Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#211

Post by mordant » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:25 AM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #119

cookiecaper wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what's the Constitutional argument that the President is not allowed to issue EOs of this type? What's the argument that Mr. Trump's EO specifically violates the Constitution? Law enforcement is not the judiciary. They are part of the the executive branch. Their job is to enforce the law under the direction of the chief executive, at the moment President Trump, who was clearly installed by Constitutional means. U…

Perhaps you can educate us, then, when the executive branch gained the power to create law in the form of executive orders? Thought experiment: if Obama had issued an EO stating that his interpretation of the 2nd amendment referred only to state militias, and as a result he was proceeding to forcibly confiscated all privately owned firearms, would that be constitutional?

President Trump is merely exercising his clearly-delineated powers as defined in Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

You really should bone up on the law if you're going to start trying to make arguments about what's legal and what isn't, in a given context.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#212

Post by tzs » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #180

msrpotus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably not the first time, if you count Nixon firing his Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General because they wouldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre Maybe not the best precedent.

It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments! Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or w…

Speaking of Sessions, his belief is that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General should say "no" when asked to do something that they think is improper. When he questioned Yates during her confirmation hearing he specifically brought this up.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#213

Post by mordant » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:27 AM UTC

davesque wrote: post #14

ams6110 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's an interim AG, holdover from the prior administration. Wasn't going to be there long regardless.

As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.

>As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling.

On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#214

Post by mordant » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:28 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #35

cookiecaper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. An E.O. that conflicts with statute or the Constitution is not law, in fact, it a violation of the law. > 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 Deciding whether the is a reasonable legal argument for an action before defending it and not defending it…

>An E.O. that conflicts with statute or the Constitution is not law, in fact, it a violation of the law.

And that is not the case, here. The Executive Order in question is firmly grounded in section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Get your facts straight.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#215

Post by zigzigzag » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:28 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #159

throwaway5752 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think fake news is a useful term, it never has been. The media has been flooded with both outright fake news and more importantly missing news for years, when it was supporting the Democrat world view.

For instance, just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. The Russian army is huge and what's left of the Ukrainian army is made of fresh conscripts. If those events had actually happened then the Russian flag would have been waving over buildings in Kiev within 24 hours, there would have been videos of it all over the world. You can't hide an invasion of an entire country, that's not what the word means. Yet these conquered cities are mysteriously missing.

What actually happened is a civil war in Ukraine with two opposing sides from the same country who hate each other, one side trying to break away by force. The west supports west Ukraine with materials and training, Russia probably supports east Ukraine/Donbass in a similar way, although the west admitted they were doing it and Russia never did. But let's put that to one side and assume both were at it. That's not an invasion, that is at most a proxy war.

And what happened in Crimea was even simpler, they had a vote and voted to join Russia just like they did twice in the 1990's (but were ignored). Western/Ukrainian polling and journalists have visited since and didn't find any evidence that the vote was not representative of what people there actually think.

Yet fake news stories that talk of invasion, literally fake as in "reporting on things that never happened", goes largely unremarked, especially by the kinds of people who hate Trump. They usually aren't even aware how thoroughly they've been fooled.

If you want an example of how people are manipulated through missing news rather than fake news, the recent Greenwald article on a SEAL Team raid in Yemen and how CNN reported it is a good one.

So "fake news" is the kind of thing that both sides can levy at the other, with some justification, but trying to claim one side or another is smarter than the rest is not going to work. People will just tune it out, exactly as you report.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#216

Post by mordant » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:31 AM UTC

davesque wrote: post #166

rohshall wrote: post #135

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes

i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#217

Post by mikekchar » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:32 AM UTC

Dorono wrote: post #203

mikekchar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me that reddit is built specifically to deal with this kind of topic. It also attracts a politically oriented clientele. I can appreciate that one of the attractions of using HN for this kind of topic is because the normal clientele are not overly political. A more reasoned discussion is possible. I'm old enough to remember a time when this was also true of Slashdot. I couldn't even imagine seeing the ki…

> It occurs to me that reddit is built specifically to deal with this kind of topic. It also attracts a politically oriented clientele. Are you serious? Have you been to /r/worldnews? I get more insight here than any reddit sub.

That is precisely my point. Because it is not an encouraged topic, the people who come to destroy the conversation do not descend.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#218

Post by mordant » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:34 AM UTC

ssalazar wrote: post #54

Spooky23 wrote: post #12

I despise Trump, but I don't think it's it's acceptable for a civil servant to insert themselves into the news. If you're getting an unlawful or unethical order, you follow the process, suck it up or resign in protest. By going rogue and making yourself the story, you're attacking the office of the president. It's a bad idea, bad precedent and will have bad outcomes.

The Nuremberg defense. Classic.

Considering that the Nuremberg Trials were a clear-cut case of 'victor's justice', this holds no water with me.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#219

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:47 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #187

pm90 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obliga…

Here's a prescient clip from Sally Yates' nomination (March 2014). Reality certainly loves irony because the Senator asking the question was Jeff Sessions.

I made a quick and dirty transcription of the interesting bits, but I encourage you to view the whole thing[1].

Sen. Jeff Sessions: Do you think the Attorney General has a duty to say no to the president when asked to do something that is improper? ...

Sally Yates: I believe the AG and the deputy AG have an obligation to follow the law and the constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president

1. https://youtu.be/sXDt3WA07zc

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#220

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:53 AM UTC

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."

> Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News

Perhaps you can maintain a personal detox by avoiding political topics. Preventing everyone from discussing 'politics' on HN would be shortsighted because technology and startups are, and continue to be impacted by politics. Startups and immigrants have a long history.