The positions filled were already existing positions where the US Attorney formerly in that position had left for some reason or another (like term limits).
The positions are similar to District Attorneys at the state level. They basically took a Deputy and made them the DA.
So they didn't really add more lawyers per re, just new people.
where the US Attorney formerly in that position had left for some reason or another (like term limits).
These positions are still unfilled from when Trump fired all the US Attorneys. He fired all of them to cover up that he mainly wanted to fire the US Attorney from NY. He is now filling that post with a law partner of Rudy Giuliani. Trump needs someone favorable in this position.
The attorneys who were serving in these positions would have had to be replaced if Session didn't make this move, because there's a 300 day limit. The fact that a Senate approved candidates were not in these positions shows that Trump fired everyone without a plan to replace, again because he had to replace the NY Attorney who would have jurisdiction over any crimes that took place in Manhattan where the Trump campaign was located. And in fact, he was pursuing a case against a client of Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with the Trump campaign in Trump Tower. Shortly after the NY Attorney was fired the case unexepectedly settled for half of what the government was previously seeking.
Your stuff is usually good, but I take exception here. It's routine for an incoming President to fire all the US attorneys, has been for decades. It doesn't mean anything, good or bad. Delays in Senate approval reflect on the Senate more than on Trump. Preet Bharara, the NY US Attorney, has been praised for going after corporate crooks, and also accused of being soft on them. I don't know what the truth is, since it would take detailed knowledge of his cases. But Trump initially asked him to stay on, then changed his mind and asked him to step down. I'd like to know what made Trump change his mind, but we're not likely to.
In short, there's not a lot of smoke here, and no fire that I can see. I'm open to being persuaded that something is shady in the Bharara story, but so far I'm not seeing it.
Your stuff is usually good, but I take exception here. It's routine for an incoming President to fire all the US attorneys, has been for decades.
It's routine for them to replace all the US attorneys, but you don't do that all at once without a plan to replace them In 2009 Obama replaced the US attorneys in batches as did Bush in 2001. Mary Jo White in the Southern Disrict of New York served until Jan 2002.
Delays in Senate approval reflect on the Senate more than on Trump.
Typically, the White House acts in the first months of an administration to fill many of the country’s 93 United States attorney’s offices. But President Trump has waited so long in making his choices for several districts, including those based in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Newark, that their acting leaders were running against a legal limit of 300 days in office.
Well, yes. Trump's entry into office was more disruptive. Good comeback! But then I can think of at least two good explanations for his more disruptive behavior.
1) Trump is a bull in a china shop. Given a choice, he creates drama and chaos because he thrives in that environment. It might not be the best tactic -- hell, it might be stupid and counterproductive -- but it's not a sign that Trump is up to something shady. Think of Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers.
2) There's an exceptional circumstance here in that there is massive corruption to be rooted out. Trump had trouble getting senior staff confirmed (Sessions took a week or two longer than an AG normally does, and then he had to get Rosenstein through, which also took longer), and he would have been wary of just taking whoever the Obama holdovers at DOJ recommended.
So while you're right on both counts, it still doesn't amount to evidence of Trump having a corrupt purpose. He's still just Trump being Trump, as far as I can see.
Well, yes. Trump's entry into office was more disruptive.
This is a decision that was taken after Trump was in office. He and his people didn't have their candidates lined up. This is because Trump is a terrible manager as we learning again this past week.
There's an exceptional circumstance here in that there is massive corruption to be rooted out.
Nonsense.
it still doesn't amount to evidence of Trump having a corrupt purpose. He's still just Trump being Trump, as far as I can see.
Trump being Trump? I see Trump as a conman an fundamentally corrupt and using his office to enrich himself, but we probably differ on that point.
Well, I'm at a loss for how to respond to that. I mean, if the ridiculous farce of the Hillary email investigation doesn't establish that the Obama DOJ was deeply corrupt ... Loretta Lynch on the tarmac? Eric Holder? I don't worship Trump, or get all mystical about his election being the hand of God. I do see at least the potential for reform with him in office. The potential for reform under Obama, the Clintons, or the Bushes would be absolutely zero.
if the ridiculous farce of the Hillary email investigation doesn't establish that the Obama DOJ was deeply corrupt .
It absolutely did not. It was apparent months before Comey spoke that what Clinton did not rise to the level of a crime. You can mishandle classified infor without it being criminal. And if it was a crime, dozens of others would need to be indicted for it because any one who emailed her these emails would be guilty because they were all using nonsecure email addresses.
