• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

OpportunityCost said:
How about you try posting on the subject matter and quit insulting me.
Click to expand...
How about you quit insulting everyone by not posting nonsense that isn't about the topic.
 
In Texas, questions grow about a lesser-known US Attorney ousted by Attorney General Barr (CNN). I contemplated starting a new thread with this post, but I think it is relevant here:
Over Memorial Day weekend, Attorney General William Barr removed a low-profile US attorney in Texas following the public airing of a dispute over an investigation into Walmart -- a move that didn't draw the same attention as the firing of the high-profile US attorney in Manhattan, but is now raising new questions about political interference inside the Justice Department.

Joseph Brown, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Texas and a Trump appointee, was pushed out after ProPublica published a nearly 7,000-word story headlined "Walmart was almost charged criminally over opioids. Trump appointees killed the indictment," which described an internal battle over a Texas prosecutor's efforts to bring criminal charges against Walmart, according to people familiar with the matter. Walmart has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
Brown quietly resigned, but now the forced exit from last month is getting renewed attention as the latest move that has stoked concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department under Barr.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the matter, sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN, and has lined up a witness who filed a whistleblower complaint with the Justice Department inspector general to testify about the handling of the Walmart investigation.
Click to expand...

The ProPublica story: Walmart Was Almost Charged Criminally Over Opioids. Trump Appointees Killed the Indictment.
 
I think we can expect a herculean effort to cover up and sanitize DoJ records that establish a pattern of abuse by William Barr of the Justice system. I expect that there will also be numerous employees vigorously copying and squirreling away those documents before they can be purged. This is going to get nasty in 2021.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The US code says he can't be fired until a senate appointed replacement is in situ. That could be problematic for Trump/Barr
Click to expand...

It would appear that Trump and Barr are both attempting to eat something served in a bucket!
Unsurprisingly, this entree also appears to be bigger than their heads, and as we both know:

"Never eat anything bigger than your head"
 
Rawley said:
Thankfully all of the those investigations ended today with Berman's resignation.
Click to expand...

What makes you think a criminal investigation dies with the exit of one attorney?
Use specifics, please.
 
NWRatCon said:
In Texas, questions grow about a lesser-known US Attorney ousted by Attorney General Barr (CNN). I contemplated starting a new thread with this post, but I think it is relevant here:

The ProPublica story: Walmart Was Almost Charged Criminally Over Opioids. Trump Appointees Killed the Indictment.
Click to expand...

It might have been more relevant in one of the Flynn threads-- the DOJ again having serious concerns with how an investigation is progressing in its department, and then providing appropriate supervision and oversite.
 
Rawley said:
Can't put anything past you Mr. Strangler
Click to expand...

Well, it's just that bad things happen to attorneys every day but I am just surmising that the cases tend to live on.
Attorneys have heart attacks and they die and their cases don't just disappear.
Once a case is filed, it's filed.

Of course, you may end up being right if the cases are quashed, but that's an entirely new can of worms, yes?

Cheers,
Ch.S.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sure you can, Im expected to do so in response to the Mueller report, to the Horowitz report, to the FISA warrants, to any number of things.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to respond to anything. I just asked you to cite a case where a previous President and/or Attorney General violated prosecutorial independence for political purposes.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Nobody disputes that Congress can by statute lay out the responsibilities and jobs of the various executive departments and that the president is obligated to ensure that his department heads enforce those laws and rules within their departments.
But Congress cannot in writing such laws infringe upon the constitutional rights and power of the Executive.
Click to expand...

Sure it can.... read the last clause of Article I §8: The Congress shall have power... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
 
Cordelier said:
A President who pays no heed to the letter of the law cannot be held to be faithfully executing it.[/QUOTE

Except that Congressional statute cannot amend the Constitution.
A law that infringes upon presidential rights and power, as spelled out in the Constitution, can't be sustained.
Click to expand...
 
Cordelier said:
Sure it can.... read the last clause of Article I §8: The Congress shall have power... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Click to expand...

That just sets up the rules and regulations of the departments and how they function.
The various nominated and confirmed officials are bound by that.
But presidential powers as enumerated are presidential powers. Congress can't infringe upon that. By statute, that is.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That just sets up the rules and regulations of the departments and how they function.
The various nominated and confirmed officials are bound by that.
But presidential powers as enumerated are presidential powers. Congress can't infringe upon that. By statute, that is.
Click to expand...

Read the text again, "...all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I'd say that's pretty definitive, wouldn't you? So why do you assert "all other Powers" is a limited grant of authority to statutory law? In fact, there is a clear distinction drawn between powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States and powers vested in any Department or Officer. Any President exercising the Executive Power vested in him by Article II §1 is therefore bound by statutory law.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm not asking you to respond to anything. I just asked you to cite a case where a previous President and/or Attorney General violated prosecutorial independence for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Clinton e-mail scandal. Maybe you have heard of it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Clinton e-mail scandal. Maybe you have heard of it.
Click to expand...

I have. I put it into the same pile I put Whitewater, the Rose Law firm, Vince Foster's attempted suicide, FBI filegate, Benghazi and every other off-the-wall conspiracy theory the Right has tried to lob at the Clintons over the years.
 
Cordelier said:
I have. I put it into the same pile I put Whitewater, the Rose Law firm, Vince Foster's attempted suicide, FBI filegate, Benghazi and every other off-the-wall conspiracy theory the Right has tried to lob at the Clintons over the years.
Click to expand...

With immunity being handed out like candy? The prosecutorial discretion was decidedly kid gloves.
 
OpportunityCost said:
With immunity being handed out like candy? The prosecutorial discretion was decidedly kid gloves.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to be more specific. The way I figure it, if your objective is to get to the truth - and do it quickly - then about the most aggressive thing a prosecutor can do is offer as much immunity as they can.
 
Cordelier said:
I have. I put it into the same pile I put Whitewater, the Rose Law firm, Vince Foster's attempted suicide, FBI filegate, Benghazi and every other off-the-wall conspiracy theory the Right has tried to lob at the Clintons over the years.
Click to expand...

You could include 'Russian Collusion', Deep State corruption and the Impeachment hoax in that mix though, with the possible exception of Vince Foster and Benghazi, they're far more serious.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
You could include 'Russian Collusion', Deep State corruption and the Impeachment hoax in that mix though, with the possible exception of Vince Foster and Benghazi, they're far more serious.
Click to expand...

I agree... the right-wing has been every bit as delusional and shown the same tendencies to indulge in baseless conspiracy theories in each of those instances as well.
 
Cordelier said:
You're going to have to be more specific. The way I figure it, if your objective is to get to the truth - and do it quickly - then about the most aggressive thing a prosecutor can do is offer as much immunity as they can.
Click to expand...

You offer it to 1 or 2 people to get the rest, you don't offer it to everyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom