Barr attempts to fire US Attorney for SDNY, who refuses to step down (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Well it will be interesting what develops from this over the next few weeks...

Powerful US attorney who investigated Trump associates refuses to step down after Barr tries to push him out | CNN Politics

In a fast-escalating crisis Friday night, Attorney General William Barr tried to oust Geoffrey Berman, the powerful US attorney for the Southern District of New York who has investigated a number of associates of President Donald Trump, but Berman defied him by refusing to step down.

www.cnn.com

Moral of the story: don't piss off the fair leader.

 

[SaintForLife]

I have to ask....are you actually comparing a new president, 4 months into his first term replacing a bunch of US federal attorneys with the sitting president, less than 5 months before his term ends, firing one particular attorney who has been investigating the president's associates?

Do you honestly believe those are equivalent?

I was saying there has been amplified outrage when Republicans replace US Attorneys by the media and Democrats yet when Democrats do the same the media reports it as normal.

You are the one who's comparing when they each did it. The US attorneys can be replaced at any time according to the Constitution right? Those investigations will continue just like when Trump fired Mueller and the investigation continued unimpeded. Barr instructed the IG to monitor those cases for any interference.

 

[MT15]

I was saying there has been amplified outrage when Republicans replace US Attorneys by the media and Democrats yet when Democrats do the same the media reports it as normal.

You are the one who's comparing when they each did it. The US attorneys can be replaced at any time according to the Constitution right? Those investigations will continue just like when Trump fired Mueller and the investigation continued unimpeded. Barr instructed the IG to monitor those cases for any interference.

You are really reaching here. Trump already did his wholesale replacement of US attorneys, in 2017 I think, similar to what a lot of presidents do. This is a very specific firing of a very specific prosecutor who is looking into crimes committed by Trump’s allies. To act like this is selective outrage is just the worst sort of blind partisanship. The outrage is not necessarily coming from the media, either, but from former US Attorneys.

It’s hard to take such a biased view as anything other than partisanship. There’s plenty of that to go around by both sides but you seem to be unable to see a real problem with this, which is just perplexing.

 

[MT15]

3:14 p.m. Mueller is asked about Trump's tax returns

"Your office did not obtain the president's tax returns which could otherwise show foreign financial services, correct?" Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, asked.

"I'm not going to speak to that," Mueller said.

"In July 2017, the president said his personal finances were off limits or outside the per view of your investigation. And he drew a red line around his personal finances.Were the president's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?" Krishnamoorthi asked.

"I'm not going to get into that," Mueller responded.

"Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances?" Krishnamoorthi said.

"No," Mueller answered.

Report doesn't exonerate Trump, Mueller testifies, and he could be charged after leaving office

Robert Mueller has testified that his report does not exonerate President Donald Trump as he has claimed and that he could be charged after leaving office.

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

We don't know for sure if Mueller got Trump's taxes, but based on his answers it sounds like he did to me. Since Mueller was looking for connections with Trump and Russia it seems like his tax returns would be the first place to start.

CNN legal analyst:

"I believe Mueller has already obtained tax returns in the Russia investigation," Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in the Securities and Commodities Fraud Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago, said on Twitter on Aug. 10. He later wrote in The Hill he often used tax returns in his own federal investigations, and that it is almost a necessity in an investigation like Mueller's. It's also done without knowledge of the subjects of the investigation.

"A federal prosecutor obtains tax returns by seeking an ex parte order from a federal judge. That means that the person who is being investigated doesn't know that the tax returns are being sought or if the judge issues the order," he said. "Basically, it's done in secret."

Mariotti also said that "the July FBI raid at the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort tells us a great deal about the status of … Mueller's investigation."

Before taking "an aggressive, public action" like having the FBI search a subject's home, Mariotti wrote, a "typical step" federal prosecutors take in white-collar investigations is obtaining tax returns.

"A prosecutor would first take steps that can be done covertly, without the subject knowing, to gather evidence that can serve as the basis for more aggressive actions like search warrants," he wrote. "I worked with federal prosecutors who obtained tax returns in every single white-collar investigation they worked on."

Mariotti also said it ordinarily would require a senior Justice Department official to sign off on a request to the IRS for tax returns in a non-tax federal investigation. But, in this case, Mueller already has that authority.

"Mueller has authority to do so because the statute permits 'United States attorneys' to obtain tax returns and he has the power of a 'United States attorney' pursuant to the special counsel regulations," he wrote, noting that "even the tax return of someone other than Manafort" could be helpful to Mueller, and that "he could have tax return information for many individuals."

Why Robert Mueller Probably Has Trump's Tax Returns

As the special counsel's probe continues, actions point to access to the president's closely held financial information.

www-usnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

So, Mueller wasn’t really a US Attorney, so that’s not correct to look at his authority that way, as I understand it. His scope was outlined by the DOJ, and he seems to have limited his scope accordingly.

Everyone at the time thought he would go after the tax returns, which is why you can pull a piece speculating that he did. But he never addressed the tax returns. It was a surprise to everyone, and a disappointment to many. Just like he never subpoenaed Jr. and allowed Trump to get away with written responses. Looking at the whole process after the fact, it seems to me he was very narrow in his focus.

In fact, as soon as I read the first part of the report, where he outlined what he looked at and what he would consider and what he wouldn’t I knew he wouldn’t find any proof of a criminal conspiracy. It’s a tough crime to prove anyway, but the way he either was limited, or limited himself, he had no shot.

You are being completely speculative that Mueller saw Trump’s tax returns.

 

[SaintForLife]

You are really reaching here. Trump already did his wholesale replacement of US attorneys, in 2017 I think, similar to what a lot of presidents do. This is a very specific firing of a very specific prosecutor who is looking into crimes committed by Trump’s allies. To act like this is selective outrage is just the worst sort of blind partisanship. The outrage is not necessarily coming from the media, either, but from former US Attorneys.

It’s hard to take such a biased view as anything other than partisanship. There’s plenty of that to go around by both sides but you seem to be unable to see a real problem with this, which is just perplexing.

Doesn't the constitution say that US Attorney's can be replaced at any time? Just because it wasn't done when he was first elected doesn't mean anything. Also, Berman was a temporary replacement.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, Mueller wasn’t really a US Attorney, so that’s not correct to look at his authority that way, as I understand it. His scope was outlined by the DOJ, and he seems to have limited his scope accordingly.

Everyone at the time thought he would go after the tax returns, which is why you can pull a piece speculating that he did. But he never addressed the tax returns. It was a surprise to everyone, and a disappointment to many. Just like he never subpoenaed Jr. and allowed Trump to get away with written responses. Looking at the whole process after the fact, it seems to me he was very narrow in his focus.

In fact, as soon as I read the first part of the report, where he outlined what he looked at and what he would consider and what he wouldn’t I knew he wouldn’t find any proof of a criminal conspiracy. It’s a tough crime to prove anyway, but the way he either was limited, or limited himself, he had no shot.

You are being completely speculative that Mueller saw Trump’s tax returns.

I also posted Mueller's actual testimony in relation to Trump's taxes. He didn't deny that he looked into Trump's taxes, but he did say that nobody told him that he couldn't look into his taxes.

We are both speculating. If we try to read between the lines of Mueller's testimony it looks like my speculation is more likely than yours.

 

[Richard]

I also posted Mueller's actual testimony in relation to Trump's taxes. He didn't deny that he looked into Trump's taxes, but he did say that nobody told him that he couldn't look into his taxes.

We are both speculating. If we try to read between the lines of Mueller's testimony it looks like my speculation is more likely than yours.

If I may continue with the speculation, I had always assumed that the reason Mueller didn’t address Trump’s taxes was that it was one of the issues that were sent to other jurisdictions. IIRC, more than two dozen investigations were passed along to authorities like the SDNY, because they were more appropriately investigated there. Mueller saw his mandate more narrowly than the general public did and though he may have looked at Trump’s taxes to determine if there was any relationship to his investigations, he determined that the SDNY was the proper agency to take the reins on that one.

 

[SaintForLife]

If I may continue with the speculation, I had always assumed that the reason Mueller didn’t address Trump’s taxes was that it was one of the issues that were sent to other jurisdictions. IIRC, more than two dozen investigations were passed along to authorities like the SDNY, because they were more appropriately investigated there. Mueller saw his mandate more narrowly than the general public did and though he may have looked at Trump’s taxes to determine if there was any relationship to his investigations, he determined that the SDNY was the proper agency to take the reins on that one.

That's possible, but we haven't seen anything that I know of with SDNY with his taxes. The article I posted earlier with the former prosecutor that's now a CNN legal analyst said obtaining the person's tax information was pretty standard in white collar cases.

If Mueller did look at Trump's tax returns, he might not have found anything illegal so that might be why it wasn't mentioned in his report.

 

[MT15]

Doesn't the constitution say that US Attorney's can be replaced at any time? Just because it wasn't done when he was first elected doesn't mean anything. Also, Berman was a temporary replacement.

did you look at Barb McQuade’s tweet? Barr tried to pull something very shady, Berman called him out and it seems they negotiated a deal. Barr wanted to put a Trump loyalist, who defended Deutsche Bank for Pete’s sake, in charge of SDNY, who may well be investigating them again if they aren’t already. Someone who has zero prosecutorial experience. Barr knows that Clayton has zero chance of being confirmed, so he tried an end around the rules to get him in. He got caught, and now the deputy will continue until someone can be confirmed. Which led to Berman stepping aside now that someone he knows to be independent will be in charge.

There was nothing routine or innocent about it. IMO.

 

[MT15]

That's possible, but we haven't seen anything that I know of with SDNY with his taxes. The article I posted earlier with the former prosecutor that's now a CNN legal analyst said obtaining the person's tax information was pretty standard in white collar cases.

If Mueller did look at Trump's tax returns, he might not have found anything illegal so that might be why it wasn't mentioned in his report.

Up for a friendly wager on that?

 

[Ayo]

This whole episode was totally normal right?

 

[JRad]

If Mueller did look at Trump's tax returns, he might not have found anything illegal so that might be why it wasn't mentioned in his report.

I wouldn't expect he would, to be honest. I don't think they show anything other than Trump is worth less than he says he is, and that's the only reason Trump cares about them getting out.

 

[MT15]

Further indication Barr is a morally corrupt liar.

 

[FullMonte]

Doesn't the constitution say that US Attorney's can be replaced at any time? Just because it wasn't done when he was first elected doesn't mean anything. Also, Berman was a temporary replacement.

You are conflating what is legal with what is right.

yes, the Constitution allows the president to replace a US attorney at his pleasure. So, let me put a hypothetical out there. Let's say Berman had just uncovered, as a part of his investigation, ironclad proof that Trump was laundering money. He went to Barr to let him know what he found. Barr tells Trump, who fires Berman and orders Barr to confiscate any evidence that Berman had.

Now, was it legal for Trump to fire him? Yes. Was it done to cover up Trump's illegal activity? Yes. Is that something we should simply say, "It's legal, so there's nothing wrong with it"? Of course not.

And, yes, Berman was a temporary replacement. But, as I understand the process, since Trump did not nominate a permanent replacement (and have that replacement confirmed by the Senate) within the alloted time frame, his appointment became permanent. (28USC546 clearly states that if his temporary appointment expires (which happens after 120 days), then the District Court can appoint someone to that spot until the president nominates a permanent individual).

 

[MT15]

Here’s a pretty good thread about the debacle. What do we know and most importantly what we do not yet know.

 

[TaylorB]

Won't those investigations continue no matter who is the US Attorney ? If the new US Attorney tries to stop any investigations into Trump won't we hear about it?

The SDNY has been investigating Trump for a while right? If Trump and Barr were trying to stop an investigation, why did they plan to leave Berman in place until July 3rd? Why did Berman act like he wasn't supposed to remain in place until July 3rd when he said he was still coming into work?

I assume Mueller looked at Trump's tax returns and accounting records. I'm curious what people think the SDNY will find that Mueller couldn't. I don't have a problem with the SDNY investigating Trump. Are people claiming something imminent was about to happen so that's why they removed Berman? Berman was only appointed as temporary until the judges appointed him to serve longer.

There are plenty of reasons it would potentially benefit Barr and Trump to have a prosecutor in SDNY over which they have political control. An impending Giuliani indictment, for example, would by itself explain the rush to oust Berman; and I was saying in January we should keep an eye on SDNY because of the case they appeared to be building against Giuliani

If Parnas reaches any sort of plea deal (or even if not), you've got to think Rudy Giuliani has a great deal of heartburn about being indicted by SDNY for failing to register as a foreign agent of Ukraine at a minimum.

Again, I'm certainly no expert in criminal law, and I've been wrong predicting indictments before so I won't do it here, but Giuliani was so sloppy about all this, it's hard to imagine he skates on everything. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on SDNY while this plays out.

A Giuliani indictment could imperil Trump in the same way Flynn and Stone imperil him -- and if it's Giuliani, Trump, Barr, or someone close to them, a Barr intervention in SDNY would most certainly be on brand for Barr. But the Giuliani investigation is just one of many ways Trump is potentially exposed there. SDNY is where Trump lives, runs his campaign, paid off Stormy Daniels, negotiated Trump tower, his associates secretly met with numerous foreign nationals during the campaign and transition, and many others.

Which brings me to my next point. Your question about what the SDNY might find something that Mueller "couldn't" assumes that Mueller resolved all the potential crimes he encountered, which we know is not the case. As noted by @MT15, Mueller focused narrowly on a pre-election interference conspiracy with Russian governmental actors. There were at least 14 investigations referred from Mueller's probe, and we don't know the resolution of all of them. That is a big reason that much of the Mueller report is still redacted, and even if it were unredacted, there may be other pending investigations outside the scope of that report. SDNY hosts some of the spin-off investigations -- which may or may not implicate Trump's tax returns and accounting records -- as well as investigations into more recent conduct that Mueller could not have addressed, such as Giuliani's.

I have only heard speculation about the specific reasons why Barr got rid of Berman, but the breadth of Trump's and Barr's potential legal exposure in SDNY, in combination with the fact that knew the optics of ousting Berman would be terrible, and in combination with Barr's historical use of the DOJ to shield Trump, provide plenty of reason to be suspicious of the move. And when Trump tells a lie about something that is immediately disproven -- as is what happened with Berman -- it's pretty charitable to just assume it's due to his incompetence instead of his consciousness of guilt. In fact, anyone who's paid attention to Trump's legal shenanigans long enough knew his statement about Berman wasn't true as soon as he said it. He's a liar who is too incompetent to provide cover for himself and his allies (that's a reason he keeps getting his brains beat in with SCOTUS decisions). It seems rather apparent that Barr and Trump tried to oust Berman in a way that looked innocent, and they failed -- a pattern we're starting to get used to.

We'll see what happens in SDNY in the short term, but I'd wager a whole lot on this being related to control of criminal case(s) with connections to Trump, Barr and/or both. As sinister as it all sounds, it's hard to think of many realistic alternatives in light of everything we know.

 

[MT15]

Further lies from Barr. He’s being exposed as more corrupt every day.

 

[TaylorB]

It also was reported yesterday that Barr tried to meddle in the Michael Cohen case in SDNY after his guilty plea. So in short, Barr’s to-do list as AG has consisted of exonerating and protecting Trump and his allies and targeting anyone standing in the way of that.

When I have time later today, I’m going to start a thread that catalogues all of Barr’s destruction. Just so we can keep track as he and Trump get more brazen in their corruption in the weeks to come.

 

[FullMonte]

Here is my issue with this whole thing in a nutshell:

--Barr offered Berman a different job.
--Barr LIED to the public and said that Berman had stepped down voluntarily.
--Barr LIED to a federal attorney and told him that Berman had stepped down voluntarily, so that attorney took over the office.
--Barr LIED to the country and said that the president fired Berman.
--(OR) Trump LIED to the country and said he did not fire Berman

So, my simple question. If this is (as some Trump supporters seem to claim) a simple case of the president replacing a federal attorney, why was it done on a Friday evening, and over the weekend, and why wasn't it simply a case of the president removing a federal attorney. It was done in a haphazard slipshod manner, and done in a way that seems to indicate that it needed to be done right now (but couldn't be done by the president simply removing him).

There are only two possiblities as I see it:
1) The administration and DOJ are so inept that they can't even manage to simply remove a Federal Attorney after they have been driving the ship for 3 1/2 years.
2) The attorney in question was doing something that the administration didn't like, and he was far to close to finding something that they didn't want found, that they had to remove him immediately in order to stop him.

Can someone please tell me which of these is actually something that we should be supporting?