Dims call for investigation into Barr firing AG from SDNY

[OldLady]

Trump wants to put somebody with absolutely no proprietorial experience, to tell the SDNY who they can investigate.

Well, it's only for six months. Joe will put in someone good (maybe give Preet his job back?--they say he was really good).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You can look that up. The pardon was mentioned because republicans investigated something that had no legal justification for investigating.

They investigated pardons for purely political reasons, and now that when people want an investigation for legal reasons, republicans are against investigations.

What are the legal reasons?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For the low IQ crowd, I brought up pardons as an example of something republicans investigated over and over again. The FBI investigated, the republican congress investigated. Investigation after investigation after investigation.

Hell, republicans are investigating when a foreign leader fired an investigator, and that is again a case of a legal act the president had the power to do. And in that case they even said why the guy was fired, yet republicans want to investigate it.

Suddenly Trump fires the US attorney that investigates Trump inc, for the third time, and republicans are sudden against investigating.

Yeah, go fuck yourself.

Your arguments are fucking idiotic.

You basically said that Republicans (which I am not) investigating a pardon IS appropriate because pardons cannot be undone, even though you think you were arguing the other way around.

.

 

[22lcidw]

When the President fires, with no reason, the attorney who investigated and prosecuted his two personal lawyers, it's time to ask questions. There are still cases being investigated that tie to Trump, too, including the Turkish bank investigation and a Trump campaign money laundering investigation.

It doesn't matter anymore, does it? Many Prog criminals have gotten away with a lot. And living the good life. That's what it's all about.

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah, go fuck yourself.

Your arguments are fucking idiotic.



even though you think you were arguing the other way around.

.

Please learn to read.

You basically said that Republicans ... investigating a pardon IS appropriate because pardons cannot be undone,

I said that there is no legal reason (only a political one) to investigate a pardon that has no legal means of reversing it.

 

[Kilroy2]

The firing was mishandled for various reason which raises flag. No reason was provided why he was being fired. It is know that they have gone after Trump. They first suggested that he leave. When he refused they fired him. What did he do that was illegal, against the rules, or a crime that would require him to be removed. Going after Trump is not a crime. Trump did thinks that required to be investigated. Barr see his job as protecting Trump. This is an example of a deep state.

Barr then says that he will hire a replacement who has never been a prosecutor. An associated that he has known for years.

Poor Rudy, I am sure he wanted this job.




https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/politics/berman-barr-trump/index.html

 

[eddiew]

When the President fires, with no reason, the attorney who investigated and prosecuted his two personal lawyers, it's time to ask questions. There are still cases being investigated that tie to Trump, too, including the Turkish bank investigation and a Trump campaign money laundering investigation.

And Guiliani Trumps boy too

 

[ColonelAngus]

The firing was mishandled for various reason which raises flag. No reason was provided why he was being fired. It is know that they have gone after Trump. They first suggested that he leave. When he refused they fired him. What did he do that was illegal, against the rules, or a crime that would require him to be removed. Going after Trump is not a crime. Trump did thinks that required to be investigated. Barr see his job as protecting Trump. This is an example of a deep state.

Barr then says that he will hire a replacement who has never been a prosecutor. An associated that he has known for years.

Poor Rudy, I am sure he wanted this job.




Why it will be a tough climb to confirm anyone new to Berman's post before the November elections

Why is a reason needed to fire?

Can you post the law Barr broke?

 

[eddiew]

Once more, can you even tell us who fired Berman?

Simply say that you don't even know who fired him will suffice. There is a conflict over who, so there certainly is a conflict over why. Hence the need to find out.

And they even offered him a very high ranking job ...which he refused

 

[miketx]

So Barr was bribed to fire this AG?

I am not connecting your dots.

Like most tards he's a few dots short of the puzzle.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why does Barr need to explain to liberals on this board why the AG was fired?

 

[OldLady]

It doesn't matter anymore, does it? Many Prog criminals have gotten away with a lot. And living the good life. That's what it's all about.

Got away with the fictional crimes you folks stewed up in your fevered brains, you mean.

 

[meaner gene]

Why is a reason needed to fire?

To insure that it wasn't done for an illegal reason.

Barr could try to turn the DOJ into a "mens club" by firing every female for no reason. Would you be O.K. with that?

 

[OldLady]

Why does Barr need to explain to liberals on this board why the AG was fired?

Stop playing dumb, Colonel. You know how bad this one smells. Yes yes yes the President can do what he wants when he wants because he is special. He's turned the office into a two-bit scheister confab. Disgusting.

 

[ColonelAngus]

To insure that it wasn't done for an illegal reason.

Barr could try to turn the DOJ into a "mens club" by firing every female for no reason. Would you be O.K. with that?

Huh? Illegal reason?

