Who is afraid?
Who should be afraid?
The Federal Blog run by David Markus reports that the judges of the SDFLA appointed acting US Attorney Ben Greenberg to be US Attorney, because his appointment runs out April 28, 2018. None of this ever happened under Obama even when he was spending most of his time hiding his birth-certificate, trying to usher in Sharia-law through the back door, raise our taxes, deplete our military and otherwise be a bad and incompetent President. Through all of that he somehow was able to make executive appointments on time.
It seems a bit untoward that the judges of the district are appointing the prosecutor.
Of court the term "untoward" could be applied to most of the current federal administration.
There's an untoward side to the retirement of Judge Zabel. And by that we mean the actions of the State Attorneys office, and not Judge Zabel. When and if we can, we'd like to run the whole story. For now we feel comfortable in saying Miami lost a well respected and decent and honest judge who worked very hard at her job and did a very good job, because of a nasty power-play.
BTW, speaking of former Presidents, Clinton balanced the budget. The current deficit is going to shoot up over a trillion dollars with the new budget. Just wondering where all those Republican deficit-hawks are? Maybe they're all retiring from Congress.
Of course Clinton was disgraced because he had an affair with a woman and that's something the Republican party assured the American people was conduct unbecoming a President and something that would never occur when a Republican got into the White House.
From Occupied America, where hypocrisy and incompetence is the order of the day, Fight the Power and have a great weekend.
14 comments:
Saying "politics aside" at this point in American history feels a bit like saying, "stop breathing for ten minutes", but... politics aside: Not only did the SDNY, acting under DOJ approval, raid a lawyer's office and cart away *everything*, ACP be damned, but we already have leaks from Cohen's office with regard to clients other than his most famous one:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-negotiated-1-6-million-settlement-for-top-republican-fundraiser-1523638726
Democrats have called upon Republicans since 2016 to rise up, put country over party, to oppose this President on principle. I hope that we see that sentiment is genuine, and even those lawyers among us who despise Trump make it known that the Cohen raid and subsequent leaks are an outrageous overreach which chills attorney-client-privilege, something which is much more important than which party is in the White House right now, or whether or not Trump had an affair or said "p*ssy" on a hit mic.
THESE are the Feds we are supposed to trust to run a non-partisan investigation of the President? These clowns who could not help but leak info from Cohen's office within a *week*?
Judge Zabel will be missed
W was dumb as a bag of rocks, but he wasn't getting BJs in The Oval. So there's the "good R" they promised. But this new guy, what a libido!
Great blog today. I know Judge Zabel as exactly as you described her; honest hard working and who always tries to get it right Your assessment that it’s a power play is right on.
At least in the past there have been Republican deficit hawks. There is no such thing as a democratic deficit hawk, never has been. And saying clinton balanced the budget is like saying Obama was responsible for the last recession. It's just not true.
I agree generally that law enforcement has some questions to answer, but the raid on Cohen's office is a red herring. The feds had already executed a search warrant on his emails to his email provider. The real question is what they had to secure that warrant, whether it was Mueller or Sdny, and the scope of that warrant and how they protected against review of ACP.
The fact they want everything now from Cohens office may mean they have enough from the emails to pierce. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Cohen may be guilty of something, but I for one also have concerns that everyone in trump's orbit is suddenly targeted.
First commenter accuses investigators of being "partisan," in his diatribe about alleged hypocrisy by democrats in not condemning the investigation. Not one of the investigators he is railing against is a democrat -- mueller, rosenstein, sessions, wray, mccabe, comey, and USA for SDNY are all republicans. The only identifiable democrat in his diatribe is michael cohen.
So, how exactly is the investigation partisan? Except insofar as it is being run solely by republicans?
8:48 a.m. -- You are indulging in whataboutism. Enjoy. You will be hard-pressed to find any administration, D or R, in the history of this country as rife with chaos and corruption, as indifferent to public interest as this one. Worse is the unyielding support by your party of this administration no matter the depths of its depravity.
But hey, what about those democrats who supported President Clinton even after finding out that he had consensual sex with an adult intern and lied about it.
Yup you win.
242
This may amaze you, but there are these people called never-trumpers who are Republicans. Partisan means political. The same way Jeb hates trump, so too is it possible for partisan Republicans to investigate another Republican. Not saying it is happening here. But your point is flawed, in my opinion. Or do you think Rosenstein, for example, voted for trump?
Paraphrase of 2:53:
Trump is super bad, and I am sarcastic.
9:13 - you were the one that defined partisan as democrat v. republican. Look at your original post. If you had defined partisan as pro- or anti-trump, you would not have gone whataboutism about democrats. but you did.
It's amazing to watch the GOP tie itself into pretzels trying to justify or deflect from this horror. it's as if everyone competes to be the next devin nunes. there should be an olympic event for this
yup he's super-bad. shame on everyone involved in bringing this to light. lock 'em up.
9:13,
In which dictionary does "partisan" simply mean political?
11:23 - if you read the first post referencing "partisan," you will see it means political party from the context of the post. this is the kind of question you might find on an achievement test of reading comprehension for kids in grade school:
Question 23. Johnny made the following statement:
"Democrats have called upon Republicans since 2016 to rise up, put country over party, to oppose this President on principle. I hope that we see that sentiment is genuine, and even those lawyers among us who despise Trump make it known that the Cohen raid and subsequent leaks are an outrageous overreach which chills attorney-client-privilege, something which is much more important than which party is in the White House right now, or whether or not Trump had an affair or said "p*ssy" on a hit mic."
Then Johnny asked:
THESE are the Feds we are supposed to trust to run a non-partisan investigation of the President? These clowns who could not help but leak info from Cohen's office within a *week*?
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines non-partisan to mean:
Definition of nonpartisan
: not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation nonpartisan ballot a nonpartisan board
What parties did Johnny refer to when he said "non-partisan"?
9:13 - what is your answer to this question?
Post a Comment