DAY 1: Spicer says there’s no DOJ/FBI investigation of Trump.
DAY 2: DOJ says Spicer didn’t get that from them.
DAY 3: All US Attorneys fired with no prior notification.
139 Comments
DAY 1: Spicer says there’s no DOJ/FBI investigation of Trump.
DAY 2: DOJ says Spicer didn’t get that from them.
DAY 3: All US Attorneys fired with no prior notification.
Weird how this keeps happening
Holy shit, it’s so out in the open.
But no official body will investigate any of this seriously because…GOP.
A recently retired FBI agent…
This isn’t new. It’s how all federal agencies, including the Pentagon, and Congress have been operating, and quite openly, for decades. Some go into the revolving door and some limit themselves to collecting their pensions and new fat paychecks. (Some even manage to collect simultaneously a government paycheck and one or more non-government paychecks.)
This is really an essence of government corruption, and protected by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Only clean government people (mostly lefties) have any interest in trying to stop this, but they aren’t hypocrites that only point it for partisan political advantage.
Hahaha, wow. Man, for someone so hung up on Clinton speeches and appearances, to just act so blasé about the appearances of this with “oh it’s nothing new”? You’re nothing but a hack, and it’s continued to expose itself as time goes on. I love that the phrase you’re stuck on is “ex FBI agent” as opposed to he connecting line of why this particular ex FBI agent is of interest.
A REPUBLICAN hack.
Fixed that for you.
.
On our way to the internment camps
“You know, this is just like that Obama…”
As usual anyone who disagrees with you is a Republican.
In doing so you become the definition of a hack.
The Party holds less power than it has in 70 years.
At some point it will get through your head that it is not Marie’s fault.
It is the people you support.
Yes it is Marie’s fault, because it’s untrue.
It’s her opinion. That does not make her a Republican.
Well, since Marie3 flamed me on another thread recently with the old stuff about my being an ignorant fool etc., I guess my effort to keep exchanges with her polite was a pointless failure.
I neither know nor care about her party identification. I do know and care about her endless vicious attacks on people and self promotion as the Last Honest Person Alive.
To fladem, that’s a feature, not a bug.
.
In this thread she is not the source of the viciousness.
Do you and your freaking partisan Democratic fellow travelers get that the Democratic Party has been decimated at the state and federal level? What about that don’t you understand?
There’s an advantage to having lived through the Nixon and Reagan administrations as a conscious adult which I know you’re much too young to have experienced, but may not apply to those that side with you. In real time that Reagan administration was revealed to be the most corrupt in at least fifty years. And Democrats continuously attacked his administration over that. Not as stridently as they attacked the GWB administration, but it was in the pre-internet era. Still Reagan got his second term and the party was still standing well enough that they got a third term.
Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why? Figure that out; it’s not complicated.
Well, gee, I remember clear back to the JFK days, so I guess I’m one up on you. I’ve also worked with many Assistant United States Attorneys, as well as other federal agencies. Enough to know what you’re saying is pretty much wrong.
As long as we’re one-upping, how many federal agencies have you worked with?
Wrong on what? That Republicans don’t get more of a pass on corruption and incompetence than Democrats? That from government service to lucrative, partisan private positions only exists on the GOP side?
Several. More local and state agencies than federal, but at the federal level, it includes Treasury, State, COE, Transportation, FDIC, but not the DOJ. I have nothing but high regard for those that I’ve worked with. But politics isn’t a factor at the worker bee level.
Really, you have worked with many Assistant United States Attorneys?
Tell me, how many of those left for big law firms representing corporate interests? Actually I can help you answer that question, because at the big firms I worked we hired them on a regular basis. How many lawyers at the SEC leave to go work as in house counsel at Investment Banks?
I can answer that question too for you since I worked in house at CSFB. The answer is more than a few.
Do I think that makes them corrupt? No.
But pretending that the revolving door doesn’t exist is foolish.
What do I win?
I wonder if the grand prize is a purity pony.
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals turn molehills of information stolen from private emails into a mountain from which they shout their complaints about Democratic Party leaders and institutions all the way to Election Day?
I think that is right to a point. Progressives seem to me to tear each other up more than they do the opposition. And too many dems choose to believe, for whatever reason, that Hillary is a crook despite no evidence. But you know e mails or Bengahzi or some such bullshit.
But it still seems true that the corruption of a Sessions and Flynn or others does not result in the same price to republicans. ( I don’t know what garden variety corruption is.) You might hear a word from John McCain or Lindsay Graham but just a word. If a democratic administration had performed like Trump to date there would no doubt be calls for impeachment and even supported by those dems who were butt hurt.
I am reminded though that the republicans control it all right down to the local level. That is a loud chorus, joined by too many dems, sticking it to any dem who steps out of line. Not so on the other side.
That about covers it. Republicans are far more disciplined when it comes to their elected officials than we are with ours. We could speculate as to the whys – Republicans generally are more authoritarian (there is some evidence to support that assertion), perhaps get off more on social dominance, etc, and hence are willing to overlook the shortcomings of their leaders in the process. I would certainly not recommend becoming like Republicans in that sense. However, I would recommend accepting that our politicians are just that – politicians. In our form of government, we’re not going to get them tailor made for each of our particular pet preferences. They are going to be humans who are flawed, make promises that they may or may not be able to keep, represent constituencies that may or may not necessarily be like the constituencies in many of our regions, and so on. But when push comes to shove, what’s better for us, or for our society as a whole? Being in a situation where our party is effectively reduced to a series of PO Boxes? That’s where we’re apparently heading if we don’t get our act together. More and better Democrats used to be the dictum about a decade ago. We need to get focused on that again. Period.
The big city political machines were almost entirely Democratic. Much of that corruption is still present today. Where I grew up being a Democrat was nothing to brag about.
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because conservative voters are more disciplined and show up on Election Day to cast their vote for the viable candidate who best reflects their preferences, being willing to be called hypocrites as long as it allows their candidates to exercise power?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because the most consumed media sources are owned and effectively operated by millionnaires and billionnaires who want lower taxes and regulations of all kinds, which cause them to place their fingers on the scales for candidates from the Party which offers them the lowest taxes and regulations?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals fail to take responsibility for their movement, holding the Democratic Party 100% responsible for all electoral and policy losses and 0% of all electoral and policy wins?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because when Democrats have gained and exercised the most power at the Federal level in the last half century, the voters have repudiated these most extreme exercises of liberal governance?
The donald’s more troops on the ground in Syria maybe the thing that get the GOP off the fence. Assad has declared our soldiers are “Invaders”. Think he believes the “take their oil” thing.
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals think the only thing that prevents more liberal governance is corruption and poor by Democratic Party leaders and officials, failing to take responsibility for their own actions or inactions or the results of elections?
Because too many liberals think the only thing that prevents more liberal governance is corruption and poor by Democratic Party leaders and officials, failing to take responsibility for their own actions or inactions or the results of elections?
When is the last time the Democratic Party took responsibility for their own actions? Did Bill Clinton ever apologize for this:
http://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/stone-mountain-kkk-white-supremacy-simmons/
? Tell me that wasn’t racist as shit. I could go on and on to this present day. The Democratic elite never learn from their mistakes. Why didn’t the Obama DOJ ever crack down on the drug companies re: West Virginia? Why haven’t the Democrats in WV made that an issue?
So here we are.
The current President of the United States was endorsed by the KKK.
They endorsed the Presidential candidate running against Hillary Clinton.
But yes, let’s go back and talk about a portion of Bill Clinton’s political life where he played with racist symbolism in order to try to win the Presidential election at a time when Democratic Party POTUS candidates had not won in 16 years.
Okey dokey.
“When is the last time the Democratic Party took responsibility for their own actions?”
Ahem:
“Why didn’t the Obama DOJ ever crack down on the drug companies re: West Virginia?”
The Internet toobz are full of news and notices of the Justice Department’s actions to combat opioid addiction during President Obama’s Presidency.
Are you wanting to posit here that the DOJ’s failure to wipe out opioid addiction was some sort of racist policy implementation by the Department? If so, that is a claim entered without any evidence at all. It’s pretty offensive on its face.
“Why haven’t the Democrats in WV made that an issue?”
The West Virginia Democratic Party platform plank- “End Prescription Drug Abuse”
This plan doesn’t seem to have swept the Party into power there. Inferring that the State Party is responsible for electoral and social outcomes on this issue in recent years seems unjustified.
your facts!
That all you got?
LOL…
Facts are stubborn things.
The Internet toobz are full of news and notices of the Justice Department’s actions to combat opioid addiction during President Obama’s Presidency.
LOL!! By doing what? Do you know how many pills they were shipping to just two counties? BTW, the Obama DOJ did so much that this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lawsuits-filed-against-drug-distributors-in-we
st-virginia/2017/03/09/f9e3165e-0501-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html
was only done three days ago. When was the last time corporate CEOs, or officers, went to jail?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals propagandize against Democrats for failing to pass, for one of many examples, single payer healthcare, showing utter ignorance of the fact that whenever California and other States have placed a single payer referendum on the ballot, single payer has been utterly smashed and defeated by the voters?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals fail to consider the substantial evidence which shows that some of their most favored policy preferences are not supported by Americans who turn out to vote?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals fail to consider the possibility that their relentless “BothSidesDoIt” complaints acts to suppress the votes of Americans who we need to turn out to win elections by making those voters believe that their votes make no difference in their lives, even though that is quite evidently untrue?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals stared a racist, sexist oligarchic movement in the face and decided the best uses of their time was to slag Hillary, DWS and other Democratic party leaders and organizations all the way to November 8, 2016?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals complain when progressive websites discuss corruption by Republicans?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals claim that the Democratic Party is Just As Bad on the issue of political campaign funding, failing to take into consideration the fact that the five SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents from the Republican Party provided the bare majorities in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, while the four SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents from the Democratic Party voted to keep campaign finance laws in place?
