US Attorney Preeet Bharara refused to resign, has been fired

[desura]

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

Trump admin asked 46 to turn in their resignations. Bharara, who apparently is a star prosecutor, refused. He has now been fired.

I'm not sure what to make of this. It looks like firing US Attorneys is common operating procedure in a new admin. But of course, Trump has zero experience.

 

[BoomerD]

It is common practice...but they're USUALLY left in place while replacements are found.

Donnie just wants to have everyone toeing the party line...it doesn't matter if a temporary lack of people in the jobs inconveniences the little people.

 

[Bitek]

Meh, too many other outrages to get worked up about. At the end of the day they serve the admin, so it is what it is.

 

[Balt]

Sort of par for the course, it's what usually happens (requesting the resignation of these attorneys).

It is a reminder of how much power a president wields, though. While I'm not a lawyer, I believe these prosecutors and the AUSAs have a lot of discretion when it comes to the cases they want to take up. Not just their own discretion, but also the priorities of the administration.

In this admin, I think there are reasons to be concerned about what and whom the administration will choose to prosecute.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea, this is par for the course sorta. Bigger burning piles of shit to attend to like the shitshow that is the ACA replacement, the muslim ban, the slaughter of the epa, destruction of the dept of ed, the braintrust running the dept of energy. Meh on this.

 

[alien42]

It is common practice...but they're USUALLY left in place while replacements are found.

Donnie just wants to have everyone toeing the party line...it doesn't matter if a temporary lack of people in the jobs inconveniences the little people.

sorry, but this isn't part of "common practice"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spLl_KVk0Gw

 

[Moonbeam]

sorry, but this isn't part of "common practice"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spLl_KVk0Gw

I liked his post. Seems you don't. I don't understand why.

 

[PottedMeat]

is this part of his strategy to 'shrink government' and save money? kick out everyone from the old admin, don't bother to appoint new personnel to get work done, workers quit out of frustration/lack of leadership

this is a little different, trump asks him to stay then later probably someone from wall street asks for a favor to get him personally shitcanned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preet_Bharara

Financial fraud
Insider trading
Bharara was also featured on a cover of Time magazine entitled "This Man is Busting Wall Street" for his office's prosecutions of insider trading and other financial fraud on Wall Street.[25] From 2009 to 2012 (and ongoing), Bharara's office oversaw the Galleon Group insider trading investigation against Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta, Anil Kumar and 60+ others. Rajaratnam was convicted at trial on 14 counts related to insider trading.[26] Bharara is said to have "reaffirmed his office’s leading role in pursuing corporate crime with this landmark insider trading case, which relied on aggressive prosecutorial methods and unprecedented tactics."[27] Bharara has often spoken publicly [28] and written an op-ed about the culture surrounding corporate crime and its effect on market confidence and business risk.[29]


After 85 straight convictions for insider trading cases, on July 17, 2014 he finally lost one, when a jury acquitted Rajaratnam's younger brother, Rengan, of such charges.[7]


On October 22, 2015, Bharara dropped seven insider trading cases two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to a review a lower court decision that would make it harder to pursue wrongful trading cases. The conviction of Michael S. Steinberg was dropped; Steinberg was the highest-ranking officer of SAC Capital Advisors who had previously been convicted of insider trading.[30]


In 2013, Bharara announced criminal and civil charges against one of the largest and most successful hedge-fund firms in the United States, SAC Capital Advisors LP, and its founder Steven A. Cohen.[11][31] At USD$1.8 billion, it was the largest settlement ever for insider trading and the firm also agreed to close down.[12][32]


Citibank
Citibank was charged numerous times by Bharara's office and other federal prosecutors. In 2012 the bank reached a settlement with Bharara's office to pay $158 million for misleading the government into insuring risky loans.[8] Bharara also made a criminal inquiry into Citbank's Mexican Unit.[33] In 2014 Citi settled with federal prosecutors for $7 billion, for ignoring warnings on risky loans.[34]


Madoff Ponzi scheme and JPMorgan Chase
Almost as soon as he took office, Bharara began investigating the role of Bernie Madoff's primary banker, JPMorgan Chase, in the fraud.[35] Eventually Bharara and JPMorgan had reached a deferred prosecution agreement that called for JPMorgan to forfeit $1.7 billion, the largest forfeiture ever demanded from a bank in American history—to settle charges that it and its predecessors violated the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to alert authorities about Madoff's actions.[10][36][37][38]


