Maggie Haberman, NYT: Trump aide called Bharara Thursday, asked him to call back, Bharara couldn't

[highplainsdem]

Haberman tweeted the link to this article she cowrote minutes ago:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/politics/preet-bharara-us-attorney.html

The call to Preet Bharara’s office from President Trump’s assistant came on Thursday. Would Mr. Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, please call back? He did not.

The following day, Mr. Bharara was one of 46 United States attorneys appointed by President Barack Obama asked to resign — and to immediately clean out their offices. The request took many in his office by surprise because, in a meeting in November, Mr. Bharara was asked by the then-president-elect to stay on.

Mr. Bharara refused to resign. On Saturday, he announced on Twitter that he had been fired.

It was unclear whether the president’s call on Thursday was an effort to explain his change of heart about keeping Mr. Bharara or to discuss another matter. The White House would not comment on Saturday.

However, there are protocols governing a president’s direct contact with federal prosecutors. According to two people with knowledge of the events who were not authorized to discuss sensitive conversations publicly, Mr. Bharara notified an adviser to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that the president had tried to contact him and that he would not respond because of those protocols.

-snip-

The Thursday afternoon phone call from the Oval Office was a curious sidelight to the fast-moving events. Mr. Trump’s assistant asked the prosecutor to return the call. Before doing so, Mr. Bharara called Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff, Jody Hunt, to alert the Justice Department to the call and express concern about contacts between presidents and federal prosecutors.

Aides to Mr. Trump did not respond to three emails seeking comment about the nature of Mr. Trump’s call to Mr. Bharara.

[babylonsister]

1. Money shot:

"...express concern about contacts between presidents and federal prosecutors.

Aides to Mr. Trump did not respond to three emails seeking comment about the nature of Mr. Trump’s call to Mr. Bharara."

Bharara did the right thing legally. No one knows how to react and/or what to do. Just great.

[calimary]

2. Maybe the Snake-Oil-Salesman-in-Chief wanted to make deals?

"I make deals! I make deals!"

I'm still absolutely staggered by the thought of that many people simply believing him.

Did he not establish a long track-record for LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH????

I swear... That one fact is the filter through which I view ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth. He lies like the rest of us breathe. NOTHING he says should EVER be taken at face value, much less quoted, cheered, sewn on hats, or banked upon. If he said his name was donald trump, I'd still want to get a second opinion.

He speaks with a forked tongue. Maybe we should start hailing the Forked-Tongue-in-Chief.

[babylonsister]

3. I know, calimary, it's so disheartening

to know what evil lurks and to have to sit and watch it either prevail or unravel. I'm rooting for unraveling.
I hope that forked tongue is part of his undoing; how could it not be?

[Lucinda]

4. KNR

[Cracklin Charlie]

5. Did the administration try to trick the prosecutor?

Into making a phone call that might incriminate him somehow?

They seem awfully twitchy about a simple phone call.