This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)