His office also handled the criminal prosecutions of several employees at Madoff’s firm and their associates, who were convicted by a jury on March 24, 2014.[39]


Bank of America suit
In 2012, Mr. Bharara along with Federal prosecutors in Manhattan sued Bank of America for $1 billion, accusing the bank of carrying out a mortgage scheme that defrauded the government during the depths of the financial crisis.[9]


In 2013, the jury found Bank of America liable for selling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thousands of defective loans in the first mortgage-fraud case brought by the U.S. government to go to trial.[40] The civil verdict also found the bank’s Countrywide Financial unit and former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable.[41] However, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled on May 23, 2016 that the finding of fact by the jury that low quality mortgages were supplied by Countrywide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac supported only "intentional breach of contract," not fraud. The action, for civil fraud, relied on provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The decision turned on lack of intent to defraud at the time the contract to supply mortgages was made.[42]

 

[Indus]

I loved that this guy put NY corrupt politicians and white collar crooks behind bars.

Wall Street Inside Traders and corrupt politicians are likely secretly rejoicing.

 

[Jhhnn]

I loved that this guy put NY corrupt politicians and white collar crooks behind bars.

Wall Street Inside Traders and corrupt politicians are likely secretly rejoicing.

It's a good thing that Trump is here to save us from crooked Hillary & her Wall St cronies, huh?

 

[desura]

It's a good thing that Trump is here to save us from crooked Hillary & her Wall St cronies, huh?

I'm pretty amazed that Hillary never used her supposed attention to detail and experience to slap Donald around and expose how little he knows.

Instead, what did we get from Hillary? Baiting on the "I take offense because I am x group."

Didn't work.

 

[Balt]

I'm pretty amazed that Hillary never used her supposed attention to detail and experience to slap Donald around and expose how little he knows.

Instead, what did we get from Hillary? Baiting on the "I take offense because I am x group."

Didn't work.

She had at least one good zinger during one of the debates. Trump criticized her for taking some time off the campaign trail to prepare for the debates. She replied something like "Yes I prepared for this debate, just like I'll prepare to be president."

I guess it didn't really seem to matter in the grand scheme of things. I don't think Hillary's knowledge or qualifications to be president were really what cost her votes. In fact, they might have worked against her (in the eyes of the voting public).

 

[desura]

She had at least one good zinger during one of the debates. Trump criticized her for taking some time off the campaign trail to prepare for the debates. She replied something like "Yes I prepared for this debate, just like I'll prepare to be president."

I guess it didn't really seem to matter in the grand scheme of things. I don't think Hillary's knowledge or qualifications to be president were really what cost her votes. In fact, they might have worked against her (in the eyes of the voting public).

Trump's agenda is one thing. His incompetence is a non-partisan issue. She ran actually on competing agendas, probably thanks to Bernie Sanders in the primary. She should have cornered him on his incompetence.

 

[trenchfoot]

Bottom line for Bharara's firing? He knew too much, he was impartial and he was very good at what he does. As such, Trump couldn't control him or his reputation for going after the big fish, especially those fish that swam in the same tank that Trump did, so out he goes.

The minute Bharara was considered a potential threat, rather than a guy that was supposed to add legitimacy and credibility to Trump's image well, out on his ass he went.

edit - Bharara's firing now gives him the ability to say a whole lot more about what he knows about Trump and his business associations, so Trump firing him can turn out to be another spectacular backfire for Trump.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump's agenda is one thing. His incompetence is a non-partisan issue. She ran actually on competing agendas, probably thanks to Bernie Sanders in the primary. She should have cornered him on his incompetence.

What part of "unfit to be president" did you fail to understand? Apparently the same part Trump voters failed to understand.

This election wasn't about making sense. It was about tearing down Hillary & a wave of misguided resentment & spite putting Donald Trump in the presidency.

 

[desura]

What part of "unfit to be president" did you fail to understand? Apparently the same part Trump voters failed to understand.

This election wasn't about making sense. It was about tearing down Hillary & a wave of misguided resentment & spite putting Donald Trump in the presidency.

