Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#181

Post by glandium » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 6:42 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #71

probably_wrong wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

> headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later).

Not a rethorical question, I just don't know. If there is impeachment and Trump is removed from office, what's supposed to happen? VP replaces him? That doesn't really sound like an improvement.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#182

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 6:43 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #170

cookiecaper wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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? There are many things wrong with the excuse of requiring more vetting: 1. The countries included in the ban have not been responsible for causing damage to the US. The countries w…

>This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later.

Bannon has no authority to make immigration policy. The reporting attributes actions to him based on anonymous sources ("American officials"), it's not going by the public record or citing public activity. Given their hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#183

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 6:44 AM UTC

ouid wrote: post #31

hueving wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.

"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...

"the attorney general is a member of the bar"

While I'm sure that's always or virtually always been true in practice, nothing in the relevant U.S. Code appears to require it (it is definitely not the case for the Supreme Court).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#184

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 6:47 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #143

sfifs wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Sally Yates sue for wrongful termination?

I think those people tend to "serve at the pleasure of the president".

Yes. Appointees typically give a signed but undated letter of resignation to the President when they accept the position.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#185

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 6:53 AM UTC

siidooloo wrote: post #168

cookiecaper wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no position on whether or not President Trump's order is "the right thing". I am merely saying that he is seriously, but not literally, fulfilling the promises he made during the campaign. That's what the comment I was replying to was discussing. Trump has not literally banned Muslims, nor has he literally begun construction on a wall that rivals the Great Wall of China (and indications are that he doesn't int…

You're doing a lot of arguing For someone who has no position on it.

Self-indulgent arguments over technicalities have been a lifelong thing for me. My dad always told me I should be a lawyer. ;)

Seriously though, it matters because people are trying to pretend that there is some extraordinary abrogation of law, precedent, or process here, when indeed there hasn't been. There's just a bunch of malicious people with a megaphone trying to scare other people so that those people will be duped into doing their dirty work, which has a real potential to grow not just disorderly, but violent.

I really don't know much about whether President Obama's immigration orders were wise or not either, but I would've made equally self-indulgent arguments in his favor if people were also trying to incite mass panic over it.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#186

Post by altern8tif » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:10 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #177

ctchocula wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant , not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but…

How do we know when to take Trump literally or not? When he says "build the wall", does he mean a literal wall or a figurative one? When he said he has a plan to defeat ISIS, or a plan to replace Obamacare, is that a literal plan?

Are we cherry-picking his words based on what our personal ideologies are? Are we rationalising?

The fact that he lies blatantly without any regard for consequences (or remorse) makes his message even more muddled. Is this a hallmark of a great leader?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#187

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:11 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #172

TenOhms wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there was no case given, it smelled of politics from the beginning and her lack of presenting a compelling legal case doomed her, in my opinion.

She did give a case. You can read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-L...

Thanks for linking to that! I wish news outlets would make these primary sources more directly accessible. It's great to read her words directly and in context.

That doesn't sound like a case at all. She cites no law nor any Constitutional provision that may be violated. She provides no citation to case law.

She states that the order "has been challenged in a number of jurisdictions" and that DoJ has a "solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right", which apparently is depriving the duly-elected chief executive of a fair legal defense to present in those challenges based on the acting AG's personal opinions.

She implies that "statements made by an administration or it [sic] surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order" may play some role in some type of illegality, though this clearly violates accepted standards of judicial interpretation, which consider the law as written, not the extralegal public statements of people involved in its development.

Let's call a spade a spade here. No one can seriously believe there is a strong legal argument for her conduct or that it, in any way, represents typical or expected behavior for the head of DoJ, which is a division of the executive branch under the President's authority and jurisdiction.

Ms. Yates is simply grandstanding and taking advantage of an opportunity for positive personal publicity and negative publicity on a political opponent. In her search for exposure, she adds fuel to the nefarious fire that seeks to threaten the integrity of American democracy, promoted by mainstream media outlets who absolutely cannot stand that people are using the internet to escape their chokehold and would rather see the whole country burn than lose their ability to control the propaganda diet of the average American.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#188

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:18 AM UTC

altern8tif wrote: post #186

cookiecaper wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant , not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but…

How do we know when to take Trump literally or not? When he says "build the wall", does he mean a literal wall or a figurative one? When he said he has a plan to defeat ISIS, or a plan to replace Obamacare, is that a literal plan? Are we cherry-picking his words based on what our personal ideologies are? Are we rationalising? The fact that he lies blatantly without any regard for consequences (or remorse) makes his m…

I have no position on whether or not Trump is a great leader. Is that the argument we're having here? I thought it was about whether Trump is filling his controversial campaign promises seriously or literally. So far, it appears that he is filling them seriously, but not literally.

The law is the law. We are governed by the law according to its plain meaning. Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law. Like other politicians, his campaign statements are also irrelevant when interpreting the law. The law is interpreted according to its plain meaning, barring scrivener's errors or other interpretations that would cause an obviously absurd or extreme outcome.

Up to this point, Trump's EOs appear legally sound, even if some people don't like their content. A court of law will eventually have to hear arguments and rule one way or the other based on the specific details. On the other hand, many of Trump's campaign promises were facially illegal or discriminatory as literally described. It is left to the reader to determine whether Trump's EOs or campaign statements is more true to his original intention, but it doesn't matter as far as actual implementation and governance goes.

Generally, I would say that if something sounds bombastic, illegal, or extreme, it's probably more figurative than literal, but who can really say? It's like dealing with anyone else. You have to feel them out and make a probabilistic determination about what they meant by some comment they said the other day, and whether that was literal or not.

That is absolutely not the way that most legally-minded politicians have done things up to this point. But it's the way Trump does things. I can't answer for his intentions and I have neither the obligation nor the intention to do so.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#189

Post by Oletros » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC

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…

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

When there are exceptions involving religious minorities in the EO, there is a lot about religion

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#190

Post by grey-area » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:32 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #177

ctchocula wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant , not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but…

According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now.

President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way.

As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down -

Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.