Preet Bharara and 45 other U.S Attorney's fired by Trump Administration

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

He was fired even though Trump asked him earlier to stay...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-york-federal-prosecutor-preet-bharara-has-not-submitted-resignation/2017/03/11/39163292-067a-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2009/05/obama-to-replace-us-attorneys-018390

[ApatheticAustrian]

Dinesh D'Souza's take on the matter  - by the way the guy who was prosecuted by Bharara - is most...eh...special:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/840553093687324672

[Hermit For Peace]

Do other administrations fire the people with one day notice? Just boom! You're outta here?

Real sleazy move.

[publicunofficial]

This is pretty routine. The only possibly objectionable thing is that Trump had reportedly asked Bharara to stay on as US Attorney, but then fired him anyway.

[KingSweden]

This is pretty routine. The only possibly objectionable thing is that Trump had reportedly asked Bharara to stay on as US Attorney, but then fired him anyway.

This. Clinton asked all 96 Bush 41 USA's to resign the same way. Dumping Bharara is a mistake, though. He's the best prosecutor in the country

[JGibson]

Trump and Sessions will regret firing Bharara bigly.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I don't understand why they wouldn't ask Bharara to continue staying on. The dude could potentially be a menace to the administration if a special prosecutor is ever needed.

[Ronnie]

Does anyone think Trump might have fired Bharara because Hannity instructed him to do so?

[Simfan34]

I don't understand why they wouldn't ask Bharara to continue staying on. The dude could potentially be a menace to the administration if a special prosecutor is ever needed.

I suggested elsewhere that this would free him up for exactly this role. Although I recall reading the law that empowered the appointment of special prosecutors was superseded in the late 1990s, meaning that Bharara (or anyone else) would have to serve as a Special Counsel rather than a Special Prosecutor.

Anyway, I would think it preferable for a formal inquiry into Russian interference in the election take the form of a Congressionally-mandated commission (à la the 9/11 Commission) rather than any kind of prosecutorial arrangement, to deter perceptions of a witch-hunt. That way it could also be composed of distinguished elder statemen (and -women), as opposed to sitting members of Congress, as would be the case for a Joint Committee.

[cinyc]

Good riddance to all 46 Obama holdovers.  Elections are supposed to have consequences, and political appointees shouldn't serve in the next administration.  They simply cannot be trusted.

I've never been a big Preet Bharara fan.  He grandstands too much, like his political mentor, Chuck Schumer.  Any prosecutor worth his salt could tackle corruption in New York State politics.  Bharara's not special, except that instead of doing so quietly, he did so quite publicly.  Bharara's refusal to honorably resign, like the rest of the prosecutors asked to resign yesterday merely confirms my opinion that Bharara is a grandstanding hack.  Good riddance!

[ApatheticAustrian]

Ofc he is grandstanding even while the trump administration must be kind of stupid if they at first have given him consent to stay in his position.....makes this whole martyr thing even better for his career.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally, these posts wouldn't be political appointments.  At the very least, can't we merge some of these?  There's no good reason to have multiple districts for states such as Oklahoma and Mississippi.

[cinyc]

Ideally, these posts wouldn't be political appointments.  At the very least, can't we merge some of these?  There's no good reason to have multiple districts for states such as Oklahoma and Mississippi.

Ideally, there should be more political appointments in the federal government, not fewer.  The civil service class is almost all Democrats.  Republicans have a harder time getting their agenda through because of them.  The fewer non-political appointees, the better.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Ideally, there should be more political appointments in the federal government, not fewer.  The civil service class is almost all Democrats.  Republicans have a harder time getting their agenda through because of them.  The fewer non-political appointees, the better.

as long as republicans are the "anti-feder-gov"-party, the bureaucrats are always going to be either democrats or very liberal republicans.

and ofc changing the whole apparatus every 4 years would be pricy as hell.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally, these posts wouldn't be political appointments.  At the very least, can't we merge some of these?  There's no good reason to have multiple districts for states such as Oklahoma and Mississippi.

Ideally, there should be more political appointments in the federal government, not fewer.  The civil service class is almost all Democrats.  Republicans have a harder time getting their agenda through because of them.  The fewer non-political appointees, the better.

As it is, it'll be sometime next year at the earliest that some of the political appointee positions will have anyone nominated for them, let alone approved.  US Attorneys are rarely making political decisions, and when they do. they can be overruled by higher ups in the Justice Department.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

=D There is nothing more I could have asked than seeing Bharara have power torn from his slimy hands. This solidifies his place in the top 5 administrations in American history. He could do another Iraq for all I care at this point.

[Crumpets]

=D There is nothing more I could have asked than seeing Bharara have power torn from his slimy hands. This solidifies his place in the top 5 administrations in American history. He could do another Iraq for all I care at this point.

I swear, sometimes it seems like you flip a coin to figure out which side of an issue you're on.

But seriously, Bharara seems like someone you'd like - hundreds of convictions for corruption on Wall Street, shutting down hedge funds, and bipartisan corruption cases against members of the New York State government. What makes him "slimy" to you? Genuinely curious.