Stupid Preet tricks

President Trump, in line with the normal custom of presidents, asked for the resignations of 46 U.S. attorneys, all of whom were Obama political appointees.  One, and only one, made a fuss about it: New York's U.S. attorney, Preet Bharara.

He was no Eric Holder, who made no secret of his willingness to use the state for political purposes, and in fact, some of his work was quite good.  But his refusal to go quietly, as political appointees are expected to do, pretty well points to a political orientation.  That was underscored by Bharara's purported hints that Trump's asking him to leave was to halt a political investigation of Trump.

So Preet wants us to think Trump canned him to halt some investigation or other that went against him?  That's politics.

Everyone knows he's an ambitious prosecutor with many high-profile politically charged cases, for one.  Everyone also knows he's close to top Democrat Sen. Chuckie Schumer, whom he once worked for.  He also was widely reported to be tipped as Hillary Clinton's attorney general.  Bharara would know the path his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, took following his time as U.S. attorney in the same Manhattan job – one that led to his distinguished terms as mayor of New York.

How else do we suspect he's political?  Well, somehow all his cut-and-dried cases around Hillary Clinton and her corrupt pay-to-play foundation never came to fruition.  Could that have been a delay-'em-to-eternity tactic?  Could it have been political protection?  It was remarkably devoid of results, so it's natural to wonder.

What's annoying is that Bharara thinks we would buy it that Trump's firing of all the leaky attorneys general was motivated by something nefarious.  Yes, it was political, but he has a right to make political appointments and he has had problems with not doing it.

Here's the problem with all these stupid Preet tricks: by hinting that he "had something" on Trump and that Trump was somehow a bad guy for getting rid of him, he's going to have to eventually produce on that suggestion.  He won't be able to.  So maybe he ought to pipe the heck down if he can't support his claims.  Everyone knows he's looking for political advantage.

President Trump, in line with the normal custom of presidents, asked for the resignations of 46 U.S. attorneys, all of whom were Obama political appointees.  One, and only one, made a fuss about it: New York's U.S. attorney, Preet Bharara.

He was no Eric Holder, who made no secret of his willingness to use the state for political purposes, and in fact, some of his work was quite good.  But his refusal to go quietly, as political appointees are expected to do, pretty well points to a political orientation.  That was underscored by Bharara's purported hints that Trump's asking him to leave was to halt a political investigation of Trump.

So Preet wants us to think Trump canned him to halt some investigation or other that went against him?  That's politics.

Everyone knows he's an ambitious prosecutor with many high-profile politically charged cases, for one.  Everyone also knows he's close to top Democrat Sen. Chuckie Schumer, whom he once worked for.  He also was widely reported to be tipped as Hillary Clinton's attorney general.  Bharara would know the path his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, took following his time as U.S. attorney in the same Manhattan job – one that led to his distinguished terms as mayor of New York.

How else do we suspect he's political?  Well, somehow all his cut-and-dried cases around Hillary Clinton and her corrupt pay-to-play foundation never came to fruition.  Could that have been a delay-'em-to-eternity tactic?  Could it have been political protection?  It was remarkably devoid of results, so it's natural to wonder.

What's annoying is that Bharara thinks we would buy it that Trump's firing of all the leaky attorneys general was motivated by something nefarious.  Yes, it was political, but he has a right to make political appointments and he has had problems with not doing it.

Here's the problem with all these stupid Preet tricks: by hinting that he "had something" on Trump and that Trump was somehow a bad guy for getting rid of him, he's going to have to eventually produce on that suggestion.  He won't be able to.  So maybe he ought to pipe the heck down if he can't support his claims.  Everyone knows he's looking for political advantage.

RECENT VIDEOS