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

431–440 of 498 posts

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#431

Post by redler »

mordant wrote: post #216
davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Clinton won the electoral college vote — except for Texas.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#432

Post by celticninja »

MR4D wrote: post #342
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 Genera…

I am not American, but I believe your first point to be incorrect. The AG is supposed to defend the constitution (including from the president). In her confirmation hearing in 2015, senator Jeff Sessions, who is to take her place asked her:

"Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper...?"

Ms Yates replied: "I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president."

She was confirmed 84-12 so it seems that they were happy with the response. I would also note that any lawyer who is tasked to defend you also has an obligation to inform the client of poor chance of success, in this case the AG not only thought the chance of success was poor but it was unconstitutional also.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#433

Post by Certhas »

refurb wrote: post #426
Certhas wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so if I (and many reporters with much experience covering executive orders) read this correctly it was not vetted by the DOJ. It had the correct "formatting" of an executive order, but no check was performed by the OLC on whether it violates standing law. I mean the DHS and other involved departments were also not consulted, so the idea that the DOJ got to weigh in on the legality is pretty strange/implausble.

Really? I read that as "in case you're wondering why I'm opposing it and the OLC didn't, this is..."

I guess it hinges on the scope of the "form and legality" review. There is an obvious conflict with the law that bans immigration rules based on country of origin. Did the OLC weigh that (or even constitutionality)? Or merely whether the preceding law that Trump's order cites, authorizes him to give the executive order?

I assumed the latter. We'll soon see how the legality of the order plays out in the courts anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...

Edit: Either way, my original blanket assumption that it had just not been looked at by the DOJ at all is clearly false as the OLC is a part of the DOJ.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#434

Post by r_smart »

cjeane wrote: post #391
r_smart wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, it's pretty spot on in my estimation, I just don't think it's a sky is falling kind of situation. I was trying to answer the question: 'What would it take for his supporters to turn away from him?' and keep it in the context of why this thing just isn't an abandon ship situation, though it is certainly a fumble in a number of ways. |Proponents say they are temporary me…

The current refugee vetting process is very rigorous and would be a terrible avenue for ISIS agents to get into the US and other western nations, although I'm sure they would try. The process I went through to get a security clearance was about an 1/8 of the refugee vetting process and it was an incredibly invasive process. Obviously no vetting is 100% effective, but I'm highly skeptical that there will be a better p…

|Trump supporters may not not have breaking point when it comes to helping those that they don't have a perceived connection to.

This is kind of absurd. I think there would definitely be a point where they wouldn't support him on this. It's just that a 120 / 90 day ban of countries considered failed states / enemies isn't it. This is just a more subtle form of demonization. You're basically saying 'They'll agree to anything!'. I don't buy it. But who knows?

I think what is interesting is: What did it take to turn away from Obama? For me it was continued expansion of executive power, continued pursuit of destabilizing nations in the Middle East and continued support of erosion of civil liberties largely via domestic spying programs.

I'm expecting my answer to the Trump question to end up being roughly the same. I'll be pleasantly surprised if any of the above are missing. I'll be unpleasantly surprised if anything new is added. So it goes.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#435

Post by dragonwriter »

PeterisP wrote: post #260
mordant wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"An EO conflicts/doesn't conflict the statute" is a decision that only the judiciary branch is qualified to make, not you or the president. If judiciary and president disagrees about whether something is a valid law or a violation of the law, the judiciary branch is right by definition.

> "An EO conflicts/doesn't conflict the statute" is a decision that only the judiciary branch is qualified to make, not you or the president.

Incorrect. It's a question that only the judiciary is empowered to authoritatively resolve [0]. Were questions of Constitutionality (and whether or not an executive act is both grounded in statute and not prohibited by another statute is, given the Constitutional roles ofmthe legislative and executive branch, ultimately one of the Constitutionality of the act) not one on which the President (and various other officials) were qualified by virtue of their office alone to decide and act on prior to judicial resolution, oaths to the Constitution and/or laws such as those taken by the President and other public officials would be meaningless.

[0] Except that Congress may also do so, but only in the context of impeachment proceedings based on the purported illegality and without binding effect outside the specific proceeding in which it makes the determination. But its decision in such a case is final and unreviewable.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#436

Post by sctb »

Proven wrote: post #103

It sounds incredible, but this may be the first case of a gov "worker" who gets fired for refusing to work. Good riddance!

This account has been posting mostly uncivil or unsubstantive comments, and we have to ban accounts that carry on like this. Please take a moment to read the guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#437

Post by Avenger42 »

gm-conspiracy wrote: post #248
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.

I thought the FBI director recommends to the AG whether to pursue charges, no?

Even in such a case, the AG should be free to ignore the recommendation and say "sure, we've got enough evidence, but we're not going to pursue it". For example, if the charge is minor enough, or if the optics of it look bad, or the person in question were already being prosecuted by a different office, they could tell the FBI Director they weren't going to bother, and then go hold a press conference to explain why (so that the FBI Director doesn't beat you to the press to say "we've got them dead to rights and they won't prosecute for [X] reasons!").

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#438

Post by MR4D »

res0nat0r wrote: post #416
MR4D wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Genera…

The AG enforces and defends the Constitution, not the whims of a POTUS. Trump is quickly trying to turn the USG into yes men. Sean Spicer just said minutes ago in his Press Conference that her firing is pretty much a warning shot that if you don't agree with his views, no matter how you think the law stands you should step up or ship out. That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and i…

Well, upon that there is some disagreement. I'll take this quote from Jonathan Adler (who is Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University ):

"To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis."

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#439

Post by gozur88 »

thinkcontext wrote: post #228
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.

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...

Which assumes what he asked was improper.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#440

Post by ufmace »

billjings wrote: post #63
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.

Would you write an app that stores important passwords in plaintext client side if your boss demanded it?

Interestingly, Chrome AFAIK did and still does this for stored website passwords. The team argued that anything but plaintext would be a more dangerous illusion of security, since Chrome itself needs to be able to retrieve that data at any time with no password.
Post reply on HN