Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2017

BUH Bye, Preet Bharara

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:20 pm



Preening Preet Bharara, who refused to submit his resignation despite being told to, has been fired — and properly so.

Preet Bharara, the Manhattan federal prosecutor who was asked by President Trump to remain in his post shortly after the election, was fired on Saturday after he refused an order to submit his resignation.

Mr. Bharara’s dismissal capped a brief but highly unusual showdown in which a political appointee installed by Mr. Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama, declined an order to submit a resignation.

He told the world what had happened on Twitter.

“I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life,” Mr. Bharara wrote on his personal feed, which he set up in the past two weeks.

You don’t have a right to stay on under a new administration. Trump did right.

BUH bye.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

108 Responses to “BUH Bye, Preet Bharara”

  1. It is amazing liberals are finding it in their single track hearts to lionize him now that he’s an enemy of Trump. Perhaps Trump doesn’t spend time denouncing Nazis lest liberals rush to their defense.

    John S. (0ff277)

  2. Trump did right.

    Trump did plumbing.

    Sounds like a spanner.
    Smells like borscht.
    Looks like… strawberries.

    “Since you’ve taken this course, the innocent will be punished with the guilty!… I kid you not!” – Captain queeg [Humphrey Bogart] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  3. Apparently Bharara somehow thought Trump’s word was worth something.

    Anyone gullible enough to believe Donald Trump is clearly unfit for office.

    Dave (711345)

  4. The only precedent set was teh Preet wouldn’t skeedaddle…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. Dave teh Squid throwing ink on the Truth. How unusual.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. After his horrible actions in subpeoning commenters for free speech, good riddance!

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (2ab6f6)

  7. Greetings:

    So, Mr, Bharara decided to end “the greatest honor of my professional life” dishonorably ???

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  8. I want him to go after DeBlasio and Weiner, but he’s only there at the blessing of the current administration.

    I ex0ect he’ll get into lefty politics and run for office in NYC.

    NJRob (6a83df)

  9. With all the sex offenders and criminals the left has to re-employ NYC mayor may become a 10 seat commission.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  10. Hope the door bruise his backside on the way out.

    mg (31009b)

  11. don’t worry, dave, you’ve still got sonia sotomayor!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  12. Par for the course:

    http:;/dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/report-cronyism-political-donations-likely-behind-obama-holder-failure-to-charge-any-bankers-after-2008-financial-meltdown/?print=1

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. Trump to press on last night’s WH fence jumper: “He was a troubled person.”

    And who would know better.

    “Will you look at the man? He’s a Freudian delight; he crawls with clues.” – Tom Keefer [Fred MacMurray] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. There’s an army of Sally Yateses out there. They have no honor. None of them.

    I can see the logical transition from Preen to Sonia. Sure I can.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  15. So, Mr, Bharara decided to end “the greatest honor of my professional life” dishonorably ???

    Nothing dishonorable about refusing to resign after being assured in a meeting with the president that you wouldn’t be asked to.

    In fact, Trump told him to go in front of the cameras and tell them “I asked you to stay”.

    Douchebag game-show host president has zero class. His word isn’t worth the drool it was uttered with.

    Dave (711345)

  16. Trump to press on last night’s WH fence jumper: “He was a troubled person.”

    And who would know better.

    I’ll bet the guy is convinced the government is tapping his phone, too.

    Dave (711345)

  17. #15 dave, we accept that you’re an expert in the subject of drool

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  18. Preet got my attention when he went after Devyani Khobragade, the Deputy Consul General of India in New York. She’d hired a maid in India who came to New York and discovered that life was better in America. Preet used the maid’s $3.99/hour wage to demonstrate that Devyani had lied (yes lied!) on a visa application for the maid. Preet had Devyani stripped search (cavities and all,) and the maid disappeared into some sort of witness protection program. It turns out that dear Preet was of Indian origin and one must question whether he was more concerned about the maid’s wages than the opportunity to probe the orifices of the attractive, fecund, daughter of a prominent Indian official. Preet, of course, denies this (according to the ever reliable Wikipedia,) stating that it was the State Department that was concerned about the contents of Devyani’s orifaces.

    Yes, America is the land of opportunity … if you are a Democrat. One wonders if Slick Willy was the investigating officer, or whether Preet decided to step down and do the dirty himself.

    BobStewartatHome (448c1e)

  19. Heh! My scenario:
    1. Bharara is investigating New York’s two top politicos, Cuomo and DiBlasio, for pay-to-play schemes, also known as bribery.
    2. Which New York “businessman”, whose name starts with D-o-n-a-l-d T-r-u-m-p, has confessed to paying-to-play, also known as bribery?
    3. Dana Boente called Bharara and felt him out to see whether, in his investigation of Cuomo and DiBlasio, he could possibly overlook any checks with the names “Trump” and “Kushner” on them.
    4. Bharara did not give him a satisfactory answer.
    5. Buh-bye, Preet Bharara.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Nk,

    Zero chance.

    Preet would go public in a New York minute. He loves the cameras.