“Republicans pay less of a price when garden variety corruption and incompetence is revealed than Democrats do when theirs is revealed. Do you know why?”
Because too many liberals continue to claim corruption and incompetence by Hillary and the Democratic Party were entirely responsible for failing to turn out enough voters with lower incomes in swing States, failing to take into consideration the fact that Clinton and Democrats were heavily damaged by the wide variety of voter suppression laws that were put in place for the 2016 election in those swing States because of the partial tear-down of the Voting Rights Act, and the five SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents from the Republican Party provided the bare majorities in the Shelby County decision, while the four SCOTUS judges nominated by Presidents from the Democratic Party voted to continue to restrict States’ abilities to pass voter suppression laws without DOJ review?
I lived through the Nixon and Reagan administration as a teenager and young adult, and I disagree with many of your conclusions.
(Not criticizing — one takes one’s inspiration where one finds it.)
One minor quibble: this proudly self-identifying “liberal” finds your . . . er . . . liberal application of “liberals” a bit problematic. By which I mean: there are certainly folks who did all that you describe. However, this liberal does not welcome association with them by your use of that label.
Jus’ sayin’.
That is the conundrum – what terminology to use? I might have used a different term or terms, and then found myself with the same problem of others who are clearly not the target of my ire feeling unfairly associated in the process. All I can hope is that when I write that others recognize the context in which my statements were written. Looking at the surrounding context in which centerfield is writing, it would not occur to me to associate you with anything negative. In fact, and this is just me speaking, you are one of the regulars here whom I count on not to engage in concern trolling, flamewars, and whatever else seems to come with the territory – you have that whole voice of reason vibe going on. That’s a good thing. Then again, that’s just the opinion of yours truly – a cranky blogger who only stopped by tonight for some beer and popcorn.
You only participate to start flame wars.
You offer nothing else.
I’m only here to put flowers into rifle barrels. Peace and love.
Your hear to defend the losers who have delivered the Party into the political abyss, and blame others for it.
You must be so proud.
Is there a reason why we are even talking to each other? Seriously. Other than throw insults at me, is there anything of substance you could offer? If it’s not sorting out how to move forward and begin regaining statehouse seats and Congressional seats over the next few electoral cycles, I’m not particularly interested. Otherwise, Willow put it best as to how I see conversing with you:
You live for this: that is obvious from your participation in these threads. It is all that you ever do.
You never cite a poll, suggest an argument to make. You never offer anything of substance ever.
This is obvious to those of us that do.
Sigh. I’ve cited polls, etc. before. Truth is that we largely participate in different threads. Our interests are clearly different, and as I have said before I suspect our particular differences really boil down to personality differences. You and I simply are never going to get along. I’ve attempted to be civil and it is taking a considerable amount of restraint on my part to remain so at this moment. How hard is it to just simply accept that neither of us should be communicating with each other and move on? I’m done with you. I’d appreciate you cease hounding me when you get into one of your fits. Thank you.
You have never been civil with me – ever.
This thread is a mess because you and your friends became personal. It is all you know how to be.
I never in any thread of substance see you add anything. Want to fix the Party – go read what I posted from Greenberg. Why we lost – go read what I post on late deciders.
You contribute nothing but hate. I suspect it consumes you and you dislike when this becomes apparent to others.
Is this for real? You dislike someone or disagree with someone’s perspective and you jump to a conclusion of what a person’s psychological life is based on what? A set of pixels on a computer monitor? I make no assumptions about who you are as a person for one reason and one reason only: I have no personal history with you. Neither one of us has any business making assumptions about what allegedly “consumes” one another without tangible evidence. Without access to my personal life, you have nothing to go on. No data. No nothing. And vice versa. Let it go.
When someone only posts to degrade and offers nothing of substance, and then resorts to playing the victim it isn’t hard to figure out who they are.
You posted the gif – not me.
You and your buds injected personality into this thread – not me.
One of your buds spammed a comment every 5 minutes – and you upgraded it. Proud of the guy who reposts over and over?
That is who you are.
You make assumptions – always the same tiring ones – every time you post. You never do anything but.
