found online by Raymond
From Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez:
The elevation of Whitaker to the role of acting attorney general seems as precise an instance as one could imagine of the scenario the Framers hoped to deter. It is, after all, no secret why President Trump has been dissatisfied with Sessions: He has frequently made clear that he was infuriated by Sessions’ recusal (quite clearly required by DOJ rules) from overseeing the investigation into Russian election tampering—which has already seen legal penalties imposed on several of the president’s allies—and his insufficient enthusiasm for pursuing the president’s political adversaries. Whitaker, formerly Sessions’ chief of staff, seems certain to be more accommodating.
After reading Vladeck’s article, I am inclined to agree that this appointment is OK if temporary. But whether one looks to the undefined standards of United States v. Eaton (“a limited time” and “special and temporary conditions”) or the abusable FVRA (the “hacking” to which Sanchez refers), it’s clear that our government did a poor job of planning for these situations, as it does so irritatingly often. I expect better from lawyers and judges.
As for whether the appointment violates the intent of the law, I suppose it comes down to how much effort Trump and co. are putting into finding a permanent replacement for Sessions (unknowable), how long they keep Whitaker in the position, and what they allow Whitaker to do. Since Sessions was confirmed within a month of Trump taking office and Republicans still have a majority in the Senate, there is absolutely no reason for Whitaker to remain acting attorney general for anywhere near the 210-day deadline that one law suggests.
If Trump takes this as far as it can go and Republicans allow him, it will simply be more evidence that their sole guiding principle is “get more power.”