CNN Analyst Calls For Barr’s Impeachment

This-is-cnn-CNN’s legal analyst Asha Rangappa is calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Bill Barr.  Rangappa claims that Barr “tried to bamboozle the country” in the recent controversy over the replacement of Geoffrey Berman, who until Saturday had been the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. She further states that there is no ability for the Inspector General to investigate any improper conduct despite evidence that “Barr was attempting to obstruct justice by removing [Berman].  There is no such evidence and the call for impeachment shows a continuing misconstruction of the history and standard for impeachment.

I have previously challenged analysis on CNN the claims of established crimes or impeachable offenses in the Trump Administration. Much of that analysis has proven incorrect, including the breathless accounts of Russian collusion with the campaign. This does not reflect any agreement with the underlying acts, which I have also condemned by the detachment of analysis from any controlling legal authority.  What also concerns me is how the expansive views of criminal or impeachable conduct is often coupled with highly technical and narrow views of such allegations against Trump critics like Rangappa’s defense of James Comey.

The suggestion of that Barr should be impeached is framed as the only possible option since “The special counsel regulations don’t contemplate investigating a potentially corrupt AG—because a corrupt AG would never invoke the regulations to investigate himself.”  The fact is that Barr’s actions can be investigated by the Inspector General or Congress. Indeed, I have supported Congress in demanding answers to any lingering questions.

The only compelling basis for the impeachment of a cabinet member would be credible evidence of a crime like obstruction.  Rangappa does not bother to cite any such clear evidence.  Indeed, reporting from respected journalists like Pete Williams at NBC have cited multiple sources for saying that this move had nothing to do with the Trump-related investigations.  Indeed, as I wrote earlier, it did not make much sense since there have been no reports of interference since Barr took office.  These investigations have continued unimpeded.  Barr himself told the SDNY staff to report any such interference to the Inspector General and repeated his position that the underlying investigations be allowed to proceed without interference.

Beside those reports and the lack of evidence, Rangappa still believes that Barr should be impeached.

Barr actually addressed this issue in a prior hearing in an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.):

Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. A United States Attorney. Would you allow the President to fire a United States Attorney and thereby stop an investigation?

General Barr. I would not stand by and allow a U.S. Attorney to be fired for the purpose of stopping an investigation, but the President can fire a U.S. Attorney. They are a presidential appointment.

The point is obvious and correct.  The President has the constitutional prerogative to pick high-ranking officials.  No attorney general would contest that right.  Rather, Barr was pledging to refuse any such change if it sought stop an investigation.  In the Berman matter, Barr reaffirmed that same principle.

Once again, what is the legal basis for an impeachment?  Unless impeachment is little more than raw politics, there is usually a modicum of evidence before you commence an impeachment, particularly when news reports contradict the claim of an effort to obstruct justice.
So here is a suggestion, which might seem a tad naive or old-fashioned.  Why not allow Congress to investigate and for additional evidence to come forward like an actual move to obstruct or hinder investigations for political purposes? It is certainly not a popular approach but it a legal one.

90 thoughts on “CNN Analyst Calls For Barr’s Impeachment”

  1. Off course it was attempted coup .The FISA documents were totally bogus,Hillary destroyed evidence etc. A choice between a senile Biden and a half mad Trump worst chic es since Hitler squared off against Stalin. BLM are Marxist thugs and fully supported by the democrat party.Barr is Diogenes compared to his predecessors.

  2. Prof Turley, you noted that Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut is a republican. That is incorrect. He is a Democrat and the senior senator from my state.
    Great write up.

  3. Once again, what is the legal basis for an impeachment?

    Ha Ha. That’s a good one. That ship officially sailed January 20, 2017. Feelings are the basis and Lawfare is the weapon. Well that and OFA. It would be of no surprise if the late Charles Krauthammer didn’t accurately identify who is behind it all.

    The Enemy Amongst US!!

    Oct 11, 2017 – An article from the New York Post:

    I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).

    OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

    If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America !

    Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

    OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America , and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

    OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change… Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

    OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished. Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.” OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

    Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.” Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.

