Bill Clinton asked for the resignation of every US Attorney the day after he was sworn in. There is nothing unusual about this.
The piece of dirt New York US Attorney thinks he’s a martyr or special, or so damn important that the country can’t do without him, or he’s deranged. But it doesn’t matter who told whom what when. He serves at the will of the president. I don’t know what country he’s from but in the good ole US of A this is how it’s done.
Why is this headline news in the “mainstream media”? It enflames both sides. The routine of this is hidden in the fine print. Talk about liberal propaganda playing right into Trump’s propaganda.
But of course the mainstream media is owned and therefore controlled by the .001% and as long as the rest are fighting between themselves they can continue to economically separate themselves more from the rest of us.
I mean, why else would the intelligent people at the Globe, NY Times, WashingtonPost…. make the American people believe Trump is pulling a Mussolini by firing all the prosecutors?
Who is trying to fool whom here? That’s not rhetorical. I really want to know.
If I see this Preet Bharara character delivering a commencement speech this spring I will puke.
I say, spot on.
The timeline is interesting, though nowhere near conclusive of anything:
WEDNESDAY: A trio of watchdog groups has asked the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to investigate whether President Trump has received payments or other benefits from foreign governments through his business interests in violation of an obscure clause in the U.S. Constitution.
The request, sent by letter Wednesday morning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, is a novel strategy by ethics critics who have been pressing Trump to comply with the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” which prohibits top officials from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments.
THURSDAY: President Trump calls Preet Bharara personally. Bharara declines the call, but calls AG Sessions instead.
FRIDAY: Trump orders 46 U.S. attorneys to resign immediately. Bharara refuses to resign.
SATURDAY: Trump fires Bharara.
SUNDAY: Bharara crytically tweets, “By the way, now I know what the Moreland Commission must have felt like.” (This is the investigative committee NY Gov. Cuomo disbanded).
but he doesn’t need a reason. If there is an investigation or maybe an investigation into The Donald by the NY USA then that will come out in the wash.
a reason, but he doesn’t need to fire them all at once for no reason other than he doesn’t need a reason.
I think Clinton asked all to resign except one. The one he didn’t ask was the USA for NJ whom Bill Bradley had asked Clinton to keep on.
That guy was Michael Chertoff! Co-author of the Patriot Act.
He allowed several to stay until their successors were appointed or they had wrapped up major cases they were working on. Bharara was initially asked by both Trump and Sessions to stay on and now rightly feels stabbed in the back. I say good for him for making Trump fire him rather than resign quietly. Trump has purged the Justice Department of its prosecutors and the State Department of its diplomats and continues to demonstrate gross negligence and incompetence when it comes to running our government. Trump has also been harsher than his predecessors in removing all traces of the previous administration, which is why it is news. I can’t disagree much more strongly with Ernie on this one.
It’s going to a long 4 years for Ernie and his GI tract, trying to keep his food down while worrying about all the unfair criticism of Trump.
EOM
Generally speaking, of course asking for all the sitting U.S. Attorneys from the previous administrations to resign is routine. Nothing wrong with it at all.
But by all accounts, Bharara had been asked to stay on, and not just until Trump could select a replacement and have the replacement in place. That isn’t just today’s spin. Only a couple of days ago WAMC ran an interview Alan Chartock did with Ed Cox, the chairman of the NY state Republican party, and when Bharara’s name came up, Cox made a point of the fact that Trump had asked him to stay on, that he couldn’t imagine that Bharara would leave to do anything else, and that he, Cox, was thrilled about it because he was counting on Bharara to take out Andrew Cuomo and maybe de Blasio too.
Everyone thought he was staying on. Trump knew everyone thought he was staying on, and could have corrected the mistake a good long time ago if it had been one. A sudden shift like this is far from routine, and it’s reasonable for Bharara to have made sure it wasn’t brushed off with some sort of story about how he’d changed his mind or something.
Even if Bhahara is a special case, I think Ernie has a point about the climate. I was surprised at the coverage of this, pre-Bharara.
