking industry pockets.
42. He is old.
43. He is the Bill Clinton look alike although without the cigar.
44. He is the Democratic party run by and for white men.
45. He is the Hillary Clinton failed candidate.
46. He is the worst candidate for democrats.
47. He is too little too late when it comes to reinventing himself.
48. He keeps showing us pictures of himself when he was young as though he wants us to think of him as young when he is not.
49. He is uniquely ill-suited as a leader.
50. All this again because he symbolizes the old Democratic party.
51. One news source says he’s just another buckraker like the Clintons.
52. His contrived “will-he-won’t-he” announcement was a joke.
53. Again, his last presidential campaign crashed and burned.
54. His presidential campaign before that crashed and burned.
55. His promises are not worth much. Just look at:
56. His record on abortion – flip flopper – now he’s against – now he’s for – after criticism from Planned Parenthood — whatever will tease a vote.
57. His record on busing
58. His record on Blacks and civil liberties
59. His record on immigration
60. His record on mass incarceration
61. His record on war
62. He is the inappropriate touching Presidential candidate.
63. He is the insider veteran who is part of the problem not part of the solution.
64. He is the kissed senator’s teenage daughter on side of head
candidate who says I won’t do it again.
65. He misused his office by leaning on the Ukrainians to fire their top prosecutor just as their top prosecutor was set to investigate the gas company which included his son Hunter.
66. Lucy Flores is on record accusing him.
67. Through the years he has moaned about government spending yet has done nothing to curb it.
68. He can’t point to his past and say “I am a statesman.”
69. In fact, he has a muddy past.
70. He has a murky past.
71. He carries no future media $ value to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Drudge, Breitbart, Infowars while POTUS Trump for or against is worth billions and billions to them.
72. He is not a fresh face.
73. He is not a reformer.
74. He simply is not inspiring.
75. He was not especially popular during Obama’s time in office.
76. He is one of the oldest candidates.
77. He is one of the worst candidates.
78. He is part of the deep establishment state.
79. He is that quintessential professional politician.
80. He has a questionable endorsement from Obama.
81. He is ridiculed for his many gaffes.
82. He is ridiculed for his political I’m going to beat Trump up machismo.
83. He is an out of touch with reality senior citizen.
84. He is a stereotypical old school Democrat.
85. There is nothing extraordinary about his career.
86. His Ukrainian conflicts are fatal.
87. His Chinese conflicts are fatal.
88. He is Uncle Joe.
89. He is uniquely ill-suited as a leader.
90. He used his office to enrich himself and his family.
91. He voted for NAFTA.
92. He voted for Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which put an inordinate number of people of color in jails for drug-related offenses.
93. He voted to support the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2002 that cost America untold treasure.
94. His voting record is discriminatory
95. He is best known for whispering in the ear of a senator’s teenage daughter.
96. It looks like he may be in bed with the DNC which is again seeking to marginalize Bernie.
97. He has no capacity to go toe to toe with the young candidates.
98. He has little capacity to keep us free.
99. He has little capacity to help keep us safe.
100. He has little capacity to help us be prosperous.
101. He is running on the tired, worn out, negative, wasteful Schumer and Pelosi platform of bashing POTUS Trump.
102. His thought about mediating between republicans and democrats and “calming the nation” is eyewash.
103. PORK, these above thoughts are the messages I am finding over and over in the media. I suppose you can argue “fake news.” I suppose you can argue “not true.” Regardless of true or false enough of them are true. Besides:
104. Joe has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because POTUS Trump is one of the few presidents who has kept his campaign promises. POTUS Trump has kept more than 300 of his campaign promises and it looks like POTUS Trump will even make serious progress on the wall despite the fact that the democrats have withheld funding and support for the wall.
105. My conclusion, PORK, is this.
106. Joe has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because Joe can’t point to one positive promise he has kept over his long career that helps us be free, safe, and prosperous today.
107. He has no chance of beating POTUS Trump because the media is making billions of dollars if not trillions collectively off the POTUS Trump gravy train. And they will continue to do so after POTUS Trump is reelected.
108. A number of these same thoughts apply to Bernie
as well.
109. BARREL, who then among democrats can beat POTUS Trump in 2020, BARREL?
110. Well, I’m not certain anyone can. But let’s at least look at the others in the democrat field.
111. PORK. I will narrow the field to my four picks.
112. I think the democrats need to take a hard look at Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, and Amy Klobuchar not in that order.
113. And of the four, BARREL?
114. I think the democrats will be well advised to field Jay Inslee for President with Amy Klobuchar or Julian Castro as Vice President.
BARREL, I have come up with this three part description honoring POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump, and this same description is a blueprint for every country leader in the world.
What is it, PORK?
BARREL, if POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump continue on track, keeping their promises to us, building the wall, stopping the invasion, generating jobs, lowering taxes, prosecuting those who have abused their elected or paid offices, history will show that POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump are two of the greatest most honorable national and world leaders.
1. FREE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused [including a strong military] on helping us enjoy INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion – letting the people worship how where or what they may so long as they don’t force others to worship as they do.
2. SAFE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us and our children and unborn be SAFE – safe from terrorism, safe from crime, safe from invasion, safe from war, safe from abortion, safe from human trafficking, safe from predator politicians, safe from physical or emotional or intellectual or sexual or other abuse.
3. PROSPEROUS. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us be PROSPEROUS with adequate health care, education, entrepreneurial opportunities, manufacturing in country, minimal taxation, and jobs.
PORK, what steps can POTUS Trump take to guarantee that he will be a one term president?
BARREL, I think POTUS Trump can guarantee that he will be a one term president if he fails to keep us FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, if he fails to clearly show the nation all the promises he has kept.
In particular, he can guarantee that he will be a one term president simply by taking all or some combination of the following five steps:
STEP 1. IMMIGRATION. Fail to control the border and stop the invasion and fail to build the wall as he promised.
STEP 2. ABORTION. Fail to protect the BLACK, HISPANIC, JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN AMERICAN unborn as he promised.**
3. JOBS AND TAXES. Fail to keep front and center the message to BLACKS and HISPANICS and ALL OTHER AMERICAS that he is helping them with jobs and tax breaks as he promised.
4. RULE OF LAW. Fail to indict and prosecute and bring to justice those including rich and famous who have aggrandized and enriched themselves by prostituting their elected or appointed offices as he promised.
5. MESSAGE. Fail to show and teach the nation’s Republican and Democrat WOMEN, MEN, YOUTH, BLACKS, HISPANICS, JEWISH AMERICANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, ASIAN AMERICANS, CAUCASIAN AMERICANS all of the promises he has kept and the immense good he has done during his term in office.
** Since democrat founded Roe v Wade in 1973 more than 300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been surgically and chemically murdered, killed, flushed, sent to land fills, sold for body parts, aborted: 50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000+ were BLACK babies. 50,000,000+ were HISPANIC babies.
To sponsor Richard W. Linford’s new book RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER? BARREL & PORK are giving away a free copy here below. An ebook copy can be purchased for $4.95 on amazon.com by clicking here:
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
Richard W Linford
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
Foreword. Some accept Jeff Sessions’ recusal at face value while such should not be the case. Judging Jeff Sessions’ recusal by what politicians and political groups did and do, by the effect of their votes and actions, not simplistically by what they say, suggests that AG Sessions’ recusal was engineered to the extreme harm of POTUS TRUMP. Acting AG Matthew Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself and POTUS Trump would be remiss to let him.
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
RECUSAL DEFINED?
“Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. “
Another definition. “The verb recuse is used in legal situations and means to remove someone from a position of judicial authority, either a judge or a member of a jury, who is deemed unacceptable to judge, usually because of some bias.” “The Latin recusare, meaning “to refuse” is the place to start in the history of recuse. You can recuse someone else, but also yourself.
Recusal “… means to disqualify oneself as a judge in a particular case. It means to remove oneself from participation in a situation in order to avoid a conflict of interest.”
A conflict of interest “is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Conflicts of interest involve dual relationships; one person in one relationship and a relationship in another situation.
Through recusal. Either a person recuses himself or herself, as in the U.S. Supreme Court justices, or a person can be compelled to recuse himself by virtue of administrative decree, edict, order, command, or injunction.
Through waiver. The opposition can waive any conflict of interest.
Through contract. Parties can agree to terms of a recusal.
Through insurance. The party with the alleged conflict of interest can provide a pledge or insurance guaranteeing he or she will not permit earlier or present conflicts to make a difference in decisions or actions.
The party with the alleged conflict of interest can refuse to accept a recusal, thereby setting the stage for litigation of the matter before a court of law or administrative judicial body.
WHAT ARE JUDICIAL EXAMPLES OF RECUSAL?
Clarence Thomas recused himself in a case involving Virginia because his son attended Virginia Military Institute.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner recused herself from participation in telecommunications cases. Why? Because she owned stock in telecommunications companies.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from participation in insurance related matters because of a connection he had to Lloyd’s of London.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself from several cases Arizona attorney James Brosnahan argued before the Supreme Court because James Brosnahan gave testimony against Justice Rehnquist during his confirmation hearing.
Three Supreme Court Justices – Scalia, Souter, and Thomas recused themselves in a death penalty appeal because they knew the victim’s son.
Justice Hugo Black did not recuse himself in the Jewell Ridge Coal case.
Even though in the past he opined that arrests were valid, Associate Justice Rehnquist refused to recuse himself in a case involving validity of certain arrests.
Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case involving VP Dick Cheney as a party even though Justice Scalia was a participant in a hunting trip with Mr. Cheney.
Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a Pledge of Allegiance-related case, notwithstanding Justice Scalia stated his view that a party’s claims had no merit.
There are a number of other federal cases where judges refused to recuse themselves, one involving federal judge Leon Higginbotham, one involving Paul Borman, one involving Michael Mukasey.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATION MR. SESSIONS RELIED UPON AS LEGAL SUPPORT FOR HIS RECUSAL?
He relied on Department of Justice regulation: Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.”
2(a) and (b) read:
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
( c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
DID MR. SESSIONS COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE REGULATION UPON WHICH HE RELIED? ANSWER: IT APPEARS THAT HE DID NOT.
Paragraph b) of the DOJ regulation reads: An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher.
Sessions was obligated to “report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor [POTUS Trump].” Did he do this? No he did not.
UNLIKE RECUSAL IN THE MATTER OF A SUPREME COURT OR OTHER JUDGE WHEREIN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WILL OR WILL NOT RECUSE THEMSELVES, WHOSE CHOICE WAS IT WHETHER MR. SESSIONS RECUSE HIMSELF OR NOT?
According to the DOJ regulation Mr. Sessions relied upon, the choice as to whether Mr. Sessions should recuse himself belonged to POTUS Trump.
Why? Because The DOJ regulation reads:
If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
Who was Mr. Sessions’ supervisor?
Answer: POTUS Trump.
Again, whose choice was it whether Mr. Sessions recuse himself?
Answer: POTUS Trump’s choice.
Session arbitrarily decided to and then announced that he was recusing himself.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DID MR. SESSIONS’ RECUSAL MAKE?
Sessions said it was “absurd” to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
Was it absurd to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
Was he in fact able to manage the Department of Justice?
The answer is no.
He was only able to manage a part of the Department of Justice.
For his work combating gangs, dealing with drug and immigration issues, and DOJ related matters other than “Russians involved in influencing the U.S. election,” Mr. Sessions is
He focused his administration on “rolling back the work of the Obama administration in liberalizing drug laws, reducing mass incarceration, and ending federal monitoring of troubled police departments.
With all the good work he did, however, did his recusal make it impossible for him to manage and direct matters pertaining to the “Russian interference in the 2016 election”?
Did his recusal make it –
(1) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to the democratic party including the Clintons and the Podestas? and
(2) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to Hillary Clinton including investigating whether she misused her office and colluded with the Russians and took vast sums of money from the Russians and others as campaign funds or otherwise in return for influence, whether she paid a million dollars for the “Russian dossier, “whether she took control of democratic party funds to the harm of Bernie Sanders, whether she colluded with others, including perhaps then POTUS Obama, to damage a sitting president POTUS Trump by using ill-gotten FISA warrants?
Did his recusal make it (3) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in the “Russian” elements of the Mueller investigation(s)?
His recusal made such impossible. There is no indication Mr. Sessions provided management and direction to matters pertaining to “Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
This was left to Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein who had oversight for the “Russian investigation.” Mr. Rosenstein apparently appointed and gave Mr. Mueller the investigative latitude he enjoys.
Today Matthew J. Whitaker serves as acting Attorney General. He has not recused himself and any recusal would be determined by POTUS Trump if there is a continued call for recusal.
Looking at the political landscape, what appears to a reasonable person, to a reasonable investigative journalist, to a reasonable special counsel, is this:
It would appear that the democrats manufactured the “Russians” did it narrative as a smokescreen to cover their own perfidy in dealing with the Russians.
To-date there is no indication the Russians colluded with POTUS Trump.
There is a reasonable conclusion that the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta and others, including the complicit media on the left, manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative.
