More than a dozen officials who worked on the criminal investigations into Donald Trump have been fired, according to sources familiar with the matter.
A letter from acting Attorney General James McHenry to the officials said they cannot be “trusted” to “faithfully” implement Trump’s agenda.
“You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump. The proper functioning of government critically depends on the trust superior officials place in their subordinates,” McHenry wrote. “Given your significant role in prosecuting the President, I do not believe that the leadership of the Department can trust you to assist in implementing the President’s agenda faithfully.”
The firings come as the the Trump administration is taking concrete steps to investigate prosecutors who oversaw the criminal cases against January 6 defendants after Trump vowed to seek retribution as a key pledge of his campaign, according to multiple sources who have seen an internal memo on the matter.
Ed Martin, the interim US attorney in Washington, DC, has launched an investigation into prosecutors who brought obstruction charges under US Code 1512(c) against some rioters that were ultimately tossed because of a Supreme Court decision last summer.
Here in SDFLA, home of the documents case, DOJ fired AUSA Michael Thakur who worked on the case. According to multiple sources, Thakur was escorted out of the office without notice by two court security officers. He was not permitted to clean his office out. According to one tipster, he was "frog-walked" out of the office. Apparently this was done before Hayden O'Byrne was named Interim USA.
UPDATED -- AUSA Anne McNamara was also fired.
SECOND UPDATE -- Jay Weaver covers the story here.
22 comments:
Banana republic. Congrats Trump voters.
This kind of stuff has no place in our country. The Miami office has already lost dozens of quality, decent people (lawyers and staff) and is a shadow of what it was 10 years ago. It’s shameful that the folks who remain there trying to do what’s right and just have to look over their shoulders and work in fear. It’s just wrong.
If accurate, Davis is a real profile in courage. Undoubtedly, the Lapointe/Davis regime signed off on Thakur working on the case. And then to fire him for a perceived hesitancy or reluctance in implementing Trump's agenda? Why not resign instead of betraying your oath? To keep a job that you knew you would only have for a few days more? Each day, there's a new bottom.
You tired to put your boss in jail. You actually volunteered for the job. Your fired. And your a political hack.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article299309404.html
For what it's worth: Video by YouTube lawyer Robert Gouveia, Esq.
Trump FIRES DOJ Prosecutors; Kash Patel Under Attack; Sanctuary Mayors Subpoenaed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWL7fMh2BNY
spelling matters
YouTube lawyer? Lmao. You mean poser.
Shameful way to treat a colleague after all the years in service to that office.
@6:14 you forgot the part where your boss broke the law.
When you shoot at the King, you better not miss.
J6 & Documents case prosecutors volunteered for this banana republic attempt, the American Public rejected their arguments. Prosecutors just aren’t used to having consequences when they lose cases, but they probably should.
We don't have kings
People break the law all the time and don’t get charged. Discretion is the better part of valor.
We should take a moment amid this petty vindictiveness and retribution to appreciate Marcos Jiménez. Time and time again, Marcos, under his name, speaks truth to power. And he did so again in the Weaver article. We're well past the point where people of good conscience can stay quiet. To say nothing is to say something. Marcos is far ahead of us.
We fought a revolution, among other things, to not have kings. And you think termination should be the consequence for losing a case? That’s just silly.
So they got fired for prosecuting a superior official who, at the time, was actually not their superior official? Can someone make it make sense?
I think it's incumbent on the USA and DOJ leadership to explain the new principle.
There are some cases that get assigned to you that you should know better than to work on and if you don't, you may get the axe or worse. And this is so obvious that it will span administration. Don't cross the powers that be or the powers to be. Good luck!
Ok. So obvi not a king. Prosecutions based on law and fact (as these were) are part of a functioning rule-of-law society. And people don’t vote for or against prosecutions. So no 8:23PM, you have it all ass backwards. And your king btw is wrecking ball disaster who lies every time he opens his mouth. It’s just a shame that the rest of us have to deal with his mess and save you from it too.
We have a King! All hail Trump, hail! (Or else.)
Acting U.S. Attorney McHenry, in his letter to the dedicated public servants whom he summarily fired at the direction of Trump, asserted that they were fired on account of the “significant role they each played in the prosecution of the dear leader.” For that reason, McHenry opined that they “could no longer be trusted” to advance the President’s agenda. For one, since when are federal prosecutors have a duty to advance a political agenda on behalf of any individual? Their duty is to defend the Constitution and serve the people. Second, Mike Thaker, a truly wonderful man and exemplary prosecutor, was fired because, in McHenry’s words, AUSA Thakkur played “a significant role in the prosecution of the President.” My understanding is that Mike played a tangential role at best, thus giving credence to the logical assertion that McHenry was working of a list (enemies list) of all prosecutors who had even the most remote involvement. Snatching him up from his office and summarily escorting him out of the building was wrong. I am hoping it was done as a result of an overly aggressive DUSM or security officer and that no current member of the USA/SDFL staff played a role in this shameful exercise. Sincerely, PETER OUTERBRIDGE former AUSA, who is relieved that in retirement, can now speak freely concerning matters such as these.
Also, if any intermediate level supervisor was, in fact, threatened with termination unless they had no choice but to execute this deed, we should cut them some slack but they should somehow get the word out that they were coerced into doing so. I still can’t believe they would do such a thing without at least protest.
Yes Michael. I read Jay Weaver's article and Kudos to Marco Jimenez. However, I believe we have reach the point where truth is increasingly becoming a relative concept and facts are either irrelevant or obfuscated. God help us.
Post a Comment