I think fairness will save the day (eventually).
I’m no happier with what Trump is doing than anyone else, but I’ve still been taken aback by the general media environment. The bizarre thing is, there’s something real to be outraged and shocked about pretty much every day. No matter what your agenda, there’s no need to pretend that perfectly routine things are unprecedented madness that foretell the death of the Republic. You can find something that really is a big deal to report on, without having to even look hard.
So why do this? Has the press collectively lost all its institutional memory, or its ability to check on whether something is normal and to be expected before it reaches for its 72-point headlines and breaking news sirens? Or does it remember perfectly well, and nevertheless believe that blowing things out of proportion is somehow a good idea?
And they pretty much own the mainline press – NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. For proof of that ownership, one need look no further than the way those news outlets utterly ignored Bernie’s ability to draw enormous crowds, belittled him (yes I’m looking at you Ms. Maddow), and made The narrative that She was the inevitable Next One.
And here we are: President Trump! Yay!
And the ClintonDNC/Mainline News syndicate is doing it again. And guess who we’ll get as President in 2020 when they nominate Chelsea?
you haven’t gotten over the primary.
I think the Sanders people have to concede she tried her best to win the general on a progressive platform and she won the primary fair and square-and move on. I think the Clinton people have to concede Bernie’s/Warren’s message is the electable one going forward-and move on. People want bold fighters and a radically new economic vision. Do we choose economic nationalism or social democracy? Those are our choices.
Neoliberalism is either dead, dying or discredited around the globe. Which is part of the cyclical nature of political economy. We needed neoliberalism to beat the Soviets, create a global midle middle class, and inject some dynamism into the economy that had become sclerotic under Fordism-which ain’t coming back by the way Donald. So we need a culturally inclusive post-Fordist social democratic economic vision.
I’m liking what Brianna Wu is talking about on Twitter-bullish about Silicon Valley innovation and automation while also proposing more radical redistribution of wealth and bolder policies to advance social equity. I think Warren is the rare figure who can unite these factions and credibly articulate a New Deal vision without sounding out of the mainstream.
I think we haven’t had progressive education policy in a generation and could really use one to win over the middle class. Testing and charters are a loser with Trump voters and our base alike. Universal higher ed is a winner with Trump voters and our base alike. Paying teachers more is a winner with both. And it’s just education. Single payer, living wages, higher taxes on the wealthy, and clean elections command polling majorities among self identified voters in both parties-an a supermajority among independents. The economic ground has shifted to the left and we should shift with it.
platform, though I’m skeptical of its efficacy in attracting the votes we want. I believe in it because it’s right, not because it’s electable. I have noticed, but not read or studied, articles research or analysis saying that we can’t attract more voters by going left. Your generation is much more to the left, which is great, if we can get them to vote.
Warren is one of the few candidates I actually like AND respect, but I don’t know that she can reach beyond the progressive electorate either. With that said, I don’t to see Andrew Cuomo or Corey Booker as our 2020 nominee.
The same thing with big money donors. Yeah, I’d love to get rid of them, but individual contributions aren’t going to fund the Democratic Party or the many candidates across the country that we need to support.
Sanders matched Clinton dollar for dollar with small donors. And Koch money had a terrible year. Jeb and Hillary had more big donors than Trump. That said-I do agree small donors aren’t giving to non-presidential races like they should be-especially since their donations would have a bigger impact. I small donated to Warren and Obama in 12′ and Bernie and Hillary last cycle. A lot of friends are donating to PP (my wife is one of them) and the ACLU-but I am not sure if Our Revolution or other groups will get their downballot money.
We (millennial) also need to run more and become part of the party structure as much as we work outside it. And vote in every election. I’ll confess to skipping my local elections this year since I don’t want to deal with registering in IL only to re-register in MA when I expect to be back. But I will most definitely be voting in 2018 in the primary and the general. Most of my friends already vote-but I’m seeing more apathetic people become involved which is encouraging. And the two city council campaigns I’m advising will take
Off soon!
