“DOJ tries to oust US attorney investigating Trump allies”

That excuse may work on the gullible.

 

You keep making it up as you go.
Article II, United States Constitution

In this case the congress gave the courts the power to appoint a prosecutor in the case of inaction by the president. While generally the president has absolute power to dismiss executive branch appointments unless specifically denied by congress the question here is that it was a judiciary appointment of an executive branch position. The power to dismiss judiciary appointments rest with the judiciary. A conflict that hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court. Berman could have dragged this into court but he got what he wanted, his choice to run the office until a legally confirmed replacement is made rather than bringing in someone from the New Jersey office. By having his number two continue existing cases there should be no disruption in them.
But then Trump has been known to keep firing down the list until he gets someone to kiss his butt.

 

i didn’t say the Court couldn’t appoint him. just that the court has no authority to fire him. it’s separation of powers. he works for the executive branch

 

Works for the executive branch but was appointed by the judiciary. Like I said, an untested proposition. Would have taken months to work out.

I forgot to point out another error. Barr on Friday didn't say Berman's number two would step in but a prosecutor from New Jersey who also was a judicial appointee. That could have delayed cases in the works that may include Rudi and the Turks. Barr backed down, Berman accepted being fired. Trump's claim to not be involved could also raise further issues since Barr put it in writing that Trump fired Berman. OOOOPS

 

he was appointed by the executive first. the executive put him up there. you wouldn’t say the senate because they apoint in a normal circumstances. the court confirmed him because congress failed to act after the 120 days

 

Breman was appointed by the AG which he is allowed to do once for up to 120 days.
When the 120 days expired it was up to Trump to nominate another who could be an interim if the Senate was not in session or a permanent one if they were. He failed to do so.
After the 120 days appointment expired with no presidential nominee in sight the Judges of the district appointed Berman to continue, not confirmed as you say. This is as proscribed in the Constitution executing a law made by Congress in 1779.
That appointment by the judiciary was valid until such time as a senate approved replacement was found. That has not happened.
The Senate only appoints those that are directly involved with the senate, their only roll in this would have been to confirm an appointment had Trump nominated one.
Congress did not fail to act. Their involvement ended in 1779 and while we do have some pretty old members in Congress none are that old. The president failed to act withing the 120 days nor the two years since.

 

the president appointed him and other on an interim bases. he bypassed the senate because of partisan dems, and had the court confirm but he works for the executive. there is a separation of powers doctrine that forbids the courts from hiring prosecutors

 

Oh for God's sake.
As I posted earlier
Art II gives congress authority to establish rules on who has what authority to appoint inferior officers. The Attorney General is a superior officer and is appointed by the president subject to Senate approval. The District Attorneys are inferior officers and Congress made the rules for their appointment. The president at any time the senate is in session can nominate who he wishes for senate approval. Trump did not do that yet. If the President chooses instead an interim because the senate is not in session that appointment lasts until the sitting of the next senate. Trump did not do that either.
The attorney general is allowed by the law to make an appointment that is valid for 120 days. AG Jeff Sessions did that.
If at the end of 120 days the president still has no senate approved candidate then the judiciary there has the right to appoint, the AG is not allowed a 2nd 120 appointment.
The court appointment is valid until the president gets a senate approved candidate.

 

i don’t disagree with anything you said above...but he’s a employee of the executive and serves at the pleasure of the president

 

Of which there is no doubt and Trump was free to replace him at any time. The operative word is replace because the judges specified that he be replaced by a senate approved candidate. Therein lies the gray area, the judges by law appointed him and they left a means for Trump to replace him. Barr is entirely out of the picture as only the president has that power.

 

sure and barr told trump that and trump did it. The deputy will be acting until the senate confirms

 

And then Trump denied being involved. Who's the liar? Trump or Barr? I'd bet that if Barr hadn't rescinded the prosecutor from New Jersey as the temp and accepted his deputy then he may have fought on the grounds that as per the court order he has to be replaced by a senate approved prosecutor. Since both options would consume time Barr capitulated. Now the question is will the deputy prosecutor be bringing forth some indictments soon. i say she will. I don't know enough about the Turks to comment but Rudi seems to have been working on an insanity plea of late.