No classified documents were mishandled. The issue was what they call "spillage." Spillage of classified info onto nonclassified servers. This common through the US government and never prosecuted. The senders of such emails have greater legal liability than recipients because the recipient doesn't know how you learned your information. (did you get in a classified briefing or did you read it in a newspaper.) Most of the emails in question were sent to her. Though she also forwarded some. Because no classifed documents were involved, this was far less clear cut than people believe. For example, the sample of emails used by the IG showed 4 classified emails they said. The experts doing the security review made mistakes on three of these.
Loretta Lynch recused herself from any decision in this case.
No classified documents were mishandled. The issue was what they call "spillage."
You know, for the first time in our acquaintance I'm wondering about your agenda. Because it wasn't "spillage". She set up a private server that wasn't secure and piled thousands of classified documents on it. She did all her Secretary of State correspondence on that server. The early draft of Comey's statement actually used the phrase "gross negligence," which is the standard here for prosecution. All four of her staff who were interviewed about the emails were granted immunity, something any prosecutor or FBI agent would acknowledge makes no sense whatever. I could go on, but I feel like it would be pointless. You're too smart and way too skeptical and wary to just buy the "spillage" argument. You'd bludgeon anyone else who tried it -- I've seen you bludgeon people for far less. So what are you after here?
What I am after? An accurate representation of the facts and the law. Something that from the very first NY Times article on this was in very short supply.
The private server is not a legal issue whatsoever with regards to mishandling classified information.
Why? This is because the issue is secure vs insecure systems not government vs private email address. If she chose to use state department email, she would have a had a @state.gov account. The same legal issue regarding classified information would be present if she used a [email protected] email account. BECAUSE @state.gov accounts are not secure and classified info should not be transmitted on them. We know that the emails with classified into were sent to her from the CIA, career diplomats at state, the White house and the NSC. All of the following government domain are not secure.
and piled thousands of classified documents on it.
Thousands of documents were classified prior to FOIA release. They were not classified at time of sending.
The FBI found Clinton received or sent 110 emails from 52 email chains that contained information determined to be classified. The "thousands" were classified prior to FOIA release, but were not classified at the time of sending/recieved. This is a standard process that the State Depratment goes through before releasing FOIA documents and Comey testified the FBI did not consider these emails
The early draft of Comey's statement actually used the phrase "gross negligence,"
Yes, it did. But the overall thrust of the statement was that they didn't have any reason to file charges so in these instance they couldn't use gross negligence colloquially and they changed it. Comey also testified that there is not a clear legal definition of gross negligence, some courts require it be willful. The idea that an early draft has any legal weight is grasping at straws. The main point of the draft is to get your ideas on paper and work through them so that you organize your thoughts for yourself.
You're too smart and way too skeptical and wary to just buy the "spillage" argument. You'd bludgeon anyone else who tried it -- I've seen you bludgeon people for far less. So what are you after here?
Nope. The problem was spillage. You have to understand that the spillage occurred well before it reached Hillary Clinton's private email. All these emails originated on NONSECURE email systems. Even if they were government email systems like @whitehouse.gov or @state.gov. The spillage already occurred. These would all be violations of classified info policy even if they were not crimes. You really need to understand how classified information is supposed to be sent to understand the issue with Clinton. She did not originate any of these emails. The worst thing she did was forward some (creating a new instance of spillage.) But the originators of the emails were the most culpable. You also need to understand that zero of the emails were actual classified documents which require extensive markings including a prominent header explaining this was classified. She basically dealt with these in paper copies that someone would print out for her. She never expected to open her email and get classified info.
Not only was using a private email account not illegal at the time, but the State Department manual explained what you needed to do if you did use private email and it had to the the National Archives* not with classification (Why?) because classified info shouldn't have been in your government email account either. She went beyond this and used private email exclusively with was against policy, but not against the law.
The most sensitive emails were about folks who knew they were on the LOW SIDE and sent very vague messages that didn't mention what they were talking about. You can read about them here.
Fun Fact, had she used her government email address, that still would not have complied with government archiving laws because the State Department's tech was out of date. This is why she had to print all the pages of her email to be turned over the National Archives.
Well, at least I now can guess why other people get so mad at you!
