Anonymous wrote:This many pages in and no one has mentioned that Berman and the SDNY has current investigations of Trump supporters like Giuliani and Erdogan as well as the Epstein case. He probably looked into one of the Trump children or Kushner and Trump told Barr to fire him.

My guess is that it's much more straight forward and more about what he wouldn't do rather than what he is doing. People can compartmentalize ethically questionable inactions more than actions. I'm guessing he refused to go after Bolton or Biden.

Seth Abramson Is a great follow on Twitter for political analysis. He just tweeted this, it is the first tweet of a thread. Barr is corrupt and needs to be removed and in jail

My book doesn't come out until later in the summer, but I'm going to tell you now one thing that you'll find in it: all of the reporting indicates that Barr is involved in the dubious funding of the Trump 2020 campaign by foreign sources. This is all a lot worse than you realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

No one does that in this administration.

That’s simply not true, generally (e.g., Sessions) or specifically with respect to Clayton. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/conflicts-of-interest-rarely-kept-sec-chairmen-from-voting/

Clayton didn’t vote at a similar rate to Mary Jo White, the prior Obama nominated chair who likewise came from a white shoe law firm.

Mary Jo White was a federal prosecutor for 9 years....no comparison

It is a direct comparison on the question of conflicts. On conflicts - the issue being discussed- Clayton and MJW are very similarly situated. That’s a different question than qualifications.

There is no question MJW had more typical qualifications, but that doesn’t mean Clayton is unqualified.

Of course it does. Your top prosecutor should be a prosecutor.

Not all AG’s have had prosecutorial experience. I can’t specifically cite the same for US Attorneys, but my guess is that it happens.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/what-kinds-of-backgrounds-do-u-s-attorneys-general-have/%3famp=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

No one does that in this administration.

That’s simply not true, generally (e.g., Sessions) or specifically with respect to Clayton. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/conflicts-of-interest-rarely-kept-sec-chairmen-from-voting/

Clayton didn’t vote at a similar rate to Mary Jo White, the prior Obama nominated chair who likewise came from a white shoe law firm.

Mary Jo White was a federal prosecutor for 9 years....no comparison

It is a direct comparison on the question of conflicts. On conflicts - the issue being discussed- Clayton and MJW are very similarly situated. That’s a different question than qualifications.

There is no question MJW had more typical qualifications, but that doesn’t mean Clayton is unqualified.

Of course it does. Your top prosecutor should be a prosecutor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

No one does that in this administration.

That’s simply not true, generally (e.g., Sessions) or specifically with respect to Clayton. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/conflicts-of-interest-rarely-kept-sec-chairmen-from-voting/

Clayton didn’t vote at a similar rate to Mary Jo White, the prior Obama nominated chair who likewise came from a white shoe law firm.

Mary Jo White was a federal prosecutor for 9 years....no comparison

It is a direct comparison on the question of conflicts. On conflicts - the issue being discussed- Clayton and MJW are very similarly situated. That’s a different question than qualifications.

There is no question MJW had more typical qualifications, but that doesn’t mean Clayton is unqualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

How do you know that Berman hasn’t had to recuse himself from some matters. Most senior people in government for any administration have to recuse on some matters. There is nothing nefarious about it and it is a function of having people experienced in the field.

Stop being obtuse. What matters is that -- unlike Clayton -- he doesn't have conflicts in the cases involving the President of the United States -- Deutsche Bank, Erdogan, Giuliani.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

No one does that in this administration.

That’s simply not true, generally (e.g., Sessions) or specifically with respect to Clayton. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/conflicts-of-interest-rarely-kept-sec-chairmen-from-voting/

Clayton didn’t vote at a similar rate to Mary Jo White, the prior Obama nominated chair who likewise came from a white shoe law firm.

Mary Jo White was a federal prosecutor for 9 years....no comparison

This many pages in and no one has mentioned that Berman and the SDNY has current investigations of Trump supporters like Giuliani and Erdogan as well as the Epstein case. He probably looked into one of the Trump children or Kushner and Trump told Barr to fire him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

How do you know that Berman hasn’t had to recuse himself from some matters. Most senior people in government for any administration have to recuse on some matters. There is nothing nefarious about it and it is a function of having people experienced in the field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

Actually, when he was appointed, many people were concerned about conflicts and his ties to Trump. He was given the chance to do the right thing and, given Clayton’s performance at the SEC, he should be given the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

Exactly. Maybe Barr has good reasons for wanting to replace this guy. Is it crazy to ask that he share them with the public?

Just look at what happened. Barr tried to fire Berman at 10pm on a Friday night. There is no good reason to do that. Only bad ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

Exactly. Maybe Barr has good reasons for wanting to replace this guy. Is it crazy to ask that he share them with the public?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I know someone who has practiced in the area, who is qualified, and without conflicts -- Geoffrey Berman. Why is Barr trying to remove him?

“ At virtually any point, it would’ve taken just 3-4 of the 53 Republicans in the US Senate to come together and check any of this stuff.

Their failure to do so is the root cause of basically all of the other institutional failures and crises we’re facing right now”

https://mobile.twitter.com/yarbro/status/1274200120284848131

Could post this quote in several threads including but not restricted to the thread about the horrific Covid19 death toll (120,000 souls) and the thread about the revelations in the Bolton book (approving of putting over a million people in concentration camps etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deutsche Bank

Still no one has explained what supposedly nefarious ties to DB Clayton has.

Not necessarily nefarious but likely a conflict of interest. Clayton counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal. “There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY,” Stedman said, adding: “Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.”

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And you should be able to find many articles about Trump and DB. "Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank has lasted longer than any of his marriages and is cloaked in more secrecy."

https://www.ft.com/content/efbc8fd4-99a5-11ea-8b5b-63f7c5c86bef

And the easy answer is that he would recuse himself from cases where he has a conflict of interest.

Then let's just skip him over. How many hours of his life has Trump wasted deriding Jeff Sessions? Next month he is traveling to Jeff Sessions hometown in Alabama to campaign against him. And he still tweets about him. Trump doesn't need this kind of distraction-- he has more important things to do. Just pick someone who don't have a conflict of interest.

Anyone who had experience in the private sector will have some conflicts. Even someone from government could.

If you look to nominate someone without any conflicts on any potential cases, you are likely to find someone who hasn’t practiced in the area and is unqualified.

I'm so sick of people defending poor ethics and bad governance. I understand if this isn't a political dealbreaker for you, but to come here and defend it is just sad.

As long as he refuses where necessary, it’s not poor ethics or bad governance.

And if he doesn't, what recourse will the American people have? What would stop him from closing the investigations against Trump and his cronies?