    NJRob (6a83df)

  21. Interesting nk. Bharara should write a book.

    mg (31009b)

  22. I have the feeling that Bharara’s bad reputation stems mainly from the Silk Road case, wherein the weirdos at Reason suggested that the judge who sentenced the pusher should be put through a wood-chipper and found themselves the subject of a subpoena. At the time, I thought Bharara’s office did the right thing and I still do. They were in a damned if you do-damned if you don’t situation. On the one hand, they could not ignore threats against a federal judge and on the other they were bound to get grief from First Amendment absolutists snowflakes. They chose to make enemies of dopers and loudmouths and stay on the good side of judges and other public officials. Ok by me.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Was Trump supplying the wood-chipper, nk?

    mg (31009b)

  24. Greetings, Dave; ( @ 15 Dav — 3/11/2017 @ 4:43 pm )

    There used to be a bit of folk wisdom in the bureaucracy (or bureaucracies in general) that went ” you don’t have nothin’ until you got it in writing and maybe not then.” The fact that he didn’t resigned when asked seems to me to be a sad bid for martyrhood.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  25. Trump-branded, only, mg. Actually made in China, and sold through Nordstrom’s.

    And I don’t approve of fecund Hindu ladies importing foreign slave labor by lying on visa applications, either. Just a quirk of mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. The funny thing is that they might have appointed him again had he gone quietly. Now they can’t.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. lmao, nk. your good, lmao, all the time, lmao, you never quit with wit, lmao, lmao, lmao

    mg (31009b)

  28. they were bound to get grief from First Amendment absolutists

    For suggesting that something untoward happen to the judge? That isn’t a threat, it’s a prayer, like me hoping that Ginsberg finds herself unable to continue on the Court.

    Damn right he should get grief. Also for lying to the court about the source of the Tor information, matter of fact.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. Thanks, mg. My real gut feeling is that this is a tempest in teapot brewed by the NYT. This is their second story on this today.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. Tor information?

    nk (dbc370)

  31. As no. 12 suggests he didn’t really go after anything but approved targets.

    narciso (cb470d)

  32. Nothing dishonorable about refusing to resign after being assured in a meeting with the president that you wouldn’t be asked to.

    My understanding is that Schumer asked Trump to let him stay as he was allegedly going after NY crooks. Then Schumer spent the next two months doing everything he could to block Trump’s governing.

    I’m sure Dave knows better, of course.

    Mike K (f469ea)

  33. i think herman melville wrote a novel about an obsessive guy similar to dave

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  34. My understanding is that Schumer asked Trump to let him stay as he was allegedly going after NY crooks. Then Schumer spent the next two months doing everything he could to block Trump’s governing.

    Well, we certainly don’t want any US attorneys who go after crooks, if someone associated with them has displeased Donald Trump.

    That would require putting the country’s interests above his own. Stop laughing.

    Dave (711345)

  35. Remember, not only did Bhahara seek information on Reason’s commenters, it also ordered Reason not to tell anyone.

    Glenn Reynolds rightly pointed out:

    “But if it won’t support a prosecution, why gather this information? Bharara’s office isn’t talking, but I suspect that the purpose of this exercise is to chill speech: To send a signal that whether or not the First Amendment protects your right to talk smack about a federal judge, you’d be wise not to do so if you don’t want to attract the attention of the feds, who might choose to share your information with employers or the news media. Consider it a sort of prosecutorial brush-back pitch, if you like.”

    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/29070279/

    Harkin (eb0b95)

  36. Sounds like chisholm in Wisconsin maestri in new orleans, earl in Austin, the prosecutor in Dallas.

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. Overkill on prosecuting Dinesh D’Souza, having two cases overturned, and being sued for misconduct might be good reasons to get rid of him. Why didn’t he prosecute any of the people actually responsible for the crash 2008? I’m not just talking about Wall Street here, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too. He’s a political hack. That’s why.

    How about the number of people who lost their businesses and livelihood and yet we’re not prosecuted? It seems to me that he didn’t care who got hurt, whether they were guilty or not. That’s just my opinion.

    Tanny O'Haley (c15b64)

  38. Because its like ‘the departed’ there are people you can hit and those you cant

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. “Overkill on prosecuting Dinesh D’Souza,”

    A complete political revenge hit job for showing the dishonesty and corruption of Obama and the democrats. Disgraceful.

    Considering the severity of D’Souza’s punishment, Imagine if a commensurate penalty were applied to Obama for the secret and illegal billion$ sent to Iran.

    Harkin (eb0b95)

  40. #41 Certainly the law is the law, but the thing about D’Souza’s case is that his candidate got completely blown out in the election. So D’Souza didn’t benefit in any way from giving an “excessive” amount to the candidate.
    The candidate just happened to be an old college friend.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  41. Trump, and then Sessions had specifically asked him to stay on in November, instead of resigning as he might have planned to do, so he has every right to wonder what’s going on here, and to try to get this reversed.

