Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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 who shows disloyalty. If Trump thinks he can have something done, I worry he'll demand people below him do so, or replace them with someone properly spineless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
Maybe not the best precedent.
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 whoever it winds up being). She just decided to go out with some political grandstanding, which I'm sure will help her find a new job.
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.
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.
#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.
That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.
"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...
In the usual course, the DoJ would pre-vet an E.O. and concerns about wisdom and justice, and particularly, as regards the former, issues of the degree to which defending the E.O. would require the DoJ to take positions that the DoJ has taken or would otherwise take defending other executive actions, and the potential adverse precedent (for public and even specifically executive branch interests) that would be set were courts to accept arguments the DoJ would make defending the E.O. would be addressed, weighed, and resolved (possibly with changes to the E.O. and/or changes to strategy in other pending cases) before the E.O. was issued.
The lack of consultation within the Executive Branch that, among others in other contexts, Senators McCain and Graham (both Republicans) called out, prevented that from occurring in advance, which meant those considerations would have to be weighed after-the -fact. But still before any defense could be prudently mounted.
"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.
In private, and when he tells you that you're to carry out his wishes- since you're serving at his pleasure, then you go and do your job or you resign.
If you picked a public fight with your boss in the middle of the scrum and then refused to do what he wanted when you were overruled- how long would you last?
Also- let's not forget that Office of Legal Council had already said that it's perfectly Constitutional and legal.
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.
Whether the order rises to that level I'm not sure. I think there are definitely some instances in how the order was applied that wouldn't have been defensible if pursued further. For example, I haven't heard a single cogent argument that it's legal to exclude permanent residents without individualized process.
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.
-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...
While I'm sure that's always or virtually always been true in practice, nothing in the relevant U.S. Code appears to require it (it is definitely not the case for the Supreme Court).
http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...
> It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.
You have DHS officials refusing to obey a court order[0] and the White House refusing to share information with Congress[1]. Where are the checks and balances?
0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord...
1. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-...
If you answer yes to this question, you should find another career. Engineers have ethical responsibilities as well.
edit: Never mind. Parent was about storing not about sending passwords in clear text.
And of course, keep in mind that 'following orders' is never a particularly good reason to break with your own morality.
Except, for the health and continuing stability of the republic, one should not expect this in cases where the President is judged by legal experts to be outside the Constitution. On principle alone, we do not expect civil servants to simply "do whatever the President wants"—that way lies tyranny. We expect them to uphold and defend the Constitution, not executive agendas. That's the oath they take. Every President is rightly subjected to scrutiny and criticism when they fire people for disagreement. We created this system of government to avoid the abuses of unchecked power.
How nice that Trump right out of the gate has kneecapped his administration in terms of intelligence gathering! At least until a puppet replacement is approved by the Senate.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra...
[Edit: earlier in the day I read that the acting AG was the only Senate approved signatory. As somebody below me pointed out, that is no longer the current interpretation of who is able to sign these letters in the provided link. I'm keeping my post up as originally written because things moved so dang fast today.]
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.
The other countries aren't banned because he has business interests there: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/poli...
"The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai."
Note this is not an instance of prosecutorial discretion. Ms. Yates is not refusing to prosecute people under the law; rather, she is instructing her subordinates to refrain from doing the necessary work that would allow the government fair representation during hearings on the law.
If she is unwilling to fulfill her job duties for personal reasons (and likewise instructs her subordinates to stop fulfilling theirs), the appropriate course of action is to resign, is it not? If she's unwilling to do that and wishes to make a spectacle of herself, wouldn't a dismissal be the expected resolution?
How is dismissing an acting AG who refuses to enforce the law "purely political" and not an expected, appropriate response to someone who has refused to execute the laws of the country they're supposed to represent? Does it make sense to allow an acting AG to remain in place after she intentionally and explicitly declines to recognize the president's authority to direct the executive branch?
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 otherwise is absolutely her obligation, both as a officer of the court and a public officer with an oath to the Constitution.
> Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed?
Democrats prime objection to Sessions involves recognizing that this job responsibility and being concerned that Sessions' past record indicates he would exercise it poorly, from their perspective.
That's not up to the Attorney General to decide, that's up to the Supreme court to decide.
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.
I have seen a lot of commentary arguing one way or another regarding this issue. My personal conclusion at this time is "firmly grounded" would be too strong of a statement, in my opinion.
And I just saw a clip from March 2015 of Jeff Sessions asking Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing as deputy AG whether she would stand up to the president if what he's asking her to do is not lawful, and she stated she would. And now she's doing exactly what she promised she'd do.
What smells, sounds, and looks like politics, is having a political operative placed on the NSC as a regular attendee. And having an executive order providing no credible improvement to national security by the estimation of numerous national security experts and over 100 career diplomats at the State Department. Distilled, it's an EO that appears throws meat to an anti-Muslim nationalist base at the expense of refugees, global opinion of the U.S., and visa holders in the U.S. needing renewal inside the temporary ban who now are at risk of deportation primarily because they're Muslim. But it also puts the president's own agenda at risk by putting a spotlight on his impulsiveness, and leaves him open to political distractions and even reprisal.
