President Trump Fires 46 Federal Prosecutors At The ‘Justice’ Department

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.

The firings were a surprise — especially for Mr. Bharara, who has a reputation for prosecuting public corruption cases and for investigating insider trading. In November, Mr. Bharara met with then President-elect Donald J. Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan and told reporters afterward that both Mr. Trump and Jeff Sessions, who is now the attorney general, had asked him about staying on, which the prosecutor said he expected to do.

But on Friday, Mr. Bharara was among federal prosecutors who received a call from Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general, instructing him to resign, according to a person familiar with the matter. As of Friday evening, though some of the prosecutors had publicly announced their resignations, Mr. Bharara had not. A spokesman for Mr. Bharara declined to comment.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an email that all remaining holdover United States attorneys had been asked to resign, leaving their deputy United States attorneys, who are career officials, in place in an acting capacity.

Continue reading the main story

The abrupt order came after two weeks of increasing calls from Mr. Trump’s allies outside the government to oust appointees from President Barack Obama’s administration. Mr. Trump has been angered by a series of reports based on leaked information from a sprawling bureaucracy, as well as from his own West Wing.

Several officials said the firings had been planned before Friday.

But the calls from the acting deputy attorney general arose a day after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who is a strong supporter of President Trump, said on his evening show that Mr. Trump needed to “purge” Obama holdovers from the federal government. Mr. Hannity portrayed them as “saboteurs” from the “deep state” who were leaking secrets to hurt Mr. Trump. It also came the same week that government watchdogs wrote to Mr. Bharara and urged him to investigate whether Mr. Trump had violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.

In Mr. Hannity’s monologue, he highlighted the fact that the Clinton administration had told all 93 United States attorneys to resign soon after he took office in 1993, and that “nobody blinked an eye,” but he said it became a scandal when the George W. Bush administration fired several top prosecutors midway through his second term.

Several Democratic members of Congress said they only heard that the United States attorneys from their states were being immediately let go shortly before the Friday afternoon statement from the Justice Department. One senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect the identity of the United States attorney in that state, said that an Obama-appointed prosecutor had been instructed to vacate the office by the end of the day.

Although it was not clear whether all were given the same instructions, that United States attorney was not the only one told to clear out by the close of business. The abrupt nature of the dismissals distinguished Mr. Trump’s mass firing from Mr. Clinton’s, because the prosecutors in 1993 were not summarily told to clear out their offices.

Michael D. McKay, who was the United States attorney in Seattle under the George Bush administration, recalled that even though he had already made plans to leave, he nevertheless stayed on for about three weeks beyond a request by then-Attorney General Janet Reno for all of the holdover prosecutors to resign. He also recalled at least one colleague who was in the midst of a major investigation and was kept on to finish it.

“I’m confident it wasn’t on the same day,” he said, adding: “While there was a wholesale ‘Good to see you, thanks for your service, and now please leave,’ people were kept on on a case-by-case basis depending on the situation.”

Two United States attorneys survived the firings: Mr. Boente, the top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is serving as acting deputy attorney general, and Rod Rosenstein, the top prosecutor in Baltimore, whom Mr. Trump has nominated to be deputy attorney general.

“The president called Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein tonight to inform them that he has declined to accept their resignation, and they will remain in their current positions,” said Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman.

It remains possible that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions could put others on that list later.

It is not unusual for a new president to replace United States attorneys appointed by a predecessor, especially when there has been a change in which party controls the White House.

Still, other presidents have done it gradually in order to minimize disruption, giving those asked to resign more time to make the transition while keeping some inherited prosecutors in place, as it had appeared Mr. Trump would do with Mr. Bharara. Mr. Obama, for example, kept Mr. Rosenstein, who had been appointed by George W. Bush.

The abrupt mass firing appeared to be a change in plans for the administration, according to a statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“In January, I met with Vice President Pence and White House Counsel Donald McGahn and asked specifically whether all U.S. attorneys would be fired at once,” she said. “Mr. McGahn told me that the transition would be done in an orderly fashion to preserve continuity. Clearly this is not the case. I’m very concerned about the effect of this sudden and unexpected decision on federal law enforcement.”

Still, the cases the various federal prosecutors were overseeing will continue, with their career deputies becoming acting United States attorneys in their place for the time being.

Mr. Bharara has been among the highest-profile United States attorneys, with a purview that includes Wall Street and public corruption prosecutions, including of both Democratic and Republican officials and other influential figures.

His office, for example, has prosecuted top police officials in New York and the powerful leader of the city correction officers’ union; they have pleaded not guilty. It is preparing to try a major public corruption case involving former aides and associates of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and is looking into allegations of pay-for-play around Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York.

But Mr. Bharara is also closely associated with the Senate minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. Mr. Bharara was formerly a counsel to Mr. Schumer, who pushed Mr. Obama to nominate Mr. Bharara to be the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

At the time of the November meeting at Trump Tower, Mr. Schumer was saying publicly that Democrats should try to find common ground and work with the president-elect. But relations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer have since soured.

Mr. Trump has called Mr. Schumer the Democrats’ “head clown” and accused him of shedding “fake tears” over the president’s efforts to bar refugees from entering the United States.

