Reply to SDNY

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "SDNY"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

[b]It’s not clear he can even be fired[/b].  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.[/quote]

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

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

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

There are legal memos supporting this.

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

not ones that are appointed by the court pending a senate confirmed replacement[/quote]

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?   [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics