re: #577 Danack

I was going to post this earlier, but thought it would be too speculative; I stand corrected.

I’m not entirely sure that Mueller is going to get to lay charges against Trump, Trump family members or the members of the RNC who committed treason to conspire to work with an adversary country to influence an election, before the Constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court begin.

Multiple lawyers have submitted briefs to the Supreme court to rule that Whitaker is not legally the Attorney General as he has not been legally appointed. Those lawyers have also asked for the case to be heard urgently, as otherwise untangling the mess made by having someone sign legal documents as the attorney general, but not having the authority to do so, will be a very difficult task.

It’s pretty clear (to me) that Whitaker was not appointed legally, which should mean the Supreme Court should strike down his appointment, which would massively weaken Trumps defense against Mueller.

Under the horrendous scenario that the Supreme Court allows Whitaker’s appointment to stand, it massively weakens the Senate’s ability to limit the power of the Executive.

Although the Republicans must have dreamed of doing this for years (at least while a Republican is President), its hard to imagine all of the Republicans on the supreme court would be willing to do this while Trump is president.

Of course, kicking this show-down off before Mueller lays charges might be a deliberate ploy to try to make the fight be about something else, other than pure treason.

The AG has to be a “Principal Officer” of the Federal Government—if he’s not, who is? His appointment without Senate approval is therefore transparently invalid. How could any judge rule otherwise?