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

381–390 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#381

Post by NOSHSHNACKERS »

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…

you were misimformed obviously Turing_Machine. You should try harder next time to feel the truth

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#382

Post by CalChris »

coredog64 wrote: post #373
res0nat0r wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it seems everyone here is ignoring the fact that the WH wrote this ignorant EO without talking to the OLC, has already gone 0/5 in the court challenges thus far. But still fired her for not doing his bidding.

Yate's letter of resignation specificall mentions that the OLC vetted the EO as legal when considered on it's own.

Yates didn't resign. She was fired.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#383

Post by cookiecaper »

sangnoir wrote: post #219
cookiecaper wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, that's all normal. Note that she says it's their obligation to give legal advice to the president and follow the law and Constitution. The Constitution provides that the president is the chief executive and oversees the DoJ. Right now, the minor potential legal arguments that have been put forth by commentators (not Ms. Yates herself; she provides no legal argument or justification) do not rise to the level of constitutional violations or anything that may imperil her oath of office.

Why is Ms. Yates comfortable allowing the judiciary to make its decisions on Mr. Obama's illegal EOs but not comfortable allowing it to do so on Mr. Trump's EOs? There's a reason we have a legal system with strict procedures and rules regarding argumentation, standards of evidence, etc. In ordinary conditions, a fair decision cannot be rendered by an attorney sitting alone in a room, and, barring a blatant constitutional violation, it's improper to redirect the resources of the DoJ based on such decisions.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#384

Post by lordlimecat »

autotypo wrote: post #251
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to comment something along those lines. A business might hire an attorney, but they generally listen when they say a policy has shaky legal ground, if any at all. The response isn't generally to fire the lawyer and find one that agrees.

The White House has its own office of legal counsel which has stated the order is legal. The AG ignored the legality of the order when making the decisions that led to firing.

> The AG ignored the legality of the order

Just because legal counsel says its legal does not mean it is legal, or that the AG "ignored its legality". Different attorneys will have different frameworks and theories on whether it will hold up in court.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#385

Post by cookiecaper »

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…

Right, I understand some of the arguments in favor or against. But I haven't researched enough to develop a firm opinion. Do you expect these one-sentence summaries of the liberal position to change that?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#386

Post by lordlimecat »

LordKano wrote: post #333
wavefunction wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decision to prosecute a defendant or not (or defend a statute, or not) is at the discretion of the prosecutor, barring some sort of statutory requirement. The President isn't a king, whose orders are to be followed regardless of the Constitution or prevailing law. Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way.

Both the President and the AG serve at the pleasure of the People of the United States, and Trump is about to find that out the hard way. Trump has the support of roughly half of the country. Regardless of how loud the opposition is, don't confuse their passion for widespread support.

Trump will find that that support dwindles day by day. The country has always been split roughly down the middle between conservatives and liberals, and liberals are generally united against Trump.

What happens when his conservative base starts dwindling as he institutes more and more measures which run counter to both conscience and conservative principles?

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#387

Post by troisx »

croon wrote: post #339
robbiep wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act. Both may get you fired; morally one is cor…

So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.

If Uber or Airbnb counsel refused to defend some of the dubiously legal practices that both companies practice, they'd be fired that minute.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#388

Post by fullshark »

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?

One of the great accomplishments of the internet age is allowing everyone to have a voice, therefore allowing society to realize that everyone is in fact stupid.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#389

Post by cookiecaper »

grey-area wrote: post #314
wtbob wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law No, that's exactly what the Giuliani story doesn't indicate: it indicates the exact opposite, which is that they did this legally. Incidentally, I think it's possible to support neither the President nor the media. The National Review had a recent article, whose title was something like 'Trump's order is wrong, but the Left is insane.' It's entirely…

What he wants violates the law: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" not what he did (the EO), which debatable in terms of legality, the EO could be legal as the president has a lot of power on immigration, though the former AG thinks not. Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump s…

>Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter.

You say this like there's something bad about it, first. There are lots of Trump supporters, or at least Trump voters, and their opinions have every potential to be valid. What's the point of this political shame game? It only hurts your position overall and such smugness may very well have played a large role in your side's election loss.

Second, I voted for Trump, but I don't consider myself a "Trump supporter" as such -- I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, as I previously explained, and I don't have any specific personal opinion on Trump's EOs, pending further research.

Thirdly, as we've also already established, one need not be pro-Trump to recognize that the media is anti-Trump. That's not a "recycled talking point", that's a real thing. You may disagree if you wish, but your blatant hostility and denigration of others is not appropriate for this forum. You should read PG's essay at http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html.

It is just as fair to say that Mr. Trump's EO is more reflective of his actual opinion than his campaign statements as it is to do the opposite. That argument is zero sum because no one can know anyone else's true intentions.

You seem to be having difficulty grasping some of the nuance here, and trying to whip up a hysterical mob reaction. This is a thread about technical legal topics such as separation of powers and constitutional obligations, etc. In the future, you may wish to go visit the Huffington Post or something of that nature for the dismissive, mean-spirited political bigotry that you're attempting to use to pollute HN.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#390

Post by jdp23 »

rayiner wrote: post #328
VLM wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that field very low level jobs are entirely professional and very high level jobs are entirely political, which makes the oil lawyer analogy invalid. There is no professional insight in a political act and vice versa. In this specific example she made a highly public political act containing no professional content, naturally that results in firing.

Even low level federal officials have an independent duty not to violate peoples' constitutional rights. They can be held personally liable for violating clearly established constitutional law, and following administration policy is not a defense. Usually the "clearly established" part protects the low level folks, but here you could see CBP line agents being held personally liable for excluding green card holders. O…

Indeed - there are limits to the "only following orders" defense.

rayiner, I'm curious what you think about Dershowitz' argument that she should have resigned?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/317...

Post reply on HN