 

i don’t think he was involved but for to do what barr asked him to do. it was barr’s call

 

It was never Barr's call, on that the law is clear.

 

sure barr made the call and ask trump to do it. this isn’t rocket science.

 

Folks who do not recognize the choice of the electorate, do not recognize the Constitutional power of the President.

 

Folks who acknowledge Trump's quest to dismantle the multiple mechanisms of accountable democracy,acknowledge his corrupt intent.

 

That claim doesn't even make sense.

We are a People who Rule Ourselves. There is NO function or person in government who is not under the direction of a person who stood for election, who was selected for the task by US. In the entire Executive Branch only one person who exercises authority has stood before the voters, the President. Everyone in the Executive Branch answers to the President.

The President is held to account by Congress and the Judiciary.

Bummer that your buddy forgot who the boss was. Now he's toast! Good riddance. We don't need dummies in these positions, and remembering who the boss is often the very key to remaining employed.

 

No mention of the obvious corruptness of Trump’s having chosen SEC head Jay Clayton, a corporate insider and was a professional defender of corporations, who also happens to be an investor in a money-laundering operation;now looking to reassign him to become the U.S. prosecutor against Wall Street banks. Clayton is a longtime corporate lawyer with deep connections to Wall Street; having no experience as a federal prosecutor.

 

What's a "corporate insider"?

Corporations have as much right to defense as you do.

Slander without any described support.

Further, Berman's duties are reassigned to Audrey Strauss. Strauss is widely respected for her independence, and Berman showered praise on her on his way out the door.

You are desperately trying to weave a scandal out of nothing more than an overdue personnel move. This is not an accident. We are four months from Election Day, and Barr has indicated we may be closer to some sort of reckoning in Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Barr’s deservedly stellar pre-Trump reputation notwithstanding, the president’s opposition is determined to discredit him and, derivatively, any malfeasance uncovered by Durham’s scrutiny of the Obama administration’s Trump-Russia probe.

Berman was always a temporary fill, never Senate-confirmed. Contrary to the Fake News hyperventilating, Berman was not the U.S. Attorney; he was an interim occupant, keeping the seat warm due to a court order that was to stand only until the president picked someone to replace him.

If the president had wanted Berman in the job, he would have nominated Berman. He did not. Berman and his team are not the president’s or the attorney general’s choice to run an office of significance to the administration.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...rim-u-s-attorney-is-washington-not-watergate/

Last week Berman refused to sign a letter from DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to New York City’s mayor, left-wing extremist Bill de Blasio. The letter complained about the double standard by which the City permits thousands to gather in protest but drastically restricts the free exercise of religion. Upholding religious liberty has been a Trump administration priority. The Justice Department is entitled to enforce the president’s lawful policy — including by directing U.S. attorneys across the country to support the effort. Berman mouthed off, calling the letter a “political stunt” that would strain the SDNY’s relationship with City Hall. He is entitled to mouth off, but no one elected him to anything. No Democrat administration nor its water-carrying media would stand for an interim appointee’s thwarting of administration policy.

When Obama and Clinton remove U.S. attorneys, Democrats shrug and say, “Elections have consequences.” When Bush and Trump remove U.S. attorneys, Democrats say it is Watergate revisited. No one is fooled.

 

Thanks for your opinion, that doesn't mean anything. I bet you believed the "peepee tapes" existed.

 

You are great at manufacuting fantasies on the spur of the moment. You should write fiction. Wait, you just did.

 

Comey was fired. The Democrats wanted him fired until Trump fired him. McCabe was fired for lying under oath and the Democrats went into tantrum mode. Every time Trump has fired someone it later becomes extremely clear why he fired them. It will this time also. They guy was never confirmed. He was there at the leisure of the president. Too ****ing bad. Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

I bet you believe anything from Trump and his cronies.

 

Spin it any way you like; Trump is corrupt.