To wit, that his nomination was sent back to the White House with the approval of Chuck Schumer. Now, having the nomination returned means -- I am told by folks more intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of DC than I am -- that the subject of such a returned nomination cannot be then appointed in recess. Traver is now in limbo, and if the rumor is true then it is with the concurrence of the Number One Anti-Firearm Guy in the Senate.
Things that are known: Schumer was very happy having the Chief Counsel's Office at his beck and call. The links between his office and CCO were very agenda-driven and harmonious.
Things that are reliably rumored: In self-defense, Traver asked that the CCO miscreants (who had sandbagged more than one acting director in the past and were responsible for most of the current scandals) be cleared out before he took office so that he wouldn't be bound by the 120-day restriction if he had to do it himself.
Things of idle speculation: Is this CCO retaliation through their sponsor for the move on them by Traver? How much is the hand of Eric Holder to be seen in this? Some say not at all. Others say his fingerprints are all over it. Remember, Holder is not one of the "Chicago Gang," so he owes no loyalty to Traver and Company.
Now it could be that the extent of opposition to the Traver nomination caused the remaining "blue dogs" in The Senate to demand it, especially those who face re-election. And Schumer is, if nothing else, cold and calculating in political terms. On the other hand, would he go against the Chicago Gang if it weren't in his own interest?
Proof of all intentions is going to come swiftly with the new Congress: Will the administration re-submit Traver's nomination, or, after the re-set, try a recess appointment again? Or, having perhaps decided to fragment the agency into several pieces, is there no longer any urgency about having a director at all?
What a fun new year we have to look forward to.
Mike
III
Poor Andy. All dressed up with his AK and no place to rule.
5 comments:
The "leadership" is entirely Marxist, and they will therefore do the maximum amount of damage that they can, within their ability to gain/retain power.
As you said previously, they don't want hearings. So if the senate's Marxist in chief caused a return of the matter, especially since the position's candidate is in lock step with the agenda, it must be because it is in the best interests of the cause, and promotion of Marxism and a Marxist state replacing what was a free state.
""Remember, Holder is not one of the "Chicago Gang," so he owes no loyalty to Traver and Company.""
Ron Brown was neither a member of the Arkansas (hillbilly)mafia that came to town with Clinton and remember how he ended up.
Dems really hate it when those n*****s get all uppity after they have been given an opportunity.
KPN3%
As a former Naval Officer myself, every-time I get a look at this guy, All I can think is what a nightmare it must have been to serve under him in the Navy. He just looks like an "its all about me, ball buster". "Shudders"
I think we found pinky da turd from the Rogue Warrior books
I'll try again, that's the real deal he has in his pretty little hands.
You can see the dead giveaway if you know what to look for.
Post a Comment