    The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his ‘wife’ will oversee the operation from their home/office in Washington DC.

    Think about how this works. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests.

    If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

    If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

    So, do your part. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a “PERFECT TARGET” for our enemy!

    Editor’s comments: Krauthammer is about the best and brightest journalist and political analyst we have, in my opinion. His words of warning in the above message should be taken seriously and spread throughout the country so as many of our citizens as possible are made aware of what is happening right under our noses!

        1. If you want to discuss a piece by Bill Wilson, writing “from a biblical and prophetic perspective” and proclaiming a “shadow government,” go for it. I’m not going to waste my time.

          1. Of course. Now that we’ve dispensed with the commitment to an honest discussion nonsense, there’s nothing left for you to say.

            1. What a bizarre interpretation you have of committing to honest discussion. “honest” = “free of deceit and untruthfulness”

              Having a commitment to honest discussion doesn’t imply that I’m going to discuss any and all topics. It means that I work not to make any false claims or invoke fallacies and that if I become aware that I’ve said something false, I correct it. It was my concern about honesty that led me to point out the plagiarism in your comment. Plagiarism involves deceit.

              1. Plagiarism:the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.

                Did I attempt to pass it off as my own? Nope. Did I acknowledge the correction? Yup. Are you a lying SOS? Well duh.

                1. My mistake. You didn’t plagiarize. The article you quoted in your comment involved plagiarism. This is an example of “if I become aware that I’ve said something false, I correct it.”

                  Learn the difference between lies and mistakes.

  4. Attorney General William Barr agreed with an assertion from Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” that the Trump-Russia investigation “was the closest the United States ever came to a coup to take down a president since the assassination of Lincoln.”

    “A source said to me a couple of years ago, speaking of the Russia collusion story, that this was the closest the United States ever came to a coup to take down a president since the assassination of Lincoln. Is that an appropriate statement?” Bartiromo asked Barr.

    “In this sense, I think it is the closest we have come to an organized effort to push a president out of office,” Barr agreed. “I’m not reaching a judgment to what the motivations there were.”

    realclearpolitics

    1. Let him say it under oath. It’s not illegal for him to lie on TV, and it wouldn’t be the first time he’s done it. For example, he lied on June 7 when he said “No, there were not chemical irritants [used against the protesters in Lafayette Square on June 1]. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.”

      1. Pepper spray is from…..a chili pepper, e.g. capsaicin

        It is aerosolized however and that entails oil, carbon dioxide and physical properties, just like trolling the internet on a computer entails currents (I = VR), room temperature (25 degrees Celsius) and Atmospheric Pressure (1 ATM / 760 mm Hg). If you’re a DNC troll those values would be 0 Amperes (no neurological current in the brain) 0 degrees C (freezer brain) and vacuous Pressure ~ airhead

        Hope that helps

        1. No, insults don’t help. Odd that you think they would.
          Hope you understand enough science to agree that Barr lied.

  5. YES, BARR ‘SHOULD’ BE IMPEACHED

    To understand the uproar over the termination in legal circles, some context helps. S.D.N.Y. is famously and proudly independent. It embraces its nickname, the “Sovereign District of New York,” as a badge of honor. Sovereign, in the understanding of those who have served there, does not mean rogue. It signifies respect for law and scorn for political considerations. Republicans and Democrats are equally in the cross hairs.

    It is this independence, and the public’s faith therein, that Attorney General Bill Barr, in cahoots with President Trump, threatened with his dubious, if legal, removal of Mr. Berman.

    What prompted the termination? We don’t know and neither Mr. Barr nor President Trump has publicly said. Mr. Berman is a registered Republican, donated to the Trump campaign and was personally interviewed by the president. There has been no suggestion of impropriety or incompetence.

    Against that backdrop, the only sin ascribable to S.D.N.Y. under Mr. Berman’s leadership, it seems, is violation of the commandment to protect the president’s friends and pursue his rivals. The president was unhappy with how the case against his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, was handled. The president was displeased that his handpicked U.S. attorney, Mr. Berman, removed himself from the case, unable to protect Mr. Trump from being incriminated in open court.