Can you cite the statute that Barr May have broken?

 

[meaner gene]

Barr could try to turn the DOJ into a "mens club" by firing every female for no reason. Would you be O.K. with that?

Huh? Illegal reason?

Can you cite the statute that Barr May have broken?

Bribery, by giving a benefit, such as not going to jail, to a third party.

 

[OldLady]

Huh? Illegal reason?

Can you cite the statute that Barr May have broken?

Illegal reason: Obstruction of justice.

 

[Nostra]

The firing was mishandled for various reason which raises flag. No reason was provided why he was being fired. It is know that they have gone after Trump. They first suggested that he leave. When he refused they fired him. What did he do that was illegal, against the rules, or a crime that would require him to be removed. Going after Trump is not a crime. Trump did thinks that required to be investigated. Barr see his job as protecting Trump. This is an example of a deep state.

Barr then says that he will hire a replacement who has never been a prosecutor. An associated that he has known for years.

Poor Rudy, I am sure he wanted this job.




Why it will be a tough climb to confirm anyone new to Berman's post before the November elections

No reason was provided why he was being fired.

American Lookout Headlines

Looking Out For America • headlines.americanlookout.com

americanlookout.com

Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys

<p><strong>Blog:</strong> President Barack Obama plans to replace a "batch" of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to At</p>

www.politico.com

 

[Kilroy2]

Why is a reason needed to fire?

Can you post the law Barr broke?

Why because ethics requires one. If you profess to be a nation of law and justice. If the president says he is a law and order guy. There has to be a reason why someone is fired. They asked him to resigned. He refused. They fired him.

Hiding under the umbrella of at will employees is not what one would expect of the president and the head of the justice department. Barr and Trump hiding under the concept of we don have to provided a reason. This just means that the reason they want to do it can't be divulged and they have no other reason that would stick. So why not provide a reason, is it that difficult. Well for them it is because they can't get there stories straight.

Barr clearly says that Trump approved of wanted him Fired. Yet Trump denies he has nothing to do with it.

Then Barr hires someone that he is associated with who has no experience running a judicial department dealing with prosecution of crimes.

This seems like something a deep state would do.

It is obvious that he was fired because the department was looking into Trumps business..

The appearance of conflict of interest is so obvious that they do not even bother trying to hide. it.

Because he can is not a reason if you have ethics. Its clear Trump has no ethics. Its clear the top judicial guy has no ethics.

That is why there is no law need as people expect the top officials to have ethics. Obvious with the perps involved it useless to expect ethics from them.

another reason for boots on the ground, cause boots are made for kicking and it is time to do some kicking. Repubs say demos hate Trump.. Obvious you do not need a reason to relieve someone of their job. But don't be fooled there are plenty of reasons.

What is the legal definition of retaliation?

Punishment of an employee by an employer for engaging in legally protected activity such as making a complaint of harassment or participating in workplace investigations. Retaliation can include any negative job action, such as demotion, discipline, firing, salary reduction, or job or shift reassignment.

 

[Nostra]

Why is a reason needed to fire?

Can you post the law Barr broke?

Why because ethics requires one. If you profess to be a nation of law and justice. If the president says he is a law and order guy. There has to be a reason why someone is fired. They asked him to resigned. He refused. They fired him.

Hiding under the umbrella of at will employees is not what one would expect of the president and the head of the justice department. Barr and Trump hiding under the concept of we don have to provided a reason. This just means that the reason they want to do it can't be divulged and they have no other reason that would stick. So why not provide a reason, is it that difficult. Well for them it is because they can't get there stories straight.

Barr clearly says that Trump approved of wanted him Fired. Yet Trump denies he has nothing to do with it.

Then Barr hires someone that he is associated with who has no experience running a judicial department dealing with prosecution of crimes.

This seems like something a deep state would do.

It is obvious that he was fired because the department was looking into Trumps business..

The appearance of conflict of interest is so obvious that they do not even bother trying to hide. it.

Because he can is not a reason if you have ethics. Its clear Trump has no ethics. Its clear the top judicial guy has no ethics.

That is why there is no law need as people expect the top officials to have ethics. Obvious with the perps involved it useless to expect ethics from them.

another reason for boots on the ground, cause boots are made for kicking and it is time to do some kicking. Repubs say demos hate Trump.. Obvious you do not need a reason to relieve someone of their job. But don't be fooled there are plenty of reasons.

What is the legal definition of retaliation?

Punishment of an employee by an employer for engaging in legally protected activity such as making a complaint of harassment or participating in workplace investigations. Retaliation can include any negative job action, such as demotion, discipline, firing, salary reduction, or job or shift reassignment.

Were you butthurt when Clinton fired 93 of them?

How about when Barry fires all of them appointed by Bush?