I understood it quite well, which is why I didn't vote for Trump.

But other people didn't. She and her team made the fundamental mistake in messaging here. They screwed up and lost the presidency because of misplaced priorities.

 

[Jhhnn]

I understood it quite well, which is why I didn't vote for Trump.

But other people didn't. She and her team made the fundamental mistake in messaging here. They screwed up and lost the presidency because of misplaced priorities.

They got buried alive under a mountain of bullshit from Trump, the Russians & the right wing propaganda machine. They induced just enough temporary mass delusion for Trump to win.

 

[Double Trouble]

According to ny post, bharara pretty much dared Trump to fire him. Wish granted i guess.

 

[alien42]

According to ny post, bharara pretty much dared Trump to fire him. Wish granted i guess.

he publicly refused to resign after Sessions asked all the Obama hires to do so, as the thread title says. do you not consider that daring Trump to fire him?

 

[compuwiz1]

I read somewhere, where the administration had tried to contact him for 2 days and he didn't respond. Two sides to every story, of course. These people work at the pleasure of the president and he has no obligation to retain carryovers from the previous administration. I'm not convinced that Obama doesn't have some embedded moles who are still working in the administration, not necessarily in favor of Trump's agenda, but who may be still trying to act according to Obama's agenda. Many more are about to be shown the door, as they should be.

 

[K1052]

I read somewhere, where the administration had tried to contact him for 2 days and he didn't respond. Two sides to every story, of course. These people work at the pleasure of the president and he has no obligation to retain carryovers from the previous administration. I'm not convinced that Obama doesn't have some embedded moles who are still working in the administration, not necessarily in favor of Trump's agenda, but who may be still trying to act according to Obama's agenda. Many more are about to be shown the door, as they should be.

Bharara didn't respond because he was concerned that it wold be improper and the DOJ agreed with him.

On Thursday, a White House aide called and left a message for Bharara, saying the president wanted to speak with him, though the prospective topic of discussion was unclear. Bharara consulted his staff and determined that it would probably be a violation of Justice Department protocols for him to speak directly to the president, this person said. That protocol exists in order to prevent political interference — or the appearance of political interference — with Justice Department work.

Bharara then contacted the chief of staff for the attorney general, Jody Hunt, told him of his own determination, and the two agreed that it would be a violation of the Justice Department protocol for Bharara to call the president back. Bharara then called the White House staffer who had left the message and said he wouldn’t be talking to the president, and explained why, this person said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.affb08f84c4e

While the firing of holdovers isn't unusual this seems to have been executed with the administration's usual level of competence. Sessions had just given them a "rah rah" speech about going after the bad guys, presumably something you wouldn't bother doing if you're going to fire everybody anyway. Also replacements were typically done in a measured way by previous administrations who actually have people in line and timed avoid needing a senate confirmations IIRC.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Cuomo and Albany should be celebrating about this time.

 

[allisolm]

These people work at the pleasure of the president and he has no obligation to retain carryovers from the previous administration. Many more are about to be shown the door, as they should be.

I agree the President has no obligation to retain them and that previous Presidents have replaced many. That is nothing new. What I see as different here is that, in the news articles I read, Trump met with him after the election to tell Bharara that Trump specifically wanted him to stay on, even going so far as to tell Bharara to go outside afterwards and tell the press that Trump has asked me to stay. And then, whoopsie, you're gone. I know I'd want it made official that the guy who just told me to stay is now firing me. Seems like more piss poor prior planning from the WH.

 

[Brainonska511]

I agree the President has no obligation to retain them and that previous Presidents have replaced many. That is nothing new. What I see as different here is that, in the news articles I read, Trump met with him after the election to tell Bharara that Trump specifically wanted him to stay on, even going so far as to tell Bharara to go outside afterwards and tell the press that Trump has asked me to stay. And then, whoopsie, you're gone. I know I'd want it made official that the guy who just told me to stay is now firing me. Seems like more piss poor prior planning from the WH.

It's interesting that this happened with 24 hours of Hannity saying Trump should clean house of all Obama appointees in the justice department. Who's really president and who are the real advisers? It's like Trump gets his ideas from TV.

 

[Mai72]

CNN is saying Preet is not a man you want to mess with. I can't wait until he starts messing with Trump.