If Mr. Sessions knew the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he is either a closet liberal and party to the elaborate, far reaching fraud on the Republican party and the nation, and his recusal was intentionally designed to hamstring POTUS Trump and prevent POTUS Trump from carrying out his duty as regards criminal actions, OR
If Mr. Sessions did not know that the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he has been deceived by the Democrats. In this case, Mr. Sessions’ recusal was misinformed.
Either way, as a consequence of the Democrat falsehood, and the subsequent Sessions recusal,
(1) we the American people are not just saddled with the multi-million dollar Mueller special investigation,
(2)We are saddled with a two tier justice system where the rich and famous commit felonies and escape grand jury indictment and subsequent arrest, prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SESSIONS RECUSAL?
To-date, after all this time, we the people still have no answers to critical questions.
Did the Democrats collude with the Russians?
Did the Democrats receive funds from the Russians?
Did the Democrats manufacture the “Russians interfered in the 2016 election” narrative?
Did they, including then Barack Obama, and closet or open liberals in the Republican Party, engineer Mr. Sessions’ recusal and the “Mueller special counsel” in order to marginalize a duly elected sitting president POTUS Trump?
Have they aggressively followed the Saul Alinsky principle of accusing your opponent of the very same thing you are guilty of?
Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign wrongfully confiscate millions of dollars of Democratic national committee funds to the great harm of Bernie Sanders and others?
Did Hillary Clinton with give or take a million dollars fund the fake “Russian” dossier denigrating POTUS Trump and do so through a Democrat law firm and fusion GPS and operatives?
Did Hillary Clinton use her private email and servers and Blackberries to knowingly, or unknowingly, transfer classified information to the Russians and Chinese and others? Either way, this is felonious conduct.
To what degree were the FBI leadership and other FBI persons complicit in activities that harmed and still harm POTUS Trump? Mr. Comey? Mr. Clapper? Media personalities? Others?
Had Mr. Sessions failed to “recuse himself,” had he adhered to the policy and given POTUS Trump his right to choose, would we have answers to each of these questions?
Is it reasonable to conclude that indictments would have been issued beyond the few seeming inconsequential indictments issued by Mr. Mueller to-date?
FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, MARK LEVIN, AMONG OTHERS, CALLED FOR JEFF SESSIONS TO RESIGN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
In April of 2018, MARK said: “The buck stops on the Attorney General’s desk, even if he recused himself as he did with the Russian matter. This is not the Russian matter. And the entire [Justice] Department is out of control now and its country first, over any politician, even if I’ve known that politician for a long, long time, his attorney general now.“I watch the president of the United States here now. He doesn’t deserve any of this. He didn’t do anything. He didn’t do anything. What do you think it is, Chappaquiddick?
“And so it’s time for the Attorney General to step aside and for the president of the United States, he can make a recess appointment, … [of] somebody … who’s going to take … charge over what’s going on in this country.
WHAT ABOUT MR. SESSIONS’ RESIGNATION AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
Sessions’ resignation was made according to Mr. Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
His letter of resignation reads:
“Dear Mr. President,
“At your request, I am submitting my resignation.
“Since the day I was honored to be sworn in as Attorney General of the United States, I came to work at the Department of Justice every day determined to do my duty and serve my country.
“I have done so to the best of my ability, working to support the fundamental legal processes that are the foundation of justice.
“The team we assembled embraced your directive to be a law and order Department of Justice.
“We prosecuted the largest number of violent offenders and firearm defendants in our country’s history.
“We took on transnational gangs that are bringing violence and death across our borders and protected national security.
“We did our part to restore immigration enforcement.
“We targeted the opioid epidemic by prosecuting doctors, pharmacists, and anyone else who contributed to this crisis with new law enforcement tools and determination.
“And we have seen results.
“After two years of rising violent crime and homicides prior to this administration, those trends have reversed – thanks to the hard work of our prosecutors and law enforcement around the country.
“I am particularly grateful to the fabulous men and women in law enforcement all over this country with whom I have served.
“I have had no greater honor than to serve alongside them.
“As I have said many times, they have my thanks and I will always have their backs.
“Most importantly, in my time as Attorney General we have restored and upheld the rule of law – a glorious tradition that each of us has a responsibility to safeguard.
“We have operated with integrity and have lawfully and aggressively advanced the policy agenda of this administration.
“I have been honored to serve as Attorney General and have worked to implement the law enforcement agenda based on the rule of law that formed a central part of your campaign for the Presidency.
Again, I for one praise Mr. Sessions for the good that he has done.
What is missing from his letter is any indication whatsoever that he helped resolve the serious issues raised by the above questions.
SHIFTING GEARS, WHAT OF MATTHEW J. WHITAKER’S APPOINTMENT AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL? WHAT OF THE CALL BY DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS FOR MR. WHITAKER TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM GIVING OVERSIGHT TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
POTUS Trump appointed Matthew J. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General and this despite the fact Rod Rosenstein was Assistant Attorney General.
POTUS Trump is authorized to make the appointment of Mr. Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General.
This document is also included herein as APPENDIX A.
One might have thought Mr. Rosenstein had a shot at being chosen to succeed Mr. Sessions but Mr. Rosenstein didn’t get the nod from POTUS Trump.
Why not?
Who knows for certain?
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was complicit in the appointment of Mr. Mueller.
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein has not helped resolve the issues set forth in the above list of questions.
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was part of the problem not part of the solution.
The fact is “Mr. Rosenstein was not chosen by POTUS Trump.”
Matthew George Whitaker chosen.
Whitaker was born October 29, 2969 in Des Moines, Iowa.
He is an American lawyer and politician.
He is now Acting United States Attorney General, Appointed November 7, 2018 pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
He was appointed after resignation of then AG Jeff Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
Whitaker was appointed by POTUS Donald Trump.
At time of appointment, Mr. Whitaker was serving as Chief of Staff to AG Jeff Sessions.
Earlier he served as a U.S. Attorney during the Bush Administration.
He is a graduate of Ankeny High School and University of Iowa.
He holds these degrees –
a bachelor’s in communications,
an MBA, and
A Juris Doctorate Law Degree.
He played tight end for U of Iowa Hawkeyes football team.
He played in Iowa’s Rose Bowl game 1991.
Whitaker worked for regional law firms; served as corporate counsel for a national grocery company; was a small businessman; served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; served as managing partner of a law firm; served as chairman of several political campaigns; ran for U.S. Senate in Iowa; served as executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust; served as a CNN contributor; then he joined the Department of Justice.
He is an evangelical Christian.
He obviously got along well enough with POTUS Trump.
He does not support the Mueller investigation.
He is in favor of prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
He has no legal or ethical obligation or reason to step aside from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation or from prosecuting Mrs. Clinton.
As is to be expected, he has garnered his share of criticism.
The Wikipedia article about him is obviously a “left” biased hit piece designed to highlight all of Mr. Whitaker’s faults and establish in a public record the negative reasons why Mr. Whitaker should be rejected as Acting AG and AG and why he should recuse himself from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation.
A FEW CONCLUSIONS? Does investigative journalism and forensic evidence support the following? If so, the DOJ and Mr. Mueller need to indict and prosecute.
1) Was the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative manufactured by the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others as an excuse for their overwhelming, unexpected 2016 loss to POTUS Trump?
2) Following the classic Saul Alinsky Rule for Radicals which is to “attack your opponent for anything wrong you are doing,” have the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others including complicit media outlets and personalities manufactured and promoted the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative and foisted which is to say wrongfully imposed the same off on the nation and world? Was this a great lie created to cover up the actual felonious collusion by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and others including actors like John McCain with the Russians?
3) Was the Democrat false narrative and great lie created to cover up the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party collusion with and funding to and funding from the Russians? Did Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign people pay Russians give or take a million dollars for a false dossier denigrating POTUS Trump? Did the Clintons receive serious hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions in money from the Russians and other country representatives in return for influence including giving away 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russians? And if the latter is true, does such rise to the level of treason?
4) Have the Russians been attempting to influence our elections for years and is this an old accusation pre-dating POTUS Trump’s election, a Russian activity well known by then POTUS Obama and his administration? Did the Russians have any influence on the 2016 election? Is there any indication that votes were influenced by the Russians?
5) Did POTUS Trump collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton or was it the other way around? Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from POTUS Trump?
6) Did POTUS Trump work with the Russians and change the outcome of the 2016 election in his favor? Or is it just the opposite. Did Hillary Clinton and her operatives and the Democratic Party work with the Russians and promote the false “Russians influenced our elections and Donald Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative to the harm of POTUS Trump and the Republic Party and thereby cause the immense turmoil we have experienced in the country?
7) Did Jeff Sessions meet with the Russians in order to influence the election?
8) Was and on a continuing basis is still the tragic fallout from the Democrat false narrative the Jeff Sessions misinformed recusal? In other words, did the Democrats falsely engineer the Jeff Sessions recusal?
9) Did the Russians initiate the Assange Wikileaks hacking and leaking of emails? Or did Mark Rich or another inside the Democratic National Committee office offload hacked emails to Wikileaks?
10) As a consequence of Mr. Sessions’ recusal, are we the American people now saddled with a two tiered justice system? Have the rich and famous who allegedly did collude with the Russians and pay the Russians for a fake dossier and receive thousands if not millions of dollars from the Russians in return for influence and 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium, to-date, escaped indictment and prosecution for their felonies?
11) If it is true that the “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative was feloniously manufactured by the Democrats and disaffected Republicans and is overwhelmingly false, is it not then time for Acting AG Whitaker, and any new AG if Mr. Whitaker is not so appointed at a later date, and for Mr. Mueller, to unseal any additional indictments they may have from grand juries, assuming they have such indictments under seal, and answer these many questions and indict those including the rich and famous who have used their offices to enrich themselves, those who have lied to the nation, those who have feloniously enriched themselves and broken election laws to the tune of millions of dollars?
12) Is it true or false that Mr. Mueller has given the nation value for his work? Is it true or false that he has issued a few minor indictments to-date which in the grand political scheme are of little or no value and which suggests that his investigation may turn out to be a colossal boondoggle wherein he and high priced attorneys have banked serious millions of dollars while their work product to-date is not worth the fortune paid them?
13) In other words, will Mr. Mueller’s far reaching investigation uncover answers to the heretofore stated questions including those found in paragraphs 92 thru 103?
14) If Mr. Mueller’s work is in fact laudatory, which hopefully it is, is it possible we will soon be pleasantly surprised by an AG Whitaker and Mr. Mueller joint press conference wherein they disclose a number of indictments and arrests?
15) Is it possible that the grand jury has been called and has deliberated and all we are waiting for is the right time for Mr. Mueller and Mr. Whitaker to unseal and issue the indictments, make the arrests, and surprise us by letting the nation know which party and which individuals actually colluded with the Russians and committed felonies?
A CONCLUDING THOUGHT?
There are a great number of us Americans, who work hard at being law abiding and who labor to conduct their lives based on a fairness ethic, who are discouraged because of the lack of answers and the drawn out nature of matters.
We believe Mr. Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself.
We believe POTUS Trump would be remiss to permit such to take place.
As for recusal, by appointing Mr. Whitaker, we hope POTUS Trump is saying to the Democrats, “burn me once by engineering the Jeff Sessions AG recusal, fie on me.”
Burn me twice by once again trying to engineer an AG recusal, fie on thee.
Hopefully, recusal of Mr. Whitaker isn’t going to happen. Hopefully, there will be no recusal this time around.
Hopefully, those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the people, those who have feloniously broken election and other laws, will now be held accountable.
We believe POTUS Trump when he says he wouldn’t have picked Jeff Sessions as Attorney General had he known that Mr. Sessions was going to recuse himself.
Today the corollary is also true. We believe POTUS Trump would not have picked Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General if there were a hint that he would recuse himself.
Should there be any kind of a change of heart on the part of Mr. Whitaker, which is unlikely, keep in mind the Federal Regulation section (b).
Read paragraph (b) again. Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship” 45.2(b) which reads in full:
“(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph [in this situation Mr. Whitaker] (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher [in this situation POTUS Trump is Mr. Whitaker’s supervisor]. If the supervisor [POTUS Trump] determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
( c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
[Private individuals or organizations have no cause of action against Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump if Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump does not recuse Acting AG Whitaker.]
WHEN MUCH IS SAID AND LESS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO PROVIDE SERIOUS ANSWERS, PERHAPS THE WASHINGTON POST STATES IT BEST:
“Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special-counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.” (National Security, Acting attorney general Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from Russia probe, associates say, By Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotsky and Josh Dawsey, Washington Post, November 8, 2018.)
APPENDIX A
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530
November 14, 2018
S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington DC 20530
November 14, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR EMMET T. FLOOD
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
Re: Designating an Acting Attorney General
After Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions 111 resigned on November 7, 2018, the President designated Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to the Attorney General, to act temporarily as the Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. This Office had previously advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice official, such as Mr. Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General, and this memorandum explains the basis for that conclusion.
Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General accords with the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, because he had been serving in the Department of Justice at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year. See id. 3345(a)(3). The Department’s organic statute provides that the Deputy Attorney General (or others) may be Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy. See 28 U.S.C. 508. But that statute does not displace the President’s authority to use the Vacancies Reform Act as an alternative. As we have previously recognized, the President may use the Vacancies Reform Act to depart from the succession order specified under section 508. See Authority of the President to Name an Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208 (2007) (“2007 Acting Attorney General”).
We also advised that Mr. Whitaker’s designation would be consistent with the Appointments Clause of the US. Constitution, which requires the President to obtain “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” before appointing a principal officer of the United States. US. Const. art. 11, 2, cl. 2. Although an Attorney General is a principal officer requiring Senate confirmation, someone who temporarily performs his duties is not. As all three branches of government have long recognized, the President may designate an acting official to perform the duties of a vacant principal office, including a Cabinet office, even when the acting official has not been confirmed by the Senate.
Congress did not first authorize the President to direct non-Senate-confirmed officials to act as principal officers in 1998; it did so in multiple statutes starting in 1792. In that year, Congress authorized the President to ensure the government’s uninterrupted work by designating persons to perform temporarily the work of vacant offices. The President’s authority applied to principal offices and did not require the President to select Senate-confirmed officers. In our brief survey of the history, we have identified over 160 times before 1860 in which non-Senate-confirmed persons performed, on a temporary basis, the duties of such high offices as Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, and Postmaster General. While designations to the office of Attorney General were less
[page] 1
frequent, we have identified at least one period in 1866 when a non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General served as Acting Attorney General. Mr. Whitaker’s designation is no more constitutionally problematic than countless similar presidential orders dating back over 200 years.
Were the long agreement of Congress and the President insufficient, judicial precedent confirms the meaning of the Appointments Clause in these circumstances. When Presidents appointed acting Secretaries in the nineteenth century, those officers (or their estates) sometimes sought payment for their additional duties, and courts recognized the lawfulness of such appointments. The Supreme Court confirmed the legal understanding of the Appointments Clause that had prevailed for over a century in United States v. Eaton, 169 US. 331 (1898), holding that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time[] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. The Supreme Court has never departed from Eaton’s holding and has repeatedly relied upon that decision in its recent Appointments Clause cases.
In the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress renewed the President’s authority to designate non-Senate-confirmed senior officials to perform the functions and duties of principal offices. In 2003, we reviewed the President’s authority in connection with the Director of the Officer of Management and Budget who is a principal officer, and concluded that the President could designate a non-Senate-confirmed official to serve temporarily as Acting Director. See Designation of Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 27 Op. O.L.C. 121 (2003) (“Acting Director of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed non-Senate-confirmed officials in several lines of agency succession and actually designated unconfirmed officials as acting agency heads. President Trump, too, has previously exercised that authority in other departments; Mr. Whitaker is not the first unconfirmed official to act as the head of an agency in this administration.
It is no doubt true that Presidents often choose acting principal officers from among Senate-confirmed officers. But the Constitution does not mandate that choice. Consistent with our prior opinion and with centuries of historical practice and precedents, we advised that the President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General on a temporary basis did not transform his position into a principal office requiring Senate confirmation.
The Vacancies Reform Act
Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General comports with the terms of the Vacancies Reform Act. That Act provides three mechanisms by which an acting officer may take on the functions and duties of an office, when an executive officer who is required to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a). First, absent any other designation, the first assistant” to the vacant office shall perform its functions and duties. Id. 3345 Second, the President may depart from that default course by directing another presidential appointee, who is already Senate confirmed, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office. Id. 3345(a)(2). Or, third, the President may designate an officer or employee within the same agency to perform the functions and duties of
[page] 2
the vacant office, provided that he or she has been in the agency for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy, in a position for which the rate of pay is equal to or greater than the minimum rate for GS-15 of the General Schedule. Id 3345(a)(3). Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the statute imposes time limits on the period during which someone may act. Id. 3346. And the acting officer may not be nominated by the President to fill the vacant office and continue acting in it, unless he was already the first assistant to the office for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy or is a Senate-confirmed first assistant. Id. 3345(b)(1)-(2); see also Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. SW General, Inc, 137 S. Ct. 929, 941 (201 7).
The Vacancies Reform Act unquestionably authorizes the President to direct Mr. Whitaker to act as Attorney General after the resignation of Attorney General Sessions on November 7, 2018.1 Mr. Whitaker did not fall within the first two categories of persons made eligible by section 3345(a). He was not the first assistant to the Attorney General, because 28 U.S.C. 5 08(a) identifies the Deputy Attorney General as the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345.” Nor did Mr. Whitaker already hold a Senate-confirmed office. Although Mr. Whitaker was previously appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, he resigned from that position on November 25, 2009. At the time of the resignation of Attorney General Sessions, Mr. Whitaker was serving in a position to which he was appointed by the Attorney General.
In that position, Mr. Whitaker fell squarely within the third category of officials, identified in section 3345(a)(3). As Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor, he had served in the Department of Justice for more than 90 days in the year before the resignation, at a GS-15 level or higher. And Mr. Whitaker has not been nominated to be Attorney General, an action that would render him ineligible to serve as Acting Attorney General under section 3345(b)(l). Accordingly, under the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, the President could designate
__________
1 Attorney General Sessions submitted his resignation “[a]t [the President’s] request,” Letter for President Donald J. Trump, from Jefferson B. Sessions Attorney General, but that does not alter the fact that the Attorney General “resign[ed]” within the meaning of section 3345(a). Even if Attorney General Sessions had declined to resign and was removed by the President, he still would have been rendered “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” for purposes of section 3345(a). As this Office recently explained, “an officer is “unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” during both short periods of unavailability, such as a period of sickness, and potentially longer ones, such as one resulting from the officer’s removal (which would arguably not be covered by the reference to “resign[ation]. Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *4 (2017); see also Guidance on Application of Federal Vacancies Reform Act of1998, 23 Op. O.L.C. 60, 61 (1999) (“In floor debate, Senators said, by way of example, that an officer would be “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” if he or she were fired, imprisoned, or sick”). Indeed, any other interpretation would leave a troubling gap in the ability to name acting officers. For most Senate-confirmed offices, the Vacancies Reform Act is “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer. 5 U.S.C. 3347(a). If the statute did not apply in cases of removal, then it would mean that no acting officer – not even the first assistant – “could take the place of a removed officer, even where the President had been urgently required to remove the officer, for instance, by concerns over national security, corruption, or other workplace misconduct.
[page] 3
Whitaker to serve temporarily as Acting Attorney General subject to the time limitations of section 3346.
The Vacancies Reform Act remains available to the President even though 28 U.S.C. 508 separately authorizes the Deputy Attorney General and certain other officials to act as Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.2 We previously considered whether this statute limits the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to designate someone else to be Acting Attorney General. 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208. We have also addressed similar questions with respect to other agencies’ succession statutes. See Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. (2017) (“Acting Director of Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1. In those instances, we concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act is not the “exclusive means” for the temporary designation of an acting official, but that it remains available as an option to the President. We reach the same conclusion here: Section 508 does not limit the President’s authority to invoke the Vacancies Reform Act to designate an Acting Attorney General.
We previously concluded that section 508 does not prevent the President from relying upon the Vacancies Reform Act to determine who will be the Acting Attorney General. Although the Vacancies Reform Act, which “ordinarily is the exclusive means for naming an acting officer,” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 (citing 5 U.S.C. 3347), makes an exception for, and leaves in effect, statutes such as section 508, “[t]he Vacancies Reform Act nowhere says that, if another statute remains in effect, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used.” Id. In fact, the structure of the Vacancies Reform Act makes clear that office-specific provisions are treated as exceptions from its generally exclusive applicability, not as provisions that supersede the Vacancies Reform Act altogether.3 Furthermore, as we noted, “the Senate Committee Report accompanying the Act expressly disavows” the View that, where another statute is available, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used. Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 17 (1998)). That report stated that, “with respect to the specific positions in which temporary officers may serve under the specific statutes this bill retains, the Vacancies [Reform] Act would continue to provide an alternative procedure for temporarily occupying the office.” Id. We therefore concluded that the President could direct the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division to act as Attorney General under the Vacancies Reform Act, even though the incumbent Solicitor General would otherwise have served under the chain of succession specified in section 508 (as supplemented by an Attorney General order).
__________
2 Under 28 U.S.C. 508(a), in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, “the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of [the Vacancies Reform Act] the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General.” If the offices of Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are both vacant, “the Associate Attorney General shall act as Attorney General,” and “[t]he Attorney General may designate the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, in further order of succession, to act as Attorney General.” Id. 508(b).
3 One section (entitled “Exclusion of certain offices”) is used to exclude certain offices altogether. 5 U.S.C. 3349c. Office-specific statutes, however, are mentioned in a different section (entitled “Exclusivity”) that generally makes the Vacancies Reform Act “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer but also specifies exceptions to that exclusivity. Id. 3347(a)(l).
[page] 4
At the time of our 2007 Acting Attorney General opinion, the first two offices specified in section 508(a) and (b)”Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General” were both vacant. See 31 Op. O.L.C. at 208. That is not currently the case; there is an incumbent Deputy Attorney General. But the availability of the Deputy Attorney General does not affect the President’s authority to invoke section 3345(a)(3). Nothing in section 508 suggests that the Vacancies Reform Act does not apply when the Deputy Attorney General can serve. To the contrary, the statute expressly states that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5” the provision of the Vacancies Reform Act providing for the designation of an acting officer). 28 U.S.C. 508(a). It further provides that the Deputy Attorney General “may” serve as Acting Attorney General, not that he “must,” underscore that the Vacancies Reform Act remains an alternative means of appointment. 4 These statutory cross-references confirm that section 508 works in conjunction with, and does not displace, the Vacancies Reform Act.
Although the Deputy Attorney General is the default choice for Acting Attorney General under section 3345(a)(1), the President retains the authority to invoke the other categories of eligible officials, “notwithstanding [the first-assistant provision in] paragraph 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2), (3). Moreover, there is reason to believe that Congress, in enacting the Vacancies Reform Act, deliberately chose to make the second and third categories of officials in section 3345(a) applicable to the office of Attorney General. Under the previous Vacancies Act, the first assistant to an office was also the default choice for filling a vacant Senate-confirmed position, and the President was generally able to depart from that by selecting another Senate-confirmed officer. See 5 U.S.C. 3347 (1994). That additional presidential authority, however, was expressly made inapplicable “to a vacancy in the office of Attorney General.” See also Rev. Stat. 179 (2d ed. 1878). Yet, when Congress enacted the Vacancies Reform Act in 1998, it did away with the exclusion for the office of Attorney General. See 5 U.S.C. 3349c (excluding certain other officers).5
Our conclusion that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available, notwithstanding section 508, is consistent with our prior opinions. In Acting Director of OMB, we recognized that an OMB-specific statute, 31 U.S.C. 502(f), did not displace the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act. See 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1 (“The Vacancies Reform Act does not provide, however, that where there is another statute providing for a presidential designation, the Vacancies Reform Act becomes unavailable?). More recently, we confirmed that the President could designate an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFLPB”).
__________
4 We do not mean to suggest that a different result would follow if section 508 said “shall” instead of “may,” since as discussed at length in Acting Director such mandatory phrasing in a separate statute does not itself oust the Vacancies Reform Act. See 41 Op. O.L.C. *7-9 n.3, The point is that, in contrast with the potential ambiguity arising from the appearance of “shall” in the CFPB-specific statute, section 508 expressly acknowledges that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant but will not necessarily serve in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General. 5 When it reported the Vacancies Reform Act, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs contemplated that the Attorney General would continue to be excluded by language in a proposed section 3345(c) that would continue to make section 508 “applicable” to the office. See S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 13, 25; 144 Cong. Rec. 12,433 (June 16, 1998). But that provision “was not enacted as part of the final bill, and no provision of the Vacancies Reform Act bars the President from designating an Acting Attorney General under that statute.” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 n.1.
[page] 5
notwithstanding 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which provides that the Deputy Director of the CFPB “shall” serve as Acting Director when the Director is unavailable. See Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. We reasoned that the CFPB-specific statute should “interact with the Vacancies Reform Act in the same way as other, similar statutes providing an office-specific mechanism for an individual to act in a vacant position.” Id at *7-9 n.3. We noted that the Vacancies Reform Act itself provides that a first assistant to a vacant office “shall perform the functions and duties” of that office unless the President designates someone else to do so, 5 U.S.C. 3345(a), and that mandatory language in either the CF PB-specific statute or the Vacancies Reform Act does not foreclose the availability of the other statute. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *7-8.
Courts have similarly concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available as an alternative to office-specific statutes. See Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc. 816 F.3d 550, 55 5-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which has its own office-specific statute prescribing a method of filling a vacancy); English v. Trump, 279 F. Supp. 3d 307, 323?24 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the mandatory language in the CFPB-specific statute is implicitly qualified by the Vacancies Reform Act’s language providing that the President also “may direct” qualifying individuals to serve in an acting capacity), appeal dismissed upon appellant’s motion, No. 18?5007, 2018 WL 3526296 (DC. Cir. July 13, 2018).
