Talk:Geoffrey Berman

Puff
Berman joins a long line of notable persons who have been U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, including Henry L. Stimson, Robert M. Morgenthau, Robert Fiske, Rudy Giuliani, Mary Jo White, James B. Comey, and Preet Bharara.

Appending that to the lead has a puff aspect to my eye. In particular, the verb "joins" is a PR mainstay, especially in the way it glosses over how he's interim and all the rest were (presumably) confirmed appointments.

But even if you fix the verb, it's still a one-of-these-things does not entirely belong on this list kind of affair. And what does it really say about Berman, himself? Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet it's presently half of Berman's lead, as if the man is so dwarfed by the ancestral portraits lining the white marble halls as to barely exist as his own man (as seen in The Denethor Scenario). &mdash; MaxEnt 17:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tekashi69
Added the charges brought against Hernandez due to their relevance in pop culture and the severity of the charges could end the career of a pop culture icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCOChris (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Geoffrey S. Berman.jpg

Berman's religion
What religion is Berman? Jewish? There is no mention of his religion at all in the article. Thanks to anybody who can answer / put it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.34.86 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No need for religious identification, especially since you seem to be seeking the information based on religious prejudice. 2A01:E0A:E:9050:2951:2BB5:F63B:1AD9 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking about faith is not presumptively hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:C000:540:34BC:A21:EA3B:5CFA (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no information at the article because it is not relevant to his position or his biography and so it does not need to be included. We don't routinely identify someone's religion if it is not relevant to their position. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Successor as US Attorney for SDNY
I added a "dubious" tag to the infobox claim that Craig Carpenito will succeed Berman as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, because it is unclear whether Carpenito is legally eligible to replace Berman on an acting basis. See the "2020 disputed ouster" section of the article. Law professor Steve Vladeck has said: "Because Berman was appointed under 546(d), even if the President can remove him, he can only be replaced by: 1) Someone nominated by the President & confirmed by the Senate; or 2) Someone *else* appointed by judges under 546(d). Carpenito is neither of those." Tony Tan · talk  05:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If Jeff Sessions wanted payback, for the shoddy way Trump treated him, he could not have imagined better than that an appointee of his, (Berman), would come back to bite Trump/Barr on the ass  Mark  Dask  05:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the things you state here and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any counterargument as to why Carpenito should take Berman's position, the prevailing thought seems to be that Carpenito will not take over. So, this text can be removed. 2001:1C02:2C21:3300:81A:EFAE:574:2381 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Given Barr has now conceded that Deputy U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss should be acting, and that Carpenito is now ruled out of the discussion by Barr himself, my comment is entirely justified. Mark  Dask  23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mainstream media outlets don't present it as such a slam dunk. As for counterarguments, 546(a) says "Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant."  The position was vacant.  AG Sessions appointed someone.  The confirmation clock ran out.  The district court appointed an interim.  The position remains vacant.  AG Barr is now empowered to fill the vacancy and re-start the confirmation clock.  Failure by the legislature to confirm should not trigger a process where the judiciary can appoint and the legislature can de facto confirm by refusing to act on another appointment by the executive. 2601:151:C000:540:34BC:A21:EA3B:5CFA (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Apparently even Barr now doesn't think he can appoint someone. He mentions in his letter of today that: "By operation of law, the Deputy United States Attorney, Audrey Strauss, will become the Acting United States Attorney". So,this makes the discussion about Carpenito moot I suppose, although now a discussion could be started about Strauss.2001:1C02:2C21:3300:AC01:1D05:DF47:5DDD (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And to add insult to injury, Trump says he's not involved in firing Berman, that's up to Barr, according to him. So Berman still by all means has his job. 2001:1C02:2C21:3300:AC01:1D05:DF47:5DDD (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Berman agrees with Barr and Strauss will be his successor. 2001:1C02:2C21:3300:AC01:1D05:DF47:5DDD (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a reference for that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC) OK, here's the reference: We can add it to the article and settle this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Partnership at Greenberg Traurig and Giuliani
The Early Life section references a Bloomberg News article titled "Giuliani Law Partner Named Top New York Federal Prosecutor," and that title gives the impression that Berman and Guiliani worked together ("were partners"). I don't see any evidence of that, and the Bloomberg article later makes more clear that Berman and Giuliani both held the title of "partner" at Greenberg Traurig, although GT calls that position "shareholder," which is more clear. (I have, however, seen people confused about the relationship between Berman and Giuliani; I recently edited this article to use "shareholder" when discussing them to avoid potential misinterpretation). I am a little concerned that the reference to the Bloomberg article by its title may cause readers to improperly assume a relationship between Berman and Giuliani which never existed (or, at least, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of, but perhaps it's just my ignorance; but BLP). I realize that only happens if people read the references and make assumptions or draw conclusions, so this is not a problem of large magnitude. Still, I'm not quite sure what to do about it, if anything. Some possibilities: I really don't know, so I thought I would pose this here. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Perhaps the concern is overblown, and it should be left alone.
 * 2) Perhaps it is valid, and we should remove the link to the Bloomberg News article.
 * 3) Perhaps there is some appropriate middle ground, like adding a long discursive <! -- comment --> to the reference, or
 * 4) changing it to "[Greenberg Traurig] Partner Named Top New York Federal Prosecutor" or something like that.

How to handle the infobox
As far as I can tell, Berman is still the U.S. Attorney for SDNY, and the infobox should not list his term as ending June 20. The situation is this: Barr said Berman had "stepped down"; Berman said he had not resigned and did not intend to. Barr then claimed that Trump had fired him, but Trump denies it. And according to our article it is unclear whether either Barr or Trump has the legal right to fire him. So right now the situation is very unclear, but I don't think we can state as fact that his term is over or that he is out of office. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind; Berman now says he will step down. . -- MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Notable civil cases and criminal prosecutions" section
This section mainly cites DOJ primary sources (which don't prove notability), and the cases don't have their own Wikipedia articles. If this section is to be kept, it should cite third-party sources that prove the cases/prosecutions are notable by WP standards. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Many (but not all) of the cases have defendants with their own Wikipedia articles that are wikilinked. That should be a sufficient level of notability for a section like this. A case against a notable person is notable, there need not be a separate page for that case. jhawkinson (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)