Fox News Runs the Country

Originally posted by DeepThought
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.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeff-sessions-dianne-feinstein-resignation-order-attorneys/2017/03/10/id/778142/

Dianne Feinstein said she is "very concerned" about the precedent that's being set.

The California Democrat, 83, said in a statement the general protocol is for U.S. attorneys to leave their posts gradually as a new president appoints replacements. Sessions asked the remaining 46 attorneys put in place by the Obama administration to clean out their desks.

"I'm surprised to hear that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have abruptly fired all 46 remaining U.S. attorneys," said Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cleaning house and bringing in new US Attorneys is common and is the prerogative of every incoming President.

Originally posted by sh76
Cleaning house and bringing in new US Attorneys is common and is the prerogative of every incoming President.

A president following instructions from talk show hosts is perhaps less common.

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]

With the illegal leaks in US intelligence designed to torpedo the Trump administration, I think it would behoove Trump to just fire everyone and start over.

Originally posted by sh76
Cleaning house and bringing in new US Attorneys is common and is the prerogative of every incoming President.

Yes, but on one likes Trump so it's different now.

Originally posted by whodey
With the illegal leaks in US intelligence designed to torpedo the Trump administration, I think it would behoove Trump to just fire everyone and start over.

Only if Fox News approves, and if you're hurrying to avoid prosecution for violating the Constitution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A president following instructions from talk show hosts is perhaps less common.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Originally posted by sh76
Cleaning house and bringing in new US Attorneys is common and is the prerogative of every incoming President.

Way to ignore the entire OP and everything else said in this thread just support your side.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

No, he fired Obummer appointees who are very biased.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No, he fired Obummer appointees who are very biased.

The same week investigations were planned for whether he violated the Constitution. I know, it's only corrupt if Clinton does it.

Originally posted by sh76
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Has it crossed your mind that it might be the other way round? Get their man in Fox news to advocate the policy and then do it. I'm stuck for the term for this, it's called priming or something like, over here the Blair government were fond of it, you get an allegedly independent source to drop a few hints so that people are accustomed to the idea and then announce the policy. It's difficult to resist as it feels almost as if the government is doing something one had thought of oneself.

Originally posted by sh76
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Post hoc like many other documented previous cases (recent example: Trump talking about "problems" due to immigration in Sweden) ergo plausibly propter hoc.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Has it crossed your mind that it might be the other way round? Get their man in Fox news to advocate the policy and then do it. I'm stuck for the term for this, it's called priming or something like, over here the Blair government were fond of it, you get an allegedly independent source to drop a few hints so that people are accustomed to the idea and ...[text shortened]... to resist as it feels almost as if the government is doing something one had thought of oneself.

There is no evil mastermind plan behind Donald Trump's actions. He got elected precisely because he is an angry, old senile grandpa who shouts at the television, which is why so many Americans identify themselves with him. Have you noticed how Trump supporters on this forum all fit this same mould?