For these reasons, we believe that the President could invoke the Vacancies Reform Act in order to designate Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General ahead of the alternative line of succession provided under section 508.
The Appointments Clause
While the Vacancies Reform Act expressly authorizes the President to select an
unconfirmed official as Acting Attorney General, Congress may not authorize an appointment mechanism that would conflict with the Constitution. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 883 (1991). The Appointments Clause requires the President to “appoint” principal officers, such as the Attorney General, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” U.S. Const., art. 11, 2, cl. 2. But for “inferior Officers,” Congress may vest the appointment power “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Id.
The President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General is consistent with the Appointments Clause so long as Acting Attorney General is not a principal office that requires Senate confirmation. If so, it does not matter whether an acting official temporarily filling a vacant principal office is an inferior officer or not an “officer” at all within the meaning of the Constitution, because Mr. Whitaker was appointed in a manner that satisfies the requirements for an inferior officer: He was appointed by Attorney General Sessions, who was the Head of the Department, and the President designated him to perform additional duties. See Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124-25. If the designation constituted an appointment to a principal office, however, then section 3345(a)(3) would be unconstitutional as applied, because Mr. Whitaker does not currently occupy a position requiring Senate confirmation.
[page] 6
For the reasons stated below, based on long-standing historical practice and precedents, we do not believe that the Appointments Clause may be construed to require the Senate’s advice and consent before Mr. Whitaker may be Acting Attorney General.
The Attorney General is plainly a principal officer, who must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1997); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670-72 (1988). The Attorney General has broad and continuing authority over the federal government’s law-enforcement, litigation, and other legal functions. See, e. g, 28 U.S.C. 516, 533. The Supreme Court has not “set forth an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between” inferior officers and principal officers. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 661. “Generally speaking, the term “inferior officer” connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President.” Id at 662. There is no officer below the President who supervises the Attorney General.
Although the Attorney General is a principal officer, it does not follow that an Acting Attorney General should be understood to be one. An office under the Appointments Clause requires both a “continuing and permanent” position and the exercise of “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2051 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Officers of the United States within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause, 31 Op. O.L.C. 73, 74 (2007). While a person acting as the Attorney General surely exercises sufficient authority to be an “Officer of the United States,” it is less clear whether Acting Attorney General is a principal office.
Because that question involves the division of powers between the Executive and the Legislative Branches, “historical practice” is entitled to “significant weight.” Nat’l Labor Relations Bd v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 2559 (2014); see also, e. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689 (1929). That practice strongly supports the constitutionality of authorizing someone who has not been Senate-confirmed to serve as an acting principal officer. Since 1792, Congress has repeatedly legislated on the assumption that temporary service as a principal officer does not require Senate confirmation. As for the Executive Branch’s practice, our non-exhaustive survey has identified over 160 occasions between 1809 and 1860 on which non-Senate-confirmed persons served temporarily as an acting or ad interim principal officer in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, judicial precedents culminating in United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898), endorsed that historical practice and confirm that the temporary nature of acting service weighs against principal-officer status. The Supreme Court in Eaton held that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time [ ] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. That holding was not limited to the circumstances of that case, but instead reflected a broad consensus about the status of an acting principal officer that the Supreme Court has continued to rely on in later Appointments Clause decisions.
[page] 7
Since the Washington Administration, Congress has “authoriz[ed] the President to direct certain officials to temporarily carry out the duties of a vacant PAS office one requiring Presidential Appointment and Senate confirmation] in an acting capacity, without Senate confirmation.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 934; see also Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2609 (Scalia J., dissenting in relevant part) (observing that the President does not need to use recess appointments to “fill vacant offices because “Congress can authorize “acting” officers to perform the duties associated with a temporarily vacant office” – “and has done that, in one form or another, since 1792”). Those statutes, and evidence of practice under them during the early nineteenth century, did not limit the pool of officials eligible to serve as an acting principal officer to those who already have Senate-confirmed offices. This history provides compelling support for the conclusion that the position of an acting principal officer is not itself a principal office.
In 1792, Congress First “authorized the appointment of ‘any person or persons’ to fill specific vacancies in the Departments of State, Treasury, and War.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935 (quoting Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 37, 8, 1 Stat. 279, 281). Although the statute expressly mentioned vacancies in the position of Secretary in each of those Departments, the President was authorized to choose persons who held no federal office at all – much less one requiring Senate confirmation. Although the 1792 statute “allowed acting officers to serve until the permanent Officeholder could resume his duties or a successor was appointed,” Congress “imposed a six-month limit on acting service” in 1795. Id. at 935 (citing Act of Feb. 13, 1795, ch. 21, Stat. 415). In 1863, in response to a plea from President Lincoln, see Message to Congress (Jan. 2, 1863), Cong. Globe, 37th Cong, 3d Sess. 185 (1863), Congress extended the provision to permit the President to handle a vacancy in the office of “the head of any Executive Department of the Government, or of any officer of either of the said Departments whose appointment is not in the head thereof.” Act of Feb. 20, 1863, ch. 45, 1, 12 Stat. 656, 656. The 1863 statute allowed the duties of a vacant office to be performed for up to six months by “the head of any other Executive Department” or by any other officer in those departments “whose appointment is vested in the President.” Id.
In 1868, Congress replaced all previous statutes on the subject of vacancies with the Vacancies Act of 1868. See Act of July 23, 1868, ch. 227, 15 Stat. 168. That act provided that, “in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the head of any executive department of the government, the first or sole assistant thereof shall . . . perform the duties of such head until a successor be appointed or the absence or sickness shall cease.” Id, 1, 15 Stat. at 168. In lieu of elevating the first or sole assistant,” the President could also choose to authorize any other officer appointed with the Senate’s advice and consent to perform the duties of the vacant office until a successor was appointed or the prior occupant of the position was able to return to his post. Id 3, 15 Stat. at 168. In cases of death or resignation, an acting official could serve for no longer than ten days. Id. The 1868 act thus eliminated the President’s prior discretion to fill a vacant office temporarily with someone who did not hold a Senate-confirmed position. Yet, it preserved the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant would serve as an acting head of an executive department.
[page] 8
Over the next 120 years, Congress repeatedly amended the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it never eliminated the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant could serve as an acting head of an executive department. In 1891, it extended the time limit for acting service in cases of death or resignation from ten to thirty days. Act of Feb. 6, 1891, ch. 113, 26 Stat. 733. In 1966, it made minor changes during the course of re-codifying and enacting title 5 of the United States Code. See S. Rep. No. 89-1380, at 20, 70-71 (1966); 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349 (1970). Congress amended the act once more in 1988, extending the time limit on acting service from 30 to 120 days and making the statute applicable to offices that are not in “Departments” and thus are less likely to have Senate-confirmed first assistants. Pub. L. No. 100-398, 102 Stat. 985, 988 (1988).
Accordingly, for more than two centuries before the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress demonstrated its belief that the Appointments Clause did not require Senate confirmation for temporary service in a principal office, by repeatedly enacting statutes that affirmatively authorized acting service – even in principal offices at the heads of executive departments – by persons who did not already hold an appointment made with the Senate’s advice and consent.
Not only did Congress authorize the Presidents to select officials to serve temporarily as acting principal officers, but Presidents repeatedly exercised that power to fill temporarily the vacancies in their administrations that arose from resignations, terminations, illnesses, or absences from the seat of government. In providing this advice, we have not canvassed the entire historical record. But we have done enough to confirm that Presidents often exercised their powers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes to choose persons who did not hold any Senate-confirmed position to act temporarily as principal officers in various departments. In the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson Administrations, other Cabinet officers (or Chief Justice John Marshall) were used as temporary or “ad interim” officials when offices were vacant between the departure of one official and the appointment of his successor. See, e. Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1 774497], at 13??14 (1971); see id at 12 (explaining that the list of Cabinet officers excludes “[s]ubordinates acting temporarily as heads of departments” and therefore lists only those who served ad interim after an incumbent’s departure).
President Jefferson made the first designation we have identified of a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve temporarily in his Cabinet. On February 17, 1809, approximately two weeks before the end of the Jefferson Administration, John Smith, the chief clerk of the Department of War, was designated to serve as Acting Secretary of War. See id. at 14; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the War Department (Feb. 17, 1809), Founders Online, National Archives, (“Whereas, by the resignation of Henry Dearborne, late Secretary at War, that office is become vacant. I therefore do hereby authorize John Smith, chief clerk of the office of the Department of War, to perform the duties of the said office, until a successor be appointed”). As chief clerk, Smith was not a principal officer. He was instead “an inferior officer . . . appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer.” Act of Aug. 5, 1789, ch. 6, 2, 1 Stat. 49, 50. The next Secretary of War did not enter upon duty until April 8, 1809, five weeks after the beginning of the Madison Administration. See Biographical Directory at 14.
[page] 9
Between 1809 and 1860, President Jefferson’s successors designated a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as an acting principal officer in a Cabinet position on at least 160 other occasions. We have identified 109 additional instances during that period where chief clerks, who were not Senate confirmed, temporarily served as ad interim Secretary of State (on 51 occasions), Secretary of the Treasury (on 36 occasions), or Secretary of War (on 22 occasions). See id. at 15-19; 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Before the Senate of the United States, on Impeachment by the House of Representatives for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 575?81, 585-88, 590-91 (Washington, GPO 1868); In re Asbury Dickins, 34th Cong, Sess., Rep. CC. 9, at 4?5 (Ct. C1. 1856) (listing 18 times between 1829 and 1836 that chief clerk Asbury Dickins was “appointed to perform the duties of Secretary of the Treasury” or Secretary of State “during the absence from the seat of government or sickness” of those Secretaries, for a total of 359 days).6 Between 1853 and 1860 there were also at least 21 occasions on which non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries were authorized to act as Secretary of the Treasury.7
We have also identified instances involving designations of persons who apparently had no prior position in the federal government, including Alexander Hamilton’s Son, James A. Hamilton, whom President Jackson directed on his first day in office to “take charge of the Department of State until Governor [Martin] Van Buren should arrive in the city” three weeks later. 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575; see Biographical Directory at 16. President Jackson also twice named William B. Lewis, who held no other government position, as acting Secretary of War. See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575. Moving beyond the offices expressly covered by the 1792 and 1795 statutes, there were at least 23 additional instances before 1861 in which Presidents authorized a non-Senate-confirmed chief clerk to perform temporarily the duties of the Secretary of the Navy (on 21 occasions), or the Secretary of the Interior (on 2 occasions).8
At the time, it was well understood that when an Acting or ad interim Secretary already held an office such as chief clerk, he was not simply performing additional duties, but he was deemed the Acting Secretary. We know this, because the chief clerks sometimes sought
__________
6 See also Act of July 27, 1789, ch. 4, 2, 1 Stat. 28, 29 (providing that the chief clerk in what became the Department of State was “an inferior officer, to be appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer”); Act of Sept. 2, 1789, ch. 12, 1, 1 Stat. 65, 65 (providing for an “Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury,” later known as the chief clerk, who “shall be appointed by the said Secretary”). The sources cited in the text above indicate that (1) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of State: Aaron Ogden Dayton, Aaron Vail (twice), Asbury Dickins (ten times), Daniel Carroll Brent (five times), Daniel Fletcher Webster, Jacob L. Martin (three times), John Appleton, John Graham, Nicholas Philip Trist (four times), Richard K. Cralle, William S. Derrick (fifteen times), William Hunter (seven times); (2) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of the Treasury: Asbury Dickins (eight times), John McGinnis, and McClintock Young (twenty-seven times); and (3) the following chief clerks (or acting chief clerks) served as ad interim Secretary of War: Albert Miller Lee, Archibald Campbell (five times), Christopher Vandeventer, George Graham, John D. McPherson, John Robb (six times), Philip G. Randolph (five times), Samuel J. Anderson, and William K. Drinkard.
7 See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 580-81, 590-91 (entries for William L. Hodge and Peter Washington); Act of Mar. 3, 1849, ch. 108, 13, 9 Stat. 395, 396-97 (providing for appointment by the Secretary of an “Assistant Secretary of the Treasury”).
8 See Biographical Directory at 14-17 (chief clerks of the Navy in 1809, 1814-15, 1829, 1831, and 1841); id. at 18 (chief clerk of the Department of the Interior, Daniel C. Goddard, in 1850 (twice)); In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 3, 12-13 (Ct. C1. 1857) (identifying 13 times between 1831 and 1838 that chief clerk John Boyle was appointed as Acting Secretary of the Navy, for a total of 466 days).
