Preet Bharara’s exit may not be what it seems
Bharara also let it be known, first through anonymous leaks, that Trump had called him the day before the firing. But the immaculate prosecutor, believing the call was inappropriate under federal rules, refused to take the call and talked to the Justice Department instead.
But wait — if it was inappropriate for Bharara to talk to Trump in March, why was it appropriate for him to meet with the president-elect in Trump Tower in November about keeping the job? On the surface, there’s no material difference, especially because Bharara concedes he doesn’t know why Trump called him last week, though he doubts the White House version that the president was calling to thank him for his service.
I have saluted Bharara as a one-man wrecking crew against political corruption, but I’m left with the feeling that he developed a case of Comey-itis. Like FBI Director Jim Comey, Bharara acted as if he was too big to fire.
By refusing to follow the traditional practice of submitting his resignation when the president requested it — that’s what it means to serve “at the pleasure of the president” — he challenged Trump’s constitutional authority. He was out of bounds.
What was his end game? Was the Manhattan outpost of the Justice Department going rogue and would no longer be accountable to anyone except Preet Bharara? Or was he auditioning for his next gig?
Bharara also let it be known, first through anonymous leaks, that Trump had called him the day before the firing. But the immaculate prosecutor, believing the call was inappropriate under federal rules, refused to take the call and talked to the Justice Department instead.
But wait — if it was inappropriate for Bharara to talk to Trump in March, why was it appropriate for him to meet with the president-elect in Trump Tower in November about keeping the job? On the surface, there’s no material difference, especially because Bharara concedes he doesn’t know why Trump called him last week, though he doubts the White House version that the president was calling to thank him for his service.
I have saluted Bharara as a one-man wrecking crew against political corruption, but I’m left with the feeling that he developed a case of Comey-itis. Like FBI Director Jim Comey, Bharara acted as if he was too big to fire.
By refusing to follow the traditional practice of submitting his resignation when the president requested it — that’s what it means to serve “at the pleasure of the president” — he challenged Trump’s constitutional authority. He was out of bounds.
What was his end game? Was the Manhattan outpost of the Justice Department going rogue and would no longer be accountable to anyone except Preet Bharara? Or was he auditioning for his next gig?