    Somebody decided all 46 holdovers should resign right away. That sounds like it was made without any recognition of the specific “appointment” Trump made back in November. You would think at aminimum he would be allowed to submit a resignation “effective on the appointment of my sucessor: with perhaps a latest effective date of, say, March 31, 2018, in case somehow it was being stalled in the Senate (but the Republicans have the majority) That kind of thing woud allow them to get on with replacing him.

    Now I wonder if this has anything to do with Sessions recusing himself from anything having to do with the political campaigns in 2016.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  42. As compared to don corzione@ballard who avoided jail time for a billion dollar loss in part thanks to judicious cintrubutions.

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. Mike K (f469ea) — 3/11/2017 @ 6:33 pm

    My understanding is that Schumer asked Trump to let him stay as he was allegedly going after NY crooks. Then Schumer spent the next two months doing everything he could to block Trump’s governing.

    This is a possibility, but the trouble with that is that this was a sudden demand for mass resignations, so if so, they were trying to hide the fact rhat they specifically wanted to get rid of Bharara.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  44. As has been stated, this request for resignations is how it is ALWAYS done. It’s an issue only when a Republican POTUS is in office.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  45. nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2017 @ 4:58 pm

    1. Bharara is investigating New York’s two top politicos, Cuomo and DiBlasio, for pay-to-play schemes, also known as bribery.
    2. Which New York “businessman”, whose name starts with D-o-n-a-l-d T-r-u-m-p, has confessed to paying-to-play, also known as bribery?

    The problem with that is that Donald Trump seems to have stopped giving to Democrats around 2011 or 2012. Also, what New York projects did he have recently?

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  46. C’mon Patterico, you’re always posting these #foreverTrump and #IheartTrump articles, why can’t you post about when he does something stupid, hmmmmmm? Now watch the heads start to a$$plode all over the place!

    Yoda jr (310909)

  47. There are those who state that this may have been in part a loyalty test.
    Trump has asked for resignation papers from people and kept them on in the past.
    That Bharara did not submit when asked means he failed, in any case (apart from the many other fine reasons to dump him.)

    If he had submitted, he could have been rehired as a deputy this-or-that to finish out his cases, he could have been a special prosecutor for anything…. but now it’s clear he can’t be trusted to do or finish out anything.

    Ingot (1de9ec)

  48. Girlfight involving the Smithers of the stereotypical Cardinals fan mash-up: http://latest.com/2017/03/they-hate-blacks-jews-hispanics-blogger-accuses-fox-reporter-of-assault-in-wh-briefing-room/

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  49. C’mon Patterico, you’re always posting these #foreverTrump and #IheartTrump articles, why can’t you post about when he does something stupid, hmmmmmm? Now watch the heads start to a$$plode all over the place!

    Yoda jr (310909) — 3/11/2017 @ 9:24 pm

    Are you serious? Take a look at previous articles. I actually stopped coming here to comment because many of his posts were almost mean in their distain for President Trump. While there were many reasons to dislike Trump as a candidate, I voted for him against Hillary. Since then I have been pleasantly surprised and excited by many of his appointments and what he has done. I’d like to give him a chance.

    Tanny O'Haley (c15b64)

  50. Tor information?

    The information they presented to the court regarding the identity of “Dread Pirate Roberts” came from the NSA’s crack of Tor, but they claimed it was just some fantastically good luck. Or at least that’s what Occam would conclude.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. I didn’t realize he had been the one to prosecute D’Souza. That bit of whoring for Obama should have been enough to fire him, but it should have been done before the other 45 were asked to resign.

    The fact that Schumer had asked for this favor in another reason to deny it — that’s how politics work. As any kid knows, you only get that cookie if you’ve been good.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  52. Are you serious?
    Tanny O’Haley (c15b64) — 3/11/2017 @ 10:48 pm

    Are you too dense to recognize sarcasm when you read it without the sarcasm hash tag (/s)? Well, excuse me! Do you not realize that the trumpbots are forever denigrating Patterico because he supposedly is always posting negative articles about Trump and never ever posts anything positive? Guess your head just a$$ploded big time didn’t it?

    Yoda jr (310909)

  53. No one here has it quite right.

    Whatever BHarra might have been “promised” in November is irrelevant in March. He’s Schumer’s boy, and Schumer has done nothing but obstruct Trump and Sessions at every turn on every issue. This is a “FU” to Schumer from Sessions.

    Further, the SDNY is always a problem for DOJ because it has long viewed itself as semi-autonomous from Washington. The last thing the AG and President need is a Dem appointee holdover who claims “absolute independence” was the hallmark of his tenure. If I was AG I would consider such a comment as insubordination. No US Attorney should ever loose track of the fact that they work for the President.

    Additionally, the business of the SDNY isn’t going to suffer. That office has about 450 prosecutors, and they remain doing what they have been doing without Baharra in his office.

    Finally, the US Attorney for the SDNY is probably the third most powerful position in the DOJ. There are a dozen or more highly qualified potential successors to the position who should be favored over any idea of maintaining the status quo with Chuckie Schumer’s guy. I think this fact might have been the most significant — one that I’m sure Guliani weighed in on with Sessions and Trump since its a lawyer from his firm that is rumored to be the top candidate for the spot. Can’t promote a worthy GOP lawyer into the position in Chucky’s guy won’t leave.

    Had Bharra not been an idiot, he might very well have been allowed to remain in place until a replacement was named. Submitting resignations isn’t the same as being fired. Two who have submitted were already told they were not being accepted — meaning they remain in place for now.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  54. @ shipwreckedcrew, #55:

    While I agree with everything you say here, I actually don’t think you take it far enough. Whatever Bharara is promised at 8 in the morning is irrelevant at 8:01. It is as if he, and the acting attorney general from earlier this year, do not understand what the phrase “serve at the pleasure of the president” means. Trump (or his designated appointee, such as Sessions) can make whatever promises he pleases regarding employment to those under him, and he is equally free to change his mind at any time for any reason.

    This is one time where Trump and his administration have the right of things entirely.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  55. Whatever Bharara is promised at 8 in the morning is irrelevant at 8:01.

    Whatever Donald Trump promises at any time is irrelevant at all times.

    Dave (711345)

  56. paralytic rabies -57?

    mg (31009b)

  57. 57: “Whatever Donald Trump promises at any time is irrelevant at all times.”

    “My administration will be the most transparent ever”

    “This stimulus money is for infrastructure shovel-ready projects”

    “If you like your plan, you can keep it”

    “….likewise with your doctor”

    “….and the coverage for a family of four will drop $2,500/year”

    “This IRS targeting of conservatives is horrible, I’ll get to the bottom of this”

    “We never sent pallets of cash secretly to Iran”

    “OK – we sent pallets of cash but that’s because it was illegal to wire transfer monies”

    “OK OK so we wire transferred even more monies to Iran but that was because…LOOK SQUIRREL”

    times a thousand……

    harkin (517285)

  58. This might be much more Sessions (given a quick boot by Reno in 1993) than Trump.

    http://www.yahoo.com/news/now-fired-preet-bharara-proud-absolute-independence-120217018–politics.html
    And there will an opening in that spectrum post-Kansas and Seattle.

    urbanleftbehind (96120d)

  59. Bannon doesn’t bother me in the least, but Miller’s a twerp.

    urbanleftbehind (96120d)

  60. dave’s angry that the trumps aren’t allowing grandma robinson to retain her living quarters in the white house
    the trumps kicked an old black woman out onto the street — during wintertime!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. No miller was sessions version of bannons, he now has Sarah Flores, formerly fiorina’s which is tradeoff.

    narciso (246203)

  62. the Manhattan federal prosecutor who was asked by President Trump to remain in his post

    This story isn’t making sense to me. I mean, if the President asks you to remain at your post, you have a job. No subordinate is going to overrule him. Is this story correct as written?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  63. dave is teh right knave
    to complete the bleat for preet
    teh clock is ticking

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. is steve back from leave?
    or released from jail after
    V8 smart car drive

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. bharara streisand effect

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. The affirmation is vapour wear, we have come to expect from rizzotto tray carrier, haberman, Steve ‘sources familiar with the conversation’

    narciso (246203)

  67. Out on parole, coronello. I caught a charge for getting into a fist fight after that smoker in Honolulu.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  68. …or released from jail after
    V8 smart car drive

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/12/2017 @ 10:10 am

    Those safety’s? They don’t work.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  69. It was a v8 Miata.

    http://monstermiata.webs.com/

    Not even creative I has figured out how to stuff a v8 into a Smart Car. I tght about it but one thing always stops me.

    While I’m thinking about making the car go on a parallel track I’m thinking, how do make it stop? You can maybe survive a crash in a race car because it’s built for it. A street car, even a supercar, isn’t.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  70. I went and looked up “fecund” to see if it means what I thought it means. It does. It should not be confused with “nubile”.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Just saying. Perhaps because I’ve made it to this venerable age.

    Good brakes are more valuable than a good engine.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  72. I went and looked up “fecund” to see if it means what I thought it means. It does. It should not be confused with “nubile”.

    nk (dbc370) — 3/12/2017 @ 10:56 am

    Fecund means fertile while nubile means marriagable. What’s the problem?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  73. This story isn’t making sense to me. I mean, if the President asks you to remain at your post, you have a job. No subordinate is going to overrule him. Is this story correct as written?

    Steve57

    I think Trump initially had an attitude of keeping a lot of folks over from admin to admin and then realized he was screwing up, as much of his administration is working against him. So he flip flopped. We’ll see a lot of this from Trump. Drastic to one side, drastic to the other, and never any hint that he sees his errors.