[page] 10
payment for the performance of those additional duties. Attorney General Legare concluded that Chief Clerk McClintock Young had a claim for compensation as “Secretary of the Treasury ad interim.” Pay of Secretary of the Treasury ad Interim, 4 Op. Att’y Gen. 122, 122-23 (1842). And the Court of Claims later concluded that Congress should appropriate funds to compensate such officers for that service. See, e. g, In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 9, 1857 WL 4155, at *4 (Ct. C1. 1857) (“The office of Secretary ad interim being a distinct and independent office in itself, when it is conferred on the chief clerk, it is so conferred not because it pertains to him ex officio, but because the President, in the exercise of his discretion, sees fit to appoint Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 16, 1856 WL 4042, at *3.
Congress not only acquiesced in such appointments, but also required a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as a principal officer in some instances. In 1810, Congress provided that in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Postmaster General, “all his duties shall be performed by his senior assistant.” Act of Apr. 30, 1810, ch. 37, 1, 2 Stat. 592, 593. The senior assistant was one of two assistants appointed by the Postmaster General. Id. When I Congress reorganized the Post Office in 1836, it again required that the powers and duties of the Postmaster General would, in the case of “death, resignation, or absence” “devolve, for the time being on the First Assistant Postmaster General,” who was still an appointee of the Postmaster General. Act of July 2, 1836, ch. 270, 40, 5 Stat. 80, 89. On four occasions before 1860, a First Assistant Postmaster General served as Postmaster General ad interim. See Biographical Directory at 17-19 (in 1841 (twice), 1849, and 1859).
On the eve of the Civil War in January 1861, President Buchanan summarized the Chief Executive’s View of his authority to designate interim officers in a message submitted to Congress to explain who had been performing the duties of the Secretary of War:
The practice of making . . . appointments [under the 1795 statute], whether in a vacation or during the session of Congress, has been constantly followed during every administration from the earliest period of the government, and its perfect lawfulness has never, to my knowledge, been questioned or denied. Without going back further than the year 1829, and without taking into the calculation any but the chief officers of the several departments, it will be found that provisional appointments to fill vacancies were made to the number of one hundred and seventy-nine . . . . Some of them were made while the Senate was in session, some which were made in vacation were continued in force long after the Senate assembled. Sometimes, the temporary officer was the commissioned head of another department, sometimes a subordinate in the same department.
Message from the President of the United States, 36th Cong, 2d Sess., Exec. Doc. No. 2, at 1-2 (1861) (emphases added).
When it comes to vacancy statutes, the office of Attorney General presents an unusual case, albeit not one suggesting any different constitutional treatment. The office was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, see Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 35, 1 Stat. 73, 93, and the Attorney General was a member of the President’s Cabinet, see Office and Duties of Attorney
[page] 11
General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. 326, 330 (1854). But the Attorney General did not supervise an “executive department,” and the Department of Justice was not established until 1870. See Act of June 22, 1870, ch. 150, 1, 16 Stat. 162, 162. Thus, the terms 0fthe 1792, 1795, and 1863 statutes, and of the Vacancies Act of 1868, did not expressly apply to vacancies in the office of the Attorney General.
Even so, the President made “temporary appointment[s]” to the office of Attorney General on a number of occasions. In 1854, Attorney General Cushing noted that “proof exists in the files of the department that temporary appointment has been made by the President in that office.” Office and Duties of Attorney General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. at 352. Because the 1792 and 1795 statutes did not provide the President with express authority for those temporary appointments, Cushing believed it “questionable” whether the President had the power, but he also suggested that “[p]erhaps the truer view of the question is to consider the two statutes as declaratory only, and to assume that the power to make such temporary appointment is a constitutional one.” Id Cushing nonetheless recommended the enactment of “a general provision . . . to remove all doubt on the subject” for the Attorney General and “other non-enumerated departments.” Id.
Congress did not immediately remedy the problem that Cushing identified, but Presidents designated Acting Attorneys General, both before and after the Cushing opinion. In some instances, the President chose an officer who already held another Senate-confirmed office. See Acting Attorneys General, 8 Op. O.L.C. 39, 40-41 (1984) (identifying instances in 1848 and 1868 involving the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary of the Interior).9 In other instances, however, non-Senate-confirmed individuals served. After the resignation of Attorney General James Speed, for instance, Assistant Attorney General J. Hubley Ashton was the ad interim Attorney General from July 17 to July 23, 1866. See id. at 41; Biographical Directory at 20. At the time, the Assistant Attorney General was appointed by the Attorney General alone. See Act of March 3, 1859, ch. 80, 11 Stat. 410, 420 Attorney-General is hereby[] authorized to appoint one assistant in the said office, learned in the law, at an annual salary of three thousand dollars[x]”).10
On other occasions between 1859 and 1868, Ashton and other Assistant Attorneys General who had not been Senate confirmed also signed several formal legal opinions as “Acting Attorney General,” presumably when their incumbent Attorney General was absent or otherwise
__________
9 This list is almost certainly under-inclusive because the published sources we have located identify only those who were Acting Attorney General during a period between the resignation of one Attorney General and the appointment of his successor. They do not identify individuals who may have performed the functions and duties of Attorney General when an incumbent Attorney General was temporarily unavailable on account of an absence or sickness that would now trigger either 28 U.S.C. 508(a) or 5 U.S.C. 3345(a).
10 In 1868, Congress created two new Assistant Attorneys General positions to be “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and specified that those positions were “in lieu of,” among others, “the assistant attorney-general now provided for by law,” which was “abolished” effective on July 1, 1868. Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71, 5, 15 Stat. 75, 75. A few weeks later, Ashton was confirmed by the Senate as an Assistant Attorney General. See 18 Sen. Exec. J. 369 (July 25, 1868). He was therefore holding a Senate-confirmed office when he served another stint as Acting Attorney General for several days at the beginning of the Grant Administration in March 1869, see Biographical Directory at 21, and when he signed five opinions as “Acting Attorney General” in September and October 1868.
[page] 12
See Case of Colonel Gates, 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 70, 70 (1864) (noting that the question from the President “reached this office in [the Attorney General’s] absence”). 11 In 1873, when Congress reconciled the Vacancies Act of 1868 with the Department of Justice’s organic statute, it expressly excepted the office of Attorney General from the general provision granting the President power to choose who would temporarily fill a vacant Senate-confirmed office. See Rev. Stat. 179 1st ed. 1875). There is accordingly no Attorney General-specific practice with respect to the pre-1998 statutes.
Well before the Supreme Court’s foundational decision in Eaton in 1898, courts approved of the proposition that acting officers are entitled to payment for services during their temporary appointments as principal officers. See, e. g. United States v. White, 28 F. Cas. 586, 587 (C.C.D. Md. 1851) (Taney, Circuit J.) often happens that, in unexpected contingencies and for temporary purposes, the appointment of a person already in office, to execute the duties of another office, is more convenient and useful to the public, than to bring in a new officer to execute the Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 17, 1856 WL 4042, at *3 (finding a chief clerk was entitled to additional compensation “for his services as acting Secretary of the Treasury and as acting Secretary of State”). Most significantly, in Boyle, the Court of Claims concluded that the chief clerk of the Navy (who was not Senate confirmed) had properly served as Acting Secretary of the Navy on an intermittent basis over seven years for a total of 466 days. 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 44, at 8, 1857 WL 4155, at *1-2 (1857). The court expressly addressed the Appointments Clause question and distinguished, for constitutional purposes, between the office of Secretary of the Navy and the office of Acting Secretary of the Navy. Id. at 8, 1857 WL 4155 at *3 (“It seems to us . . . plain that the office of Secretary ad interim is a distinct and independent office in itself. It is not the office of Furthermore, the court emphasized, the defining feature of the office of Secretary ad interim was its “temporary” character, and it must therefore be considered an inferior office:
Congress has exercised the power of vesting the appointment of a Secretary ad interim in the President alone, and we think, in perfect consistency with the Constitution of the United States. We do not think that there can be any doubt that he is an inferior officer, in the sense of the Constitution, whose appointment may be vested by Congress in the President alone.
When the Supreme Court addressed this Appointments Clause issue in 1898, it reached a similar conclusion. In United States v. Eaton, the Court considered whether Congress could authorize the President alone to appoint a subordinate officer “charged with the duty of temporarily performing the functions” of a principal officer. 169 US. at 343. The statute
__________
11 There were two additional opinions signed by Ashton as “Acting Attorney General” in 1864 and 1865 (11 Op. Att’y Gen. 482; 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 127); as well as four signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General John Binckley in 1867 (12 Op. Att’y Gen. 231; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 229; 12 Op. Att’y Gen 222; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 227); two signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Titian J. Coffey in 1862 and 1863 (10 Op. Att’y Gen. 492; 10 Op. Att’y Gen. 377); and one signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Alfred B. McCalmont in 1859 (9 Op. Att’y Gen. 389).
[page] 13
authorized the President “to provide for the appointment of vice-consuls . . . in such a manner and under such regulations as he shall deem proper.” Id. at 336 (quoting Rev. Stat. 1695 (2d ed. 1878)). The President’s regulation provided that case a vacancy occurs in the offices both of the consul and the vice-consul, which requires the appointment of a person to perform temporarily the duties of the consulate, the diplomatic representative has authority to make such appointment, with the consent of the foreign government . . . immediate notice being given to the Department of State.” Id. at 338 (quoting regulation). Pursuant to that authority, Sempronius Boyd, who was the diplomatic representative and consul-general to Siam, appointed Lewis Eaton (then a missionary who was not employed by the government) as a vice-consul-general and directed him to take charge of the consulate after Boyd’s departure. Id. at 331-32. With the “knowledge” and “approval” of the Department of State, Eaton remained in charge of the consulate, at times calling himself “acting consul-general of the United States at Bangkok,” from July 12, 1892, until a successor vice-consul-general arrived on May 18, 1893. Id. at 332-33. In a dispute between Boyd’s widow and Eaton over salary payments, the Court upheld Eaton’s appointment, and the underlying statutory scheme, against an Appointments Clause challenge. Id. at 334-35, 352.
The Constitution expressly includes “Consuls” in the category of officers whose appointment requires the Senate’s advice and consent. US. Const. art. ll, 2, cl. 2. The Eaton Court, however, concluded that a “Vice-consul” is an inferior officer whose appointment Congress may “vest in the President” alone. 169 US. at 343. The Court held that Eaton’s exercise of the authority of a Senate-confirmed office did not transform him into an officer requiring Senate confirmation:
Because the subordinate officer is charged with the performance of the duty of the superior for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions, he is not thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official. To so hold would render void any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency the duties of a superior officer, and the discharge of administrative duties would be seriously hindered.
The Court concluded that more than forty years of practice “sustain the theory that a vice-consul is a mere subordinate official,” which defeated the contention that Eaton’s appointment required Senate confirmation. Id at 344. In so doing, the Court cited Attorney General Cushing’s 1855 opinion about appointments of consular officials, which had articulated the parameters for that practice. See id.12 Significantly, the Court also made clear that its holding was not limited to vice-consuls or to the exigencies of Eaton’s particular appointment. Rather, the Court emphasized that the temporary performance of a principal office is not the same as holding that office itself. The Court feared that a contrary holding would bear upon “any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency.” Id at
__________
12 In the 1855 opinion, Attorney General Cushing explained that a vice-consul is “the person employed to fill the [consul’s] place temporarily in his absence.” Appointment of Consuls, 7 Op. Att’y Gen. 242, 262? (1855). He noted that consuls had to be Senate-confirmed, but vice-consuls were regarded as the “subordinates of consuls” and therefore did not require “nomination to the Senate.” Id. at 247.
[page] 14
343 (emphasis added). In View of the long history of such appointments, Eaton simply
confirmed the general rule. It did not work any innovation in that practice. .
The Court has not retreated from Eaton, or narrowed its holding, but instead has repeatedly cited the decision for the proposition that an inferior officer may temporarily perform the duties of a principal officer without Senate confirmation. In Edmond, the Court observed that “’inferior officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. But the Court also observed that there is no “exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers” and restated Eaton’s holding that “a vice consul charged temporarily with the duties of the consul” is an “inferior” officer. Id at 661. In Morrison, the Court emphasized that a subordinate who performed a principal officer’s duties “for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions” is not “thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official,” and explained that a Vice-consul appointed during the consul’s “temporary absence” remained a “subordinate officer notwithstanding the Appointment Clause’s specific reference to “Consuls” as principal officers.” 487 U.S. at 672-73 (quoting Eaton, 169 U.S. at 343)). Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Morrison similarly described Eaton as holding that “the appointment by an Executive Branch official other than the President of a “vice-consul,” charged with the duty of temporarily performing the function of the consul, did not violate the Appointments Clause.” Id. at 721 (Scalia, .. dissenting). Likewise, in his dissenting opinion in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667 (DC. Cir. 2008), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 561 U.S. 447 (2010), then-Judge Kavanaugh cited Eaton to establish that “[t]he temporary nature of the office is the . . . reason that acting heads of departments are permitted to exercise authority without Senate confirmation.” Id at 708 n.17 (Kavanaugh, J. dissenting). Notably, Judge Kavanaugh also cited our 2003 opinion, which concluded that an OMB official who was not Senate confirmed could serve as Acting Director of OMB. See id. (citing Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123).