    Then there is the reported continuing investigation of the president’s other personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, a former law partner of Mr. Berman. Perhaps that was a bridge too far.

    Maybe it had something to do with Turkey. According to John Bolton’s new book, in connection with a case involving the Turkish bank Halkbank in S.D.N.Y. that the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, didn’t like, Mr. Trump told the Turkish leader that the “Southern District prosecutors were not his people.”

    I don’t know if any of these matters, individually or in combination, provoked the firing. It may be impossible to know.

    But given the president’s track record, the absence of any other articulated reason and the peculiarity of the weekend termination, neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Barr deserves much benefit of the doubt. Nothing about the weekend termination was regular or in good faith. It smacks of an effort to get rid of someone perceived to be disloyal in favor of someone more controllable. It may be legal, but it does not clothe the attorney general, or the department he leads, in honor.

    Edited From: “Bill Barr Should Have Lost His Job This Weekend” by Preet Bharara

    The New York Times, 6/21/20

  6. One hack defends another hack. Looking forward to Barr’s disbarment once a Biden inauguration happens.

  7. BARR HELPS TRUMP DISABLE THE GUARD RAILS

    On Friday night, Attorney General William P. Barr abruptly announced the resignation of Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who had been overseeing investigations of Trump’s inner circle. No reason was given other than a desire to replace Berman with Jay Clayton, a golf buddy of Trump’s who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission but has no prosecutorial experience. Berman refused to go quietly into the night, protesting that he was being fired and refusing to step down, relenting only after Barr said he would be replaced by Berman’s own deputy.

    Barr insisted that if the administration attempted to interfere with ongoing cases, prosecutors could lodge their complaints with the Justice Department inspector general. Oh really? This merely served as a reminder that Trump has been busy purging inspectors general from across the government — usually on Friday nights.

    We don’t know why Barr ousted Berman, but it is impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt given how he eager he has been to serve as Trump’s henchman. Barr distorted the findings of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation; overruled line prosecutors to recommend a more lenient sentence for Trump crony Roger Stone; tried to dismiss the charges to which Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn had already pleaded guilty; and has appointed investigators to investigate the investigators who probed the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. A retired federal judge concluded that the attempted dismissal of charges against Flynn was “clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse,” and more than 1,900 Justice Department alumni have called for Barr to resign.

    But, of course, Barr isn’t going anywhere. It’s Trump appointees who show a scintilla of independence who are leaving the government.

    Michael Pack, a colleague of far-right ideologue Stephen K. Bannon and the new chief executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, just fired the widely respected heads of four agencies that produce news and information for global audiences. Two of those dismissed — Jamie Fly, who headed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Alberto M. Fernandez, who headed Middle East Broadcasting Networks — are staunch conservatives; Fly was the former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). But it doesn’t matter, any more than it matters that Berman, the fired federal prosecutor in New York, was a Trump donor in 2016. Being a normal conservative — rather than a tin-hat-wearing MAGA conspiracy monger — is apparently a firing offense in this administration.

    And where is the third branch of government while this assault on democratic norms is accelerating? Congressional Republicans refused to hold Trump to account during the impeachment. Now they either wring their hands helplessly or pretend not to notice what is going on. Discouraged House Democrats are not even going to impeach Barr — a fate that he richly deserves — because the complicit Senate Republicans would never convict.

    Bolton notes in his memoir that the failed impeachment has only emboldened Trump and that the last remaining “guardrail” is the November election. He warns that a second-term Trump could be “far less constrained by politics than he was in his first term.” That is a terrifying thought given how little restraint Trump is now displaying in his assault on the rule of law and the norms of democratic governance.

    Edited from: “The Unraveling Of The Rule Of Law Under Trump Is Picking Up Speed”

    Today’s Washington Post

  8. Jed Shugerman (@jedshug, Fordham University law prof), responding to a tweet of Turley’s about this article:
    [start quote]
    Here is a clear signal that:
    1) Trump fired US Atty Berman in bad faith
    2) @jonathanturley will turley.