And this is actually where someone might actually lose interest in talking to you. You make these sorts of baseless accusations and they are intended to be personal. It’s a form of gaslighting that you are attempting (and failing) to employ. If you were someone court-ordered to be in some sort of counseling for batterers, any clinicians I might consult with (and I did this once as a volunteer) would be alerted that gaslighting is a red flag and one likely to be used against them just like it was used on their partners. You behave abusively elsewhere on this blog, and quite actively so. And of course you’ll evade responsibility for doing so just as you are doing with me now. I simply call you out on it, which I guess to you makes me a “victim”? I uprate some posts whose content I agree with and that makes me a “victim”? Once you dole out that as part of your argument, you’ve lost. Get over it. I am at least aware now of what you can do on a blog and the behavior I see is toxic enough to where I would rather search elsewhere for election related links, tables, figures, and so on. Quite frankly, any one of us is capable of doing so on our own and given your outbursts here and elsewhere as of late would be able to find the info needed in peace. So if you are frustrated because I don’t participate in your diaries or whatever it is you’re on about, you brought that on yourself. If you are frustrated because I uprate posts of others whom you are behaving abusively towards because I just happen to like what they are saying, then too bad: you brought that on yourself. And in the process – it is exchanges like the one we are having now that are likely to irritate our host. Out of respect for Booman, I am ending this conversation with you. If you have shred of respect for Booman, you will cease as well. Adieu.
It would help mitigate the appearance of sexism if commenters would refrain from gratuitously attacking Marie. I know you won’t read my comment because I’m “dead to you” [since I last brought up sexism btw] but perhaps others will.
There is tangible evidence that we have had civil conversations in the past. So, calling BS on the following:
Even appears we were interpreting polling data from right before the election quite similarly. We got it wrong. It happens.
Unfortunately the dynamic between us is not a good one right now. As noted a moment ago, all I have to go by are pixels on a computer monitor. I make no assumptions about who you are as a person simply because I have no tangible data outside of this blog. All I can do is judge that we appear not to get along. So again, once more with feeling, let it go.
This from the fellow who chastises another community member downthread: “Your anger has basically reduced you to repeating nonsense.”
Dishing out hostility and ad hominems from time to time will bring you responses. I don’t enjoy threads with hostile portions to them, but I’m unwilling to meekly acquiesce to those who wish to dominate this community.
There are progressive online communities which support the nonstop slagging of the Democratic Party without a peep, and there are other communities who absolutely bury people who bring that stuff. This community is what it is; I’ve accepted it. We’re hashing it out here.
I know better to think I’m going to convince those who see the world most differently from me here. There’s many others participating at various levels here, including the lurkers. I’m here to discuss things in the witness of the entire community, with the hope of influencing as many as possible.
There’s an old Will Rogers saying that I love:
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
It’s a wonderful quote. And it captures quite nicely just how diverse and divergent the party and its membership is. It can get a bit thorny at times, but what continues to draw me to this place is that it has been damn difficult to impose some party line on all those who participate. So let’s hash out what needs hashing out. At the end of the day, all that matter to me is that when it counts, we can get it together long enough to help get folks in positions of power who can preserve what’s left of our safety net and perhaps make some progress on the economic and social justice fronts. Bottom line. Perfection not required.
This is why you spammed the thread with the same comment over and over again?
Is that what you want to witness? That is some form of argument?
And yet every one of those comments, after the repeated lead-in quotation, addressed a different aspect of the topic.
But I daresay you didn’t bother to read them beyond a scornful glance to confirm your preconception.
I try.
I admit that, in the face of the decades-long, immensely successful propaganda campaign by Gingrich/Rove et al. to rebrand “liberal” as a pejorative, I’m pretty sensitized to anyone I’d willingly stand at the barricades with as a liberal comrade (i.e., cfdj) using it similarly. Just feels to me like allies doing opponents’ dirty work for them. (Also noting: I did identify this as a minor quibble.)
But, yeah, same problem with virtually any political categorization label: “The Left”, “leftist”, “progressive”, “neo-liberal”(!), etc. All quickly employed as smears by opponents, rightly (neo-liberal!) or not, which turns them into effective smears in the minds of relatively thoughtless, under-informed folks without much understanding of history or the plain meanings of words.
We’ve had a variation this conversation before at one time or another recently. In the grand scheme of things, this is the small stuff. Sometimes all it takes is a quick moment to get some clarification as to what is meant when using term X in a conversation. Regrettably, so much gets lost in translation on electronic media. So many misunderstandings could be cleared up quickly in face to face conversation that may take much longer in a blog thread or – heaven forbid – a series of tweets.
Notwithstanding all of centerfielddj’s repetitive bluster below, anyone who thinks that Democratic ethical “scandals” lasting longer in the public eye (and doing more electoral damage) than Republican ethical “scandals” is because of Democratic voters, is seriously delusional or misinformed.
And many are also acolytes of David Broder and his ‘both sides do it’ philosophy. Any wrong by a republican is immediately connected to a democrat…even if it’s a false equivalence.
‘Just putting it out there for discussion’. Like Clinton health speculations,
AmIright Marie, amIright?
.
That’s not true. And it is especially not true of how U.S. Attorney’s Offices and their personnel work.
Pardon, but the subject was a retired FBI agent. And many of them do move on just as the one described. As there are few FBI agents and senior military officers that are Democrats; so, the evidence from those federal divisions/agencies is naturally scant. Although Clark Clifford and Robert McNamara are two names that comes to mind.