As for the polling the issue polling shows a leftist economic stance winning every time-but that’s not translating into support for Democrats. Is that a function of the Democrats not being seen as standing on this economic issues or the cultural leftism serving as a barrier? I’m honestly not sure. An article yesterday showed a lot of Chaffetz constituents pissed about their lack of insurance options under the new plan and his derisive comments about iPhones-but they still said they were with him since he upholds Mormon values. Bernie did really well in red state and purple county primaries-but could he or someone similar break through that cognitive dissonance in a general? We won’t know until we try. We know Hillary didn’t.
with this assertion. Our issues poll well, but the complicating variable is, how much people vote on issues. The big unknown, and I think it’s big, is how much identity is driving voting. I believe there are a persuadable number of Trump voters that would vote with us.
I don’t think small donations are workable for every contest. And if the DNC’s work has any value, it can’t financed on $27 contributions. A presidential campaign is high stakes, particularly the last one, I don’t see that kind of involvement in down ballot races or in most mid-terms.
Clinton’s campaign was fucking awful, particularly on television. She didn’t run on issues. She ignored the Blue Wall states, though it seems not ignoring them would have necessarily helped. There were all kinds of variables involved in her loss–many of them on her–but Comey’s second announcement of emails almost certainly killed her candidacy.
I guess there are those five guys on the internet who have not moved on. The rest of us ought to.
Bernie-Bro bashing is destructive; let’s let those five guys in peace and move on ourselves, eh?
I’m trying to thread the needle but I was on your side in the primary.
…was/is one of Bernie Sanders’s best friends in the media. She has him on quite a bit (not complaining – just correcting the record)
US attorneys serve at the whim of the president. When the president says scram, you scram. This is the way it is. Clinton did it, Bush did it, heck, they all did it. There is no story here except for the fact that TRUMP did it.
Don’t shed tears for US attorneys either. They are cold, political creatures who would destroy your life in a minute without so much as a moment’s thought.
…Nixon COULD keep firing AGs in the line of DOJ succession until he found one willing to turn around and fire Archibald Cox, but there’s a reason the Saturday Night Massacre goes down as a turning point in Watergate. This involved more people, more suddenly, and in this particular case my understanding is that Bharara was working on investigations Trump didn’t want and he essentially took Sean Hannity’s public TV advice to get rid of him and others. Of course, one blog pointed out that the NY AG has worked on many of the same cases or types of cases and has surely noticed that Bharara is now looking for a job. As for Trump doing something rash, that happens daily so we have our reactions well-rehearsed by now, thank you very much!
Preet Bharara that he would be kept on. Trump inappropriately called Bharara who refused to take the call. Now Bharara is fired. No one is weeping for him as far as I can tell, but Ernie is missing the point.
The DOJ has gotten scary. Jeff Sessions is implicated in the Trump Russia scandal. He’s recused himself, but that was for show. The FBI works for the DOJ. The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign.
C’mon Ernie, you’re better at conspiracyish stories than this.
I basically agree with Ernie. There is nothing unusual or suspicious about Te President asking for Bharara’s resignation. And we know that there’s. I thing unusual about Trump changing his mind about things! I do think, though, that Bharara’s decision to force a firing is unusual. What can it mean? I’m not sure, but I wonder if it is a kind of noisy withdrawal–Bharara may be trying to send a message that an ethical rule or a regulation prevents him from making explicit. But that’s just speculation.
“The President.”
“Nothing unusual.”
is that you use those two phrases together in relation to the current situation.
someone exercising a right or their authority, but I strongly distrust Trump’s motives in every action and think they need to be carefully examined.
Maybe it’s Trump being Trump, but we’ve gotten so used to our president’s disregard for norms, ethics, and the appearances, I wonder if we’re cutting him a break for doing something apparently normal.
We’ll know more tomorrow. MSNBC was interviewing a bunch of people on it today and the guy from Daily Beast seemed to know some things and have some opinions. If he does, others do to. LawFare will probably cover it. Just Security probably will too.
Who was he talking to?
And who was he ordering to be fired?