I'm guessing that you would have equally lengthy comebacks for, say, the cattle futures scandal of 1992, or the Marc Rich pardon, or the Patrick Knowlton appendix to the Starr report, or the charges made by Charles Ortel against the Clinton Foundation, or any of the other countless examples of Clinton corruption. But let's not bother, okay? I can get all this from CNN.
They get made at me because I have my facts straight and they have no comeback. If I got my facts wrong, they would get less mad at me because they would get the rush of corrected me. I deny them that rush and it frustrates them, so they usually resort to calling me a kid******.
Ortel has absolutely no idea what he is talking about which is why noone takes him seriously. He speculates and then assumes the scenario that is the worst under his speculation.
Look up what the FBI said were the legal issues. Look up SIPRNET and how that works. What is classified is often not a cut and dried issue and State and the Intel Communities have been fighting for years about it. State lost. Did you read the link on the most sensitive emails? The most sensitive emails vague emails with no names, no countries no details discussed concerning the drone program. Even though there were no details these are considered above top secret because the drone program is still considered SAP, even though everyone knows about it. You can't attach a NY Times article on the drone program to a state.gov email. That's a violation even though the information is public.
Clinton's use of a private email account, had implications for arching government records and FOIA, but not for classified info and this evidence was available months before the FBI cleared her. I was not surprised when they did. This is from MARCH 2016.
There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
....
In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.
**Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, **founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
***"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," ***said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."
Even this article gets a fact wrong about archiving, the Secretary's office did not have electronic archiving in place.
While State policy during Clinton’s tenure required that “day-to-day operations [at State] be conducted on [an authorized information system],” according to the ________ the Bureau of Information Security Management, ________
there was no restriction on the use of personal e-mail accounts for official business.
Yeah, sorry, we've moved on to a different topic now. You were a bit of a mystery back when all I saw you do was post short questions. Seeing you post long answers has given me a completely different perspective.
You're clearly a lawyer, and the question is, who is paying you to write this stuff? There's a limited number of players to choose from. I don't think it's any of David Brock's various enterprises, or John Podesta, or the CIA. You just don't fit their agendas, or their style. Off the top of my head I'd guess the Clinton Foundation.
view the rest of the comments →
Blacksmith21 ago
Would be nice if our resident attorney (I can't remember his handle pizzalawyer or lawyer4justice?) could shine some light on this.
lawyer4justice ago
The positions filled were already existing positions where the US Attorney formerly in that position had left for some reason or another (like term limits).
The positions are similar to District Attorneys at the state level. They basically took a Deputy and made them the DA.
So they didn't really add more lawyers per re, just new people.
Are_we__sure ago
These positions are still unfilled from when Trump fired all the US Attorneys. He fired all of them to cover up that he mainly wanted to fire the US Attorney from NY. He is now filling that post with a law partner of Rudy Giuliani. Trump needs someone favorable in this position.
The attorneys who were serving in these positions would have had to be replaced if Session didn't make this move, because there's a 300 day limit. The fact that a Senate approved candidates were not in these positions shows that Trump fired everyone without a plan to replace, again because he had to replace the NY Attorney who would have jurisdiction over any crimes that took place in Manhattan where the Trump campaign was located. And in fact, he was pursuing a case against a client of Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with the Trump campaign in Trump Tower. Shortly after the NY Attorney was fired the case unexepectedly settled for half of what the government was previously seeking.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sessions-uses-executive-authority-appoint-interim-u-s-attorneys-n834446
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-v-prevezon-case-settlement-russia-money-laundering-2017-5
SoberSecondThought ago
Your stuff is usually good, but I take exception here. It's routine for an incoming President to fire all the US attorneys, has been for decades. It doesn't mean anything, good or bad. Delays in Senate approval reflect on the Senate more than on Trump. Preet Bharara, the NY US Attorney, has been praised for going after corporate crooks, and also accused of being soft on them. I don't know what the truth is, since it would take detailed knowledge of his cases. But Trump initially asked him to stay on, then changed his mind and asked him to step down. I'd like to know what made Trump change his mind, but we're not likely to.
In short, there's not a lot of smoke here, and no fire that I can see. I'm open to being persuaded that something is shady in the Bharara story, but so far I'm not seeing it.
Are_we__sure ago
It's routine for them to replace all the US attorneys, but you don't do that all at once without a plan to replace them In 2009 Obama replaced the US attorneys in batches as did Bush in 2001. Mary Jo White in the Southern Disrict of New York served until Jan 2002.
