1) You're twisting it. The court had it fully within their power to extend Habba's time as interim AG and chose not to. It was an active vote of no confidence against her. The courts didn't go out of their way to headhunt a replacement, they explain that the 2nd in command automatically fills the role, but the courts did go out of their way to make sure Habba wouldn't stay in the post.
2) All presidents pushing the boundaries doesn't mean every attempt to push the boundaries is the same. This is a false equivalence. Stealing £1 is not the same as stealing £1 million.
3) Bush attempted to appoint an AG with little prosecuting experience but didn't go through with it. Trump did. All of Trumps supreme court justices are also the ones with the least experience. Holder did not defend terrorists, the big thing he was accused of was actually thinking the president could use whatever force he pleased against terrorists anywhere in the world. The big thing of his tenure was how aggressively he went after terrorists, so I don't know where you've got that he defended terrorists, it was the exact opposite. all the above though had some degree of experience working with government law, Habba had none.
4) If you can't tell the difference between statements of fact and tongue in cheek then the issue is you. However, it has been shown that Trump values loyalty to himself over loyalty to the law. Congratulations for identifying it isn't an actual factual statement though, maybe give yourself a pat on the back instead?
5) You realise Habba didn't lose a singular court case? She lost ALL of them. Every single one. I'm amazed you aren't aware of that. Do you think a legal professional who loses every single case in representing a client on a personal level is worthy of being made AG? In attempting to portray the channel as misrepresenting it, you do so yourself. By all means have a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Habba#Work_as_Trump's_attorney
She was also sanctioned during this time with a judge saying of one of her filings "No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim." Do you honestly believe that is just par for the course being a lawyer?
6) So they mention Habba chose Grace as soon as they get to the bit where they talk about Grace taking over. What exactly is the problem with this?
7) There is no "moving up" from interim to acting AG, if you think the acting AG is a position above interim AG, you didn't pay attention at all. It's not normal procedure, it's literally never happened before. The law says anyone nominated for attorney can only serve as an interim attorney, not acting. Habba was not appointed as acting AG, she received it by default in the same way Grace did by Grace being fired. Habba was appointed as the 2nd in command and then Grace was fired so Habba would then move into her spot. There is also nothing in the law about a nomination being withdrawn making it ok for them to then serve as an acting AG, only stating that once they've been nominated, they cannot serve as an acting AG.
He actually did say exactly who has the power to appoint interim and acting AGs, you clearly missed it. The idea that she is inexperienced or political is not laughable, it's very clearly true. She has not prosecutorial experience, she has no experience of winning court battles representing Trump and it's definitely a political pick because her legal credentials are definitely not reason to pick her.
You keep portraying this as if it's happened before. No, it hasn't. There literally isn't a single case elsewhere of someone serving in an interim AG role, getting kicked out when their time limit ends, only for them to immediately be reinstated as the 2nd in command and to have the person who just filled their role as the acting AG being fired for her to take over the role.