I think we all know the answers to those questions.
or something?
And IMO, much of the news media is made up of children who do NOT remember what was normal in the 1990’s or even 2009. I mean, where is the outrage over ambassadors appointed by Dubya that Obama recalled? DID YOU HEAR CAROLINE KENNEDY IS NOT AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN ANY MORE???
I cannot stand it that the idiocy of progressive activists is forcing me to defend Donald Trump.
I try not to reply to anything EBIII has written, but I read everything mark-bail and mimolette write (to name two who’ve weighed in here…) so I’m sometimes forced into this situation. So I cannot stand that your defense of Donald Trump is forcing me to reply to an EBIII rant.
There’s a fundamental flaw in the reasoning that says, since others have done the same thing what Donald Trump is doing it must be ‘normal.’ It’s not quite the fallacy known as ‘appeal to tradition’ but it’s close. For a President who has, so far, eschewed the normal bounds of Presidential authority, decorum and general aptitude to be given cover for doing something other Presidents have taken the prerogative to do is problematic: adherence to behaviour considered ‘normal’ doesn’t mean Donald Trump is doing something sane or deserves any type of fig leaf for his motives.
he is such a dumb ass I have no choice.
No it doesn’t but it weakens the legitimate reasons the guy is dangerous to most every American. With all the noise out there, those yelping about this shit (like petr) are doing the enemy’s work.
If you are what passes for smarts, I’d prefer to be dumb.
You’ve written 17 words and you appear to have 17 different personalities… Coincidence? And, just like your personalities, the words in your sentence don’t appear to get along.
seriously, I don’t get your point.
My pint is quite simple. We can’t convince those who look favorably uponTrump that he can is really a danger to them unless the true reasons he is dangerous to them (especially financially btw) are not drowned out but the shit reasons he sucks.
That’s my point.
I’m not sure what yours is.
Help us out here, will you Petr?
you have my panties are so in a bunch I can’t think clearly.
good for you. should I have said petr gets my briefs in a bunch?
or under pants in a bunch?
Help me out. I don’t want to sexist. God no.
…but your treatment of and attitude toward petr.
We need to maintain credibility. There’s plenty of awful, awful stuff that’s really a thing – when we start yelping about no-things, we become noise.
reason. The Economist writes:
Those silly progressives at The Economist.
when he says:
The other 47 fired we don’t need to care about (as far as I know) and it appears to be part of a regular transition.
But the timeline for Bhara is
1) Trump meets with Bhara and privately promises
To retain him
2) Trump/Bhara acknowledge this publicly
3) Bhara happens to be investigating Russian mob ties that may link back to Trump
4) Trump calls Bhara which is breach of protocol
5) Bhara professionally refuses the call
6) Trump fires Bharra-and everyone else-possibly to make that single firing look normal.
The other USAs should’ve been fired at the start of the transition. And replaced by now-they weren’t. This shows that Bhara, singled out as a holdover was not fired for investigating the President. This the Cox parallels are appropriate as is the earlier parallel to Sally Yates and his intense explosion at the Sessions recusal.
Any normal administration would’ve gone out of its way to prove without a reasonable doubt no collusion with Russia over the elections. Instead, we have a continuous, simultaneous and contradicting pattern.
1) Trump denies administration figure meets with Russians,
2) when media and/or IC prove that isn’t true he denies the relevance of the meeting
3) when media and/or IC prove it is relevant he distracts with a bright shiny object (travel ban, voter fraud, Trumpcare, Obama wiretap)
Rinse and repeat for the next conflict. Oh and fire anyone you possibly
can looking into this.
This is the mark of an administration barely staying one step ahead of the investigation. I think there is a decent chance this connection does ultimately drag Trump down and possible the GOP majority. That said-President Pence will enjoy a honeymoon and is far more conservative and aligned with Congress than Trump. He might just sign an ACA repeal and be more aggressive on social issues. So we have to be very careful to link the bad policies to the bad administration and propose better policies. We also need to decouple the objective illegal policies and behaviors from the ones we think are wrong but happen to be legal.