    But this was a good call on Trump’s part. He needs to get drastic in cleaning house, and he needs to do this throughout the bureaucracy. And whoever replaces Trump needs to do the same thing, firing anyone Trump hired immediately. I wouldn’t trust a single alt-right type. Then we can begin to rebuild.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  74. how many times do they want cities to burn, rhetorical:
    httpwww.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/12/new_video_footage_shows_michael_brown_may_not_have_robbed_ferguson_store.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. Now as far as I can see, it still doesn’t show brown didn’t try to rob the place

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. So the store employees were trading drugs for store merchandise in view of their workplace’s cameras? That’s amazing and difficult to believe. How does that show Brown didn’t rob the store the next day? It doesn’t. Like 99% of politics, it’s just a deflection. Muddy the waters. Change the subject. Destroy reason.

    This is how you get Trump.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  77. smartcar is so small
    you could round off all corners
    easy roll to full stop

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. This is crump Julian, like levick re gitmo this doesn’t happen by chance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. icee’s up, doan shoot

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  80. Trump will duck press until presser w/Merkel. Press will as Trump about wiretapping and if there’s a tie to investigations of Trump associates and he’ll turn to Merkel and say, ‘Didn’t Obama tap your phone, too? Next question.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. No, this is how…

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  82. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/12/2017 @ 12:44 am

    Whatever BHarra might have been “promised” in November is irrelevant in March. He’s Schumer’s boy, and Schumer has done nothing but obstruct Trump and Sessions at every turn on every issue. This is a “FU” to Schumer from Sessions.

    An anonymous Democratic source is claiming that, but I suspect the truth is something quite different. I wouldn’t think Preet Bharara retianing his job would be so valuable to Schumer. Schumer also hasn’t been completely unftiendly to Trump – he seems to be playing both sides, saying different things too different audiences – and if this was important to Schumer than firing Bharara is like going nuclear – firing him is valuable as a threats, maybe but actually doing so means he’s lost his leverage.

    Two who have submitted were already told they were not being accepted — meaning they remain in place for now.

    That is interesting.

    It’s hard to tell what’s going on.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  83. I picked up a few facts from the newspapers.

    1) U.S. Attorney Robert Morgenthau also refuwed to resign when Nixon asked him to in 1969, but he quit after about a year.

    At that time, U.S. Attorneys could only be fired for cause (or was the law uncertain? Only one newspaper mentions this, but another one, which also talks about Morgenthau, doesn’t explain on what basis Morgenthau had to resist. Maybe the law was unsettled.)

    U. S. Attorneys have 4 year terms, which would seem pointless if they served at the pleasure of the president. It apparently is very obscure how the president gained an unfettered right to fire U.S. attorneys when he earlier was not belived to have that power, or it was in doubt. But such a limitation can exist, as it seems to exist with the FBI Director, even though Bill Clinton managed to get around it in 1993.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  84. 2) In 1976, Senators Jacob Javits and Democratic Senatorial candidate Daniel OP. Moynihan reached an agreement by which the U.S. Attorney for the Southern dcictrrict of New York would not be fifred regardless of who was president. (this may be abit garbled because it calls Moynihan a Senator in 1976 when that was actually when he was running for the first time.

    It seems like presidents then increasingly let U.S> Attorneys serve outtheir terms, until Bill Clinton fired them all in 1993.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  85. 3) According to the New York Times, President Trump did attempt too contact Prett Bharara before the announcement of the request for all U.S. attorneys appointed by previous presidents to resign.

    President Trump’s assistant (who is that? Stephen Bannon? Miller? Preibus? a personal aide?) called Prett Bharara on Thursday asking him to call back. We don’t know what this about because the call never took place. Preet Bharara notified an assistant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that there are protocols in place that prohibit a president from contacting a U.S. Attorney and therefore he would not talk to the president, and then called back the assistant and said he could not talk to the president.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  86. Re; The firing of the FBI Director, william Sessions, in 1993.;

    While the FBI Director now has a 10-year term and can only be fired by the president for cause Bill Clinton got around that by firingd the FBI director on Monday, July 19, 1993 on the basis of trumped up ethics charges – trumped up by Sessions’ subordinates at the FBI including one charge of carryng a weapon in his care after being told that he should do.

    Clinton made strenuous efforts to get FBI Director William Sessions to voluntarily resign, but he would not, even with a good severance package, and after he didn’t, he was finally fired. Sessions announced he would hold a press conference on Thursday, and Vincent Foster panicked. [maybe he also read an e-mail warning about what he might tell about Waco of he was fired and that reporters knew more than they wrote and for proof read the current day’s (July 19) Wall Street Journal editorial that I sent to president@whitehouse.gov and I can see the chain of events by which it would have been printed out and read because I started out about Crown Heights and Governor Mario Cuomo was keeping the contents of the Girgente Report about the events in Crown Heights Aug 19-22 1991 secret, and they were probably worried about what it would say because some of the people involved had connections to Clinton.

    As people reading this blog may know, I think that in the early afternoon of Tuesday, July 20, 1993, Vincent Foster went to the home of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, where secret meetings were held and I suspect cash was kept in briefcases, and attempted to blackmail him for money to pay for lawyers, but he forgot about diplomatic immunity and was killed and after that Prince Bandar bin Sultan made an unscheduled visit to the White House where he met with Presidnet Clinton and Sandy (the burglar) Berger where he satisfactorily explained the death and got Preident Clinton to agree to cover it up.

