rooster59

Top U.S. prosecutor says he is fired by Trump administration

68 posts in this topic

'Nothing but another wingnut boohoo moment.  Incoming presidents always reshuffle at least to some extent.  The wonderfully inept Janet Reno famously fired all U.S. attorneys after Clinton took office, one of whom was engaged at the time in an investigation of Clinton ally Dan Rostenkowski, a particularly powerful Democratic congressman (who later went to prison).  <yawn>

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is normal practice to remove political appointees after an election win, normally it is done after replacements have been hired and not in such a rushed fashion as this. Also, if draining the swamp is what Trump would like to do, this particular prosecutor, Bharara, was actually doing just that. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

               Trump has not killed people.  He's only 6 weeks into his term.  He's already gearing up for wars predicated on flawed info, and fueled by his hot headed, quick-to-blame, quick-recriminations, and easily-bruised ego.  If a shouting right-winger screams something ridiculous, Trump will likely believe it and take it as a signal to go to war.  War kills people.   Note:  The personal secretary to Trump's #1 adviser, Bannon, was asked to describe Bannon.  Without hesitating, she said he's fixated on war and war-strategies. 

 

             Firing so many judges is unprecedented.  It's yet another way, among many, in which Trump and his defective people are trying to avoid getting found guilty of illegal activity.  

What judges? A district attorney general is not in any way a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess he was also investigating multiple cases in the whole Fox News payoff/harassment/sexual assault fiasco, and the Ailes/O'Reilly settlement payments.

 

https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/12/us-attorney-preet-bharara-was-investigating-fox-news-when-trump-fired-him/215644

 

Probably just a coincidence? I'm sure it will have no affect on these investigations. /justkidding

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

20 million people who were uninsured before now have health insurance. What's sad is that a lot of these people supported Trump because they believed him when he said he was going to make health insurance better for them. Yet it's overwhelmingly Trump supporters who are going to suffer if Trumpcare gets enacted.

The subject is about a two bit lawyer getting fired, but since you bring it up any thing short of getting the insurance lobby and the bar association out of our health care system is an absolute joke anyway. Just another smoke screen issue while the bigs on both sides of the isle rob you blind. I had expensive health insurance in a group plan it payed 70% of what was covered [ which takes up more time of your nurse to find out which procedure or medicine you do or don't qualify for ], after my yearly $2,000 deductible. All this a bargain at $12,000 per year. Do you think Obama really did anything for the working class on this issue? I don't think Trump or anybody else can or will take on the Bar association, insurance lobby, big Pharma, etc.. If he brings jobs back and slows immigration down to those we want and need it will a big step in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grubster said:

The subject is about a two bit lawyer getting fired, but since you bring it up any thing short of getting the insurance lobby and the bar association out of our health care system is an absolute joke anyway. Just another smoke screen issue while the bigs on both sides of the isle rob you blind. I had expensive health insurance in a group plan it payed 70% of what was covered [ which takes up more time of your nurse to find out which procedure or medicine you do or don't qualify for ], after my yearly $2,000 deductible. All this a bargain at $12,000 per year. Do you think Obama really did anything for the working class on this issue? I don't think Trump or anybody else can or will take on the Bar association, insurance lobby, big Pharma, etc.. If he brings jobs back and slows immigration down to those we want and need it will a big step in the right direction. 

This guy is not a "two bit" lawyer.  He's highly respected.  His accomplishments speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Obama did very well.  Saved the US (and the global economy) from crashing.  Drastically reduced the unemployment numbers, wall street rocked, etc.  Not perfect, but better so far than what we have now.

I think the banks were saved by the Bush administration and nearly all of congress to the tune of $800,000,000,000 and it did nothing to save the world. Then we watched the big CEO's give themselves 10s of millions in bonuses for getting it done.  Wall street has very little to do with main street where most of our problems are. Wall street is bottom line concerned only, and they care very little who they stomp on to make that profit higher. Stopping these corporations from sending our jobs away or bringing in cheap labor would do a tremendous amount of good for main street.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

This guy is not a "two bit" lawyer.  He's highly respected.  His accomplishments speak for themselves.

