Well I'm waiting for you to explain how that rule doesn't apply and perhaps list some precedents that disprove me...
Get some reading comprehension skills Killie. If you had them you'd realize there's a separate sentence on a different line that starts with an "AND" to denote a change of context. Am I your grammar teacher too? FFS.
So you just randomly thought to tell me to stop using Snopes out of the blue with nothing to do with the other sentences in the post, that's kinda weird.
MUST-SEE VIDEO: Broward County Elections Officials Block View as Ballots are Bundled and Bagged in Davie, Florida Voting Center https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ed-and-bagged-in-davie-florida-voting-center/
Not a deflection Kyle, but a rebuttal to incessant use of strawman arguments. And why would I try to refute the opinions of extreme biased publications like the NYT and the Washington Compost? It would just turn into a CNN panel that has nothing to do with actual facts. Btw in America, when someone faces an accusation, its the accuser's duty to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. You accuse Trump's appointment unConstitutionsl. Now prove it. Opinions are not admissible.
So Archy, how is the Whitaker direct appointment not in violation of this clause? Trump could have easily put Rosenstein in as AG until he found someone to nominate, Rod is already confirmed by the Senate.
Yeah, nice try. That's the op-ed from the Toilet Paper of Record the NYT. Do you know the definition of "op-ed"? It's an opinion Kyle. You can create an argument all day long based on an opinion, but at the end of the day it is not admissable. If Trump fired Muller there'd be a shitstorm of op-eds claiming it unConstitutional. But as the POTUS he has every right per the Constitution.