WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
The firings were a surprise — especially for Mr. Bharara, who has a reputation for prosecuting public corruption cases and for investigating insider trading.
“The Attorney General has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations in order to ensure a uniform transition.”
But the calls from the acting deputy attorney general arose a day after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who is a strong supporter of President Trump, said on his evening show that Mr. Trump needed to “purge” Obama holdovers from the federal government. Mr. Hannity portrayed them as “saboteurs” from the “deep state” who were leaking secrets to hurt Mr. Trump. It also came the same week that government watchdogs wrote to Mr. Bharara and urged him to investigate whether Mr. Trump had violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.
Originally posted by vivify https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bha ...[text shortened]... he Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.[/b]
I appreciate your concern, but things may not that one sided. It's true that Trump and Hannity seemed to be joined at the hip, but if any proof of wrongdoing involving Trump and the Russians comes to the surface, or if Trump's big mouth, or tweets lands him in legal trouble, FOX and Hannity will drop Trump like a bad habit.
Originally posted by mchill I appreciate your concern, but things may not that one sided. It's true that Trump and Hannity seemed to be joined at the hip, but if any proof of wrongdoing involving Trump and the Russians comes to the surface, or if Trump's big mouth, or tweets lands him in legal trouble, FOX and Hannity will drop Trump like a bad habit.
That doesn't matter. As it currently stands, Trump is enacting policy based on what he sees on Fox News; and with frightening expedition.
Originally posted by vivify That doesn't matter. As it currently stands, Trump is enacting policy based on what he sees on Fox News; and with frightening expedition.
Originally posted by vivify It also came the same week that government watchdogs wrote to Mr. Bharara and urged him to investigate whether Mr. Trump had violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.]
Why are you Republicans silent about this? Trump FIRED people who were going to investigate whether or not he violated the Constitution by taking payments from Russia. Weren't you conservatives bitching about Hillary being corrupt? If Obama did this, would you remain silent?
Originally posted by vivify https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bha ...[text shortened]... he Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.[/b]
What's the historical form with these things? Have previous administrations hastily swept away their predecessor's prosecutors or is this an unusual act?
Originally posted by DeepThought What's the historical form with these things? Have previous administrations hastily swept away their predecessor's prosecutors or is this an unusual act?
Replacing prosecutors in an orderly fashion is a common practice; however, the last president to *hastily* replace prosecutors was Clinton (someone Reps constantly claim was corrupt), and that was because an ally of his was under investigation. The difference here? Trump HIMSELF was under investigation.
Basically, Trump just one-upped the "corrupt" Bill Clinton.
"At a time when Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from major investigations into the Trump campaign, the independence of federal prosecutors could not be more important."
Originally posted by vivify Replacing prosecutors in an orderly fashion is a common practice; however, the last president to *hastily* replace prosecutors was Clinton (someone Reps constantly claim was corrupt), and that was because an ally of his was under investigation. The difference here? Trump HIMSELF was under investigation.
Basically, Trump just one-upped the "corrupt" Bill Clinton.
Thank you, so administrations would normally just replace them as their existing contracts expired, but this action is not totally without precedent given Mr Clinton's actions a couple of decades ago. In Britain the system is different and prosecutors are not political appointees, so it's unclear from this side of the Atlantic how unusual the action is.
Fox News Runs the Country
11 Mar '17 17:29
Back to Top