Are you saying that only Republicans from U.S. Attorney offices move in and out of the public to private sector? That only Republicans get rich from doing so? (Mary Jo White seems to have protected Wall St. players after leaving office.) How about Treasury and other agencies and Congress? (ie. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers)
I’m just spit balling here, but you have a lot of mirrors in your house, correct?
All the easier to gaze adoringly into your own eyes.
.
I see you’re not going to answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Marie3, there is simply no precedence of a Democrat having done this (linked story upthread):
“A recently retired FBI agent, Brian McCauley, was the fact witness at the center of yet another Clinton email ‘scandal’ which broke about three weeks before the November 2016 election. This was the ‘quid pro quo’ story about email classification which broke in mid-October. It turns out that about two weeks before that story came out, McCauley had been placed on retainer by Trump advisor Michael Flynn, a retainer/consultancy agreement which eventually totaled $28,000.”
Come on now. Why are you an apologist for the FBI having interfered with the 2016 Presidential election?
Marie, it looks to me at least possible that McCauley was being paid to provide false testimony against a State Department official, Patrick Kennedy, in testimony in the Clinton emails hearings in October. It’s not a question of bipartisan corruption-as-usual revolving doors but of laundering bribes and suborning perjury.
Since you’re not getting it from all the other comments, I’ll also try:
No, you’re practicing Both-Sider-Ism here, and it’s not a good look. This isn’t garden variety corruption. If you can’t see that, if you can’t see that It Really Is Different This Time (and not in a good way), then I don’t know what can be done for you.
But don’t be surprised that a LOT of folks think you’re a nutjob. B/c if you really can’t see what I wrote above (and that so many others are pointing out), then you are a nutjob. And just to be clear: no, the vast majority of progressives out there protesting, don’t agree with you. They understand that this isn’t politics as usual.
I guess you don’t.
Also DAY 1: Bharara asked to investigate Trump foreign emoluments issue
Bharara now says he won’t resign but will force Trump & Sessions to fire him.
And now they’ve done it.
Day #???????: Eventually Congress will be forced to act.
There will be leaks if an investigation is underway. He cannot fire the entire DOJ, and even if he could he cannot control the many possible leak mechanisms that have been set up by our lovely digital system.
AG
This Congress might not be forced to act. The Republicans in control care nothing for ethics or principle of governance – they’ve been covering up the Russian links for month and ignoring bribes to Trump like the trademarks for weeks. They’ll only act if it’s to their political benefit, and given most Trumplings care about as little about ethics as they do, that may never be. As long as acting will lose more support from Trumplings than it gains from the endangered species of “sensible conservative” and “persuadable moderate” they will sit tight.
Perhaps this mess will result in a blowout in 2018/2020 but even then they’ll probably go down with the ship rather than sink themselves even faster.
The Republicans in control care nothing for ethics or principle of governance – they’ve been covering up the Russian links for month and ignoring bribes to Trump like the trademarks for weeks.
The trademarks? You mean the China thing? A Buzzfeed piece, or maybe it was Drudgico, said the Democrats were becoming worried that the Russian stuff was going to lead no where. That there wasn’t a smoking gun. And it quoted several senior Democrats on that worry.
Congress will be leaked, battered and mass-mediaed into submission, and it will likely happen well before the 2018 elections come along. At this rate? Weeks, not months. National opinion will have been so twisted by the time the PermaGov is through wringing out Trump and his merry band of Wall Street banksters and alt. right pranksters that Congress will have no choice.
Watch.
AG
P.S. During the primaries Trump said that his followers would vote for him even if walked out onto 5th Ave. and started shooting people. He was pretty much right. But selling out the government to Russia at huge profit to himself? (Nevermind if that is not exactly what is happening. That is the case that is is being made in the media, and it appears that it is being fed to them very well by some real pros at this sort of thing. Drop by drop by drop. Stay tuned for the next episode.)
They won’t stand for that.
I think that eventually…behind closed doors, of course…he will be given a choice:
Like a giant quiz show.
Mar a Lago will be his Nixonian San Clemente.
What is the mechanism by which you think treason charges would be brought? That is, WHO would do it within the Republican Congress? Can you suggest some names? Because no matter how influential the PermaGov is, someone (actually more than a few) have to stake their political and possibly financial careers on the line to initiate that process. Are there enough Rs to do that?
The vast majority of bureaucrats are civil servants, and pretty much immune to being fired.
L. Jean Lewis hung onto federal jobs while running an anti-Clinton campaign from her office. And the most that happened was she was moved to another job. Overseeing Halliburton contracts for the Iraq War.
“All US Attorneys fired with no prior notification.”
Did they all submit the customary letters of resignation when the White House changes political ownership?
Guess not.
TBD. It could be unprecedented if all of them didn’t submit the proforma, changing of the guard resignation letter. Apparently a new administration can accept the resignation immediately or in various ways delay the acceptance (a US Attorney assignment includes staying in office until an successor is qualified), including giving some signal that the person may be reappointed. Not easy to fill a hundred important slots overnight. Senate confirmation is required.
