Let's hope that Mr. Whitaker calls Mueller out on the carpet for the shameful treatment of General Michael Flynn. The inappropriateness of what was done to him on the basis of a non-Logan Act violation should chill any citizen. The outgoing Administration used the machinery of government to set up a member of the incoming Administration, and Mueller, to his everlasting shame, pushed it. For that alone, Mueller is a disgrace. If there was any justice in the world, Mueller would be bankrupted by an unfair prosecution.

As for the Dems' whining about Whitaker, that's just rich. Obama, in the face of an obvious constitutional infirmity purported to appoint Richard Cordray to run the CFPB under his recess appointment power. Lost 9-0 at the Supreme Court. And it wasn't even that close. The upshot, of course, is that Richard Cordray exercised unlawful power over American society for over a year.

Of course, the news media won't walk down that particular memory lane.

Decencyevolves: Whitaker’s involvement in the World Patent Marketing fraud should have disqualified him from being Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, let alone Acting Attorney General. Leonard Leo did no favors to the Administration or the federal government by recommending him for that position. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/he-was-yelling-whitaker-pushed-back-against-early-fraud-complaints-about-company-he-advised/2018/11/14/53e5cbc6-e78f-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?noredirect=on&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.6264348ae022&__twitter_impression=true

The OP is on the legality of the appointment. I don't know enough about Mr. Whitaker to comment on the advisability of it.

In any case, the best thing for the Department and the country is to have a permanent or at least semi-permanent successor in place reasonably promptly. If the nomination and confirmation process cannot be completed in the current Congress, then a recess appointment is in order.

John Yoo, George Conway and others disagree with the OLC analysis and it’s certainly debatable. As David Kris notes:

“[E]ven if there is only a one percent (or lesser) chance of a really drastic remedy, then it is highly irresponsible to have appointed Whitaker. The FVRA and 28 U.S.C. § 508 together set a default rule that the deputy attorney general becomes acting attorney general, and the FVRA grants the president a fallback option to appoint another Senate-confirmed individual to fill the role. There is no need, therefore, to resort to the third option and appoint Whitaker, in an action that some legal scholars—including John Yoo, not known for supporting limits on presidential power—believe is unconstitutional. It is bad enough that Whitaker has expressed extreme views that make him a poor choice for the job; it is much worse that the appointment was plainly motivated by the president’s desire to limit an ongoing investigation in which he himself is a subject; and it is very revealing of the president’s selfishness (and/or carelessness) that, in his zeal to achieve that result, he might be putting in play a much broader set of Justice Department’s significant activities.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/whitakers-appointment-and-broader-risks-justice-department

Sadly,such irresponsible behavior is just what one would expect from this President. His own comfort, desires and convenience are all that is important to him.

I guess as a Democrat, Federalist has determined that I an unfit to ever comment on a Republican AG. Is it ok for a conservative to describe Whitaker as "unfit to be Attorney General, acting or otherwise?" Just curious.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whitaker-is-unfit-to-be-attorney-general-acting-or-otherwise/