    Clayton’s term expires in 2021, according to SEC website. He doesn’t need a new job. And US Attys resign at the end of an administration(likely 2021).
    Furthermore, SEC commissioners serve 5 year terms. Clayton was appointed 2017. Even if his term as chair ends in 2021, it appears his term as commissioner goes to 2022. And they can continue 18 more months. Unless I’m missing something, Clayton would be giving up a year or more.

    3/ THREAD:
    Let me explain why I think Barr fired Berman on Friday.
    Think about how many cases Mueller had spun out to SDNY. E.g., Trump Inauguration.
    Now think about the DOJ norm against indictments right before an election.
    The last window for indictments is June-July.

    4/ I’ll detail some of these investigations below. But here’s my theory:
    Someone in SDNY was pushing for an indictment in a major Trump-related case now, knowing that the pre-election window likely closes after July.
    By correct protocol, Berman informed Barr & Main Justice…

    5/ That wouldn’t be Berman’s fault. He needed to go by the book (to inform Main Justice of any major indictment).
    Barr flew up to NYC to meet Berman on Friday. I am speculating that Barr told him no. That meeting went badly.
    Friday night, Barr panicked & botched the removal.

    6/ Getting rid of Berman doesn’t let Trump/Barr replace him with their own crony.
    We know they didn’t want the job to go to non-crony Audrey Strauss, but the plan was so legally erroneous and politically stupid, it backfired.
    This was clearly not a well-thought out plan.
    Panic.

    7/ Keep in mind that Trump tried to fire Mueller, but his staff (McGahn) ignored him b/c they understood the backlash.
    Barr is crazier/more confrontational than McGahn, but he still understands backlash.
    So what kinds of cases would get Barr/Trump to panic and pull this trigger?

    8/ “SDNY is looking into the president’s inaugural committee, @WSJ reported.”
    “Barrack, Gates, etc raked in more than $106M, doubling the previous record (set by Obama in 2009).”
    Implicated: Ivanka, Melania, Adelson, Wynn, Mercer, Saudi, UAE, Qatar: [article embedded]

    9/ I think it’s less likely that Berman & SDNY were planning a move on Trump’s taxes, but it is plausible that Barr was pushing some damage control in anticipation of SCOTUS ruling against Trump on taxes, and trying to make sure Berman was cooperative.
    Berman may have resisted…

    10/ I just saw this story per @WSJ, and it is just slightly less ridiculous than the Clayton explanation. [article embedded]
    Barr didn’t fire a US Attorney over a silly non-prosecution-related letter. Berman might (partly) confirm this account as cover. But it’s absurd.

    11/ Remember the Mueller case against the “unnamed state-owned foreign company” they took all the way to the Supreme Court top-secret in 2019?
    Russian? Saudi? UAE? Qatari?
    Whatever became of that case?
    Does SDNY have it?

    12/ And of course, Ukraine quid-pro-quo (Giuliani conspired in NYC, so SDNY jurisdiction.
    In the real world, Bolton didn’t move the needle, but perhaps Bolton’s book spooked Barr/Trump to seek more control over SDNY?
    (I discuss the criminal case here:)
    [end quote]

    To see the thread and embedded articles (and I didn’t note all of the embedded articles above, sorry):
    https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1275040197806379008

    Someone responded with “This is good but we need a precise definition of ‘to turley,'” and Shugerman responded “‘To shred credibility for obviously non-credible propaganda in service of clicks, but oddly not to hold or gain any office or personal power.’…”

  9. Is the conquest of Seattle by terrorist invaders the equivalent of the bombardment of Fort Sumter?

    An illegitimate foreign invasion force has gained control of U.S. territory by force.

    Shall President Trump suspend Habeas Corpus a la Lincoln and respond to insurrection and rebellion with military force?

