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

[craigt3365]

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.

[Grubster]

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.

[Grubster]

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.

[craigt3365]

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.

[craigt3365]

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. 

[mtls2005]

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 March 13, 2017 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[new2here]

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

[landslide]

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.

[Andaman Al]

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.

[Ramen087]

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.

[Andaman Al]

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  Yuk! I just wrote that and my wife has called me for dinner eeeew! Must think nice things quick !

[balo]

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 March 18, 2017 by balo

[Ramen087]

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.

[WaywardWind]

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.

• Speaking to the NY Times, Michael D. McKay, a U.S. attorney in Seattle, “recalled at least one colleague who was in the midst of a major investigation and was kept on to finish it.“

• Michael Chertoff, a 1990 Bush appointee, did not leave until 1994.

• Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992 and served through 1993, the first year of Clinton’s term.

• John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, also kept his position for the first year of Clinton’s term.

[Ramen087]

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.

 

• Speaking to the NY Times, Michael D. McKay, a U.S. attorney in Seattle, “recalled at least one colleague who was in the midst of a major investigation and was kept on to finish it.“

   

• Michael Chertoff, a 1990 Bush appointee, did not leave until 1994.

   

• Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992 and served through 1993, the first year of Clinton’s term.

   

• John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, also kept his position for the first year of Clinton’s term.

   

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.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

[Ramen087]

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.

[Srikcir]

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.

[Ramen087]

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 March 19, 2017 by Ramen087

[WaywardWind]

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.

[Ramen087]

10 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

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.

I never said you were wrong. I didn't visit a right wing website. Actually I have never been on any of the sites you mention above, ever.  I never said it was correct to terminate those who didn't resign. You don't know what I did or did not do.  I understand transfer of power and cooperation. You're assuming an awful lot with your personal opinion of me, and lumping me in with every one who gets all of their information from inflammatory sites.  Have a nice day.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Ramen087

[WaywardWind]

13 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

I never said you were wrong. I didn't visit a right wing website. Actually I have never been on any of the sites you mention above, ever.  I never said it was correct to terminate those who didn't resign. You don't know what I did or did not do.  I understand transfer of power and cooperation. You're assuming an awful lot with your personal opinion of me, and lumping me in with every one who gets all of their information from inflammatory sites.  Have a nice day.

Your original post 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.

 

That information is not accurate, and is virtually identical to that which is posted on the sites I later referenced.  Must be pure coincidence that you and the authors of those sites came up with the same information independently.

 

Beyond that, your information is completely wrong: no US attorneys were fired on the first day of Clinton's presidency. Two months after his inauguration, his newly appointed Attorney General asked for the resignations of the then serving US Attorneys, in accord with historical practices. None were immediately removed, all stayed in office until their successors were nominated and approved by the Senate, and some were kept on and served under the Clinton administration.

 

Very, very different than the actions of Trump and Sessions, and of your portrayal of historical precedent here.

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by WaywardWind

[Ramen087]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fired-us-attorney-in-manhattan-replaced-by-longtime-friend/ar-AAoluV2?ocid=spartanntp

 

Let's see how well this goes in NYC...

[derator01]

Please abide by forum rules and show respect to other members or warnings will be handed out.

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, Ramen087 said:

The post in italics you are referring to is post thirty nine (39). That post was made by a member with the handle landslide, not by me.  Dude, you are <deleted> killing me. Get a grip, please.

Deleting double post

Edited March 19, 2017 by WaywardWind

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, Ramen087 said:

The post in italics you are referring to is post thirty nine (39). That post was made by a member with the handle landslide, not by me.  Dude, you are <deleted> killing me. Get a grip, please.

My bad for not checking that you were the original poster.  The majority of my comments apply to his post.

 

However, to respond to your queries, all US Attorneys are presidential appointees and well aware that their tenure will likely end with a new administration.  They are also aware that it is their responsibility to ensure a smooth transition with their successors, something which Trump's actions has prevented.  While it is true that the US Attorney in a given office is not likely to be involved in the day to day handling of an investigation (Assistant US Attorneys and FBI agents generally handle those matters) there are matters which because of their sensitivity the US Attorney does not share with his or her subordinates. Those matters would be shared with a successor US Attorney but in the present situation that will not happen.

 

The US Attorney's offices will continue to function irrespective of the firings, but valuable insights and information will be lost.

Edited March 19, 2017 by WaywardWind

[Ramen087]

2 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

My bad for not checking that you were the original poster.  The majority of my comments apply to his post.

 

However, to respond to your queries, all US Attorneys are presidential appointees and well aware that their tenure will likely end with a new administration.  They are also aware that it is their responsibility to ensure a smooth transition with their successors, something which Trump's actions has prevented.  While it is true that the US Attorney in a given office is not likely to be involved in the day to day handling of an investigation (Assistant US Attorneys and FBI agents generally handle those matters) there are matters which because of their sensitivity the Us Attorney does not share with his or her subordinates. Those matters would be shared with a successor US Attorney but in the present situation that will not happen.

 

The US Attorney's offices will continue to function irrespective of the firings, but valuable insights and information will be lost.

Thanks. Have a nice day and check the link regarding Preet's likely successor in post number 54. I still consider this office a special case because the high profile cases, especially in light of the conviction and jail time for financial / white collar crimes seem to be something the general populace deems long overdue.. Should be interesting.

[Andaman Al]

15 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

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.

 

I was not inferring anything. Quote where I was inferring what you say.

I don't need any new hobbies.

Are you are referring to a post where another member called them stalinists, you objected and I said why the objection? Why not quote the post? What are Trump supporters when they support a man who is in collaboration with the Russians. All those conservative values and ideals have been thrown down the toilet. I will not take a break from hating "Mr /Pres Trump" as I do hate him and everything he stands for. In their blind hatred for one person many in the US voted for a TV reality star joke, who has NPD and is one of the least qualified people ever to occupy the white house - Ever! So you can love him, and I and 70 million others can hate him. First amendment , Ciao.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

What are Trump supporters when they support a man who is in collaboration with the Russians

If not Stalinist, then Leninist which was the forefather of Stalinist.

Trump chief strategist Bannon described himself as “Leninist” to the writer and historian Ronald Radosh. Radosh recalled that Bannon had said to him, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/steve-bannons-war-on-the-press

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

If not Stalinist, then Leninist which was the forefather of Stalinist.

Trump chief strategist Bannon described himself as “Leninist” to the writer and historian Ronald Radosh. Radosh recalled that Bannon had said to him, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/steve-bannons-war-on-the-press

And that is the man who is chief political strategist to Trump! And all the Trump supporter suckers seem to accept it. Sad!