Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 17:29
    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 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.
  2. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    11 Mar '17 17:45
    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.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 17:53 / 1 edit
    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.
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Mar '17 18:00
    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.
    Yes! And how amusing is it!!!
  5. 11 Mar '17 18:12
    I do not let Fox news tell me what to believe. Fox News is just the mouth piece for the establishment Republicans.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 19:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Fox News is just the mouth piece for the establishment Republicans.
    Which includes Trump, who you've been boasting of as "anti-establishment".
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 19:37
    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?

    Conservatives are fcking trash.
  8. 11 Mar '17 19:53
    Originally posted by vivify
    Which includes Trump, who you've been boasting of as "anti-establishment".
    He campaigned on being anti-establishment.

    What he actually does in office we'll have to see.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 20:31
    Originally posted by Eladar
    He campaigned on being anti-establishment.

    What he actually does in office we'll have to see.
    What do you mean you'll have to "see"? He's:

    a) Enacting policy based on the reports of Fox News as promptly as he can, and
    b) He fired people investigating him for violating the Constitution

    So far, is this your idea of "anti-establishment"?
  10. 11 Mar '17 20:32
    Originally posted by vivify
    What do you mean you'll have to "see"? He's:

    a) Enacting policy based on the reports of Fox News as promptly as he can, and
    b) He fired people investigating him for violating the Constitution

    So far, is this your idea of "anti-establishment"?
    No
  11. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 20:35
    Originally posted by Eladar
    No
    Thank you for a direct answer.
  12. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    11 Mar '17 20:39
    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?
  13. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 20:50
    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.
  14. Standard member vivify
    rain
    11 Mar '17 20:55
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeff-sessions-dianne-feinstein-resignation-order-attorneys/2017/03/10/id/778142/

    "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."

    No shlt.
  15. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    12 Mar '17 01:08
    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.