  10. Turley: you have to stop saying that allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia were “proven incorrect”. That is a lie. Trump refused to hand over documents. He refused to sit for a deposition. He obstructed justice in at least 10 instances. Without full investigation, Mueller was hamstrung in what he could prove, but as he made clear, the fat one was not exonerated. He would be “proven” innocent if he fully cooperated, instead of claiming everything is privileged or just flat out refusing to cooperate and preventing witnesses from testifying.

    You have to be dumb as a rock not to see what’s going on here. Trump’s on his way out–even Fox News polls show this to be true. As his last gasp opportunity to prevent proof of his crimes from being made public, and/or to stop disclosures of financial information that would prove he’s not the uber-wealthy person he claims to be, he jettisons the NY US Attorney. Months ago I wondered how long it would take Trump to get the fat bully Billy Barr to fire the NYSD US attorney.

    1. Natacha – we are still waiting for those SAT, LSAT, and BMI scores. BTW, would you stop Gish Galloping? I know they don’t let you do this in a legal practice.

  11. Manu Raju (@mkraju, CNN):
    “McEnany says Trump sought to name Jay Clayton, head of SEC who has not been a prosecutor, to head the US attorney’s office at SDNY ‘because Mr. Clayton wanted to go back to New York City, we wanted to keep him in government, and therefore he was given the position at SDNY.’”
    Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck, UT Austin law prof):
    “1) Never mind whether he’s *qualified* to run one of the most important U.S. Attorneys’ offices in the country. 2) They can’t “give” him the job. There’s this pesky little thing called … confirmation by the Senate.”

    Vladeck, earlier:
    “1. The new defense of Barr’s conduct over the weekend is that he was just trying ‘to find a job for [Jay] Clayton.’ There are at least three problems with this effort to whitewash what Barr did and said—all of which suggest that he was, indeed, acting in bad faith.
    “2. First, the Clayton story makes no sense because the Senate still uses blue slips for U.S. Attorneys. There is a 0.0% chance that both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Gillibrand would’ve signed off on confirming someone to that job with zero prosecutorial experience—and Barr knows that.
    “3. Second, Barr’s Friday night statement—in his own words—is affirmatively misleading. Leaving aside Carpenito (more on him in a moment), the statement claimed that Berman was “stepping down,” even though Barr (1) knew he wasn’t; and (2) lacked the power to fire him directly. Then there’s Saturday’s letter—which (1) says nothing about Carpenito (Friday’s statement said Trump *appointed* him, not that he intended to); (2) claims Trump removed Berman (which the President denied); & (3) holds out the IG (who Barr has constantly undermined) as a check.
    “4. I don’t know *why* Barr did this. But the Attorney General ought to turn square corners when taking these kinds of actions. Given the above considerations, I don’t see how one can look at Friday’s statement and Saturday’s letter and conclude that Barr acted above board.
    “P.S. It’s also worth stressing that, even if this *was* all about getting Clayton a new job, there was no need to remove Berman until/unless Clayton was confirmed by the Senate—which would have automatically ousted Berman under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). That’s a rather big plot hole.”
    https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1275023314226950144

  12. Berman did foil Barr’s attempt to install a Trump quisling into SDNY and has apparently torpedoed the nomination of Jay Clayton for the job It was a very good and skillful move by Berman

  13. I’m merely a layman but I thought that investigators compile the case and then it was turned over to the US Attorney to decide to prosecute.

    Doesn’t a US-A potentially risk more civilly if their investigation goes off the rails as they would merely be covered by qualified immunity and not absolute immunity?

  14. Here’s a reason we shouldn’t want Congress to investigate this situation. First, no evidence. Would you like to be investigated if there weren’t any evidence? Second, hasn’t Congress spent enough time travelling rabbit trails? Why not focus on the priorities of people?

    1. There’s evidence that Barr lied when he wrote on June 19 that “Geoffrey Berman … is stepping down after two-and-a-half years of service as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,” as Berman hadn’t chosen to resign at that point.
      There’s evidence that Barr attempted to place Carpenito in the SDNY USA position (“On my recommendation, the President has appointed Craig Carpenito, currently the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, to serve as the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while the Senate is considering Jay Clayton’s nomination”), despite Carpenito not being eligible.
      There’s evidence that on June 20, Barr wrote to Berman that “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so,” while Trump stated that same day “I’m not involved.”
      There’s evidence that Barr and/or Trump wanted Berman out immediately without saying why, when Trump could have simply nominated Clayton and waited for Senate confirmation. We still don’t know why they wanted Berman out immediately.

