SDNY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh this should be fun: ""I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption," Berman said.

And it makes even less sense given how close we are to the election.

Clayton has been vetted and the senate can probably move reasonably quickly, but it seems silly and McConnell probably doesn’t want to have to make this a priority over getting judges confirmed, which will have a much longer lasting impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand. I’m a firmer DOJ Atty and I just don’t understand. Even if this firing turns out to be for some highly legitimate reason, how is there no regard for optics on any given day? I shudder.

The optics are 'good'. Draining the swamp.

Of the people Trump put in place??

Base doesn't care. They love everything Trump does.

And they represent an ever-declining percentage of the voting population. 38% this morning (down from 40% a month ago), according to that left-wing lamestream media outlet Fox News' latest poll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

^^^ Barr however can't just fire anyone he wants to. And it was Barr who unsuccessfully fired Berman tonight.

Even if it was Trump who did it, I don’t see how that would matter here.

There are legal memos supporting this.

But more fundamentally, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Of course he can fire them.

But Trump never appointed him. Based on the statute he was appointed under, it isn’t clear he can be fired by Trump and I highly doubt this has been litigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

^^^ Barr however can't just fire anyone he wants to. And it was Barr who unsuccessfully fired Berman tonight.

Even if it was Trump who did it, I don’t see how that would matter here.

There are legal memos supporting this.

But more fundamentally, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Of course he can fire them.

But Trump never appointed him. Based on the statute he was appointed under, it isn’t clear he can be fired by Trump and I highly doubt this has been litigated.

And Trump hasn't fired him. (Yet)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

not one that was appointed by judges until a senate confirmed replacement was in place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

^^^ Barr however can't just fire anyone he wants to. And it was Barr who unsuccessfully fired Berman tonight.

Even if it was Trump who did it, I don’t see how that would matter here.

There are legal memos supporting this.

But more fundamentally, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Of course he can fire them.

not ones that are appointed by the court pending a senate confirmed replacement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh this should be fun: ""I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption," Berman said.

And it makes even less sense given how close we are to the election.

Clayton has been vetted and the senate can probably move reasonably quickly, but it seems silly and McConnell probably doesn’t want to have to make this a priority over getting judges confirmed, which will have a much longer lasting impact.

Clayton runs the risk of his DB ties being exposed. I am not sure he, or the Senate, would jam through a replacement with those credentials. The optics would be horrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

^^^ Barr however can't just fire anyone he wants to. And it was Barr who unsuccessfully fired Berman tonight.

Even if it was Trump who did it, I don’t see how that would matter here.

There are legal memos supporting this.

But more fundamentally, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Of course he can fire them.

not ones that are appointed by the court pending a senate confirmed replacement

Yes, even those ones.

There's an old OLC memo saying that. And how could there be a USA who does not serve at the pleasure of the president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman with a truly remarkable statement. He is FORCING the president to fire him

Trump will either do it and have an immediate obstruction of justice charge, or else he will back down and look even weaker than he already is.

Good for a patriot like Berman.

It’s not clear he can even be fired. He wasn’t senate confirmed. He was appointed by the court. He is taking the position that only the court can remove him and without that he will stay until someone else is senate confirmed.

Monday morning could be incredibly interesting in that office.

If it is litigated, it is really unclear how this would play out.

Trump has fired people that he does not clearly have the authority to fire. Obviously he can fire a US Attorney.

^^^ Barr however can't just fire anyone he wants to. And it was Barr who unsuccessfully fired Berman tonight.

Even if it was Trump who did it, I don’t see how that would matter here.

There are legal memos supporting this.

But more fundamentally, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Of course he can fire them.

not ones that are appointed by the court pending a senate confirmed replacement

Yes, even those ones.

There's an old OLC memo saying that. And how could there be a USA who does not serve at the pleasure of the president?

OLC Memo from 1979 - https://www.justice.gov/file/22221/download

indeed, that the President may authorize the Attorney General to
do what he feels is warranted and then orally approve the action taken by
the Attorney General. Carey at 401-403.4 But we do not recommend this
course of action in the situation at hand, since the incumbent U.S. Attorney apparently has the backing of the district court. That court might
react unfavorably to any action that does not carefully comport with the
letter of the statute.

Per Barr's press release, Berman has 2 more weeks on the job. A US Attorney can create a lot of trouble in 2 weeks.

[Anonymous]

So.... the polls aren’t looking good and it is very possible Trump is shown the door in January.
Coincidence that SDNY is investigating Trump? Does this dismantle that? Does this protect the president from future prosecution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh this should be fun: ""I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption," Berman said.

And it makes even less sense given how close we are to the election.

Clayton has been vetted and the senate can probably move reasonably quickly, but it seems silly and McConnell probably doesn’t want to have to make this a priority over getting judges confirmed, which will have a much longer lasting impact.

Clayton runs the risk of his DB ties being exposed. I am not sure he, or the Senate, would jam through a replacement with those credentials. The optics would be horrid.

Are these DB ties new? They confirmed him, I believe by a comfortable vote, before.

Also, are these “DB ties” anything more than he server as DB’s counsel while at Sullivan & Cromwell? If not, representing a bank in an investigation helps show his qualifications; it’s not something to smeer him with.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn’t his qualifications include... prosecuting something? At some point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t his qualifications include... prosecuting something? At some point?

He’s successfully lead the SEC which prosecutes civil cases, often in parallel with criminal authorities.

It’s not a traditional background for a U.S. Attorney, but it’s not completely out of left field.

Had Trump simply nominated Clayton and Berman stayed on until confirmation, I don’t think this would generate much controversy. These posts are supposed to be filled with a presidentially nominated person confirmed by the Senate.

Because of the very questionable effort to oust Berman before Clayton is confirmed, Clayton’s confirmation will be more contentious, through no fault of his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t his qualifications include... prosecuting something? At some point?

He’s successfully lead the SEC which prosecutes civil cases, often in parallel with criminal authorities.

It’s not a traditional background for a U.S. Attorney, but it’s not completely out of left field.

Had Trump simply nominated Clayton and Berman stayed on until confirmation, I don’t think this would generate much controversy. These posts are supposed to be filled with a presidentially nominated person confirmed by the Senate.

Because of the very questionable effort to oust Berman before Clayton is confirmed, Clayton’s confirmation will be more contentious, through no fault of his own.

OMG, no his DB ties are more than just being associated with a firm, and no, there is a difference between prosecuting criminal and civil cases in an AG office and being a white shoe lawfirm attorney.

Stop trying to normalize this. It is a horrible look for the rule of law and normal procedure in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t his qualifications include... prosecuting something? At some point?

He’s successfully lead the SEC which prosecutes civil cases, often in parallel with criminal authorities.

It’s not a traditional background for a U.S. Attorney, but it’s not completely out of left field.

Had Trump simply nominated Clayton and Berman stayed on until confirmation, I don’t think this would generate much controversy. These posts are supposed to be filled with a presidentially nominated person confirmed by the Senate.

Because of the very questionable effort to oust Berman before Clayton is confirmed, Clayton’s confirmation will be more contentious, through no fault of his own.

And yet, we have almost an entire administration of "acting" officers across multiple agencies who are rotating jobs just under the statute to avoid Senate oversight. Do you hear yourself typing?