I'm sorry I generalized on that, as I think the bar association is the single biggest cause of most of our problems. They are the most self serving bunch in our society.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I think the banks were saved by the Bush administration and nearly all of congress to the tune of $800,000,000,000 and it did nothing to save the world. Then we watched the big CEO's give themselves 10s of millions in bonuses for getting it done.  Wall street has very little to do with main street where most of our problems are. Wall street is bottom line concerned only, and they care very little who they stomp on to make that profit higher. Stopping these corporations from sending our jobs away or bringing in cheap labor would do a tremendous amount of good for main street.

You are absolutely correct.  Bush did a lot.  And luckily, Obama continued with it.  As unpopular as it was (TARP). 

 

But this is not part of the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I'm sorry I generalized on that, as I think the bar association is the single biggest cause of most of our problems. They are the most self serving bunch in our society.

Lawyers are definitely one of the big problems in the US!  And they have also accomplished a great deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 36   Posted (edited)

The Big Winner in Donald Trump’s Decision to Fire Preet Bharara Might Be Rupert Murdoch

 

Since Election Day, Murdoch, now the executive chairman of Fox News, has personally nudged the network in a more pro-Trump direction, sources tell me. That effort included anointing Trump-friendly Tucker Carlson as the successor to Megyn Kelly as host in the 9 p.m. slot. Fox News staffers are also grumbling that segments now have to fit a “pro Trump narrative,” one insider told me. Trump seems to be returning the goodwill: He asked Murdoch to submit names for FCC commissioner and tweeted praise for Fox News.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/winner-in-trumps-decision-to-fire-bharara-might-be-murdoch.html

Edited by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that you've posted your opinion, why don't you try to actually read the article. Sessions and Trump had a meeting with Bharara and asked him to stay on.  Now they've reneged.


That true... I personally find that "poor form" ... but... I can't overlook that these are politically appointed positions and as such the notion of "job security" - like most people in the private labor pool, think of just isn't how these kinds of positions aren handled.

Again, I do think it's poor form to ask someone to stay-on... only to ask/direct him to self-terminate some X weeks later... but.... I do think the POTUS has that right, and I can't besmirch him for choosing to use it.

Unfortunately these position can be quite partisan and at times - and that can impede the working effectiveness.. but I continue to say that while it's perhaps distasteful, maybe even done with some kind of personal benefit in mind, that is what the law allows him to do - and to varying degrees, what other POTUS(s) have similarly done before.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2017 at 9:34 PM, Andaman Al said:

Us and them? It is pathetic. The election is over, history, water under the bridge. It is NOT normal for resignations to occur like this. Firstly in every other case of mass 'firings' there is ALWAYS another US Attorney appointed first, then the outgoing one resigns. In November both Trump and Sessions said that they wanted Bharara to stay in position, so he accepted, and that is why he did not resign. Normally there would be a 3-4 week transition phase to hand over cases from one Attorney to the next. Not here. Chaos rules yet again. Pathetic.

Actually, that is not true.  On his first day in office, Bill Clinton fired 95 of 96 US Attorneys, and started replacing them with his own appointments.  A number of the positions took months to be filled.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, landslide said:

Actually, that is not true.  On his first day in office, Bill Clinton fired 95 of 96 US Attorneys, and started replacing them with his own appointments.  A number of the positions took months to be filled.

Yes and all of them were given replacements before they were fired, and the ones that took months to fill still did their jobs until their replacements were organised.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:55 AM, Andaman Al said:

Yes. Why the red card? You fully support someone that is selling his soul to Vladimir Putin. You support someone that allowed an unregistered foreign agent to become NSA which is either inept or treasonous, you pick, but either way he proves himself not fit to be CinC. I think Stalininst is quite a polite term compared to some alternatives that could be used. Trump supporters have all lost their way, they cannot see the wood for the trees, but instead of stopping and turning back they are allowing the pied piper to take them deeper and deeper into the woods. It's a story that won't end well for anyone.

