Talk:Matthew Whitaker: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Illegally appointed AG: best source available
Line 81: Line 81:
::{{tq2|[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.]}} [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq2|[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.]}} [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
:::That's an op ed with some interesting arguments, but it cites dicta more than law. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:::That's an op ed with some interesting arguments, but it cites dicta more than law. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

[https://www.lawfareblog.com/matthew-whitakers-appointment-acting-attorney-general-three-lingering-questions This writeup] is the best source I've been able to find on the legal issues. [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


==World Patent Marketing==
==World Patent Marketing==

Revision as of 01:38, 9 November 2018

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- CaseKid 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences of this article are, to put it mildly, nakedly (left-wing) partisan; the first of the two is simply opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.46 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Whitaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section discussing his relation to Muller's investigation?

I'm a relatively new Wikipedian. I feel a section discussing the effects of Whitaker's promotion on Muller's investigation would be useful (example: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer be in charge, Democrats have already called for his recusal, etc.). Whitaker's pre-promotion comments regarding Muller would then be moved into that section.

However, I'd like a... "bias check", for lack of a better term. I'm concerned my thought process may have spawned from my interest in this investigation. Can I get someone else to weigh in on whether this would be a relevant, neutral section? Thanks! Lohki (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there can be a whole section on what Whitaker's appointment to Acting AG will have on the Mueller probe if Whitaker hasn't even started the job yet. What is there to write? I can see nothing to write. Anything we write right now will merely be speculation and nothing more. We don't do speculation. --CharlesShirley (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This section is filled with rhetoric from one side. At least give a balanced perspective, or better yet, avoid rhetoric altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autosmiths69 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Clovis and God

Think this relationship is underrepresented. Wikipietime (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph should be restored to the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Whitaker_(politician)&diff=867902393&oldid=867900817

In September 2018, The New York Times described Whitaker as a Trump loyalist who had frequently visited the Oval Office and has "an easy chemistry" with Trump. With his appointment, Whitaker directly supervises Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which had previously been supervised by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Democrats demanded Whitaker recuse himself from supervising the investigation, citing potential conflicts of interest. Shortly before joining the Justice Department in 2017, Whitaker wrote an opinion piece arguing that the Mueller investigation was "going too far." He also referred to the Mueller investigation as a "lynch mob" and to calls for appointment of an independent prosecutor as "craven attempts to score cheap political points".

Cheers soibangla (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Just saying that something belongs in the lead is not a rationable on why something should belong in the lead. The paragraph is borderline NPOV, it goes into great unnecessary detail, and it discusses topics that are not even close to being to the level to justify inclusion in the lead. Since you gave absolutely no rationale or reasoning on why the paragraph belongs in the lead, I would encourage you to review and make yourself familar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the expanded content should be in the body, with a summary in the lead. Your characterization of the BBC and New York Times as "biased sources" is thought provoking. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Your thoughts must be easily provoked. I was referring to the comments of the Democratic leader, i.e., the source of the comment. The comments of the Senate Majority Chuck Shumer about "potential conflicts of interest" do not meet the MOS guidelines. Soibagla wants to put in the lead paragraph the claim by the Dems that Whitaker might have conflicts of interests. The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are. No, those comments do not belong in the lead. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are. Uh what? [1]:

Democrats quickly demanded on Wednesday that Mr. Whitaker also remove himself from taking charge of the inquiry, citing potential conflicts of interest, including his criticisms of the Mueller investigation, as well as his connections to a witness in that investigation, Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign aide. In 2014, Mr. Whitaker was the chairman of Mr. Clovis’s unsuccessful campaign to become Iowa state treasurer. “Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a statement.

