• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara explains why he considered taping a call with Trum

TurtleDude said:
US attorneys, serve at the pleasure of the president. PERIOD
Click to expand...
Except that it's improper to dismiss a US Attorney because he is investigating the president.
 
MTAtech said:
Except that it's improper to dismiss a US Attorney because he is investigating the president.
Click to expand...

Really? what rule says that?
 
Parrish said:
Bharara was fired for one reason; it was because he was ethical and kept to his oath of office and acted ethically.
Click to expand...

Eavesdropping on The President of The United States, with zero probable cause isn't ethical. Hell, it isn't even legal.
 
apdst said:
Link?
Click to expand...

every time an administration loses or the opposition party wins in November, the current appointee could open an investigation on "the president" and use that to stay, according to our Trump hating posters. Think about that. Maybe Trump's AG can claim he can stay if Trump loses in 2020 because he will start an investigation of the winner in December 2020.
 
MTAtech said:
Except that it's improper to dismiss a US Attorney because he is investigating the president.
Click to expand...

No, it's improper for a POTUS to attempt to coerce and attempt to subvert the Justice Dept.
 
MTAtech said:
The rule called "Obstruction of Justice."
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't a clue about this issue. and Guess what, the US attorney rarely has any role in active investigations. I should know, I worked with US attorneys-including Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, and Obama US attorneys-over a dozen of them.
 
TurtleDude said:
every time an administration loses or the opposition party wins in November, the current appointee could open an investigation on "the president" and use that to stay, according to our Trump hating posters. Think about that. Maybe Trump's AG can claim he can stay if Trump loses in 2020 because he will start an investigation of the winner in December 2020.
Click to expand...

That would be ****ing hilarious. The Libbos would lose their ****...lol!
 
apdst said:
That would be ****ing hilarious. The Libbos would lose their ****...lol!
Click to expand...

I love reading drivel from people who haven't a clue and who have not thought things through.
 
Parrish said:
No, it's improper for a POTUS to attempt to coerce and attempt to subvert the Justice Dept.
Click to expand...
18 U.S.C. § 1503
Whoever “influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice”

18 U.S.C. § 1505
Whoever “influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law”

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)
Whoever “obstructs, influences, or impedes” “or attempts to do so”
 
MTAtech said:
18 U.S.C. § 1503
Whoever “influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice”

18 U.S.C. § 1505
Whoever “influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law”

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)
Whoever “obstructs, influences, or impedes” “or attempts to do so”
Click to expand...

Those laws don't circumvent The Constitution.
 
Mycroft said:
No. I don't have it wrong...unless Bharara lied in his tweet.



Actually, Trump asked if Bharara would stay on when he was President-Elect...in November 2016.
Click to expand...

You failed to provide one fact that conflicted with my post. Trump told Bharara that he was staying, then fired him after Bharara refused his call. ....At his personal attorney's suggestion.
 
JMR said:
You failed to provide one fact that conflicted with my post. Trump told Bharara that he was staying, then fired him after Bharara refused his call. ....At his personal attorney's suggestion.
Click to expand...

Your error is in connecting this "call" to anything. Bharara was not fired because of a call. He was fired for refusing to resign when asked. That's what Bharara, himself, told everyone.

So tell me...was he lying? Or is he lying now? You chose.
 
Mycroft said:
Your error is in connecting this "call" to anything. Bharara was not fired because of a call. He was fired for refusing to resign when asked. That's what Bharara, himself, told everyone.

So tell me...was he lying? Or is he lying now? You chose.
Click to expand...

The request for a resignation occurred the DAY AFTER Bharara refused his call. Bharara refused to resign. Bharara was fired. I am sure it is convenient for you to not connect the firing to "anything"

Trump realized he was in deep ****, and reacted like Trump does. It remains to be seen how this will work out for him.
 
JMR said:
The request for a resignation occurred the DAY AFTER Bharara refused his call. Bharara refused to resign. Bharara was fired. I am sure it is convenient for you to not connect the firing to "anything"

Trump realized he was in deep ****, and reacted like Trump does. It remains to be seen how this will work out for him.
Click to expand...

The request for Bharara to resign came at the same time Sessions sent a request for 45 other AG's to resign. But you think Bharara got HIS because he didn't take a call.

Right.
 
PoppyCock said:
That's because two different standards are at play, ponder this...*Tweet by Bill Mitchell*

Imagine for a moment that Mueller was investigating Trump and found a secret unsecured server in his basement that Russians had hacked but then Trump bleach bitted to hide the evidence, over 30,000 "personel" emails. Just imagine
Click to expand...

Russia would not have to hack it, trump would have turned it over to them freely...
 
GDViking said:
Russia would not have to hack it, trump would have turned it over to them freely...
Click to expand...

So you Trump would be let off the hook for the same server scandal? Humor me and say yes.
 
apdst said:
Those laws don't circumvent The Constitution.
Click to expand...
A president who uses powers delegated in the constitution for corrupt purposes is not only subject to impeachment but also committed a crime.

As an example: If person "A" asked the president for a pardon, which the president could grant, in exchange for $100,000, the president could indeed grant the pardon, but would be guilty of bribery. Having a constitutional power does not shield one from the consequences of using that power illegally.
 
As a US Attorney, Bharara was a political appointee from the old Obama regime, and was a dedicated self-promoter who only cared about putting notches on his belt.

When asked to step down as per the custom with a new incoming administration, Bharara instead chose to grandstand and posture as a martyr.

Bharara has no future left, and is trying to rekindle the embers of his dead career.
 
sanman said:
As a US Attorney, Bharara was a political appointee from the old Obama regime, and was a dedicated self-promoter who only cared about putting notches on his belt.

When asked to step down as per the custom with a new incoming administration, Bharara instead chose to grandstand and posture as a martyr.

Bharara has no future left, and is trying to rekindle the embers of his dead career.
Click to expand...


Bharara is on the New York University School of Law faculty as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence.

Sessions btw got to resign instead of being fired which is the same thing.

One suspects Trump hasn't heard or seen the last of either of 'em.
 
PoppyCock said:
So you can read that tweet and believe there is not two standards of justice at play? You know very good and well Mueller would be on it like a pack of pirhanas. And you think the liberals are worked up now?
Click to expand...


Bull****. Repugs gave no iota of a **** when it was discovered the Bush Administration not only used a private server to conduct official business, but it was a server owned by the GOP. Jesus Christ. Sorry, but after that got nothing but crickets, I refuse to accept and feigned Hillary email outrage.
 
MTAtech said:
A president who uses powers delegated in the constitution for corrupt purposes is not only subject to impeachment but also committed a crime.

As an example: If person "A" asked the president for a pardon, which the president could grant, in exchange for $100,000, the president could indeed grant the pardon, but would be guilty of bribery. Having a constitutional power does not shield one from the consequences of using that power illegally.
Click to expand...

I agree. Too bad you weren't saying that when Obama was in office.
 
apdst said:
I agree. Too bad you weren't saying that when Obama was in office.
Click to expand...
It's moot, since Obama never traded pardons for anything of value. He also never had anyone on indicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom