Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump fire him by letter, by phone call? Or is Barr putting words in Trump's mouth?

Even if Trump is just ratifying Barr’s action, at this point it becomes Trump’s legally. It was always Trump’s optically.

Based on the 40-year OLC memo, Berman should now be gone. Whether a court will see it that way remains to be seen.

Some people like to follow the law, not just how things look.

I expect Berman will vacate as soon as he hears directly from Trump, whether that be today or another day.

That's not what Berman's statement said. He said he'll be waiting for the "vacancy to be filled."

Interesting, though, that Barr's letter says he proposed a swap - Clayton to SDNY and Berman to the SEC. What would be the point of that unless Trump/Barr is trying to obstruct cases at SDNY?

Clayton must regret this. He presumably had no idea that Berman’s exit would play out as it had.

He’s been one of the few Trump officials whose reputation is still fully in tact. He’s not responsible for Berman being pushed out before his confirmation, but I’m sure the stink of this will rub off.

I wonder if he pulls his name, especially with Graham’s statement calling into question whether the Senate will move forward with the nomination given how this was done.

Trump now has the additional charge of obstruction of justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump fire him by letter, by phone call? Or is Barr putting words in Trump's mouth?

Even if Trump is just ratifying Barr’s action, at this point it becomes Trump’s legally. It was always Trump’s optically.

Based on the 40-year OLC memo, Berman should now be gone. Whether a court will see it that way remains to be seen.

Some people like to follow the law, not just how things look.

I expect Berman will vacate as soon as he hears directly from Trump, whether that be today or another day.

JUST IN: AG William Barr responds to SDNY attorney Geoffrey Berman: "Unfortunately, with your statement of last night, you have chosen public spectacle over public service... I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump fire him by letter, by phone call? Or is Barr putting words in Trump's mouth?

Even if Trump is just ratifying Barr’s action, at this point it becomes Trump’s legally. It was always Trump’s optically.

Based on the 40-year OLC memo, Berman should now be gone. Whether a court will see it that way remains to be seen.

Did Trump fire him by letter, by phone call? Or is Barr putting words in Trump's mouth?

Anonymous wrote:Jay Clayton, Trump's new pick, counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in the massive Russian money laundering scandal.

There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY.

Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.

Assuming the above is true, he would only be conflicted if the current investigation involved the money laundering scheme. And that case doesn’t seem to involve Trump, so Clayton’s recusal their, if needed, wouldn’t be a huge deal.

That DB is Trump’s bank isn’t itself that important because it is also the bank of tens of thousands of other people. And lots of other lawyers represent DB and Clayton has represented other banks. S&C does tons of work for Goldman, so I bet his ties there would be deeper than DB.

Jay Clayton, Trump's new pick, counted Deutsche Bank as a client and defended them in the massive Russian money laundering scandal.

There is a criminal investigation into Deutsche Bank occurring in SDNY.

Deutsche Bank is Trump's lender.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barr is now purging SDNY, with the head "resigning" and being replaced by the head of the SEC who has ties to many of the same money laundering banks as Trump and Erdogan.

Are we winning yet?

Clayton is an odd pick for SDNY because he doesn’t have prosecutorial experience. But he is otherwise a highly competent lawyer and reasonable/honest person.

...with numerous possible conflicts of interests with some cases under investigation.

And if he has actual conflicts of interest as determined by the ethics office, he will recuse himself, as do other appointees, almost all of whom will have conflicts in some cases.

Most appointees will not have conflicts that involve Donald Trump

It’s not clear Clayton does. He wouldn’t have to recuse himself from anything involving DB. It would only be needed if the matters he worked on were related to the current investigations. Given how long he has been at the Commission, it’s not clear that would be the case.

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.

Conflict of interest and cronyism is the point, with this administration. As sometsaid upthread, if they had done what normal administrations do and confirmed Clayton to the position through senate confirmation, no one would have blinked.

Well, they are trying to get Clayton through the normal process, so I don’t think it is fair to tag him for the questionable dealings of trying to force out Berman until Clayton is confirmed.

Clayton hasn't been nominated. All that has happened is his name showed up on a press release at 11pm on Friday night. That was immediately shown to be wrong.

Lies, not "wrong."

How is that a "lie"? A nomination has not been formally sent to the Senate (thus he hasn't been nominated yet) and Berman did not resign (thus the press release was wrong on it's face).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barr is now purging SDNY, with the head "resigning" and being replaced by the head of the SEC who has ties to many of the same money laundering banks as Trump and Erdogan.

Are we winning yet?

Clayton is an odd pick for SDNY because he doesn’t have prosecutorial experience. But he is otherwise a highly competent lawyer and reasonable/honest person.

...with numerous possible conflicts of interests with some cases under investigation.

And if he has actual conflicts of interest as determined by the ethics office, he will recuse himself, as do other appointees, almost all of whom will have conflicts in some cases.

Most appointees will not have conflicts that involve Donald Trump

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.

Cites for the people for whom he had no authority to fire.

He can only remove him once there is a senate-confirmed replacement. At least, that is the plain read of the law and what Berman will argue in a court of law. The only question is if a judge will grant a stay that would have Berman remain. Given what we have seen of Barr, I highly doubt any judge that is legit would grant Barr ANY leeway.

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.

Conflict of interest and cronyism is the point, with this administration. As sometsaid upthread, if they had done what normal administrations do and confirmed Clayton to the position through senate confirmation, no one would have blinked.

Well, they are trying to get Clayton through the normal process, so I don’t think it is fair to tag him for the questionable dealings of trying to force out Berman until Clayton is confirmed.

Clayton hasn't been nominated. All that has happened is his name showed up on a press release at 11pm on Friday night. That was immediately shown to be wrong.

Lies, not "wrong."