Jump to content

Talk:2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preet Bharara

[edit]

Should there be a separate subsection dedicated to Preet Bharara? Seems his 'firing' has received quite a bit of coverage on its own. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? There needs to be a note on Bharara's entry in the "resigned" list, or else Bharara needs to be removed from the list entirely. It's basic accuracy: he isn't one of the attorneys who resigned. That's one of the major reasons this article is even notable in the first place. TricksterWolf (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit because the same content existed below. Another editor has since added "(dismissed)" after Bharara's name in the list, which seems appropriate. The reason I started this section was to see if editors felt there was reason to create a subsection specifically about Bharara. It seems there is more to add since his experience in particular seems to be getting a lot of coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Presidency of Donald Trump" navigation box

[edit]

Should the "Presidency of Donald Trump" navigation box appear at the bottom of the article if the "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" article does not appear in the template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Yellowdesk: But you don't think "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" should be added to the navigation box? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion. It could be worthy, and merits a conversation at the template, or you could put it on the template, and let time decide if it merits staying on. Perhaps a review of the similar Obama template provides a guide.
    All things considered, this is a routine event, and notable only because it took Trump so long to request the resignations, and that at least one US Attorney was directly told he was desired to stay on, and oddly, two others submitted resignations which were declined. In that sense, it is typical Trump: action without explanation or consideration of consequences of a blanket order.
    In the historical Presidential routine, this a non-issue, and typical to turn-over the USAs at the start of a term, when the party changes. The most recent same-party turnover is more than 25 years ago, quite a while, in 1989, from Reagan to GHWBush-41, so there is not recent-same-party history to draw upon. Obama, subsequent to GBush-43's attorney controversy, didn't turn out everyone immediately; it was also the case that a unprecidented large number of USAs at the start of the Obama Presidency were acting or interim USA, and not presidential appointees, so there were fewer USAs to ask for resignations of.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspectors General dismissal effort

[edit]

The most recent time Inspectors General were dismissed as a bloc, was in 1980, by Reagan, two years after most of the positions were created. After criticism of the move, Reagan withdrew some of the dismissal requests. Excerpt of article on Trump Transition Team communications below.
Yellowdesk (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump transition email shows initial effort to oust all inspectors general
Steven Mufson
February 1 2017
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/01/trump-transition-email-shows-initial-effort-to-oust-all-inspectors-general

An email from the Trump transition team on the evening of Jan. 13 instructed all transition team leaders to “reach out tonight and inform” the inspectors general in their agencies “that they are being held over on a temporary basis.”

The email from Katie Giblin, a member of the presidential transition team, confirms a story The Post reported last week that inspectors general, who by bipartisan tradition have open-ended appointments regardless of party, had been told that they would be held over only on a temporary basis and that they should seek other employment.

The email shows that the effort to replace the inspectors was not limited to a handful of agencies, but that it was intended to take aim at inspectors general across government departments.

Moreover, the email from Giblin suggests involvement at a more senior level of the transition. The email urges transition team leaders to report back to her or a person whose name is blacked out in the document presented at the hearing today. But a person familiar with the email said that the other person is Justin Clark, a Republican lawyer from West Hartford, Conn., who was deputy national political director of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and who has been named deputy assistant to the president and the White House director of intergovernmental affairs.

Template:Trump presidency

[edit]

Should Template:Trump presidency be displayed at the bottom of the article? I've started a discussion here: Template_talk:Trump_presidency#2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting notability

[edit]

It's been about 10 months since this all went down and the AfD that closed as 'keep'. I think the time that has passed proves that there's no WP:LASTING here. Of all of the Trump "controversies", the dismissal of U.S. attorneys doesn't register. Trump did something, people didn't like it and voiced that, but then life moved on. There's no criminal conduct involved in this dismissal, so it's a closed issue. I would like to be dissuaded before opening a new AfD if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I still hear and read about this dismissal in the news on occasion, which suggests lasting notability. Let's not compare the dismissal to other Trump controversies, and just focus on secondary coverage of this even in particular. I'd vote to keep, if this goes back to AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. What sources do you see them in? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more clarity for general readers in the lead

[edit]

Imho the current lead is a bit confusing for readers not only with material and contains sentencing not making much sense at first glance. For instance it states that Sessions requested 46 resignations but then declined some. Why would he decline something he specifically requested? Late the lead talk about "the other 47" have resigned or left on their own accords (maybe he did decline some of those instead?). In that context it might be helpful to explicitly mention the total number of attorneys to avoid any confusion here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys&oldid=1241030274"