General Discussion

usaf-vet

(6,161 posts)

24. Well on this one you scooped Rachael Maddow.

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:14 PM

Mar 2017

I listen to the podcast of her show last night and she couldn't figure out why. She kept making the point that 45 has the right to fire but she did not scope this out for a reason. She had a guest on who didn't specifically pin point this either.

I kept thing to myself the best explanation is Bharara must have something on Trump in the pipeline.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

THIS is why the United States Attorneys General were fired: [View all] dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 OP

fuck crazylikafox Mar 2017 #1

Maybe/Maybe not. elleng Mar 2017 #2

Nobody said a word about letting them go in the first week or 2 dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #8

Right elleng Mar 2017 #9

I think you may be on to something. triron Mar 2017 #22

And to get Bharara, you have to fire them all to avoid the appearance of discrimination iluvtennis Mar 2017 #30

More is revealed today, adding to the reasons dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #37

It's actually a routine move by a new president krispos42 Mar 2017 #3

Not that routine... babylonsister Mar 2017 #16

I remember John Ashcroft doing the same thing Generic Brad Mar 2017 #21

NOT when it is done to obstruct justice. Then it is a crime. L. Coyote Mar 2017 #36

yes, but you would have to prove it was done with that intent. tomp Mar 2017 #38

Do you remember when a president would have faced removal if he interferred with an investigation? Baitball Blogger Mar 2017 #4

Seems I do... dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #7

"asking him to pursue a case." - what type of case? It's not a criminal offense for the president PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #5

the linked article has your answers. n/t dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #6

No, it doesn't. It merely asserts that... PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #15

Yes it is illegal. lark Mar 2017 #31

Please cite the federal law concerning emoluments that you refer to. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #33

Look up the emoluments clause in the Constitution itself ProfessorPlum Mar 2017 #43

Yes but a federal prosecutor can't charge someone with "unconstitutional". n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #44

this is true ProfessorPlum Mar 2017 #45

Am I missing something in the terminology? US Attorneys and Attorney General... JHB Mar 2017 #10

US Attorneys--Prosecutors for the US Govt and work for the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions mtngirl47 Mar 2017 #11

Right. So when the OP talks about "Attorneys General", it's conflating them with... JHB Mar 2017 #13

You aren't missing anything the OP used the wrong title Lurks Often Mar 2017 #12

ty for pointing that out, corrected it. n/t dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #17

Actually, you're still off. You can correct by removing "General"... JHB Mar 2017 #19

Fine. Even better if it's an Indpendent Investigator. KittyWampus Mar 2017 #14

What an obstinate bunch of criminals! kentuck Mar 2017 #18

Our nation is being tested... Hulk Mar 2017 #20

kick for visibility triron Mar 2017 #23

Well on this one you scooped Rachael Maddow. usaf-vet Mar 2017 #24

Rachel needs to read DU! dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #25

US State Attorneys General serve at the President's pleasure. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #26

This Was One Area Where Things Were Going According To Schedule DallasNE Mar 2017 #27

Bahar refusing to resign MFM008 Mar 2017 #28

I just caught that, it is rapidly gaining headlines. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #29

And Bharara was apparently fired... PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #35

The plot thickens. Nitram Mar 2017 #32

Um....this is a theory...not fact laserhaas Mar 2017 #34

Congratulations! I think you nailed it Az_lefty Mar 2017 #39

Actually, turningo ut that is only ONE of the investigations into Trump. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #41

also Sean Hannity asked Trump to stop the investigation into FoxNews Fast Walker 52 Mar 2017 #40

Yeah..my jaw is dropped over that.... dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #42