Biden's America

[RedDenver]

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Maybe because the Dems only want it one way? Why would Republicans support something they are 100% politically opposed to? 
 

 

The Republicans don't want compromise. It was one of the main tenets of the Tea Party. So don't expect to get compromise from the other side.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The Republicans don't want compromise. It was one of the main tenets of the Tea Party. So don't expect to get compromise from the other side.

And, it's part of what the MAGA heads are so upset about....Republicans compromising with Dems.  The faux outrage over Dems "only wanting it their way" is laughable.  That's exactly what they loved about Trump.  He didn't give a s#!t about anyone but doing what he wanted to do.  Which...was a disaster.

Now, Republicans want to cry in their Cheerios that Democrats "only want it their way".

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

So now we're framing trump's actions as totally normal and the lefties as the hypocrites.

 

Funny how we need to retcon everything to make trump look good - or at least "normal," which would be a step up.

 

Sadly for the revisionists, the google machine remembers why the lefties were unhappy with trump's purge.

 

US attorney Preet Bharara fired after refusing Jeff Sessions' order to resign

On Friday afternoon, attorney general Jeff Sessions told the prosecutors, nearly all appointed by Barack Obama, that they should resign from their posts. The overhaul of US attorneys is standard practice for a new administration, though some presidents do so in phases. Bharara, 48, met with Trump late last year, however, and told reporters afterward that he had “agreed to stay on”.

 

“The president-elect asked,” Bharara said at the time, “to meet with me to discuss whether or not I’d be prepared to stay on as the United States attorney to do the work we have done, independently, without fear or favor for the last seven years.”

 

“We had a good meeting,” he added. “I said I would absolutely consider staying on. I agreed to stay on. I have already spoken to Senator Sessions, who as you know is the nominee for attorney general. He also asked that I stay on, and so I expect that I will be continuing to work at the southern district.”

 

On Thursday, Bharara received a phone call from the president’s secretary, in an apparent breach of justice department policy about White House communication with federal prosecutors. Bharara reported the call, described by an anonymous source to the Associated Press, to justice department officials, who agreed that he should not speak directly to Trump.

 

A press officer for the Bharara’s office, the southern district of New York, did not answer several questions from the Guardian. “We’ll decline to comment,” the officer said.

 

The White House referred questions about the firing to the justice department, which did not respond to calls or emails.

 

Bharara’s refusal to resign has precedent in the early days of the Trump administration. The president previously fired an acting attorney general, Sally Yates, for a similar decision to refuse his administration’s orders.

 

Over seven years as the top prosecutor in the southern district of New York, Bharara has pursued aggressive cases into corruption in politics and Wall Street. At the time he was asked to resign, Bharara was overseeing investigations into aides and associates of the Democratic governor and Democratic mayor. His office also reportedly opened an investigation into Fox News, into whether the network failed to tell shareholders that it had settled sexual harassment claims made against its former CEO. Since taking office, Bharara has prosecuted the former Republican state senator Dean Skelos, high-profile insider trading cases and a 120-person Bronx case believed to be the largest gang prosecution in city history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These prosecutors are, necessarily, independent. trump's overt attempts to have them follow his orders was unethical (and a harbinger for his time in the White House) and Yates & Bharara rightly refused his demands. 

Nothing to see here folks.  Just standard journalism.   Good thing then internet machine remembers. 
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Nothing to see here folks.  Just standard journalism.   Good thing then internet machine remembers. 
 

 

Now do Fox News on the same subject?

 

I actually don't care about this.  I was once outraged about it back when Clinton did it when he first took office because Rush and Fox News were telling me to be outraged about it.  Then, a little research told me that this is common when a new administration takes over.

 

Kind of one of those moments where I started to realize they were nothing but full of s#!t.

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Now do Fox News on the same subject?

 

I actually don't care about this.  I was once outraged about it back when Clinton did it when he first took office because Rush and Fox News were telling me to be outraged about it.  Then, a little research told me that this is common when a new administration takes over.

 

Kind of one of those moments where I started to realize they were nothing but full of s#!t.

 

And again - it's especially important to note that trump was originally going to keep Yates and Bharara on - until he realized they weren't going to answer to him, so he fired them. 

 

@Archy1221 is drawing false equivalencies to foment outrage. These are not the same situation. 

[Born N Bled Red]

21 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Nothing to see here folks.  Just standard journalism.   Good thing then internet machine remembers. 
 

 

 

Man, you are nuts. You keep trolling the party line. (typo intended). Let's see removing highly qualified attorneys who admirably served presidents of both partys, vs. eliminating unqualified, Trump sycophants. I promised myself to stop wasting my time with you and quit feeding your trolling, but man your complete rejection of reality makes that difficult. 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Man, you are nuts. You keep trolling the party line. (typo intended). Let's see removing highly qualified attorneys who admirably served presidents of both partys, vs. eliminating unqualified, Trump sycophants. I promised myself to stop wasting my time with you and quit feeding your trolling, but man your complete rejection of reality makes that difficult. 

 

Shouldn’t have faux outrage when Trump did what was normal 
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trump-fires-obama-era-us-attorneys

Syracuse University law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney William C. Snyder made clear that all United States attorneys are presidential appointees who are typically replaced at the change of administration. "Any surprise at that is feigned." The way that process is done, however, differs depending on the administration.
 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

- until he realized they weren't going to answer to him, so he fired them. 

I’m sure you will be presenting the proof that clearly shows this.  Outside of them just claiming it.  

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m sure you will be presenting the proof that clearly shows this.  Outside of them just claiming it.  

 

I did three hours ago.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I did three hours ago.

You didn’t.   You didn’t link to a single instance where Preet claimed Trump wanted him to do something and then Preet chose not to follow what Trump wanted him to do.   Preet also was not investigating Trump at the time.  So again, you didn’t. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You didn’t link to a single instance where Preet claimed Trump wanted him to do something and then Preet chose not to follow what Trump wanted him to do.   Preet also was not investigating Trump at the time.

 

I never made this claim.  

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I never made this claim.  

You haven’t linked to anything that says Trump was going to keep them until he realized they weren't going to answer to him, so he fired them. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

You haven’t linked to anything that says Trump was going to keep them until he realized they weren't going to answer to him, so he fired them. 

 

I did. About three hours ago.

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I did. About three hours ago.

Yet you didn’t.  Not three days ago, three hours ago or three minutes ago.  You linked to an article showing Preet had his feelings hurt for getting fired because he wouldn’t resign (what’s Normal when PRESIDENTIAL Admins change) after he thought he would be able to keep his job. 

[knapplc]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yet you didn’t.  Not three days ago, three hours ago or three minutes ago.  You linked to an article showing Preet had his feelings hurt for getting fired because he wouldn’t resign (what’s Normal when PRESIDENTIAL Admins change) after he thought he would be able to keep his job. 

 

It's right there in the article that you (apparently) did not read.