Have no idea why Preet Bharara would have expected to be held over. At best, honesty and competence aren’t on DT’s qualification list for any hires. At worst, those two qualities excluded candidates from consideration.
Supposedly both Trump and Sessions told him he would be held over. I expect they were hoping for an indictment of Cuomo, but decided that wasn’t worth exposing whatever Bharara was going to dig up investigating Trump.
You are probably right about that.
I suspect Guiliani was consulted as well. The US Attorney for the Southern District is arguably the second best job in the Department of Justice. It was where Guiliani came to prominence, and an ideal spot to make a political career.
This isn’t a small job. They were crazy not to get one of their own in that position.
The Trump people do not understand the power of the bureaucracy and just how powerful parts can be.
Trump does seem to understand the power of the DC bureaucracy. He’s just ignorant as to the pieces involved and how they all link together. However, that’s not true for all those that are surrounding him. Publicly we’re seeing more of the bottom feeders, but it’s a big mistake to conclude that there running the show without some like Mukasey who is no slouch. Speaking of Mukasey, what Freeh up to these days?
You’re right. I suspect Bannon got wise and convinced Trump to dump him now.
Well, Preet is the one who blew up the issue back in 2007 with Bush, so not a big surprise.
Trump Tower, November 30th, 2016:
Booman was incorrect in saying they were fired. What was unusual was telling them Friday morning that they needed to clear our by Friday afternoon. Clinton was the only other recent president who cleared our the US Attorneys and even he had some transition time for many of them including one attorney who was in the middle of a big case.
The fact that it was so abrupt is not good but either way it wasn’t illegal or even a scandal.
“tender” their “resignations” (in which case calling those “resignations” “pro forma” is ridiculous — once they’ve been demanded, there’s nothing “pro forma” about them) and “that they needed to clear our[sic] by Friday afternoon” . . .
. . . is being fired. Silly to pretend otherwise.
What planet are you from, again?
They are political appointments.
The story is it took Trump this long to replace them, and then he did in such a stupid matter.
The White House is pretty good at virtually nothing.
But no, this isn’t a scandal.
The scandal isn’t that they were fired. The scandal is that
(a) they were fired en masse and told to be gone by COB Friday
(b) -even- Bharara, who was specifically asked and agreed to stay on, was fired
(c) and so far, there are no signs of replacements.
Are you being intentionally obtuse about this? All of the above are departures from the norms of our government for decades at least.
You literally repeated the facts I cited, and then accused me of being obtuse.
To my mind scandal implies illegality. This is not illegal.
It is incompetent in a number of different ways, and identical to what Trump did with the Ambassadors.
So if you want to crucify me for not using the word scandal in the way you want go for it.
Yeeesssss, you’re absolutely right.
And similarly, the Saturday Night Massacre wasn’t a scandal. After all, the AG (Richardson) serves at the pleasure of the President (Nixon), and can be fired without cause. Ditto his replacement (Ruckelshaus). And then his replacement (Bork) finally did as Nixon asked, and fired Cox.
All completely legal. No scandal there.
Oops, wrong scandal. In fact, firing Cox was illegal.
But the more recent time, the GWB US Attorney firing scandal, -was- completely legal. It was also the tell that the GWB admin was pushing these USAs to gin up voter fraud prosecutions.
Took Con Law from Archibald Cox asshole.
This isn’t close to the same thing.
It’s telling that you didn’t address the GWB USA scandal.
I’m going to assume that you are 100% convinced that there was NOTHING scandalous about the Lewinsky thing, nor Benghazi, nor the emails thing, yes? After all, there was NOTHING illegal there.
Your anger has basically reduced you to repeating nonsense.
Oho, so much fail! Let me cut it up into tiny bite-size pieces
(1) the three cited affairs were not scandals, right? Since they were legal?
(2) and yet the Rs attacked like pit bulls in all three cases.
So again, no, both sides don’t do the same thing.
The firings in the OP -are- a violation of norms, and as in the past (GWB USA -scandal-), there’s a possibility that something dirty/illegal resides beneath.
And again: no, both sides don’t do it.
Ahhh, here we go:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/10/despite-trump-bharara-won-t-resign-yet.html
This is not garden-variety stuff. There’s something deeply wrong going on.
“Scandal implies illegality”? Really? A certain ex-governor who did not, in fact, hike the Appalachian Trail might disagree with you, just for starters.
That is a curiosuly circumscribed definition you’ve got there. Let’s see what Merriam-Webster has to say:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal
Nope, nothing about illegality there.
Google has this definition from the Oxford dictionary about scandal just above the one you quoted:
“an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing public outrage.”
So under that definition a scandal could be an illegal act.
It would appear that one party has a lock on scandal and corruption.
Right — but there’s that pesky “or” in the definition, whereas fladem seems fixated on illegality as the sine qua non.
