Every mundane, routine action President Donald Trump has taken in the White House, the mainstream media has blown up into an extraordinary event.
Their hysterical, overreactions, are slowly delegitimizing their own profession — for it’s becoming harder for the average media consumer to understand what Trump offenses we should truly be concerned about, versus what’s being manufactured by the leftist media.
Take for example, the breathless reporting on New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara when he refused to resign and had to be fired. It was a political stunt by Mr. Bharara, who is rumored to be looking to run for mayor of New York City and is eager to position himself as the latest “resistance” martyr. Mr. Bharara broke the news of his own firing on his Twitter account.
He was serving at the pleasure of former President Barack Obama, donated to Mr. Obama’s inauguration, was the protégé of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and was a leading contender for Hillary Clinton’s Attorney General pick, had she won the White House.
Mr. Bharara was one of the 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by Mr. Obama and then asked to resign nearly 50 days into Mr. Trump’s presidency on March 10 — a commonplace occurrence when there’s a transfer of power between parties.
In 2009, Mr. Obama asked for the resignation and replaced almost all of former President George W. Bush’s appointed attorneys.
A Politico headline at the time read simply: “Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys.”
Not so with Mr. Trump.
Politico’s headline read: “Trump team ousts Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys.”
So “replace” was transitioned to “ousts” — although it was the exact same action by both the Democratic president and Republican one.
Yet, the leftist press sympathized with Mr. Bharara’s position and automatically likes to assume the worst of Mr. Trump.
“Trump abruptly orders 46 Obama-era prosecutors to resign,” The New York Times reported on March 10, saying the move came as a “surprise” to Mr. Bharara given his stellar “reputation for prosecuting public corruption cases and for investigating insider trading.”
Mr. Trump, in November, also met with Mr. Bharara, and according to Mr. Bharara’s account of the meeting, was told he could stay on.
This is where the Grey Lady hinted there might be something more sinister in Mr. Trump’s actions.
For his move to recuse the attorney’s was in the “same week that government watchdogs wrote to Mr. Bharara and urged him to investigate whether Mr. Trump had violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars federal officials from taking payments from foreign governments.”
This fact caught the eye of Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker who tweeted: “Given @PreetBharara’s investigative portfolio, it’s fair to ask whether someone called in a favor to get him fired. More Qs for the WH.”
So here you have a fact-checker wielding unproven conspiracy theories.
The Daily Beast layered on the hyperbole — calling the event a “Friday night massacre” — and quoting an unnamed source to back up their dire claim.
“Everything these people [Trump administration] do is a Saturday night massacre. Remember the ambassadors?” a law enforcement source told The Beast, referring to Mr. Trump’s early January decision to replace Mr. Obama’s appointed ambassadors (another customary move in the transition of power.)
“It’s such a lack of basic [expletive] decency and civility. They don’t see anyone as human beings; it’s horrifying,” the source told The Beast.
According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department official, an office’s investigations continue regardless of the shake-up at the top.
“The moment a U.S. Attorney leaves, the First Assistant in that office — a career prosecutor — takes over until a new U.S. Attorney is confirmed by the Senate,” Mr. von Spakovsky wrote. “All of that office’s investigations and prosecutions continue uninterrupted. There is no ‘partisan’ interference going on.”
It’s also clear to understand why Mr. Trump would want these attorneys removed: His administration is pursuing a divergent strategy than Mr. Obama’s — placing the enforcement of immigration laws at the top of the list — rather than ignoring them like Mr. Obama’s administration did.
Mr. von Spakovsky wrote: “All of us can agree that law enforcement should be nonpartisan and carried out in an objective manner that meets the best interests of the administration of justice. But new presidents and new attorneys general are entitled to put in U.S. Attorneys who will carry out their policies and their priorities when it comes to enforcing the myriad federal laws covering everything from terrorism and organized crime to immigration and election fraud.”
Indeed — and not too revolutionary a thought.
With elections come consequences. Mr. Trump is entitled — and should — be replacing past presidential appointees with his own team.