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

151–160 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#151

Post by jbyers »

grzm wrote: post #130
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."

Flag submissions you consider inappropriate for HN. If you recall Political Detox Week, it was very chaotic and noisy. It's very difficult to find widespread agreement as to what's politics and what's not, and what's an exception because it's really really important. 'dang summarized the results of the detox week and has made some recent comments on it as well. I'll dig around for them and update this comment with li…

I agree, and this has been my practice: flag what doesn't pass my internal bar and see if the algorithm / moderators / community agree.

For all this community has generated inspired commentary on the technology world, I maintain that we don't have the framework to manage net-positive political debate. My point is we should choose to address that deficiency or choose to avoid political debate.

We'll see where flagging and voting take us - maybe it's enough. So far I would summarize the karmic reaction to my first comment as: "meh."

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#152

Post by davidw »

cookiecaper wrote: post #133
disantlor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any what exactly does this EO accomplish? just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward" by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.

>any what exactly does this EO accomplish? I mean, is there some mystery to this? The EO explicitly states its purpose in its text. It gives the Trump administration time to evaluate the procedures used to vet nationals from these hotbeds of terrorist activity. Are you concerned that it doesn't do this, or do you simply not agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do? >by permanent residents i assume you mean green c…

Those people are already being vetted. A lot. Do you think no one before Trump realized that there are some bad people in those countries?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#153

Post by grzm »

probably_wrong wrote: post #142
grzm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, if you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, please do flag it. I would hope that you're not doing so out of spite, however. When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?

> When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate? Politics are explicitly forbidden by the guidelines (and also implicitly). Even this story was flagged, and only brought back to life by a moderator, but it's clearly against the rules. Now, it could be argued that this article is noteworthy and therefore included in the exceptions, to which I'd reply: every single day there's a story here about T…

I can understand your frustration. While you're right that HN is international (thankfully so), it still does have a large US demographic, which affects the number and topic of submissions as well as flagging behavior of the group as a whole. I know that may not be a whole lot of comfort.

As for the guidelines, you rightly point out that they ask specifically to void political submissions, and you also point out that there's an argument that some exceptions should be made. The discussion of the appropriateness of politics on HN has come up numerous times just today. Here's a link to another one where I included a list of comments by 'dang that hopefully sheds more light on the mods' views on politics on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527694

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#154

Post by ctchocula »

cookiecaper wrote: post #116
conistonwater wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Thi…

>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: " And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's base…

Read the article more carefully. From the article:

> “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

The story goes:

1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."

2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point:

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#155

Post by nikdaheratik »

cookiecaper wrote: post #123
nikdaheratik wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a law, it's an executive order. If it was something passed by Congress, I would agree with your point, but it is not. So it is down to the acting attorney general's judgement on whether to defend the order.

While it is true that EOs are not statutes enacted by Congress, they are usually binding law. As a layman, I'm not qualified to argue the matter in detail, but it's obtuse to pretend otherwise. EOs with the force of law are not new and have well-established precedent. This appears to be a good overview. [0] [0] http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/executive-orders-in-court

The orders only have the force of law if they are based in laws already passed by Congress. If the order conflicts with these laws or the Constitution, it's the order that gets ignored, not the laws.

The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. The Constitution also states that people are required to have due process before their rights are taken away. If the acting attorney general felt that the order conflicted with these two, as she clearly did, then it was the executive order that should get ignored.

Now I will agree that there is a political dimension to this, especially since the current nominee for Attorney General is going through confirmation hearings and her actions make sure that this will come up in those hearings. But the President could have consulted with Congress, and didn't. He could have gone through Homeland Security and didn't. He could have waited until his nominee of choice was confirmed and consulted them, but didn't. So there is alot of this that is backlash against the lack of due process and the attempt to run the government like a corporation, which is against the law itself.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#156

Post by Malician »

cookiecaper wrote: post #116
conistonwater wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Thi…

>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: " And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's base…

Guliani is not the President. Trump is, and Bannon is a top advisor. Trump went to Guliani asking for a Muslim ban and asking how to dress it up; Guliani complied (in a really, really incompetent fashion.)

Bannon's views are quite available from the history of Breitbart reporting, and from his interviews (Asian CEOs.) Motives matter when the executive branch has as much power as it does now (and that power is so concentrated in figures like Bannon.)

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#157

Post by comex »

cookiecaper wrote: post #116
conistonwater wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Thi…

>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: " And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's base…

According to sources cited by the New York Times, the initial application to green card holders was quite intentional:

> Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#158

Post by avn2109 »

danso wrote: post #80
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 wou…

The thing about the Mexican border wall is that it already exists. It's hundreds of miles long.

National Geographic shot some panoramas [0] but otherwise you don't hear too much about it in the news. I guess "lengthening a wall" doesn't fire up the base as much as "building a wall."

[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexic...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#159

Post by pm90 »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #115
workerIbe wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think alot of Trump supporters are taking seriously is the phenomena that is the left feeding off It's own hyperbole, it's pretty disturbing.

And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.

There aren't any, and I'm serious about it. Unless Trump does something that is totally and obviously anti-populist, like raise taxes for everyone by 20% or send in the National Guard into a city.

It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal".

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#160

Post by manicdee »

rtkwe wrote: post #70
hprotagonist wrote: post #26

From 0 to Saturday Night Massacre, in 10 days. That's not really a record one ought to be proud of. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

I feel like the comparisons to Nixon's actions are quite a bit strained. At the very least the magnitude of the actions is vastly different. Nixon was shopping around for a AG that would remove a special prosecutor investigating him.

Trimp is shopping around for an AG that won't investigate him.
Post reply on HN