    First thing, Bill Clinton told him, move the body into Ft. Marcy Park, which would give him federal jurisdiction.

    What is probably an “explanation” of this meeting was later leaked to Fred Barnes, of the New Republic (at the same time as known Foster case leaks) and printed on [age 10 of the March 14, 1994 issue. Efforts I made using the FOIA to verify the bare fact that such a meeting took place some time in July, and to get the exact date were of no avail.

    In his public statement Bill Clinton did not give these ethics charges as the reason for firing the director but instead talked about people in the FBI not getting along. which was not a legal basis to fire anyone.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a6ffc)

  87. I used to play rugby.
    It waas ugly.
    When that Aussie runs at you.
    Just lay down.

    A haiku.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  88. Welcome back, Steve. I missed reading your comments.

    felipe (023cc9)

  89. I’ve been studying.

    http://www.navyandmarine.org/cutlassmanual/1906cutlass.pdf

    Sorry.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  90. Miyamoto Musashi.

    Third Technique

    The sword is held in the lower position; as the opponent strikes, you strike at his hands from below. As you strike at his hands, the opponent strikes again; as he tries to knock your sword down, bring it up in rhythm, then chop off his arms sideways after he has struck. The point is to strike an opponent down all at once from the lower position just as he strikes. The guard with the sword in the lower position is something that is met with both early on and later on in the course of carrying out this science; is should be practiced with sword in hand.

    Stabbing the Face

    When you are even with an opponent, it is essential to keep thinking of stabbing him in the face with the tip of your sword in the intervals between the opponent’s sword blows and your own sword blows. When you have the intention of stabbing your opponent in the face, he will try to get both his face and body out of the way. In the midst of battle, as soon as an opponent tries to get out of the way, you have already won. Therefore it is imperative not to forget the technique of “stabbing the face”. This should be cultivated in the course of practicing martial arts.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  91. nk, it was not coincidental that Devyani was arrested as she dropped her children off at school. You have to look at this from the eyes of a partially assimilated immigrant who was born in India. I figure her fertility was an important part of her attraction to the Feds. And in an age where the process is the penalty, what could be better than to first humiliate your victim in front of all her children’s friends … just before you require her to disrobe. What a glorious day for Justice in New York City.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  92. http://www.ancient.eu/article/697/

    …Through sheer weight of numbers Pompey’s cavalry overwhelmed the enemy cavalry and got behind Caesar’s infantry. Now, as Pompey’s cavalry were reorganising into smaller squadrons, Caesar took the opportunity to attack. Having withdrawn what was left of his own cavalry (perhaps this was a pre-meditated strategy) he sent in his six reserve infantry cohorts telling his men to aim their javelins at the enemies’ faces…

    Good old Julius Ceasar.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  93. @94, I’m not in on it, in case any one was wondering.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  94. (perhaps this was a pre-meditated strategy)

    Ya think?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  95. That is similar to the way the chavistas treat leopoldo lopez (leading Venezuelan dissident) when she visits in prison.

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. So the store employees were trading drugs for store merchandise in view of their workplace’s cameras? That’s amazing and difficult to believe. How does that show Brown didn’t rob the store the next day? It doesn’t. Like 99% of politics, it’s just a deflection. Muddy the waters. Change the subject. Destroy reason.

    “The victim was a drug dealer” is as common a “defense” used by Dindunuffins caught assaulting, robbing, and murdering as “those aren’t my pants” is. They tried to use it with Matthew Shepard and with Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s son, and we’ve also seen it with septuagenarians they murdered and robbed.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. I have the same feeling toward women who twerk.

    https://conatusnews.com/hijabi-girl-twirking-where-is-the-left/

    I don’t want to see them killed.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  98. I was speaking of Ms tintori, the wife.

    narciso (d1f714)

  99. Given what we know about Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton, I think is important to consider the smallest possible common denominator when attempting to understand the motives of prominent progressives, particularly those nearing the apex of their ambitions, like Mr. Bharara. Woodrow Wilson may have been a President, but he was nothing more than a well-read, trumped up Klansman. Ditto any number of recently deceased or retired Southern Democrats. And then there are the Kerry/Pelosi/Murray alternate-reality politicians, who believe daycare centers and carbon credits are the antidote to ISIS.

    It is very easy to overestimate these fellows (and gals,) if all you consider are their credentials. The power they wield is majestic, given our tenuous mortality, but their underlying purposes are likely to be rather squalid. For example, if the support of Senator Schumer is, in fact, the reason for Bharara’s earlier favor with Trump, then one might wonder why this was so. It would be a great mistake to cast our inquiries in deep questions of philosophy and constitutional government. The answers are far more likely to be found by asking why an agent of the Federal Government would intentionally humiliate an attractive young mother who was also a diplomat from India.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  100. BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 3/12/2017 @ 6:10 pm

    Woodrow Wilson may have been a President, but he was nothing more than a well-read, trumped up Klansman.