(and [2]: Federal ethics regulations that apply government-wide state that a government employee should consider stepping aside in a matter when "the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter.") Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter Thanks of the response. But your quote is from reliable source. I was talking about the specific wording that Soibangla has been trying to put in the lead paragraph. The wording that I removed is not correct, "potential conflicts of interests". That wording, Soibangla's wording, needs to be fixed. And that's all there is to it. The Mueller thing should be mentioned in the lead paragraph but the five sentences that was added by Soibangla is too much. It needed to be cut down. --CharlesShirley (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said the "The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are."; so I pointed out that the Dems have indeed said what exactly those conflicts are. "potential conflicts of interests" is literally straight from the reliable source. How is it not correct? Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did say it. Just because one reliable source says something does not mean that the issue is closed. There are many reliable sources that state that the conflicts of interest are not "potential" but real. And there are many reliable sources that state that there are zero conflicts of interest. This topic is way too broad for the opening lead. We need to narrow down the discussion to what we should mention in the opening paragraph. I think we should mention that he now taking over the Mueller investigation from Rosenstein, but all of other stuff can be convered in the body of the article such as the NYTimes stuff about "chemistry" and frequent visitor to WH, his comments about gone to far and lynch mob and all the rest. --CharlesShirley (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a all that I think belongs in the lead paragraph. Please give me your input.

With his appointment, Whitaker directly supervises Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which had previously been supervised by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Democrats demanded Whitaker recuse himself from supervising the investigation, claiming conflicts of interest. Republicans have stated that he has no ethical obligation to recuse himself.

--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Soibangla's wording" is flatly false. And that's all there is to it. soibangla (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly belongs in lead, probably trimmed but definitely something like that, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT - basically every bit of coverage about him becoming attorney general (which dwarfs any other coverage he has received) is about how he now supervises Mueller investigation and his refusal to recuse from that despite his previous critical comments about the investigation and his close relationship to Trump. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter What part belongs in the lead because some of it clearly doesn't? --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment to being in the lead: Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV. *Editors* are required to edit in an unbiased manner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death I agree. But that does not go to the topic of the discussion. The bias can be judged to how much weight and where it placed in the article. I never made the argument that only non-biased sources should be used. But how much and where are the real questions. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is 100% factual and reliably sourced. It should be restored rather than another editor engaging in edit warring. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. All of the content, as written, is appropriate for the body but too detailed for the lead. A single sentence summarizing this content may be appropriate for the lead. R2 (bleep) 23:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illegally appointed AG

Illegally made AG as per the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:C003:8195:64DC:39ED:716A:491D (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he is currently "acting" U.S. Attorney General. If there are reliable sources about the legality of that, please cite them. Jonathunder (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He can serve as "acting" attorney general for up to 210 days (7 months) without going through the whole appointments process. --CharlesShirley (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that? Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathunder Yes, of course. (1) The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, (2) New acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker now overseeing Mueller investigation: 6 things to know, Washington Times, and (3) GSA, The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, P.L. 105-277. --CharlesShirley (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Perhaps some brief mention in the article is appropriate. Jonathunder (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per the FVRA its perfectly legal עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmYisroelChai You are absolutely correct. --CharlesShirley (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per the Constitution, it is dubious:

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

soibangla (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an op ed with some interesting arguments, but it cites dicta more than law. Jonathunder (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This writeup is the best source I've been able to find on the legal issues. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Patent Marketing

Belongs as separate section under career. No sources indicate (or even suggest) that World Patent Marketing hired him through his law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck-sum (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently covered in three sentences. A paragraph that short doesn't usually get its own subheading. Perhaps as the article expands it will. Jonathunder (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus on Section on Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust

I created this section but it no longer exists. Any thoughts welcomed. (sorry if this formatting is wrong)

=== Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust ===
Before Whitaker joined the Justice Department as Sessions’ chief of staff, Whitaker was the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.[1] FACT begun in 2014 which operated as a conservative nonprofit specialising in legal and ethical issues related to politics.[2][3] Whitaker tenure at FACT was from October 2014 to September 2017 during which the organisation has a special focus on Hillary Clinton regarding alleged misconduct relating to Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy and perceived favouritism in business dealings.[4]

Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry disregard this its been worked into another section. Sorry. Skinnytony1 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Zeitlin, Matthew. "The New Acting Attorney General Was Previously a Dark Money–Funded Clinton Antagonist". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
  2. ^ "Matthew Whitaker". Fox News. 2018-11-08. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
  3. ^ "Conservative group calls for Grayson ethics probe". POLITICO. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
  4. ^ "Trump's new acting attorney general was obsessed with Clinton's emails". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_Whitaker&oldid=867954684"