Incorrect.  I did not cast a vote for Donald Trump.  Everything else is an opinion of yours and extraordinarily extreme in nature. Here's a reminder: opinions are like rectal openings... everybody has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Incorrect.  I did not cast a vote for Donald Trump.  Everything else is an opinion of yours and extraordinarily extreme in nature. Here's a reminder: opinions are like rectal openings... everybody has one.

I am confused, where in my post to I mention about who you did or did not vote for? I refer to your comments on here and you are fully aware of that.

 

Quote

opinions are like rectal openings... everybody has one.

Actually not strictly true. Someone I know had colon cancer and they took the lot out, he has to use a colostomy bag for the rest of his days. As a result of the op they also has to stitch up his rectum as it will never be used (could get infected etc). So he and many other like him do not in fact have a rectal opening :wink: Yuk! I just wrote that and my wife has called me for dinner eeeew! Must think nice things quick !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 42   Posted (edited)

Trump is creating a world for himself, either you're with him or you're fired.   4 years, it's going to be a nightmare.....

 

Edited by balo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I am confused, where in my post to I mention about who you did or did not vote for? I refer to your comments on here and you are fully aware of that.

Sorry but if you're inferring that conclusion into my posts you're even more biased about the current us president than I have thought. You need a new hobby if you're paying that much attention to my posts.

It is clearly time to take a break from your obsession with hating Mr./Pres. Trump. Stalin killed between sixteen and twenty four million people according to many reliable historical estimates.... and you equate sixty two million people in the USA who voted Trump/Pence as being supporters as Stalinists?

You draw the wildest and weirdest analogies and subsequent conclusions I have ever read. 

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 2:11 AM, landslide said:

Actually, that is not true.  On his first day in office, Bill Clinton fired 95 of 96 US Attorneys, and started replacing them with his own appointments.  A number of the positions took months to be filled.

Your information is incorrect; not surprising since nearly all of the right wing web sites are carrying the same story, with virtually identical language....

 

The facts are quite different: (http://wiredpen.com/2017/03/10/trump-fires-46-us-attorneys/)

 

Clinton: On March 23, 1993, Janet Reno sent a notice to all 93 U.S. attorneys asking for resignations; however, incumbents stayed on “until their replacements could be confirmed.” Salon has a long list of Republican objections from 1993. Note that from 1981 to 1993, Attorney General Sessions served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Your information is incorrect; not surprising since nearly all of the right wing web sites are carrying the same story, with virtually identical language....

 

The facts are quite different: (http://wiredpen.com/2017/03/10/trump-fires-46-us-attorneys/)

 

Clinton: On March 23, 1993, Janet Reno sent a notice to all 93 U.S. attorneys asking for resignations; however, incumbents stayed on “until their replacements could be confirmed.” Salon has a long list of Republican objections from 1993. Note that from 1981 to 1993, Attorney General Sessions served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

 

Not saying you're wrong, but all of them knew they'd be out of a job as soon as their replacements were confirmed.  How much could they get done in the interim?   How much power does a lame duck attorney in that position have?  Were investigations continued with the same vigor given a new administration from a different party?   I just wonder if there is a significant difference between them being there or not. I see a halt to any real work being done until the new guy appointed by a different political party gets in given how slowly the wheels of justice turn in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Not saying you're wrong, but all of them knew they'd be out of a job as soon as their replacements were confirmed.  How much could they get done in the interim?   How much power does a lame duck attorney in that position have?  Were investigations continued with the same vigor given a new administration from a different party?   I just wonder if there is a significant difference between them being there or not. I see a halt to any real work being done until the new guy appointed by a different political party gets in given how slowly the wheels of justice turn in the USA.