In SW General, the Court acknowledged the long history of Acts of Congress permitting the President to authorize officials to temporarily perform the functions of vacant offices requiring Senate approval. 137 S. Ct. at 935. Although the Court’s opinion did not address the Appointments Clause, Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion suggested that a presidential directive to serve as an officer under the Vacancies Reform Act should be viewed as an appointment, and that such a direction would “raise [ ] grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.? Id. But Justice Thomas also distinguished Eaton on the ground that the acting designation at issue in SW General was not “special and temporary” because it had remained in place “for more than three years in offices limited by statute to a 4-year term.” Id. At 946 n. 1. Justice Thomas’s opinion may therefore be understood to be consistent not only with Eaton, but also with the precedents of this Office, which have found it “implicit” that “the tenure of an Acting Director should not continue beyond a reasonable time.” Status 0f the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1 Op. O.L.C. 287, 289-90 (1977). Even under Justice Thomas’s opinion, Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General, which was made one week ago, and which would lapse in the absence of a presidential nomination, should qualify as “special and temporary” under Eaton.
[page] 15
Executive practice and more recent legislation reinforces that an inferior officer may temporarily act in the place of a principal officer. In 1980, for instance, this Office raised no constitutional concerns in concluding (in the context of a non-executive office) that the Comptroller General was statutorily authorized to “designate an employee” of the General Accounting Office to be Acting Comptroller General during the absence or incapacity of both the Senate-confirmed Comptroller General and the Senate-confirmed Deputy Comptroller General. Authority of the Comptroller General to Appoint an Acting Comptroller General, 4B Op. O.L.C 690, 690-91 (1980).
Most significantly, in 2003, this Office relied on Eaton in concluding that, although “the position of Director [of is a principal office, . . . an Acting Director [of is only an inferior officer.” Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123. We did not think that that conclusion had been called into question by Edmond’s statement that an inferior officer is one who reports to a superior officer below the President, because in that case “[t]he Court held only that [g]enerally speaking” an inferior officer is subordinate to an officer other than the President,” and because Edmond did not deal with temporary officers. 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124 (citations omitted). Assuming that for constitutional purposes the official designated as acting head of an agency would need to be an inferior officer (and that the OMB official in question was not already such an officer), we further concluded that the President’s designation of an acting officer under the Act should be regarded as an appointment by the President alone” a constitutionally permissible mode for appointing an inferior officer. Id. at 125. Since then, Presidents George W. Bush and Obama each used their authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to place non-Senate-confirmed Chiefs of Staff in the lines of succession to be the acting head of several federal agencies.13 In three instances, President Obama placed a Chief of Staff above at least one Senate-confirmed officer within the same department.14 And, in practice, during the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations, multiple unconfirmed officers were designated to serve as acting agency heads, either under the Vacancies Reform Act or another office-specific
__________
13 See Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Social Security Administration, 71 Fed. Reg. 20333 (Apr. 17, 2006); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Council on Environmental Quality, 73 Fed. Reg. 54487 (Sept. 18, 2008) (later superseded by 2017 memorandum cited below); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Act as President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 76 Fed. Reg. 33613 (June 6, 2011); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Millennium Challenge Corporation to Act as Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 77 Fed. Reg. 31161 (May 21, 2012); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the General Services Administration to Act as Administrator of General Services, 78 Fed. Reg. 59161 (Sept. 20, 2013); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Office of Personnel Management to Act as Director of the Office of Personnel Management, 81 Fed. Reg. 54715 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Humanities, 81 Fed. Reg. 54717 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Arts, 81 Fed. Reg. 96335 (Dec. 23, 2016); Memorandum, Designation of Officers or Employees of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Act as Director, 82 Fed. Reg. 7625 (Jan. 13, 2017); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Council on Environmental Quality, 82 Fed. Reg. 7627 (Jan. 13, 2017).
14 See Executive Order 13612, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Agriculture, 77 Fed. Reg. 31153 (May 21, 2012); Executive Order 13735, Providing an Order Within the Department of the Treasury, 81 Fed. Reg. 54709 (Aug. 12, 2016); Executive Order 13736, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, 81 Fed. Reg. 54711 (Aug. 12, 2016).
[page] 16
15 Those determinations reflect the judgments of these administrations that the President may lawfully designate an unconfirmed official, including a Chief of Staff, to serve as an acting principal officer.
Congress too has determined in the Vacancies Reform Act and many other currently operative statutes that non-Senate-confirmed officials may temporarily perform the functions of principal officers. By its terms, the Vacancies Reform Act applies to nearly all executive offices for which appointment “is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a); see id (excluding only certain members of multi-member boards, commissions, or similar entities). And it specifically provides for different treatment in some respects depending on whether the vacant office is that of an agency head. Id 3348(b)(2). Moreover, the statute contemplates that non-Senate-confirmed officials will be able to serve as acting officers in certain applications of section 3345(a)(1) as well as in all applications of section 3345(a)(3), which refers to an “officer or employee.” The latter provision had no counterpart in the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it was not completely novel, because clerks, who were not Senate-confirmed, were routinely authorized to serve as acting officers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes.16
Congress has also enacted various statutes that enable deputies not confirmed by the Senate to act when the office of the Senate-confirmed agency head is vacant. See 12 U.S.C. 4512(f) (providing for an Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency); id 549l(b)(5) (providing for an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection); 21 U.S.C. 1703(a)(3) (providing for an Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy); 40 U.S.C. 302(b) (providing for an Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration); 44 U.S.C. 2103(c) (providing for an Acting Archivist). All of those provisions contemplate the temporary service of non-Senate-confirmed officials as acting
__________
15 For example, during this administration, Grace Bochenek, a non-Senate-confirmed laboratory director, served as Acting Secretary of Energy from January 20, 2017, until March 2, 2017; Tim Home, a non-Senate-confirmed Regional Commissioner, served as Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration from January 20, 2017, until December 12, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a GSA-specific statute); Phil Rosenfelt, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy General Counsel, served as Acting Secretary of Education from January 20, 2017, until February 7, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a statute specific to that department); Don Wright, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services from September 30, 2017, until October 10, 2017; Peter O’Rourke, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Staff, served as Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs from May 29, 2018, until July 30, 2018; and Shelia Crowley, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Operations, served, upon President Obama’s designation, as Acting Director of the Peace Corps from January 20, 2017, until November 16, 2017. During the Obama administration, Darryl Hairston, a career employee, served as Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration from January 22, 2009, until April 6, 2009, and Edward Hugler, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Labor from February 2, 2009, until February 24, 2009. During the Bush Administration, Augustine a non-Senate-confirmed Executive Associate Director served as Acting Director of OMB from June 10, 2003, until late June 2003, consistent with our opinion.
16 Echoing the movement in the early nineteenth century to chief clerks rather than Senate-confirmed officials from other departments, section 3345(a)(3) was reportedly the product of a desire to give the President “more flexibility” to use “qualified individuals who have worked within the agency in which the vacancy occurs for a minimum number of days and who are of a minimum grade level.” S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 31 (additional views of Sen. Glenn et id at 35 (minority views of Sens. Durbin and Akaka).
[page] 17
principal officers, and these statutes would appear to be unconstitutional if only a Senate-confirmed officer could temporarily serve as an acting principal officer. Similarly, other current statutes provide that, although the deputy is appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, the President or the department head may designate another official to act as the agency head, even though that official is not Senate-confirmed. See 20 U.S.C. 3412(a)( 1) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Education] shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 31 U.S.C. 502(f) (providing that the President may designate “an officer of the Office [of Management and Budget] to act as Director”); 38 U.S.C. 304 (providing that the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs serves as Acting Secretary “[u]nless the President designates another officer of the Government”); 42 U.S.C. 7132(a) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Energy] shall designate the order in which the Under Secretary and other officials shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 49 U.S.C. 102(e) (providing that the Secretary of Transportation shall establish an order of succession that includes Assistant Secretaries who are not Senate-confirmed for instances in which the offices of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy are vacant); 4O U.S.C. 302(b) (providing that the Deputy Administrator serves as Acting Administrator of General Services when that office “is vacant,” “unless the President designates another officer of the Federal Government”); cf 44 U.S.C. 304 (limiting the individuals whom the President may choose to serve as Acting Director of the Government Printing Office to those who occupy offices requiring presidential appointment with the Senate’s advice and consent).
Indeed, if it were unconstitutional for an official without Senate confirmation to serve temporarily as an acting agency head, then the recent controversy over the Acting Director of the CFPB should have been resolved on that ground alone – even though it was never raised by any party, the district court, or the judges at the appellate argument. On November 24, 2017, the Director of the CF PB appointed a new Deputy Director, expecting that she would become the Acting Director upon his resignation later that day. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *2 n. 1. The Director of the CFPB relied on 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which expressly contemplates that a non-Senate-confirmed official (the Deputy Director) will act as a principal officer (the Director). The President, however, exercised his authority under 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2) to designate the Director of OMB as Acting Director of the CF PB. See English, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 330. When the Deputy Director challenged the President’s action, we are not aware that anyone ever contended that the Deputy Director was constitutionally ineligible to serve as Acting Director because she had not been confirmed by the Senate. If the newly
installed Deputy Director of the CFPB could lawfully have become the Acting Director, then the
Chief of Staff to the Attorney General may serve as Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.
The constitutionality of Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General is supported by Supreme Court precedent, by acts of Congress passed in three different centuries,
and by countless examples of executive practice. To say that the Appointments Clause now
[page] 18
prohibits the President from designating Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General would mean that the Vacancies Reform Act and a dozen statutes were unconstitutional, as were countless prior instances of temporary service going back to at least the Jefferson Administration.
There is no question that Senate confirmation is an important constitutional check on the President’s appointments of senior officers. The Senate’s role “serves both to curb Executive abuses of the appointment power, and to promote a judicious choice of [persons] for filling the offices of the union.” Edmond, 520 US. at 659 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the “constitutional process of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation . . . can take time: The President may not settle on a nominee to fill an office; the Senate may be unable, or unwilling, to speedily confirm the nominee once submitted.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935. Despite their frequent disagreements over nominees, for over 200 years, Congress and the President have agreed upon the value and permissibility of using temporary appointments, pursuant to limits set by Congress, in order to overcome the delays of the confirmation process.
If the President could not rely on temporary designations for principal offices, then the efficient functioning of the Executive Branch would be severely compromised. Because most Senate-confirmed officials resign at the end of an administration, a new President must rely on acting officials to serve until nominees have been confirmed. If Senate confirmation were required before anyone could serve, then the Senate could frustrate the appropriate functioning of the Executive Branch by blocking the confirmation of principal officers for some time. See 144 Cong. Rec. 27496 (Oct. 21, 1998) (statement of Sen. Thompson) (noting that section 3345(a)(3) had been added because “[c]oncerns had been raised that, particularly early in a presidential administration, there will sometimes be vacancies in first assistant positions, and that there will not be a large number of Senate-confirmed officers in the government,” as well as “concerns . . . about designating too many Senate-confirmed persons from other offices to serve as acting officers in additional positions?). A political dispute with the Senate could frustrate the President’s ability to execute the laws by delaying the appointment of his principal officers.
The problems with a contrary rule are not limited to the beginning of an administration. Many agencies would run into problems on an ongoing basis, because they have few officers subject to Senate confirmation. Thus, when a vacancy in the top spot arises, such an agency would either lack a head or be forced to rely upon reinforcements from Senate-confirmed appointees outside the agency. Those outside officers may be inefficient choices when a non-Senate-confirmed officer within the agency is more qualified to act as a temporary caretaker. At best, designating a Senate-confirmed officer to perform temporary services would solve a problem at one agency only by cannibalizing the senior personnel of another.
It is true that these concerns do not apply to the current circumstances of the Department of Justice, which is staffed by a number of Senate-confirmed officers. Following Attorney General Sessions’ resignation, the President could have relied upon the Deputy Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or an Assistant Attorney General to serve as Acting Attorney General. But the availability of potential alternatives does not disable Congress from providing the President with discretion to designate other persons under section 3345(a)(3) of the Vacancies Reform Act. Nothing in the text of the Constitution or historical practice suggests that
[page] 19
the President may turn to an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate if, but only if, there is no appropriate Senate-confirmed official available.
The President’s designation to serve as Acting Attorney General of a senior Department of Justice official who does not currently hold a Senate-confirmed office is expressly authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(3). Mr. Whitaker has been designated based upon a statute that permits him to serve as Acting Attorney General for a limited period, pending the Senate’s consideration of a nominee for Attorney General. Consistent with our 2003 opinion, with Eaton, and with two centuries of practice, we advised that his designation would be lawful.
[Signed]
STEVEN A. ENGEL
Assistant Attorney General
[page]20
THIS WRITER?
