Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#221

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:03 AM UTC

glandium wrote: post #181

jacquesm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That doesn't really sound like an improvement

Perhaps not to Americans, but to the rest of the world the VP seems like the stabler choice. The administration's alignment would move from Chaotic to Lawful. I happen to value predictability and forces that can be reasoned with.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#222

Post by flukus » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:17 AM UTC

davesque wrote: post #197

flukus wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.

There were probably just as many non-Trump voters that stayed home in solid red states.

Very possible, but we'll never know.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#223

Post by grey-area » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:43 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #193

grey-area wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 - First, thinking that the media is anti-Trump does not automatically make one pro-Trump. Second, being pro-Trump does not make one automatically pro-strong-vetting. As for my personal positions, which are not relevant to anything but which I'm more than happy to…

a) Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero (0) Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and the end of 2015 (as opposed to say Saudi Arabia).

b) See a) above

c) The deliberate effect was immediately sending back green card holders and dual-citizens arriving at the border, this is wrong, both morally and pragmatically (damages US standing and the value of citizenship).

d) See the large worldwide protests at the ban.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#224

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 11:03 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #212

Turing_Machine wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#225

Post by nulldevz » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 11:56 AM UTC

workerIbe wrote: post #86

aub3bhat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Irregardless, alot of people is working to create a gooder place. Alot of, times it's disturbingness are feeding hypobole. I is a Trump supporter alot.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#226

Post by bonyt » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 12:42 PM UTC

disantlor wrote: post #136

bonyt wrote: post #65

For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes: 1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG) 2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota 3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under…

interestingly there seems to be a new executive order 13762, from the final days of the obama whitehouse, that changed the Justice Department order of succession, yet Trump seems to have followed the order that you mentioned/linked saw a tweet raising this point after having just read your comment. not sure what it means but thought your comment was very interesting, so... here's some more detail.

That's really strange! I wonder if he may have followed the wrong order, or or if the vacancies reform act gives him some leeway here...

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#227

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:08 PM UTC

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.

-5? Wow the groupthink is amazing here.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#228

Post by thinkcontext » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:32 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #13

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…

>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.

Then you disagree with Jeff Sessions who said "the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper." Ironically he did this at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, he went on to praise John Ashcroft for resisting the Bush administration.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#229

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:42 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #224

tzs wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?

That's not really where the consequences stop flowing though. Yes, the President has a right to fire an AG that refuses to implement a President's policy. At the same time, the public may draw certain inferences from that decision. If a big oil company fired its top lawyer for refusing to do something she though violated environmental laws, very reasonable inferences could be made about the leadership.

The US Attorney thing under Clinton is totally different. Nobody made a peep when Trump dismissed the previous AG. It is understood that these political appointees will be replaced as a matter of course. This criticism is in response to him dismissing Yates after asking her to stay on board as acting AG, in response to her exercising her legal judgment.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#230

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #79

Spooky23 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that was the case, mouthing off and getting her picture pasted everywhere was an irresponsible act vs an orderly resignation.