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

341–350 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#341

Post by refurb »

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.

It's political grandstanding, nothing more. The DOJ reviewed the executive order and found it legal.

Yates thought it would be better to go out with a bang than a whimper.

I'm sure the DNC will find her a nice comfy job after this.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#342

Post by MR4D »

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…

Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why:

#1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and even argues personally on behalf of administrations in front of the Supreme Court. Her duty is to defend the Administration's position (even if she personally disagrees with it). As wikipedia puts it (abbreviated for space here): "The United States Attorney General (A.G.) .... is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government." But I suggest reading here for a very good overview: https://www.justice.gov/about

#1a (to highlight this specifically: AGs determine whether to prosecute, not whether to defend.

#2 - The courtroom is the place to determine if the order is legal or not. From what I understand, Congress can also override this.

#3 - There is no (publicly known) communication between the AAG and the President regarding her stance. From what I can tell, she contradicted his order without informing him. Note that he has no legal requirement to inform her, but she does to inform him (being that the President is the superior to an AG).

#4 - Presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys without any reason. And they use it often. Every President in recent memory has done so.

#5 - The order affected non-citizens who are outside the country. The law and legal cases tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch on actions outside the country.

Again, I say this regardless of whether or not I like the order. I will say this - at a minimum, he should have consulted with someone to minimize some of the issues that this order faces. That fact that he apparently did not even do that is astonishing.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#343

Post by becarefulyo »

refurb wrote: post #336
becarefulyo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college was created in part to prevent unqualified candidates from becoming president. It failed spectacularly.

Unqualified by which definition? The one the Democrats hold?

By any reasonable human being's standard.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#344

Post by uep »

bmm01 wrote: post #294
intherdfield wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.

I disagree. When the AG points out that an executive action is morally or legally dubious, it reflects more on the actions of the president than on the AG. In this case, government cannot be compared to a business, where a subordinate publicly questioning a superior's decision is indicative of unruly management, leaving the superior in a position where he/she needs to reassure the public that he's/she's in charge. Go…

Hmm. You made me think about this differently. Trump comes from the business world, so it makes sense that he would treat his current role the same. Not that I agree with the mentality at all, but it does seem less inherently spiteful now.

It also isn't lost on me that he made his reality television name by saying "You're fired."

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#345

Post by davexunit »

tptacek wrote: post #313
davexunit wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying that one should debate creationists or flat earthers.

If you can't do better than name-calling with a flat-earther, I don't know what to tell you.

My point is that facts do nothing to those that are committed to fiction. Presenting facts or debating gives their position legitimacy. Better to just dismiss lunacy with a pejorative term and move along.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#346

Post by savagej »

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?

Why are you so stupid as to think America will not defend its borders? Why are you so stupid as to not realize America is modeled on individual freedom, which is incompatible with Sharia Jihadis?

Defense of individual freedom and liberty (i.e. preventing the creation a police state and ensuring gun rights) is more important than leftist feelings. There are some bad dudes to remove in the meantime.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#347

Post by losvedir »

grey-area wrote: post #223
cookiecaper wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 world…

> dual-citizens

To be clear, you mean like Iranian-British, right? If one of the citizenships were American I don't think it applied.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#348

Post by Certhas »

refurb wrote: post #341
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.

It's political grandstanding, nothing more. The DOJ reviewed the executive order and found it legal. Yates thought it would be better to go out with a bang than a whimper. I'm sure the DNC will find her a nice comfy job after this.

Do you have a source for that claim? Because everything I read indicates that there was little to no legal review of the executive order. In fact, given that the Attorney General would sign of that review (my understanding at least), it seems extremely unlikely that there was one.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#349

Post by Shivetya »

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…

She was fired properly and not for political reasons the EO was approved, determined legal, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Her reasoning reflected the fact she knew she had no legal basis to defend the EO. She should have resigned instead she made matters worse.

The restriction is against seven countries. Presidents Obama and Carter both enacted immigration bans against Muslim dominant countries (Iraq and Iraq). This still leaves over fifty majority Muslim countries unaffected by the EO including the five most populated countries.

It is not any more a Muslim ban than when past Presidents put restrictions on immigration from countries labeled as dangerous.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#350

Post by defen »

ubernostrum wrote: post #329
camiller wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 USC §1182(f) which states in part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may…

The National Review's article basically boils down to "well, we found this section that allows suspending entry of some people, and even though there's another section explicitly forbidding doing this stuff based on national origin we're going to say he has essentially unlimited power to do whatever he wants". Meanwhile the federal judge who ordered the stay thinks theress a strong likelihood that the order is either…

So if hypothetically we went to war with country X tomorrow, the president would not be able to suspend entry of X nationals without an act of Congress?
Post reply on HN