Whitaker is firewall against Mueller investigation.

[kentuck]

Trump will be in no hurry to replace him unless he is forced to do so.

For the time being, Rosenstein is irrelevant. If Mueller needs to subpoena someone or wishes to indict Roger Stone, for example, he will need to go thru Whitaker in order to do so. No one knows if there are any "sealed indictments" or how many?

But, for the time being, Trump has bought time with the appointment of Matt Whitaker. He believes he has Mueller frozen in place. There will be no new indictments or subpoenas while Whitaker is the AG. If Mueller wanted to indict Don Jr, Roger Stone, or Trump himself, he would have to get it approved by Matt Whitaker.

But, if Trump wants to get rid of Mueller, he would need to do it before the new Democratic Congress comes in on January 3rd, 2019. In the meantime, the investigation appears to be frozen in place?

The one thing that you can be assured of, is that Trump would prefer that Mueller be gone.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Lawrence Tribe disagrees.

He told Lawrence O'Donnell that Whitaker's position is unconstitutional and Mueller doesn't have to do ANYTHING that Whitaker asks him to do or not to do. Whitaker has no legal authority over the DOJ and the Mueller investigation.

[kentuck]

2. It seems that would give Trump and Whitaker a reason to fire Mueller...

if he were to make such a decision by himself?

[California_Republic]

3. Mueller would risk the investigation with insubordination?

[OnDoutside]

4. I can't see that happening either. Could anyone challenge the constitutionality of his

appointment ?

[California_Republic]

5. I read any Senator. Their area ' advise and consent'

[OnDoutside]

7. That's interesting, thanks. I think this would be the better option.

[kentuck]

9. It would seem the "advise and consent" rule in the Constitution would give them standing..

... to challenge it in Court.

They should do it quickly.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Democratic senators

are supposedly considering a lawsuit against the appointment.

[triron]

8. You have a source?

[NewJeffCT]

10. here

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/10/senate-democrats-consider-legal-action-against-trumps-whitaker-appointment.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-dems-explore-suing-trump-over-matt-whitaker-appointment

[triron]

13. Just do it.

[Jersey Devil]

11. I believe Dem Senators will file and are waiting for Whitaker to commit an overt act

I think they clearly have standing but want to also establish an element of real "damages" by showing that Whitaker has committed an act to undermine the investigation. When you sue for an injunction it is often necessary to establish "irreparable harm" before the court can grant relief. Otherwise, it might be deemed a declaratory judgment action which, while it could ultimately lead to Whitaker's appointment being declared invalid, may prevent any injunction for immediate relief. In other words, real damages would speed the matter up. Otherwise Whitaker could be in office for many months.

Saying that Mueller could just ignore Whitaker on his own would lead to his firing for insubordination.

[Squinch]

12. If Mueller gets fired, Nancy's gonna put him on our teevees!

Televised hearings with Mueller testifying. How great will that be?

[kentuck]

14. I think they may have pissed off Mueller once too often?

He seems to be very serious lately.