That's absolutely not the case here. A month after this firing ALL 93 US attorney positions remained empty. That is disruptive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/nyregion/us-attorneys-brooklyn-manhattan.html
SoberSecondThought ago
Well, yes. Trump's entry into office was more disruptive. Good comeback! But then I can think of at least two good explanations for his more disruptive behavior.
1) Trump is a bull in a china shop. Given a choice, he creates drama and chaos because he thrives in that environment. It might not be the best tactic -- hell, it might be stupid and counterproductive -- but it's not a sign that Trump is up to something shady. Think of Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers.
2) There's an exceptional circumstance here in that there is massive corruption to be rooted out. Trump had trouble getting senior staff confirmed (Sessions took a week or two longer than an AG normally does, and then he had to get Rosenstein through, which also took longer), and he would have been wary of just taking whoever the Obama holdovers at DOJ recommended.
So while you're right on both counts, it still doesn't amount to evidence of Trump having a corrupt purpose. He's still just Trump being Trump, as far as I can see.
Are_we__sure ago
This is a decision that was taken after Trump was in office. He and his people didn't have their candidates lined up. This is because Trump is a terrible manager as we learning again this past week.
Nonsense.
Trump being Trump? I see Trump as a conman an fundamentally corrupt and using his office to enrich himself, but we probably differ on that point.
SoberSecondThought ago
Well, I'm at a loss for how to respond to that. I mean, if the ridiculous farce of the Hillary email investigation doesn't establish that the Obama DOJ was deeply corrupt ... Loretta Lynch on the tarmac? Eric Holder? I don't worship Trump, or get all mystical about his election being the hand of God. I do see at least the potential for reform with him in office. The potential for reform under Obama, the Clintons, or the Bushes would be absolutely zero.
Are_we__sure ago
It absolutely did not. It was apparent months before Comey spoke that what Clinton did not rise to the level of a crime. You can mishandle classified infor without it being criminal. And if it was a crime, dozens of others would need to be indicted for it because any one who emailed her these emails would be guilty because they were all using nonsecure email addresses.
No classified documents were mishandled. The issue was what they call "spillage." Spillage of classified info onto nonclassified servers. This common through the US government and never prosecuted. The senders of such emails have greater legal liability than recipients because the recipient doesn't know how you learned your information. (did you get in a classified briefing or did you read it in a newspaper.) Most of the emails in question were sent to her. Though she also forwarded some. Because no classifed documents were involved, this was far less clear cut than people believe. For example, the sample of emails used by the IG showed 4 classified emails they said. The experts doing the security review made mistakes on three of these.
Loretta Lynch recused herself from any decision in this case.
SoberSecondThought ago
You know, for the first time in our acquaintance I'm wondering about your agenda. Because it wasn't "spillage". She set up a private server that wasn't secure and piled thousands of classified documents on it. She did all her Secretary of State correspondence on that server. The early draft of Comey's statement actually used the phrase "gross negligence," which is the standard here for prosecution. All four of her staff who were interviewed about the emails were granted immunity, something any prosecutor or FBI agent would acknowledge makes no sense whatever. I could go on, but I feel like it would be pointless. You're too smart and way too skeptical and wary to just buy the "spillage" argument. You'd bludgeon anyone else who tried it -- I've seen you bludgeon people for far less. So what are you after here?
Are_we__sure ago
What I am after? An accurate representation of the facts and the law. Something that from the very first NY Times article on this was in very short supply.
The private server is not a legal issue whatsoever with regards to mishandling classified information.
Why? This is because the issue is secure vs insecure systems not government vs private email address. If she chose to use state department email, she would have a had a @state.gov account. The same legal issue regarding classified information would be present if she used a [email protected] email account. BECAUSE @state.gov accounts are not secure and classified info should not be transmitted on them. We know that the emails with classified into were sent to her from the CIA, career diplomats at state, the White house and the NSC. All of the following government domain are not secure.
WH.GOV
WHITEHOUSE.GOV
CIA.GOV
STATE.GOV
In government they call this the High Side and the Low side. The High Side is SIPRNET, this is the secure system used to transmit classified information. You can't email someone at a state.gov email from SIPRNET the network is not connected to nonsecure networks.