Richard is an attorney at law, and has served as an advertising and marketing and operations executive, a copy and slogan and technical and fiction writer, an auditor, an educator, and as CEO, Executive Vice President, and Vice President of several companies, one of which was among the largest privately owned broadcasting companies in the world. He works at being an oil, acrylic, and watercolor artist, and more than 800 of his oil, acrylic, and watercolor paintings are found on fineartamerica.com or www.richard-w-linford.pixels.com. He has written more than 75 non-fiction and fiction books listed in this appendix to this small work, most of which are available on www.amazon.com (type Richard W. Linford.) He was co-producer of audio programs The World’s 100 Greatest Books, The World’s 100 Greatest People, and The World’s 50 Greatest Composers, their lives and their music. He served as state chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (and Muslims) and on NCCJ national board for 14 years, as chairman of a multi-county Red Cross, and on other non-profit boards. He currently serves as the representative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Utah State Volunteers Active in Disaster Board.
Most of Richard’s Writings are on Amazon.com. Type Richard W. Linford.
Following is a catalog of his book subjects and titles, most of which are found at amazon.com and which can be accessed by clicking on the link following a title below or by typing Richard W. Linford or Richard Linford in the amazon.com search box.
A Number of Articles and Papers, one of the most read Ensign articles from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is his 20 Ways to Make Your Good Marriage Great, Ensign 1983. He was responsible for writing and producing an earlier version of The Church Welfare Services Handbook and Essentials of Home Production and Storage and similar manuals. A Number of Talks, Poems, and Critical Reports. [Not found at amazon.com.]
WE BARREL & PORK ENDORSE RICHARD’S NEW BOOK “KILLING BILL O’REILLY” – How the LEFT tried to kill Bill’s career and failed. Bill is back with a vengeance. By Richard W Linford.
PORK, it is my conclusion that Christine Blasey Ford is a consummate liar and that her story is a calculated, fabricated effort to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a man with an unblemished record.
Why do I say that? Because of the following:
After 36 years, did she “remember” and claim that she drank only “one beer?” Yes.
After 36 years, did she “remember” music was playing in the room? Yes.
Can she show us the house on a map? No.
Can she tell us how many people were there at the house? No.
Can she tell us how old she was? No. She said 17. Then she said 15.
Can she tell us how she got home? No.
Can she tell us the address where the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us the date of the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us the month the alleged party happened? No.
Can she tell us the place? No.
Can she tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us who drove her home? No.
Can she tell us who drove her to the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us who owned the house the alleged party was in? No.
Can she tell us how many persons were in the room where she was allegedly assaulted? No. First it was 4 and then 2.
Did she leave who her parents and brothers are off from her Wikipedia site? Yes.
Did she admit that she was drinking at the alleged party? Yes.
Did she explain why she is alleged in year books and internet sites to have been a serious alcohol drinker during high school? No.
Did she explain to us why she is a liberal activist? No.
Did she explain to us why she is anti-Trump? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to have written the words “Scalia-types must be banned from law” on her Facebook page in 2016?
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to be portrayed in Holton Arms year books as a binge drinker and a promiscuous wild party girl with multiple partners, as many as 54, during high school to college? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she asked that the letter not be disclosed and then personally disclosed the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and or her staff to create and leak the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II worked and still works for the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II was vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her grandfather was a key figure in the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she heads up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University? No.
Did she explain why she has now raised $750,000 off her story when her attorneys are allegedly working pro bono? No. And did she explain why her attorneys are now being investigated? No.
Did she explain why there are at least 14 serious errors in the letter she claims to have written, errors no PhD would make, errors that would be made by an inexperienced writer, perhaps a writer from another country, or an old person of another generation like Senator Feinstein? No.
Did she state that she left the alleged party without telling anyone there were two rapists in the building? Yes.
Did she lie about being afraid to fly? Yes.
Did she fly long distances for vacations yet use the excuse of fear of flying to put off the hearing and buy the democrats added time? Yes.
Did she or her accomplices diligently try to scrub the internet of anything incriminating about her binge drinking and promiscuity as a teen? Yes.
Did she reveal her alleged harm to democrats only? Yes. Did she explain why she did not go to the police at any point? No.
Did she reveal herself to the anti-Trump Washington Post? Yes.
Did she state that she came forward because she saw Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list? Yes.
Was Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list at the time she alleges? No. It was added later so she would not have seen it and thus lied about it.
So did she lie about the reason she came forward? Yes.
Did she tell anyone at the time of the alleged incident? No.
Did she tell anyone there were two “rapists” in the house? No.
Did she tell her brothers? She says not
Did she tell her father? She says not.
Did she tell her mother? She says not.
Did she tell us why it is alleged that her brother Ralph Blasey III worked for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? No.
Did she tell us who her brothers are and what they do for a living and what they did when she was in high school? No. Did she tell us how many times her brothers drove her to parties or other places? No. Did she tell us her brothers’ involvement in such parties? No.
Did she tell us who her father is? No.
Did she tell us who her mother is? No.
Did she turn over her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee? No.
Did she withhold dispositive details about the alleged polygraph? Yes.
Does any person she lists as being at the alleged party confirm her story? No.
Does any witness from anywhere in the world corroborate any element of her story? No.
Does her life-friend support or deny her story? Denies.
Is her “little girl voice” demeanor during her testimony credible? No.
Is her lack of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her polygraph uncorroborated as it is worthless? Yes.
Is her Safeway reference credible? No.
Is her slight show of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her tucking of the head demeanor and tongue pushing during her testimony indicative that she was and is not credible? Yes.
Is she specific after 36 years that she locked herself in the bathroom? Yes.
Is she an accomplice and shill of the far left? Yes.
Was she raped? No. Was she assaulted? May have been but it wasn’t by Brett Kavanaugh.
If she was Holton Arms High School promiscuous during her teenage years as alleged does this negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes. Has she explained the “erotic” details about Holton Arms High School girls alcohol binges to blackout and multiple sex partners and break beach parties/black out orgies? No.
If she is tied to the CIA and the law firm that created the infamous “dossier” and the Clintons in multiple ways as alleged, and colluded with the democrats, including Senator Feinstein and her staff, does this also negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes.
Did she collude with others including Senator Feinstein, whose attempt at plausible deniability was blatant, and Senator Feinstein’s staff, and others she refers to as friends in California? Yes.
Did she fabricate her story about Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
Is she responsible for the trauma caused Judge Kavanaugh and his family including daughters and wife and others? Yes.
What happens now? Wait and see what the FBI reports and applaud Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate in the next few days. There is no evidence whatsoever that Christine Ford was assaulted.
BARREL, IS BOB WOODWARD GUILTY OF FEARMONGERING? IS BOB A “FEAR” MONGER?
PORK, LOOKS LIKE IT. LOOKS LIKE BOB IS TRUMPED ON THIS ONE.
Fearmongering is “the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue. It is the intentional “spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.
A Fearmonger, in this case who would appear to be Bob Woodward, is thus defined as a person who engages in fearmongering.
Also, there is a Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, and Bob Woodward claims to be a professional journalist. Should he violate his Code of ethics, it looks like it is fair to determine that Bob Woodward is not a Professional Journalist.
In his recent “FEAR” mongering book, incidentally titled “FEAR,” Bob sets himself up as judge and jury of POTUS Donald J Trump by stringing together a series of interviews, some of which are “ANONYMOUS” which leads me to conclude that Bob’s “FEAR” BOOK is just like the “ANONYMOUS” LETTER PRINTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, except many pages longer.
Let’s take a few minutes and see if Bob adheres to his Code of ethics as a professional journalist.
Is Bob guilty of being a FEARMONGER?
Is his book “FEAR” simply a case of Bob engaging in FEARMONGERING, but this time on steroids and obviously for a $10 million advance from the publisher – according to O’Reilly?
First, let’s set forth and take a hard look at Bob’s journalism Code of ethics.
As a journalist, Bob has both “rights and responsibilities.
“These are set forth in the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.
“The society’s code is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists [including Bob], regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.
“The code is intended not as a set of “rules.”
“It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — legally enforceable.
“Instead, it is intended as a [mandatory] resource for [Bob’s] ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING.
“Preamble
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.
“The duty of [Bob] the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
“Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties [including Bob] strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.
“Professional integrity is the cornerstone of [Bob’s journalistic] credibility.
“Members of the Society [, including Bob] share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code [as declaration of] the Society’s [and in this case Bob’s] principles and standards of practice.
Bob’s first aim as a journalist is to “Seek truth and report it
[Bob the Journalist, kind of like Bob the Builder] “should be –
“honest,
“fair
“and courageous
“in gathering,
“reporting
“and interpreting information.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional “Journalist should:
“Test the accuracy of information from ALL sources [I think I recall from the TRUMP Woodward phone conversation that Bob the Journalist did not interview POTUS.]
“and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.
“Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist, is to “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories
“to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. [Sounds like Bob the Journalist didn’t do this.]
and to “Identify sources whenever feasible. [Sounds like Bob the Journalist didn’t do this either.]
“The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability. [How many ANONYMOUS SOURCES are there in Bob the Journalist’s alleged expose?]
“Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
“Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.
“Keep promises.
“Make certain that headlines,
“news teases
“and promotional material,
“photos,
“video,
“audio,
“graphics,
“sound bites and
“quotations
“do not misrepresent.
“They should not oversimplify
“or highlight incidents out of context.
Bob, as a professional journalist, is to “Never distort the content of news photos or video.
“Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible.
“Label montages and photo illustrations.
“Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events.
“If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist, is to “Avoid undercover
“or other surreptitious methods
“of gathering information
“except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. [DID BOB THE JOURNALIST use “undercover” or “other surreptitious methods” to gather any of the information in Bob the Journalists book of “FEAR?”
“Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
“Never plagiarize. [Did Bob plagiarize?]
“Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly,
“even when it is unpopular to do so.
“Examine [his] own cultural values
“and avoid imposing those values on others. [Did Bob the Journalist as part of his book of “FEAR” examine his own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on the rest of us?]
“Avoid stereotyping
“by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. [Does Bob the Journalist stereotype POTUS Trump by any of these characteristics?]
“Support the open exchange of views, even views [Bob finds] repugnant. [Does Bob the Journalist’s book of “FEAR” set forth any other views? For example, does Bob the Journalist acknowledge that POTUS Trump has kept 44 of his promises including but not necessarily limited to the fact that 90% of the country is happy POTUS Trump is making progress to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS on so many fronts. Does Bob the Journalist acknowledge that POTUS Trump is to be honored for keeping these 44 promises? [And no doubt others.]
ABORTION effort at elimination.
AFGHANISTAN WAR TALIBAN shutdown.
ARABS visit and cooperation.
BORDER WALL funding and building to-date.
BREXIT support.
CHINA cooperation despite tariffs.
CONGRESS major effort at cooperation working across the aisles despite democrat continuation of their fake POTUS colluded with Russians narrative.
CONSTITUTION upholding.
CRIMINAL SYNDICATE elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
DRUGS/OPIOIDS control/elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
ENERGY independence.
FAMILY support.
FIRST RESPONDERS honoring and support.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS.
GANG AND CRIME elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION elimination of same by holding those accountable who have misused the public trust. (Looks like POTUS Trump has just touched the tip of the iceberg.)
HARSH REGULATIONS reduction.
HEALTH CARE more affordable.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ensuring all come through the front door and are vetted and E-verified.
INFRASTRUCTURE funding and improvement.
IRAN sanctions.
IRAQ strategy.
ISIS AND TERRORIST GROUPS shutdown if not total elimination.
ISRAEL PALESTINE solution.
JEWISH STATE AND JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL support.
JOBS increased dramatically. The economy appears to be humming on more cylinders than during Obama and earlier administrations.
MANUFACTURING increased and brought home to USA.
MEDIA CALL OUT for fake news.
MELANIA AND IVANKA AND OTHER FAMILY as a compliment to POTUS. These folks have great courage and are to be commended. Give them each an A+ for putting up with so much negativity, so much “FEAR” mongering from Mr. Woodward and the left.
MILITARY supported and dramatically improved. [General Mattis says Bob the Journalist’s book is a work of FICTION.]
NORTH KOREA cooperation.
NUCLEAR reduction.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH policy.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS elimination.
RESILIENCE despite severe criticism from press, democrats, and naysayer Republicans.
RUSSIA building a relationship to prevent nuclear war.
SAFETY FROM TERRORISM. Give ICE and Border Patrol and First Responders an A+.
SUPREME COURT CHOICES rational and helpful to the nation.
TAXES major reductions.
VETERANS support.
BUILDING THE WALL.
Bob the Journalist is to “Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
“Analysis and commentary should be labeled [Was it?]
“and not misrepresent fact or context. [Was it?]
“Distinguish news from advertising
“and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
“Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open [including the requirement that each person who criticized do so in the open so his or her credibility can be vetted.]
“and that government records are open to inspection.
Bob the Journalist’s duty as a professional journalist is to “Minimize harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.[Has Bob the Journalist done so vis a vis POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump and their family?]
“Journalists [in this case Bob the Journalist] should:
“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. [How about Melania?]
“Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. [How about Baron?]
“Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
“Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.
“Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. [To what degree is Bob the Journalist’s book of “FEAR” for the $10 million advance money and founded in Bob the Journalist’s arrogance? Both good questions.]