Sure. Even without looking it up I would not assume scandal necessarily meant illegal.
GOPers endorse your standard wrt GOPers, repudiate it wrt Dems (how long a history would it take to get this through to you?).
What’s hard about this?
It was like when the State Department employees were fired and people tried to pretend it was normal — as if you can examine their actions in a vacuum. Yes they were political appointees, but we have no one there! The WH is completely ignoring the State Department, and operating directly through Jared Kushner.
Meanwhile, this is all in the context of Bannon waging open war against our government. It is NOT normal. Look at this pace:
I have a question for you seabe……
At this point in time, do you believe Trump plans on eventually catching up with appointments, or do you believe he has no intention of filling most of those jobs?
I’m not talking about the Attorneys, which it’s a virtual certainty he will fill, because they are a cog in the corruption machine. But State? Other Departments?
.
I have no idea. I think it’s a mix of incompetence, but also who is advising trump. What, we think he knows the names of these people and who is essential? Hell no. He is filling spots in places Bannon and the “beach teams” see as essential to pushing through their program, and not filling positions in areas they want to die — such as State. If people brought up all the areas he needs filling I think he’d do it. It’s all about who is advising him, though.
Granted, this could all be terrible advice. You need heads to direct the civil servants to accomplish your program. Right now they’re going to do whatever they did under Obam, agencies sympathetic to Dems like EPA will slow walk these rules he wants written and enforced as a result of his executive orders. If there’s no middle people on the civil servants to make sure they’re doing what they’re supppsed to as per your order, your executive orders will fail and be meaningless.
And for that, I suppose we can be somewhat thankful. Still, the failure to get leadership in place demonstrates in sharp relief the difference in handing the keys to the White House to a total incompetent and someone who actually knows what they are doing.
Yes, good in many areas, terrible in others. People will die as a result of this lack of staffing.
No argument there. The hiring freeze and failure to staff key agencies tasked with public health, and so on will come back to haunt all of us. When I volunteered last year and voted last November, it was with the realization that when it comes to a competent executive who will surround herself with competent advisors and an incompetent who refuses to do so, we needed competence to win the day.
Yes, I agree…people will die. And possibly…no, probably, a LOT of people.
It’s all so odd. Even putting aside the politics of drowning the government in a bathtub, can they not see the consequences of tuning State (for instance) into a ghost town? Morale is supposed to be dead there….but thousands and thousands of people do difficult work in dangerous places overseas. If morale tanks and their work is not minimally respected, they will quit. That would not be a good thing for businesses that send people over seas.
The only logic I can see, twisted as it is, is that they WANT a disaster..they WANT chaos, so they can then use it as an excuse to really rip things apart.
They must be incredibly stupid. And very very evil.
.
To this end: Massive civil unrest, declaration of martial law, suppression of revolt by federalized National Guard and regular Army, dissolution of government, coronation of Donald I?
I daresay the citizens of the Roman Republic didn’t foresee the Empire till it was irremediably upon them.
You write:
Just as the inhabitants of the current digitally-managed world will have so many options and opinions thrust upon them that they also won’t see the dictatorship until it clamps them in its digital surveillance-powered jaws.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Or a captive audience.
Bet on it.
AG
Damn, nalbar. We already decided those people were just performing outside sales for the hegemon, and probably should just be cut adrift.
Like I said…stupid….and evil.
.
.
It’s incredible. It took them to March 11th to get the prior administration’s US Attorney’s out, and they have no replacements.
What’s strange is there is a lot of power in the US Attorney’s Office. Historically these patronage jobs you reward your supporters with.
If you want to consolidate your Administration’s power you fill these with your supporters.
And they aren’t close to doing it.
Very strange.
Not so strange if you believe what Bannon has said over and over and over again, that he wants to blow up the government, Lenin-style.
So far? He’s doing a damned good job of it.
AG
“U.S. attorneys are well aware that they serve at the president’s pleasure, but new wording in the Patriot Act made it worth the president’s while to fire a big, fat lot of them and hire a group of new ones. And while certainly half the scandal is that the Justice Department did that–let eight U.S. attorneys go, seemingly for no reason–we seem to have forgotten that even without the mass firings, this law had been changed in the sneakiest way imaginable.
The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed the way U.S. attorneys would be appointed if their predecessors were removed in the middle of their term. Under the old regime, interim U.S. attorneys needed to be confirmed by the Senate after 120 days. If they weren’t, federal district judges could select their replacement. The new language removed both judicial and congressional oversight of the interim U.S. attorneys, letting DOJ anoint them indefinitely. This served three important goals: consolidating presidential power, diminishing oversight, and ensuring that “interim” prosecutors had permanent jobs.” (Slate…http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/03/specter_detector.html)
Thought I saw it was re-amended to allow only 120day(?) temps. Anyone know more?
