[Alberta's Child]

I disagree with that underlying premise. Whitaker's appointment was "legal" but was almost certainly unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This means he can probably fill an administrative role without a problem, but he can't take any legally binding actions as the U.S. Attorney General or a Federal prosecutor.

Since he was named to this post, I've been saying he is only there for two purposes: (1) to make sure Mueller stays in a box, and (2) to facilitate DOJ cooperation with every House committee request for unredacted documents related to the illicit FBI-CIA-NSA FISA warrants from 2016-17.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””(2) to facilitate DOJ cooperation with every House committee request for unredacted documents related to the illicit FBI-CIA-NSA FISA warrants from 2016-17.”””

---

The Lame Duck GOP Congress has 60 days to fulfill those requests.

We can be assured the new DEM Congress beginning January will not be asking for any information from the DOJ.

[libstripper]

It helps to read the full Appointments Clause, the last phrase of which states, “but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” The term “inferior Officers,” read in the context of the clause, obviously refers to those officers who are inferior to the President and therefore includes the AG. Whitaker’s appointment being lawful pursuant to the Vacancies Act and that act being lawful under the quoted part of the Appointments Clause, he has the full power of the AG until a successor is appointed and confirmed.

[Nifster]

And you would be incorrect