“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention.
“Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
“Show good taste.
“Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
“Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
“Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
“Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Bob the Journalist as a professional journalist is obligated to “Act independently
Bob, as a journalist “should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Bob, as a journalist, “should:
“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
“Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
“Refuse
“gifts,
“favors,
“fees,
“free travel
“and special treatment,
“and shun secondary employment,
“political involvement,
“public office
“and service in community organizations
“if they compromise [his] journalistic integrity.
Bob, as a professional journalist is obligated to “Disclose unavoidable conflicts. [How much conflict is there in a $10 million advance if such, as stated by Bill O is correct?]
“Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. [Would Bob the Journalist’s “FEAR” efforts have been better used to give us answers to the Clinton questions that still remain unanswered?]
“Deny favored treatment to advertisers
“and special interests
“and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
“Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money;
“avoid bidding for news.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist is obligated to “Be accountable
“Journalists are accountable to their readers,
“[accountable to their] listeners,
“[accountable to their] viewers
“and [accountable to] each other.
Bob, as a professional journalist should:
“Clarify and explain news coverage
“and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
“Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
“Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
“Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
“Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
“This information was adapted from the website of the Society of Professional Journalists. … Last updated: March 30, 2009
Now let’s compare Bob’s activities that were basic to his writing and publishing his new book of FEAR. What do we glean from those who allegedly were interviewed? Is Bob a FEARMONGER? Looks like it. The title “FEAR” alone says it all.
I watched Bill O’Reilly comment about Bob’s book. Bill said, paraphrased, “How hard is it to find someone in an inner circle to say nasty things about the boss? Not hard at all.”
Bill’s focused on the many anonymous sources Bob uses.
134, Bill says he believes “General Mattis.” General Mattis says that he General Mattis did not say what Bob the Journalist says he said. General Mattis says the Woodward book is fiction.
Looks like Bob the Journalist has done a good job of “MONGERING” “FEAR” WHICH MUST MAKE BOB A “FEAR” MONGER.
Neither did Bob interview POTUS Trump, nor give him an opportunity to respond to Bob’s criticisms which not only must make Bob a “FEAR” monger but also makes Bob much less than a professional journalist.
BARREL, after all you have said and done, and you have to admit you have said more than you have done on this one, Bob the Journalist and his publisher, at POTUS Trump’s expense, and that of his family and supporters, is enjoying bank by selling lots of Bob the Journalist’s “FICTION ACCORDING TO GENERAL MATTIS” “FEAR” book.
Yes, BARREL. She doesn’t get it. She needs get her act together and take issue with her mother and focus and join the cause to ELIMINATE ABORTION WORLD-WIDE.
IN THE U.S. ALONE, HER MOTHER’S DEMOCRAT ROE v WADE PLANNED PARENTHOOD MARGARET SANGER ABORTION INITIATIVES HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES WHO HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SOLD FOR BODY PARTS, SUBJECTED TO AND SUBJECT OF BLACK AND HISPANIC NOT TO MENTION NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER GENOCIDE; SINCE DEMOCRAT ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, and 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE U.S. ALONE.
POTUS TRUMP HAS TAKEN STEPS TO FIX THIS ON-GOING TRAGEDY NOW!
ADOPTION NOT ABORTION IS ONE ANSWER THAT MAKES SENSE.
No knowledgeable BLACK or HISPANIC, JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN citizen or non-citizen American or immigrant should ever vote democrat until they change their policy and fix this problem.
Connecting abortion to economic benefit of women in the work force is ludicrous and the height of politically corrupt morals.
Richard William “Wilberforce” Linford.
PORK, YOU ARE RIGHT. AND DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE FBI FINALLY FIRED PETER STRZOK?
Yes, BARREL, it is long past time. Shouldn’t he face criminal charges?
PORK, sure seems like it. Don’t know if AG Sessions and DAG Rosenstein have the courage to do so.
Regardless of Strzok and his sorry performance, BARREL, WE HONOR POTUS TRUMP FOR KEEPING THESE FORTY THREE PROMISES.
FOR KEEPING THESE FORTY FOUR PROMISES AND FOR OTHER REASONS INCLUDING THE VAST MEDIA FOCUS ON HIM AND HIS SUCCESS TO-DATE, HIS APPROVAL RATING IS 80% TO 90%. BARREL & PORK.
ABORTION elimination.
AFGHANISTAN WAR TALIBAN shutdown.
ARABS visit and cooperation.
BORDER WALL funding and building.
BREXIT support.
CHINA cooperation.
CONGRESS cooperation working across the aisles.
CONSTITUTION upholding.
CRIMINAL SYNDICATE elimination.
DRUGS/OPIOIDS control/elimination.
ENERGY independence.
FAMILY support.
FIRST RESPONDERS honoring and support.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS.
GANG AND CRIME elimination.
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION elimination holding those accountable who have misused the public trust.
HARSH REGULATIONS reduction.
HEALTH CARE more affordable.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ensuring all come through the front door and are vetted and E-verified.
INFRASTRUCTURE funding and improvement.
IRAN sanctions.
IRAQ strategy.
ISIS AND TERRORIST GROUPS elimination.
ISRAEL PALESTINE solution.
JEWISH STATE AND JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL support.
JOBS increased dramatically.
MANUFACTURING increased and brought home to USA.
MEDIA CALL OUT for fake news.
MELANIA AND IVANKA AND OTHER FAMILY as a compliment.
MILITARY supported and dramatically improved.
NORTH KOREA cooperation.
NUCLEAR reduction.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH policy.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS elimination.
RESILIANCE despite severe criticism.
RUSSIA building a relationship to prevent nuclear war.
SAFETY FROM TERRORISM.
SUPREME COURT CHOICES rational and helpful to the nation.
TAXES major reductions.
VETERANS support.
BUILDING THE WALL.
BARREL, as a reminder, I still have this set of 25 questions for POTUS Trump about the WALL.
What are they, PORK?
POTUS Trump:
Don’t you think Congress has had its chance to build the wall?
Don’t you think Congress has failed and needs to be “fired?”
Don’t you think Congress, especially democrats, has failed and any responsibility for the wall and its funding needs to be removed from their oversight?
POTUS Trump, in your business, if your employees were dragging their feet and not getting the job done, wouldn’t you fire them promptly?
Wouldn’t you personally take charge and get the project done?
Don’t you have the power to build the complete wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you have plenty of money in the military budget to build the wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you think it is time to pull all stops and get the wall done now? IT IS.
Don’t you think it is time to assign the Army Corps of Engineers to completely build the wall within the next couple of months?
Doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers have the capacity to build the wall in war time? YES THEY DO.
Doesn’t the U.S. Military have the capacity to build the wall in war time in a couple of months? YES THEY DO.
Don’t you think we are at war with the drug cartels and other terrorist groups and even certain nations? YES WE ARE.
In any war time situation, wouldn’t the Army Corps of Engineers and Military under General Mattis be called upon to move extremely fast? YES THEY WOULD.
Again, are we not at war with the Mexican drug cartels and terrorists groups and even other nations? YES WE ARE!Are they not killing thousands of our young and old with their illicit drugs and gang members? YES THEY ARE.
Don’t you think the most humane treatment of all regarding those from whatever country who are trying to come to the U.S. is to put a complete end to illicit border crossings by shutting down the coyotes completely? YES IT IS.
Don’t you think it is humane and the right thing to do and beyond time to seal the border and make everyone come in through the front gate and be vetted?
Don’t you think it is time for you to give a very detailed progress report to the nation about the status of the WALL BUILD and the safety of the nation?
Isn’t your approval rating high – in our judgment 80% – 90% not hovering at 50% as some would have us believe? We propose that this is true regardless of polls because you command 90% of the media attention in the nation and world.
Didn’t we vote for you because you said you would build the wall and make Mexico pay for it?
Don’t you think it is time to make good on your promise?
Don’t you think you ought to get out of your Oval Office chair and report on the wall and launch a major build the wall effort BEFORE THE COMING ELECTIONS?
POTUS Trump, did you or did you not promise you would build the wall, no excuses?
Don’t you think it is time to REPORT TO THE NATION AND BUILD THE WALL NOW?
Don’t you think you ought to hire us, BARREL & PORK, to put all of your promises on a grid so you can report daily to the American people about your progress in keeping your promises?
Don’t you think top of the list should be BUILD THE WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT?
Many of Richard’s books will be free for a few days next week.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Yes, BARREL, and don’t forget ABORTION. We need to focus and ELIMINATE IT. IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SUBJECTED TO GENOCIDE, SOLD FOR BODY PARTS, SINCE DEMOCRAT ROE v. WADE; 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES HAVE BEEN KILLED. YOU POLITICIANS NEED TO FIX THIS NOW NOT LATER.
Kanye West supports POTUS Trump because POTUS Trump cares for the Black Community, because POTUS Trump has initiated the lowest unemployment rate among Blacks ever.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Yes, BARREL, and don’t forget ABORTION OF BLACKS. We need to focus and ELIMINATE IT.
IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SUBJECTED TO GENOCIDE, SINCE ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES KILLED.
BARREL, DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS SCHUMER, PELOSI, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING SOME DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS, CONTINUE THEIR DOWNWARD SPIRAL INTO OBLIVION WHILE POTUS TRUMP CONTINUES TO DELIVER ON HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
YOU ARE RIGHT, PORK.
POTUS TRUMP, as he promised, flies to Helsinki for a first meeting and press conference with Russian President Putin.
Do nothing democrats go nuts because POTUS TRUMP meets with President Putin. Negative democrats believe the continuing cold war is inevitable.
POTUS TRUMP gets along very well with President Putin and reaffirms there was no collusion between him and the Russians and that the Russians have nothing on him and results are that the U.S. and Russia now have a good relationship.
Do nothing democrats go nuts because haters wanted a boxing match and a confession from President Putin that he and the Russian state controlled POTUS Trump.
POTUS TRUMP seriously discusses nuclear disarmament with President Putin as the two countries control 90% of the world’s nuclear ordinance.
Do nothing democrats go nuts and want to go to war with Russia.
POTUS TRUMP suggests others besides Russia were meddling in the U.S. election. [Like Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Comey, DNC, Podestas, Hillary and Bill, Soros, etc., etc.]
Do nothing democrats go nuts because they are called out for laundering 400 million dollars [At least 484 million, Including paying Russians a million dollars for a fake dossier, and for pushing flawed FISA warrants, and for selling out a quarter to half of America’s uranium to the Russians, and for fake news pushing “the Russians colluded with POTUS Trump to make Hillary lose the election” narrative.] and because they say POTUS Trump didn’t support the U.S. intelligence community.
POTUS TRUMP reviews Helsinki press conference transcript, speaks to the nation, clarifies, and reaffirms his faith in Director Dan Coats and the nation’s intelligence community.
Do nothing democrats go nuts, continue to beat POTUS Trump up, and Chuck Schumer “shouts” “too little too late” not doing his homework to read the fact that Rod Rosenstein said no American participated and no Russian was guilty until such was proven in a court of law.
POTUS TRUMP discusses NATO with President Putin, having earlier had a brilliant meeting with NATO allies garnering billions of dollars more from allies.
Do nothing democrats go nuts, stir up the fake news media, and cast verbal foolishness about NATO and POTUS Trump who is defending the nation on its borders and abroad.
POTUS TRUMP acknowledges Russia’s help with North Korea and tweets, “where relationships with us are very good and the process is moving along. There is no rush, the sanctions remain! Big benefits and exciting future for North Korea at end of process!”
Do nothing democrats go nuts, wring their hands, and lament the fact that POTUS TRUMP has saved millions of people from nuclear holocaust.
POTUS TRUMP says this Russia reset with President Putin will be an even greater success with many positive things to come. [Discusses working together to eliminate terrorism, working together to eliminate Syrian conflict and provide humanitarian aid, talks of reducing nuclear armaments.]
Do nothing democrats go nuts, accuse both POTUS Trump and President Putin, and still have no policies that help us be free, safe, and prosperous, and continue to do nothing.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Buy Richard Linford’s books. We endorse them. BARREL & PORK.
MELANIA TRUMP Honoring FLOTUS: The highly intelligent, pleasant, nice, decent, First Lady of The United States of America.
MEDITATIONS on THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas A Kempis BOOK ONE Admonitions Profitable for the Spiritual Life: Translated by Rev. William Benham. Meditations by Richard W. Linford
Think and Grow Smart! Think and Grow Rich!: The Story of the foolish cutting of the Golconda Great Mogul Diamond; With more than 50 Ancient and Modern Knowledge and Wealth Wisdom Principles
“We The People will NEVER FORGET January 19, 2018, the day Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats chose to shut down the American government, deprive American children of health care, and hold our American military hostage to protect illegal immigrants.”
While we are taking on sexual predation and harassment, how about taking on porn and “objectivization” of women and men in the media?
How about calling out all of these movie and film company producers and actors who have gotten filthy rich off of gratuitous sex, violence, and horror to the detriment of our children and families and selves?