SDNY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Barr met with the NYPD and that’s why he’s having Berman removed. They are clearly not happy with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what are these supposedly terrible DB ties?

[Anonymous]

Barr also offered Berman other jobs, which he refused. This seems to be centering around Barrs conversation with the NYPD, who are NOT happy with Berman:

“Katherine Flaunders, a reporter with ABC News, wrote on Twitter that Barr had offered Berman other jobs, including head of the Civil Division at the Justice Department, but Berman declined the offers.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So you should be happy that Trump is finally nominating someone to be confirmed by the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see how nominating Clayton upends the rule of law, despite his somewhat unconventional background for the position. It’s returning to the normal procedure of nominating someone to fill the post that will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

I agree with you more about how Berman is being treated until his replacement is confirmed.

[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?

Berman is an ACTING AG, and was court appointed UNTIL THE SENATE CONFIRMS A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT. The Congress actually has more oversight on this than if Berman had been regularly confirmed by the Senate. Trump's own laziness in using the rotating acting officers is going to backfire this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Barr met with the NYPD and that’s why he’s having Berman removed. They are clearly not happy with him.

There is ZERO correlation between NYPD and SDNY other than they drink from the same water source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barr also offered Berman other jobs, which he refused. This seems to be centering around Barrs conversation with the NYPD, who are NOT happy with Berman:

“Katherine Flaunders, a reporter with ABC News, wrote on Twitter that Barr had offered Berman other jobs, including head of the Civil Division at the Justice Department, but Berman declined the offers.”

Barr did the same thing with the person who used to run the DC office and then was removed from the position she was appointed to. Berman wasn't going to fall for the same 'upward promotion" trick. Good for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see how nominating Clayton upends the rule of law, despite his somewhat unconventional background for the position. It’s returning to the normal procedure of nominating someone to fill the post that will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

I agree with you more about how Berman is being treated until his replacement is confirmed.

Nominating Clayton doesn't upend the rule of law. It is removing Berman immediately and replacing him with Chris Cristie's personal attorney that is illegal. As soon as Clayton is confirmed by the Senate for this particular role, Berman would be out. But I am not sure McConnell is going to want to upend the Senate with this right now, given Clayton's ties. I could actually see enough GOP Senators opposing this, and/or the Dems successfully filibustering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Berman is an ACTING AG, and was court appointed UNTIL THE SENATE CONFIRMS A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT. The Congress actually has more oversight on this than if Berman had been regularly confirmed by the Senate. Trump's own laziness in using the rotating acting officers is going to backfire this time.

And notwithstanding that, the OLC memo cited by PP, says that the President has the power to remove such a person.

From a quick read, it seems to be a reasonable interpretation, although one that people could disagree with. It specifically notes that it is a matter of first impression. If this is actually litigated, it could go either way.

[Anonymous]

Note also, this move was done within the 210 "acting" window, so nominating Clayton was likely a bit of a ruse to begin with as the SDNJ AG would be able to serve the acting role through the end of the Trump term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Berman is an ACTING AG, and was court appointed UNTIL THE SENATE CONFIRMS A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT. The Congress actually has more oversight on this than if Berman had been regularly confirmed by the Senate. Trump's own laziness in using the rotating acting officers is going to backfire this time.

And notwithstanding that, the OLC memo cited by PP, says that the President has the power to remove such a person.

From a quick read, it seems to be a reasonable interpretation, although one that people could disagree with. It specifically notes that it is a matter of first impression. If this is actually litigated, it could go either way.

the president =/= the attorney general

If Trump wants to fire him directly, he can. The statute is clear though, it cannot be through the AG.

If Trump is going to fire someone because they are prosecuting a case that directly involves the president, his family or his very close associates, then let's see it.

[Anonymous]

Berman's statement chains Barr’s attempt to remove him to the current investigations the SDNY is overseeing. Implicitly, the Attorney General has just been accused of trying to obstruct justice and this action will be an anchor for Barr.

#ETTD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Berman's statement chains Barr’s attempt to remove him to the current investigations the SDNY is overseeing. Implicitly, the Attorney General has just been accused of trying to obstruct justice and this action will be an anchor for Barr.

#ETTD

You do have to wonder if there is something imminent he was trying to disrupt. If not, why not just nominate Clayton and have him takeover once confirmed. That wouldn’t have generated controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berman's statement chains Barr’s attempt to remove him to the current investigations the SDNY is overseeing. Implicitly, the Attorney General has just been accused of trying to obstruct justice and this action will be an anchor for Barr.

#ETTD

You do have to wonder if there is something imminent he was trying to disrupt. If not, why not just nominate Clayton and have him takeover once confirmed. That wouldn’t have generated controversy.

Yup