    More civilized Klansman, probably with a belief that it was necessary to be careful to prevent things from getting out of control. While he was a strong believer in democracy in some ways, in other ways he wasn’t. He really favored (supposedly benevolent) rule by experts. (but not by criminals, and he preferred democracy to criminals) he liked the Parliamentary system because it kept popular influence from having too much of an impact.

    Ditto any number of recently deceased or retired Southern Democrats.

    Most did not go so far. Jeff Sessions maybe would have been one of them.

    And then there are the Kerry/Pelosi/Murray alternate-reality politicians, who believe daycare centers and carbon credits are the antidote to ISIS.

    they also believe education, especially girls’ education, is a remedy – and what’s more ISIS and the Taliban also believe that and they destroy schools. They kidnap the girls and murder the boys. Education doesn’t sound such a peaceful alternative that way, of course, now that the Islamicists have discovered our ‘secret weapon.’

    The people who advocate this kind fo peaceful interaction always pretend that 1) it works and 2) the enemy will never discover that.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  101. For example, if the support of Senator Schumer is, in fact, the reason for Bharara’s earlier favor with Trump, then one might wonder why this was so.

    It seems to be true that Trump did call Schumer before agreeing to let Bharara stay on, but I always thought the person who recommended he stay was Jeff Sessions. Now Sessions is supposed to be the one who wanted them all to resign.

    The whole firing came as a surprise. Two days earlier Attorney General Sessions had a conference call with all the prosecutors on a Justice Department initiative. That call would seem to be premised on the idea that most of them were going to stay around for some time. This must have been a sudden decision.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  102. It would be a great mistake to cast our inquiries in deep questions of philosophy and constitutional government. The answers are far more likely to be found by asking why an agent of the Federal Government would intentionally humiliate an attractive young mother who was also a diplomat from India

    This is probably the “gotcha” philosophy that sometimes strikes prosecutors. It was a symbolic gesture in favor of higher wages. the actual law violation he could prosecute was promising (the State Department, not the employee, who was more than happy to get the job at the pay she got) higher wages than she actually intended to pay. She probably had to promise it because of New York State law. As a diplomat, she may have felt the law did not apply to her, and maybe it didn’t, or at least she had immunity, unless the government of India wauved it.)

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-preet-bharara-us-v-devyani-khobragade

    First, Ms. Khobragade was charged based on conduct, as is alleged in the Complaint, that shows she clearly tried to evade U.S. law designed to protect from exploitation the domestic employees of diplomats and consular officers. Not only did she try to evade the law, but as further alleged, she caused the victim and her spouse to attest to false documents and be a part of her scheme to lie to U.S. government officials. So it is alleged not merely that she sought to evade the law, but that she affirmatively created false documents and went ahead with lying to the U.S. government about what she was doing. One wonders whether any government would not take action regarding false documents being submitted to it in order to bring immigrants into the country. One wonders even more pointedly whether any government would not take action regarding that alleged conduct where the purpose of the scheme was to unfairly treat a domestic worker in ways that violate the law. And one wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?

    Second, as the alleged conduct of Ms. Khobragade makes clear, there can be no plausible claim that this case was somehow unexpected or an injustice. Indeed, the law is clearly set forth on the State Department website. Further, there have been other public cases in the United States involving other countries, and some involving India, where the mistreatment of domestic workers by diplomats or consular officers was charged criminally, and there have been civil suits as well. In fact, the Indian government itself has been aware of this legal issue, and that its diplomats and consular officers were at risk of violating the law. The question then may be asked: Is it for U.S. prosecutors to look the other way, ignore the law and the civil rights of victims (again, here an Indian national), or is it the responsibility of the diplomats and consular officers and their government to make sure the law is observed?

    Third, Ms. Khobragade, the Deputy General Consul for Political, Economic, Commercial and Women’s Affairs, is alleged to have treated this victim illegally in numerous ways by paying her far below minimum wage, despite her child care responsibilities and many household duties, such that it was not a legal wage. The victim is also alleged to have worked far more than the 40 hours per week she was contracted to work, and which exceeded the maximum hour limit set forth in the visa application. Ms. Khobragade, as the Complaint charges, created a second contract that was not to be revealed to the U.S. government, that changed the amount to be paid to far below minimum wage, deleted the required language protecting the victim from other forms of exploitation and abuse, and also deleted language that stated that Ms. Khobragade agreed to “abide by all Federal, state, and local laws in the U.S.” As the Complaint states, these are only “in part” the facts, and there are other facts regarding the treatment of the victim – that were not consistent with the law or the representations made by Ms. Khobragade — that caused this Office and the State Department, to take legal action.

