15 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It's actually a comment on the powers and competence of many prosecutors.

 

See comment above. The AG's investigation is civil, not criminal, so you're swimming in the wrong pool once again.

 

An inflammatory post has been removed

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

See comment above. The AG's investigation is civil, not criminal, so you're swimming in the wrong pool once again.

 

Government attorneys (AGs & DAs) investigate and prosecute civil and criminal matters...so don't know the point of your reply. The over-arching point is the Democrat government attorneys in both the federal Southern District of New York and the Manhatten state DAs office have been harassing the president with all manner of bogus civil and criminal investigations and charges in an effort to overturn the 2016 results.

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Government attorneys (AGs & DAs) investigate and prosecute civil and criminal matters...so don't know the point of your reply. The over-arching point is the Democrat government attorneys in both the federal Southern District of New York and the Manhatten state DAs office have been harassing the president with all manner of bogus civil and criminal investigations and charges in an effort to overturn the 2016 results.

Whats bogus about them.

44 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Government attorneys (AGs & DAs) investigate and prosecute civil and criminal matters...so don't know the point of your reply. The over-arching point is the Democrat government attorneys in both the federal Southern District of New York and the Manhatten state DAs office have been harassing the president with all manner of bogus civil and criminal investigations and charges in an effort to overturn the 2016 results.

Looks like they're doing their job, pursuing criminal investigations.

49 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Government attorneys (AGs & DAs) investigate and prosecute civil and criminal matters...so don't know the point of your reply. The over-arching point is the Democrat government attorneys in both the federal Southern District of New York and the Manhatten state DAs office have been harassing the president with all manner of bogus civil and criminal investigations and charges in an effort to overturn the 2016 results.

Geoffrey Bergman, the previous US Attorney for the federal Southern District, is a Republican. And in fact he still would be the US Attorney if William Barr hadn't fired him.

What makes the firing so strange is that usually, when a replacement is nominated, the current US Attorney stays in office until the nomination is confirmed. But Barr insisted that Berman step down right away. It's only because Berman resisted that Barr agreed to let Audrey Strauss, his deputy, replace him on an acting basis.  It also can't be because of incompetence, since Barr offered Berman another high-level position if he agreed to go without dispute.

3 hours ago, rcummings said:

What makes the firing so strange is that usually, when a replacement is nominated, the current US Attorney stays in office until the nomination is confirmed. But Barr insisted that Berman step down right away. It's only because Berman resisted that Barr agreed to let Audrey Strauss, his deputy, replace him on an acting basis.  It also can't be because of incompetence, since Barr offered Berman another high-level position if he agreed to go without dispute

 

Thanks for the clarification...it's all true, but seriously folks, this is really, really and I mean really old news. If you have just caught up with this now, then Trump is way, way, waaayyyyy ahead. God help us! ("Don't feed the troll," he says.)

 

Btw at recent hearing, when asked why he announced Berman "is stepping down" - even though at that stage Berman had no intention to do so, Barr answered "yes he (Berman) was stepping down even though he didn't know it." In other words, the first instance ("Berman is stepping down") implies that Berman was doing so of his own volition; the second instance ("though he didn't know it) implies that Berman was going to be forced out one way or another. Thus the opaqueness of Barr's words: he covered his action of firing Berman with the omission of his intention to do so. And this is the head person of our justice department? God help us! ("You should have been a lawyer and 20 years younger," he says.)

4 hours ago, rcummings said:

What makes the firing so strange is that usually, when a replacement is nominated, the current US Attorney stays in office until the nomination is confirmed. But Barr insisted that Berman step down right away. It's only because Berman resisted that Barr agreed to let Audrey Strauss, his deputy, replace him on an acting basis.  It also can't be because of incompetence, since Barr offered Berman another high-level position if he agreed to go without dispute.

And what makes it so bad is that the person he proposed to replace Bergman with is Jay Clayton. Clayton is head of the SEC and has zero experience as a prosecutor. Clayton claims it was at his own behest that he was appointed because he wanted to return home but continue in public service. So to gratify an unqualified person Barr nominated him to be US Attorney? Not just that, but during Clayton's tenure, the SEC investigated the lowest number of insider trading cases since the Reagan era. Clearly this guy was raring to go and drain the swamp.