For his part, Mr. Schumer has called for an independent investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and demanded that Mr. Sessions resign for having testified that he had no contacts with Russians even though he had met with the Russian ambassador.

The White House officials ascribed the reversal over Mr. Bharara as emblematic of a chaotic transition process. One official said it was tied to Mr. Trump’s belief in November that he and Mr. Schumer would be able to work together.

Continue reading the main story

FBI Director Comey Had His Integrity, Then Lost It, Regained It, Now He Lost It Again!

 

I honestly believe it is simply a case of the Director of the FBI whom was appointed by President Obama and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch who owed her job to Bill Clinton first, then to President Obama threatened him (Director Comey) with more than just his job. Director Comey’s two Supervisors that he has to answer to are first the Attorney General and second he has to answer to the sitting President (Mr. Obama) Ms. Lynch who owes the Clinton’s big time whom met illegally on her private plane with former President Clinton on 6-27-16. Then on 7-1-16 she declared that she would fully except the recommendation of the FBI. Then on 7-6-16 she declared the case closed. Basically all of the career FBI Supervisors just below the Director were/are very upset at the Director for ‘playing politics’, they want/wanted Hillary indited. The Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey has been forced to kiss the ring and the asses of his two Superiors, Lynch and President Obama. When the Department of Justice (what a joke the Clinton’s and President Obama have made of that title) and the FBI are made nothing but a political play things, the American people are the losers in every respect. Big business (like the Clinton Foundation) buys the politicians, the people and Our Constitution are defecated upon as they are laughing in our face.

U.S. Government Sanctioned Monthly Racism Is Not A Good Idea

U.S. Government Sanctioned Monthly Racism Is Not A Good Idea

 

For those of you who do not know me, I am a person that despises all forms of racism. I believe that it is a sin against God and man, one that will definitely get the possessor of this dark heart condemned at their Judgement after their death. I do not wish for anyone to be condemned to the fires of Hell and I am very thankful that I am not the one who has to make such a judgement. Scripture tells us that “he who hates his brother without a cause is condemned already”. Scripture is very plain that we are all brothers in God’s eyes and if I hate anyone because of something that they have absolutely no say so in like what color our skin is when we come out of the womb, then we are sinning against God and man. If I, you, or anyone else hates another because of what skin color they happen to be then we are an empty shell, we are dead though we live, we are just fodder for the fires of Hell. “If we say we love God, but hate our own brother then we are a liar”, so says the Apostle Paul.

 

I am old and disabled and no longer able to be out in the work force but I would like you to think about where you work or of places you have worked in your past okay. If you are employed in a factory or office of some kind and the company has a policy where if you are lets say a Hispanic person that you are given the first Monday of each month off with pay what would you think about that? I would bet that most people, if they are Hispanic, would think, hey cool. But, what if you work in that factory and you are not Hispanic and the company had no like policy for all of its other workers, what would you think about their policy then? Should not the company be required by some kind of a law to either not allow the Hispanic employees this recognition or at least to have a like policy for all of the other employees and their nationalities? If not, wouldn’t you feel like the company was being racist for the Hispanic employees, or maybe it should be considered as a racist employer against you because you are not Hispanic? In a case like this wouldn’t you think that the ACLU and other legal entities including the Federal Department of Justice would be suing the company and its top brass?

 

What if the Hispanic employees got all mad at you, making physical and verbal threats toward you because you wanted to have a paid day off each month because you are, let us say, an American Indian, or maybe Oriental, or how about a mutt like me (I’m at least four mixtures of blood)? What if you were being called a racist by a lot of your Hispanic coworkers because you wanted the same rights to the same recognition that they receive? Who do you think is the real racists? When we as a company or as a Nation divide ourselves into race classes all we do is cause hurt feeling and or anger! Since the beginning of the Human Race any military leader knows that one of the best ways to defeat a tribe, city, or nation, is to divide its people. Divide and conquer, certainly you have heard of this strategy since grade school Social Studies classes haven’t you? The reason this strategy has continued to this day on the battle field is because it works!

 

If we as a Nation designate let us say, one particular month as special for just one of the many races within that Nation, then why would it be wrong to not make all twelve months designated as a special month for the different races? Would that be racist against that one race of people who already had a designated “special month’?  Why would that one race of people scream racism at everyone else for them getting a “special month” designated to them each year? Honestly, I can really only think of one legitimate reason, they need to seriously look in a mirror when they are wanting to find someone to call a racist!

 

I really don’t have as big a problem with a “special month each year” being so designated as long as all people’s of your Nation also have such a designation. But honestly, it is probably better if no special attention is paid toward one race of people at all because it does divide and cause more race issue problems then what it could ever help in making things better. But, if our Nation does insist on this dividing policy then at least that one race that gets its own month each year really needs to quit calling other people a racist because they want exactly the same thing for their race. If a Nation is to be strong it needs to be One People, the policy or way of thinking that people should be “equal but separate” not only condemns their own Nation to collapse, they condemn their own Souls to the Fires of Hell along with their racist ideology.