By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.

  • showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website
    0·
    7 days ago

    And that seems like a clear cut cause for impeachment. If the Democrats gain control of the House a solid strategy would be to start impeachment proceedings against lower level appointees before going after Trump

    • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      0·
      6 days ago

      He is “acting AG”. Not even confirmed yet. The purpose of impeachment is to take an appointee from “confirmed” to “non-confirmed” status. I am not even sure impeachment would make sense? Couldn’t Trump just make him acting AG immediately again?

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        0·
        6 days ago

        He’s the AG. This was a trick they pulled in the first term. You make a guy the “acting” head of the agency, and he does the job until the new guy gets appointed, and approved by the Senate.

        So what happens if you name an “acting” head, and then never choose a final appointee? Nothing. Nothing happens. Your chosen guy remains the head of the agency, without ever being vetted or approved by the Senate.

        Todd Flintstone is the new AG, for all ill tents and porpoises.