    Fourth, as to Ms. Khobragade’s arrest by State Department agents, this is a prosecutor’s office in charge of prosecution, not the arrest or custody, of the defendant, and therefore those questions may be better referred to other agencies. I will address these issues based on the facts as I understand them. Ms. Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded. She was not, as has been incorrectly reported, arrested in front of her children. The agents arrested her in the most discreet way possible, and unlike most defendants, she was not then handcuffed or restrained. In fact, the arresting officers did not even seize her phone as they normally would have. Instead, they offered her the opportunity to make numerous calls to arrange personal matters and contact whomever she needed, including allowing her to arrange for child care. This lasted approximately two hours. Because it was cold outside, the agents let her make those calls from their car and even brought her coffee and offered to get her food. It is true that she was fully searched by a female Deputy Marshal — in a private setting — when she was brought into the U.S. Marshals’ custody, but this is standard practice for every defendant, rich or poor, American or not, in order to make sure that no prisoner keeps anything on his person that could harm anyone, including himself. This is in the interests of everyone’s safety.

    Fifth, as has been reported, the victim’s family has been brought to the United States. As also has been reported, legal process was started in India against the victim, attempting to silence her, and attempts were made to compel her to return to India. Further, the Victim’s family reportedly was confronted in numerous ways regarding this case. Speculation about why the family was brought here has been rampant and incorrect. Some focus should perhaps be put on why it was necessary to evacuate the family and what actions were taken in India vis-à-vis them. This Office and the Justice Department are compelled to make sure that victims, witnesses and their families are safe and secure while cases are pending.

    Prosecutors may get into that frame of mind where they want to “catch” people without regard to whether it is anythng really bad that they are catching. And they also sometimes are sticklers for the “rule of law”

    Dinesh D’Souza was like that. It was a really extreme case of violating black letter law, but there was no point to Dinesh D’Souza violating it. His money would have been better spent runnings ads in weekly newspapers. The money wasn’t all that much anyway. It was just an out and out violation of black letter law. He violated the forms. In substance it made no difference.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  103. Preet Bharara now says he feels like the Moreland Commisison, which Governor Andrew Cuomo abruptly dismissed as part of a deal with the legislature. Bharara thought they must have been on to soemthing and followed up, and he found a few matters.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  104. On Saturday, when Preet Bharara was fired, Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general seemed not to be able to deviate from a script:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/politics/preet-bharara-us-attorney.html

    It was Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general, who called Mr. Bharara on Saturday. According to a Justice Department official, Mr. Boente told Mr. Bharara that he was one of the 46 United States attorneys being told to resign.

    Mr. Bharara, the official said, replied that that was in conflict with Mr. Trump asking him to stay on. Mr. Boente reiterated that Mr. Bharara was being asked to resign, and Mr. Bharara said that he was interpreting that as being fired. Mr. Boente then said again that the department was asking him to step down, according to the official.

    Boente would not say another word. He wouldn’t explain it, and he wouldn’t describe it as being fired. Nothing but that he’s “being asked to resign.”

    So now what? Was Trump actually maneuvered into doing this by Kelly Anne Conway or somebody else.

    There’s a bunch of speculation as to what possible investigations someone might have attemmpted to impede. If anyone did it, I’d suspect some lawyer(s), number one, were behind this.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  105. Here’s a more detailed version of the story of the call that never happened between Trump and Preet Bharara on Thursday, March 9, 2017:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/us/politics/white-house-addresses-trumps-unorthodox-call-to-preet-bharara.html

    In the call on Thursday, a woman who said she was from the president’s office left a voice mail message asking Mr. Bharara to call back, according to a person to whom Mr. Bharara described the call. The person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter, spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Bharara conferred with his deputy about whether it would be appropriate to return the call, the person said.

    Then he and his deputy, Joon H. Kim, reviewed Justice Department memos governing such contacts, the person added. Because the caller had not specified what the president wanted to discuss, they concluded that it would be prudent to not return the call and to instead contact the office of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the person said.

    Mr. Bharara called the chief of staff to the attorney general, Joseph H. Hunt. “Mr. Hunt was direct and clear in our conversation that, given written White House contacts policy, my position as a sitting U.S. attorney, and my office’s jurisdiction, it would be improper for me to speak directly to the sitting president without knowing the subject matter,” Mr. Bharara said in his statement.

    “Some might find that inconsistent with what is for the first time, three days later being described as a well-wishes call,” he added.

    After speaking with Mr. Hunt, Mr. Bharara called the White House back and said the attorney general’s office had advised him not to speak directly with the president.

    But that’s not what the Attorney General’s office said!! The Attorney Generals’s office didn’t say he couldn’t talk to Trump. What he was told was that he needed to know the subject of the conversation before he could decide whether to take the call or not. In other words, that it was not about an ongoing investigation. Bharara didn’t pass on that detail.

    If all Trump wanted to do was to call him to say hello, or to discuss his budget, he could.

    The Whote House also revealed what it said was to be the subject of the call. Not advanace notice, or an apology about the fact that he was going to fired or anything like that, but….

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/us/politics/white-house-addresses-trumps-unorthodox-call-to-preet-bharara.html

    “The president reached out to Preet Bharara on Thursday to thank him for his service and to wish him good luck,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, said in an email.

    That does sound like he was going to do something to cushion the blow of the firing at least.

    Thursday was before anybody was told about the firing. That happened Friday.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1076 secs.