No, you're not saying he's wrong. He's saying you're wrong. And he has proof. And now you're trying to distract from the issue with rhetorical questions and dubious assertions.Maybe you should consider getting your information from honest sources.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, you're not saying he's wrong. He's saying you're wrong. And he has proof. And now you're trying to distract from the issue with rhetorical questions and dubious assertions.Maybe you should consider getting your information from honest sources.

Very weird post.  Why are you interpreting another BM's entry?  If you look at the thread you might see that I had said Preet was worthy of retaining.  It seems to me you did not read my previous opinion on Preet's dismissal at all. It's likely you saw the entry you quoted and decided to attack my post.

Distraction has zero to do with it.  I don't consider my questions or statements to be off topic or on any kind of tangent.

Your entry is one of the strangest responses ever.  I'd appreciate it if you would more carefully consider your entries to me prior to quoting another BM's submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

I see a halt to any real work being done until the new guy appointed by a different political party gets in given

Actually the ongoing investigations may actually accelerate.

 

In each case where the appointed AG is relieved by the new administration, the current Deputy AG assumes the role of the absent AG until replacement AG is appointed. If there was good collaboration between the Deputy and resigned/fired AG, civil service attorneys will continue their investigations according to priorities set by the departing AG until such time a new AG is appointed. If the attorneys expect new priorities that will slow or terminate their investigations and prosecutions, they might want to accelerate their work objectives rather than see their efforts wasted under a new administration. 

 

Of course newly-appointed Secretary Sessions can personally oversee all the deputy AG's to set new priorities but that would be an improbable undertaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 49   Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Actually the ongoing investigations may actually accelerate.

 

In each case where the appointed AG is relieved by the new administration, the current Deputy AG assumes the role of the absent AG until replacement AG is appointed. If there was good collaboration between the Deputy and resigned/fired AG, civil service attorneys will continue their investigations according to priorities set by the departing AG until such time a new AG is appointed. If the attorneys expect new priorities that will slow or terminate their investigations and prosecutions, they might want to accelerate their work objectives rather than see their efforts wasted under a new administration. 

 

Of course newly-appointed Secretary Sessions can personally oversee all the deputy AG's to set new priorities but that would be an improbable undertaking.

Thank you for that. Do we actually have a record of when an investigation accelerated and a prosecution or conviction happened before the new federal attorney took over? Or a case where the political parties appointing said attorneys changed and the investigation, prosecution and conviction was completed after the new appointee took control?  It would interesting to find this out.

 

I would like to point out the types of cases would be the sort that keep Preet in the limelight...higher profile cases that Preet tends to lead, covered widely in the press etc.  After all, he is the topic of the thread ... thanks.

Edited by Ramen087

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Not saying you're wrong, but all of them knew they'd be out of a job as soon as their replacements were confirmed.  How much could they get done in the interim?   How much power does a lame duck attorney in that position have?  Were investigations continued with the same vigor given a new administration from a different party?   I just wonder if there is a significant difference between them being there or not. I see a halt to any real work being done until the new guy appointed by a different political party gets in given how slowly the wheels of justice turn in the USA.

My information is historically correct, and yours is not. You did what so many others have done here: visit one of the right wing websites and then post here as fact what you get from there.

 

When researching a topic, you need to look well beyond Breitbart, Infowars, Townhall, etc. - those sites exist to post inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories with almost no regard for the truth. Dig deeper if you want accuracy.

 

Transitions always involve replacement of the US Attorneys, but it is almost always done in an orderly fashion to ensure that ongoing investigations and cases are not disrupted. Outgoing attorneys then have the opportunity to being their successors up to speed on the activities of that office.

 

What Trump and Sessions did was exactly the opposite, perhaps intentionally so, given the number of investigations which are focusing on members of the Trump administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 27 April 2017 23:40
Sponsors