I ll put it this way, our fathers generation went to their graves probably believing that white nationalism was at least defeated in their time. true. and wouldn t roar back and be a thing again in this country they loved. how wrong they were. how wrong they were. persistent theme comes out largely out of the lost cause mythology that developed right after app mattics. in fact, in january of 1866, so the surrender was barely the ink was barely dry. richmond journalist named edward alfred pollered wrote something called the lost cause: a new southern history of the old war. there was no new history. thank you very much. he was arguing we lost slavery therefore we have to carry on this battle by other means. it reads like steve king could have talked about it. we have to fight against consolidated government, which was there term for centralized
Wasn t, should be, the next in command, but whitaker. a guy in 1866 was put in this position for only a week. seems to be a political loyalist to the president auditioned for his current job saying things like this. i could see a scenario where jeff sessions is replace with a recessed appointment, doesn t fire bob mueller but reduces the budget so low his investigation grinds to almost a halt. not all. whitaker suggested going after trump s business or family would be a red line mueller shouldn t cross. that s just what happened. all of this suggests that the mueller investigation is in danger and that s why a bipartisan group of senators proposed a bill to protect the investigation and passed the judiciary committee by a vote 14-7. now that the need is greatest, senate leader mitch mcconnell is saying this the president is not going to
so my question is not whether you should be right, whether it would be a good idea for your goal to actually be achieved, but rather whether you have a real problem in the courts, that they are going to look to doj guidelines saying look, this is a situation that can be lawful. well, let s break it down, ari. the office of legal counsel, which i respect generally, is not a court. and the courts will test their opinion, which has never been challenged in court before. there is no precedent, none, for this kind of appointment in recent times, the most recent was in 1866 for a week-long appointment of an acting attorney general. the constitution of the united states trumps, permit me to say so, the vacancies reform act of
His an apparent conflicts of interest both in personal relationships and public statements against the mueller investigation. this president will not like that if that s indeed the case. so but i got to ask you, i cut you off. but did you get in what you wanted to say about there s a reason that you believe that people should be pessimistic and that is matthew whitaker? yeah, i mean there s no good reason for matt whitaker to be the acting attorney general of the united states except for the fact that he has been highly critical of the mueller investigation. i mean rod rosenstein is perfectly capable of leading that department and the olc, the office of legal counsel opinion about whitaker s appointment is remarkably thin. best example that they can find of someone serving in this role like whitaker they have to go back to 1866 before the justice department was even created. and it was someone who served as
Wanted to say about there s a reason that you believe that people should be pessimistic and that is matthew whitaker? yeah, i mean there s no good reason for matt whitaker to be the acting attorney general of the united states except for the fact that he has been highly critical of the mueller investigation. i mean rod rosenstein is perfectly capable of leading that department and the olc, the office of legal counsel opinion about whitaker s appointment is remarkably thin. best example that they can find of someone serving in this role like whitaker they have to go back to 1866 before the justice department was even created. and it was someone who served as acting attorney general for just six days. oh this is this is an appointment that is far outside the norms of u.s. government. i want to play this. this is richard nixon. this was 45 years ago tomorrow. he said these famous words. i want to say this to the
Lawyers working for matthew whitaker going back to 1886 to decide whether or not he was lawfully appointed. i don t care what happened in 1866 because the congress changed the law in the 1960s and said whoever runs the justice department ought to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate because we put too much power in their hands. that kind of power can t go to a political hack. laura: okay, well, political hack. he was a federal u.s. attorney in iowa. your thoughts and what judge napolitano said there! i was disappointed to hear my friend judge napolitano suggest well, i was disappointed to see that he doesn t really understand how the office of legal counsel works. but, you know, what they do is things like go back to the president s that go back to the
Lawyers working for matthew whitaker going back to 1886 to look for a precedent there to decide whether or not he was lawfully appointed. i don t care what happened in 1866 because the congress changed the law in the 1960s and said whoever runs the justice department has to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate because we put too much power in their hands. that kind of power can t go to a political hack. laura: okay, well, political hack. he was a federal, you know, u.s. attorney in iowa. your thoughts and what judge napolitano said there? i was disappointed to hear my friend judge napolitano suggest well, i was disappointed to see that he doesn t seem to really understand how the office of legal counsel works. but, you know, what they do is things like go back to the precedents that go back to the founding of the country into the constitution.
Corsi who was referred to above, abruptly cancelled an interview. corsi s lawyers stopped him from going forward with the interview, while at the same time fielding a call with the office from the special counsel. there s an open question at this moment about how much latitude robert mueller has to operate and follow the truth where it leads since he is now reporting, let s remember, to this man, acting attorney general matthew whitaker who today received a ruling from the office of legal counsel inside the justice department stating his appointment was lawful and valid, this despite the fact that the only time in american history that an attorney general was even remotely appointed in this way was back in 1866, when he held the position for six days. but whitaker is not out of the woods yet. house democrats are preparing to investigate whitaker s role on the advisory board of a company accused of scamming millions from its customers. congressman adam schiff of
Matthew whitaker go back to 1866 and look for a precedent there to decide whether or not he was lawfully appointed. i don t care what happened in 1866 because the congress changed the law in the 1960s and said whoever runs the justice department has to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate because we put too much power in their hands. that kind of power can t go to a political hack. for our guidance now we turn now to professor sugarman. you ve been writing about this today. i want to yifb you the floor and argue your case on the installation of this so-called acting attorney general. there are two problems with the memo that came out today. one small one that says bigger problems and one giant problem. the smaller problem is the office of legal counsel which was once known for having the greatest minds of the doj made a
Attempting to justify president trump s installation of matthew whitaker as a so-called acting attorney general. assistant attorney general wrote, quote, this office had previously advised that the president could designate a senior department of justice official such as mr. whitaker as acting attorney general. most legal scholars including conservatives have said the choice of matthew whitaker is unconstitutional. the memo does admit that there has not been an acting attorney general who did not have senate confirmation since 1866, before the creation of the department of justice. and that 1866 appointment lasted only six days. fox news senior legal analyst was not persuaded by that memo. i was very disappointed to see the lawyers who work for