      At the very least, there’s something to question Barr about under oath.

      And of course, that’s not the only thing to question Barr about. There’s also the Flynn Motion to Dismiss, the peaceful protesters who were subjected to teargas for Trump’s photo-op, …

  15. The AG is the highest law enforcement officer in the country. He tried to illegally fire a U.S. Attorney. One can read the law to mean the president can fire him, but not the AG. And Trump himself confirmed that he was not involved at first. He has access to the best legal minds in the world, and presumably can read the law, thus he knew what he was doing was illegal and did it anyhow. Breaking the law, especially at this level, even if not criminal, is defiantly grounds for impeachment.

    1. Impeach,Impeach,Impeach! The only word that the Democrats and their media lapdogs at CNN and others love to hear themselves say. And many of their zombie followers, just repeat the word to keep in tune with their handlers.
      AG Barr may have no legal right to fire a U.S. attorney, but that doesn’t mean he cannot request the resignation. In this case, the U.S. Attorney was an idiot and went public, instead of quietly resigning or refusing to do so. Like too many Democrats that Trump has kept in his government, they turn on him like rabid dogs, in order to draw attention to themselves and to become part of the CNN team of fools, liars, and losers.

      1. Yes, I want to see impeachments become more common.If a government official breaks the law, they either resign or get impeached. We as a country should not tolerate illegal acts by government officials.Maybe after a while the point would get across that they need to not act illegally. I don’t care if the official is a Dem or Rep or anything else. Also, Barr went public first, which he should not have done, and that announcement was a lie.

      1. Berman was appointed via 28 U.S. Code § 546 (d). The A.G. cannot legally fire a US Attorney appointed by the court.

          1. Oh, well, if you say so. /s

            “Berman was appointed via 28 U.S. Code § 546 (d).” – evidence: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-us-attorney-geoffrey-s-berman-appointment-chief-judge
            “The A.G. cannot legally fire a US Attorney appointed by the court.” – evidence: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1979/11/31/op-olc-v003-p0448_0.pdf (“Your inquiry also asks whether the Attorney General has that power. We answer this question[] in the negative…”). Also see scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3277&context=mlr#page=40

            But keep up the evidenceless proclamations of “Wrong.” They really show off your legal knowledge.

            1. Commuted:
              Yet you’re still wrong as reality shows. Keep jousting windmills. One day you’ll win. Snicker.

              1. You, too, need to work on your reading comprehension. Barr’s letter says “I have asked the President to remove you [Berman] as of today, and he has done so.”

                You seem fixated on calling others stupid. I assume you’re intelligent enough to understand the difference between “I” (Barr) and “he” (the President) and recognize your mistake, even if you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

            1. Commit– It is your reading comprehension that is faulty. Back when you and others were flatly declaring the little man could not be fired I pointed out that Barr could ask Trump to fire him and that Trump could.

              When exactly that happened I posted my ‘told ya so’ comment.

              You are not honest in your pretend discourse.

              1. oh yeah, smooth move by Barr. Managed to get Berman’s replacement dictated to him by Berman while lying in public and contradicted by the President.

                You must be very proud.
                By the way, the only reason Berman is not there this morning is Barr’s cave on his successor.

              2. “you … were flatly declaring the little man could not be fired”

                Now you’re lying. I did not claim that he couldn’t be fired, and you have not presented any evidence of me claiming it (e.g., a quote or a link to a comment of mine).

                Why do you lie?

              3. P.S. It’s possible that instead of lying, you had instead misread what I actually wrote (which goes back to reading comprehension) or that you’re misremembering and too lazy to check. I was too quick to accuse you of lying, since other explanations for your false claim about me are possible.

                But the question remains: why are you making this false claim about me?

Leave a Reply