monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

President Donald Trump may soon come to miss his old attorney general.

The decision to fire Jeff Sessions as attorney general was hardly a surprise. Trump had long chained him to a rock like Prometheus and sent tweets to pick at Sessions’ liver.

Once we were past the midterms, it was plain that Sessions would soon enough be heading home to Mobile.

What mattered more was Trump’s choice to replace him. As we have discussed before, the president would have long ago sacked the much-maligned Alabamian but for the fact that any replacement who could get confirmed by the Senate might be even more disobliging than Sessions.

The solution Trump seized upon the minute the pressure of the midterm elections had passed was to pick a loyalist, a former cable news commentator, a sharp critic of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and reportedly an informal adviser to Trump as Sessions’ temporary replacement.

Trump’s message was clear: Time’s up, Robert Mueller.

But in Matthew Whitaker, Trump may not have found deliverance but instead complicated matters for himself even more.

In the post-Watergate era, the Justice Department has operated under strict rules about professional conduct and with built-in curbs against the kind of executive abuses committed by Richard Nixon.

For starters, that means that there’s even a question whether Whitaker is eligible for the job. Trump holds that since Whitaker was confirmed 14 years ago to serve as a federal prosecutor in southern Iowa, Whitaker doesn’t need Senate confirmation to lead the Justice Department. But as former Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out, that’s a pretty thin claim.

Since his appointment, Whitaker’s sudden celebrity has revealed lots of baggage. Aside from his work for a Republican attack-dog group, there are his many publicly stated opinions about the Mueller probe both in writing and as a legal commentator for CNN. Then there’s his association with a dodgy-sounding firm that paid a huge fraud settlement.

Senate Republicans are already pushing back privately and not so privately. By next week, the pressure will be intense.

The White House seems to be distancing itself from Whitaker, whom the president today claimed not to know. But Trump seems to be struggling to find a confirmable candidate to take over the agency permanently, especially before the Russia probe is concluded. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta could be slid into the post without Senate confirmation, but is said to not want the job.

Now, if Whitaker just squats over at the Justice Department and doesn’t do much but be Trump’s eyes and ears, the acting attorney general can probably persist for a while. But It won’t be long before the position becomes untenable. The Russia probe needs tending and other criminal matters related to the president are ripening.

If Whitaker starts making material decisions relating to Trump or takes any provocative actions toward Mueller, all hell will break loose.

White House whisperers say that former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the frontrunner to replace Sessions. That confirmation hearing would be a doozy as Trump’s campaign transition chairman was asked to explain his independence and then grilled on his own legal woes in New Jersey. Christie would be no sure thing in the Senate.

The universe of potential replacements who would take the job and be confirmed starts to look vanishingly small.

Trump lessened the fallout from his firing of James Comey as FBI director by tapping Christopher Wray, a well-regarded and highly accomplished former federal prosecutor, as his replacement.

By choosing Whitaker to replace Sessions, Trump has made his own life more difficult.

US Opposes, For First Time, UN Condemning Israel’s Presence in Golan Heights

The United States has abstained in previous years on the “Occupied Syrian Golan” resolution, which declares Israel’s decision to impose its jurisdiction in the area “null and void,” but US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Thursday that Washington would vote against the resolution.

it evolved organically in step with technology

I didn't say that it is more significant. I said that there is a difference between people who worship and believe a certain way and people who who worship and believe a certain way and are moved to violence.

Christianity is taken for granted by most in a Christian country. Muslims are a minority and are subject to the prejudices and charitable acts of the majority. Their status, more so than their character, gains them the extra attention.

No one is saying a damned thing about liberal, social democracy--which has managed to rebuild Europe after two devastating major wars

Five people thumbed this drivel up. Maybe one can explain it to me.

So technology is the problem heh?

So you are arguing that liberals are tougher on Christians than Muslims because they see them more often?

...but around the world, there are Muslims who are trying to take away lives.

Liberals who (rightly) object when anyone tries to lump all Muslims in the category of Islamists are perfectly happy treating Christians as a homogeneous and infernal group. This is hypocritical and rather than acknowledging it you are trying to defend it.

I'm afraid I find this incoherent.

Having been granted this exalted status it follows that you will minimize or ignore their atrocities. Much as you do with Palestinians.

He attacked Muslim Gold Star parents

Five people thumbed this drivel up. Maybe one can explain it to me.