Thousands of documents were classified prior to FOIA release. They were not classified at time of sending. The FBI found Clinton received or sent 110 emails from 52 email chains that contained information determined to be classified. The "thousands" were classified prior to FOIA release, but were not classified at the time of sending/recieved. This is a standard process that the State Depratment goes through before releasing FOIA documents and Comey testified the FBI did not consider these emails
Yes, it did. But the overall thrust of the statement was that they didn't have any reason to file charges so in these instance they couldn't use gross negligence colloquially and they changed it. Comey also testified that there is not a clear legal definition of gross negligence, some courts require it be willful. The idea that an early draft has any legal weight is grasping at straws. The main point of the draft is to get your ideas on paper and work through them so that you organize your thoughts for yourself.
Nope. The problem was spillage. You have to understand that the spillage occurred well before it reached Hillary Clinton's private email. All these emails originated on NONSECURE email systems. Even if they were government email systems like @whitehouse.gov or @state.gov. The spillage already occurred. These would all be violations of classified info policy even if they were not crimes. You really need to understand how classified information is supposed to be sent to understand the issue with Clinton. She did not originate any of these emails. The worst thing she did was forward some (creating a new instance of spillage.) But the originators of the emails were the most culpable. You also need to understand that zero of the emails were actual classified documents which require extensive markings including a prominent header explaining this was classified. She basically dealt with these in paper copies that someone would print out for her. She never expected to open her email and get classified info.
Not only was using a private email account not illegal at the time, but the State Department manual explained what you needed to do if you did use private email and it had to the the National Archives* not with classification (Why?) because classified info shouldn't have been in your government email account either. She went beyond this and used private email exclusively with was against policy, but not against the law.
The most sensitive emails were about folks who knew they were on the LOW SIDE and sent very vague messages that didn't mention what they were talking about. You can read about them here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hillary-clinton-emailed-on-cia-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/news-story/efde9067d7fb60434e94f5b9300ada5d
SoberSecondThought ago
Well, at least I now can guess why other people get so mad at you!
I'm guessing that you would have equally lengthy comebacks for, say, the cattle futures scandal of 1992, or the Marc Rich pardon, or the Patrick Knowlton appendix to the Starr report, or the charges made by Charles Ortel against the Clinton Foundation, or any of the other countless examples of Clinton corruption. But let's not bother, okay? I can get all this from CNN.
Are_we__sure ago
They get made at me because I have my facts straight and they have no comeback. If I got my facts wrong, they would get less mad at me because they would get the rush of corrected me. I deny them that rush and it frustrates them, so they usually resort to calling me a kid******.
Ortel has absolutely no idea what he is talking about which is why noone takes him seriously. He speculates and then assumes the scenario that is the worst under his speculation.
Look up what the FBI said were the legal issues. Look up SIPRNET and how that works. What is classified is often not a cut and dried issue and State and the Intel Communities have been fighting for years about it. State lost. Did you read the link on the most sensitive emails? The most sensitive emails vague emails with no names, no countries no details discussed concerning the drone program. Even though there were no details these are considered above top secret because the drone program is still considered SAP, even though everyone knows about it. You can't attach a NY Times article on the drone program to a state.gov email. That's a violation even though the information is public.
Clinton's use of a private email account, had implications for arching government records and FOIA, but not for classified info and this evidence was available months before the FBI cleared her. I was not surprised when they did. This is from MARCH 2016.
....
In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.
**Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, **founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
***"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," ***said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."
Even this article gets a fact wrong about archiving, the Secretary's office did not have electronic archiving in place.
This march article was proven true when the FBI reports were released. Check out page 11 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3039030/Hillary-Clinton-FBI-Investigation.pdf
SoberSecondThought ago
Yeah, sorry, we've moved on to a different topic now. You were a bit of a mystery back when all I saw you do was post short questions. Seeing you post long answers has given me a completely different perspective.
You're clearly a lawyer, and the question is, who is paying you to write this stuff? There's a limited number of players to choose from. I don't think it's any of David Brock's various enterprises, or John Podesta, or the CIA. You just don't fit their agendas, or their style. Off the top of my head I'd guess the Clinton Foundation.
Are_we__sure ago
Not a lawyer.
Not being paid.
No affiliation with any of the groups you mention.
That's three strikes.
SoberSecondThought ago
Your denial is duly noted.
Are_we__sure ago
If we're going to play that game, I'll note that you didn't answer the question.
SoberSecondThought ago
Nobody pays me to post here. Which is a darn shame.
Are_we__sure ago
lol
That makes two of us.