There are many things I find “off” about this admin – one major one that Bannon and the family, minus Melania, is running things. that Ivanka and Jared K should be involved in so much of what this admin is doing, that it’s operating out of Mar el Lago so much of the time, that there is no WH first family, (btw re: previous discussion of talking with T voters, that there is no first family in the WH and that we are paying 30 mill per month for Melania to live in NY has been a wake up call to some T voters I’ve talked with)
follow up on talking w T voters: – pipeline [for export, insignificant number of jobs involved, not using US steel] ban doesn’t cover countries where T has properties, omits 911 terrorists countries, paying for Melania are all wake up topics. I’m sure the ACA replacement is a great one as well.
. . . “the Friday Night Massacre” yet?
If not, remember, you heard it here first.
The BooTrib community used to be the envy of every blogger I know. Now it’s this crap, and people wonder why I spend so little time with y’all these days.
Getting close to shutting this place down because you subtract value and happiness from my life.
I find the content you post here to be of interest and value to me. If you need to shut this place down, that’s your call. I’ll still follow you on Twitter and still see what you are writing for Washington Monthly. Hang in there.
Am I not missed? I have refused to participate in the comments section for a number of weeks now. So the blog bullies are focused on another. Perhaps limiting the comments section in time as the fruitful discussion is always in the early start. The harassment starts when the big ego’s are hurt and an endless rebuke and insults in comments take over. I still feel part of the BooMan community, I’ll prefer writing diaries so I don’t face these insults anymore.
I just poked my head in here for maybe the 3rd or 4th time in 2 years–got too busy with 2 jobs, not flouncing–because I thought I’d probably learn something valuable about the 46 USAs. And nope. Things have really changed.
Wow. I hadn’t seen you around in ages. I missed that sig line in your comments. The working two jobs thing is a drag. Living the dream myself. Yes, the comments threads are definitely in decline. Noticed it after each extended break I’ve taken over the past couple years. I really don’t know what would help. I maybe throwing spitballs, but I wonder if reviving the old Froggy Bottom Cafe feature would at least add a visible safe space or two for those who would prefer simply to read Booman’s frontpage posts and seek fellowship without the drama. If it were an option, I’d go that route in a heartbeat.
Good to see you. Missed your presence.
Booman Tribune has been my first-read blog every day for years. I’ve sent money to support Martin, I’ve posted, I’ve been uprated and I’ve been downrated. It’s part of belonging to a community of people who are like-minded and supposedly on the same side.
Being on the same side doesn’t mean being in agreement on everything, of course. Dissent is healthy to a certain degree. I believe the crushing loss in the election has raised everyone’s sense of anger and there is an urgency to make things happen, to change the Democratic party into a stronger and smarter force.
But I agree that the Pond is crap now. It’s like stepping into a dog fight every damned time, with someone waiting to chew you to pieces when you make a statement. The civility is gone, the tolerance is gone, and the sense of community is gone. And it’s the same characters every time, holding grudges and calling names.
I would like to stay here because Martin is brilliant at decoding and dispensing political data. He asks good questions, poses possible answers, and engages me in a way I can understand. I would love to keep Booman Tribune at the top of my daily list, but it’s harder and harder to hit that bookmark. I already struggle to keep it together during the Trump Age, I don’t need a lot of you people making it harder.
Booman’s in a difficult spot. Having modded a blog once (and it is a thankless chore) the choices once matters have devolved to the point they have are stark:
I’m sure there has to be a fifth or sixth choice that I am missing.
Regardless, take care. You are one of the commenters I enjoy seeing around for whatever that may be worth.
And thanks, right back atcha!
I appreciate the goodwill. 🙂
I still think that Martin should consider reviving the Froggy Bottom Cafe. The Cafe/Lounge tab is already in place. It would be merely a matter of finding someone with adequate time on their hands to refresh it when the number of comments got overwhelming. I am convinced that the decline in civility and community coincided with the loss of that feature. At least for those who would rather peruse the front page to see what Martin’s writing (and he is a damned good and thoughtful writer) but would like relaxing conversation, that would be helpful. Years ago a number of us were used to interacting with each other while sharing landscape photos and whatnot, and that added bit of humanity made it much more difficult to be hurtful when disagreements elsewhere on the blog emerged. Thankfully boran2 still has his painting diaries each week. That’s one safe haven here. Regardless, features that can be added easily that are empathy builders will help quell at least some of the negativity. Just my two cents.
That would be a real shame as I, like many others here, have appreciated and learned from your analysis and as well as enjoyed your writing (on all sorts of topics).
I don’t know if it’s possible, but I wish people could exercise some self control when posting any comment that mentions the Clintons or the DNC. They both seem to be the Godwin of topics on this board as far as sowing chaos and frustration for everybody reading/commenting.
Agreed. At this juncture nothing good seems to come of those particular topics. People who might otherwise have a great deal in common end up at each other’s throats, and yeah, it’s a huge turnoff. The self-control bit? Hard to say. One can hope.