Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#71

Post by jacquesm »

probably_wrong wrote: post #58
Daishiman wrote: post #49

Please, take two seconds to read the statement. There's third graders who literally have a better grasp of the English language than Trump.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that Trump is stupid. He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House. And speaking of people who may be smarter than we think: http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

> He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House.

No, he's like a smart person. (Trump in speech to the CIA).[1]

Really, if this isn't proof that stupid people do make it into the White House I don't know what is. If Trump was really smart he would be in control of the situation and not headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later). The guy is a living trainwreck and he's taking America with him, that his main advisor has actually stated that his goal is to burn it all down[2] and does not seem to care if he destroys the civilized world as we know it as collateral damage doesn't help one bit. For every day that this passes it will take a year or more to undo the damage, assuming it can be rectified at all.

A couple of months of this and it will have gathered momentum to the point where the divisions have become so enraged that a shooting war is a real possibility, which could be one of the goals, to purposefully lit the fuse so momentum will take over and they can enact even more ridiculous measures with the cover of an actual emergency situation. It's not like that trick didn't work countless times in the past.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#72

Post by wavefunction »

TenOhms wrote: post #40
ouid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...

What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.

The decision to prosecute a defendant or not (or defend a statute, or not) is at the discretion of the prosecutor, barring some sort of statutory requirement.

The President isn't a king, whose orders are to be followed regardless of the Constitution or prevailing law.

Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#74

Post by mikelevins »

TenOhms wrote: post #43
hprotagonist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that. It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that n…

Did Obama, Clinton, or Bush have an AG that willfully showed insubordination and encouraged it to their subordinates? I'm surprised her action didn't get more news coverage, well not really.

In March of 2004 John Ashcroft's Justice Department determined that the Bush Administration's Stellar Wind surveillance program was illegal. While Ashcroft was in the hospital being treated for acute pancreatitis, President Bush sent White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to tell Ashcroft to sign a document overturning his department's ruling. He refused.

He remained Attorney General until February 3rd, 2005, when he resigned the office.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#75

Post by rayiner »

cookiecaper wrote: post #23
ivl wrote: post #2

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone wh…

I don't understand your point. Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional (there is a process for that, and Ms. Yates is not in a position to make that determination) nor to decide whether it is good policy (as she is neither a legislator nor the chief execu…

Executive officers have an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of orders they enforce. Indeed, they can be held personally liable for violating "clearly established law."

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#76

Post by aub3bhat »

danhak wrote: post #45

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter…

Peter Thiel will go down in history as Trump/Bannon's useful idiot. He might have come up in short term betting correctly on Trump but he is down on long. If he thinks that he is going to get a piece of the pie after Kushner/Tillerson/Preibus(establishment) have had their take, then he is in for a cake.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#77

Post by [deleted] »

cookiecaper wrote: post #66
danhak wrote: post #45

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter…

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump…

[deleted]

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#78

Post by zzleeper »

jbyers wrote: post #73

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 :

>Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News?

Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here.

HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame that we are not allowed to a medium to read what the tech community feels about the current issues

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#79

Post by wavefunction »

Spooky23 wrote: post #62
hprotagonist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that. It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that n…

It's not your place as an appointed official in government to grandstand and get your picture in the news. You are not an elected official, you're there to represent the government. Unfortunately, the conversion of politics to reality tv has affected everyone. You resign. That's ultimately a greater statement anyway.

Determining whether or not to defend an indefensible law is also purview of the office, and a privilege and function of the position.

Considering that she was well within her rights and duties of office, it would be _highly_ irresponsible to leave her key position vacant, especially at this time of so much induced chaos.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#80

Post by danso »

danhak wrote: post #45

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter…

I think Thiel overall was right, in that Trump would still be liked by his base even if he didn't build a literal wall. By talking about the wall, Trump was signaling his priorities, and his base were just happy to have someone who they felt had the right priorities, whether or not a literal wall would get built.

I think Thiel just didn't think Trump would go through with it after winning, because he thinks Trump would see that the costs of the actual wall would outweigh the disapproval of voters, and that he could pursue a hard-line against immigration in less costly ways.

Post reply on HN