you also filed a motion challenging trump as appointment of matthew whitaker as acting u.s. attorney general. you say sessions resignation should have led to rod rosenstein becoming the attorney general. can you give us an update on your suit? we filed that motion in a separate lawsuit in which we re defending the affordable care act. we re arguing it s constitutional and the justice department has refused to defend it. and so who the attorney general is is extremely important. in that lawsuit, we filed a motion because we sued jeff sessions as the attorney general. he s no longer the attorney general. there s no dispute about that. but the proper person has to be named in that lawsuit. we filed a motion to do that and to enjoin matt whitaker who is not lawfully the attorney general from carrying out that role. there will be a hearing on that motion on december 1th in
russian government was involved in hacking. it could be related to the timing of the release of e-mails, coordination with the presidential campaign. there s so many different ways and so people started to shorthand it with collusion, but it basically means conspiring with somebody to do something. josh, we can t forget that president trump recently fired jeff sessions put in the acting ag matthew whitaker who democrats see as a stooge. what s going on inside the justice department with whitaker as it investigation just chugs along? you hit on it. obviously he was the subject of a lot of reporting we were doing. this baggage he brings to the office of the acting attorney general and that is his past comments on the investigation being highly critical of mueller. i think that and this may be possibly a positive sign that the more mueller is able to do his work, the more we see filings and documents, the more we see enforcement actions tells us that whitaker isn t necessarily trying
help china when he s fighting with all of them but he s also taking unusual positions. the point of the ooh mol umts clauses is to ensure that the president puts our interests first, not his own interests first. but his team, the president s team has said that the activities that you re suing for aren t emoluments but regular business transactions and that profits from foreign governments are donated to the u.s. treasury. what s your response to that? ooh he s trying to negotiate the terms of the emol monuments clauses. the constitution of the united states is not negotiable. he would like to avoid disclo disclosing what he s receiving and how much he s profiting, and the fact that he s getting payments is what will makes him in violation of the emoluments clauses. you also filed a motion challenging trump as appointment of matthew whitaker as acting u.s. attorney general.
you say sessions resignation should have led to rod rosenstein becoming the attorney general. can you give us an update on your suit? we filed that motion in a separate lawsuit in which we re defending the affordable care act. we re arguing it s constitutional and the justice department has refused to defend it. and so who is the attorney general is is extremely important. in that lawsuit, we filed a motion because we sued jeff sessions as the attorney general. he s no longer the attorney general. there s no dispute about that. but the proper person has to be named in that lawsuit. we filed a motion to do that and to enjoin matt whitaker who is not lawfully the attorney general from carrying out that role. there will be a hearing on that motion on december 1th in federal court in baltimore. it does seem to be an unusual appointment. do you think whitaker was appointed to try to curtail the mueller investigation, brian? well, there s certainly that
federal court in baltimore. it does seem to be an unusual appointment. do you think whitaker was appointed to try to curtail the mueller investigation, brian? well, there s certainly that possibility. and we know that he is very unlikely to pass muster in front of the u.s. senate. his qualifications are very thin. he s expressed really extreme views about settled law. marbury versus madison is the seminal case on the power of the judiciary in the united states. the united states, and he argues that this 240-year-old case was wrongly decided. it s been the foundation of american law since the constitution was written. he can only legally do it unless appointed, unless he goes to the process for 200 some odd days, right? yeah. heeled have to be nominated to be the attorney general and receive senate confirmation.