At best this EO is clumsy. At worst it's intentional. Either way it's totally self inflicted distracting nonsense of the administration's own choosing. Yes he promised to do something like this, but he promised to be a bigot and break the law, and I think that's a campaign promise he could just not keep. So it appears to be rather intentional and clumsy.
She is claiming that there are potential legal conflicts without being specific because she knows that her only defense is to claim that she is bound to disregard the order by a higher law. Like a lot of things lawyers say, it's just enough to give her a shade of grey sufficient for plausible deniability. Without such a claim, there'd be no question that she had failed to fill her obligations as an officer of the law, because as we've already established, it's not the AG's position to determine the validity of the laws. We elect legislators and install judges to perform those functions.
The AG's duty is to fairly enforce the laws without allowing their personal inclinations to supersede the will of the people expressed through the republican-democratic processes under which we are governed. Executive orders, including executive orders that address immigration, have long since been established as lawful.
If Ms. Yates sees a blatant constitutional violation in President Trump's order, the correct thing to do would be to resign and immediately work to assist challenges to the law via the long-established processes that permit that. As a high-ranking official in the DoJ, she would surely have the knowledge and connections to do this expeditiously.
Would Democrats have been pleased with Loretta Lynch if she refused to do her part to uphold Obama's EO's regarding immigration enforcement? Something tells me they wouldn't.
I think mostly its because Obama's acts were considered "compassionate" and right by some. Others with a more cynical view would say that issuing an EO that is entirely to the benefit of foreign nationals who are guilty of illegal acts against the United States is bordering on treason.
[1]
What was DAPA? It ensured that federal funding could be used to provide benefits such as healthcare and schooling to migrants who did not comply with immigration law.
On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.
If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish.
I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely:
* That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job?
or
* That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition?
> I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
The comment or validity thereof?
Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't.
great chat.
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 you are a whistleblower, and you claim something is illegal then I don't expect you to accurately make a case that it is so. You may have just felt it was illegal, when it was not and I'll give certain leeway in making the wrong decision there.
However if you are a lawyer, and not only that but the supreme prosecutor of the Federal government, you ought to be able to properly define why something is illegal not just publish a press release that essentially says "it's my gut-feeling this will fail".
She is supposed to make the best case possible for the presidency and allow judges to decide if something is illegal, and someone is guilty or not guilty. Simply saying "he's guilty, I'm sure, but no I can't tell you why" is not a solid answer.
I kind of thought you must be joking, since revolving AGs were a hallmark of the Bush Jr era, to legalize torture, etc. But in case not, here is a decent place to start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_...
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 the appointments clause)
Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/1...
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.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...
-Peter Thiel, 2016
I guess to Thiel, a saner, more sensible immigration policy involves invoking 9/11 to ban people from 7 countries not involved in that attack from the U.S, including permanent residents on a legal path to citizenship and holders of valid visas. All done with zero warning via executive order and without conferring with DHS or DOJ.
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. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal".
I don't even think it's the fake news or etc, it's the moral highground/horse that the far left stands on, and is unwilling to debate, talk, communicate.
Regardless of all this political shitstorm, i am quite sickened by the thought control that the far left seems so unwilling to yield from. They have so many dismissive weapons in their toolbag of verbal war that make hope for discussion a fickle thing. A lot of people have very unpopular views, either on the edge or over it from what the far left believes, and we all need to be willing to discuss. No ones views should be dismissed. Once we start doing that, a "surprise" voter turnout happens - ala Trump.
Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it.
A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions...
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.
I find the hyperbole around this EO kind of absurd though. We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively, from a list that was generated via a similar ban in 2011 and which doesn't actually specify any religion. In so far as I can tell, due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis.
I think it's overall mixed, and probably not the best way to get this done. I also think claims of fascism, literally Hitler and other hyperbole are overblown. It's also not a Muslim ban. Even if he stopped all people from those 7 countries permanently, there's still something like one billion Muslims still eligible to enter the country.
Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapolate that this farce will produce better immigration enforcement than the already stringent vetting that was in place? When they have no better alternative I have to predict that these blanket bans get extended for 'safety reasons'.
> due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis.
This is great conjecture, but it is unclear, at this time, if as implemented a Sunni qualifies for this status. You have frontline DHS agents deciding these case by case reviews without clear orders. I don't believe they will err on the side of possibly getting it wrong. Denying will always be the default.
> It's also not a Muslim ban.
It's obviously not a muslim ban, but that is who will be disproportionally affected.
People that should have had that protection had their right of habeas corpus violated, one of the most fundamental rights that exists in this country. It was done without the consulation of the legislative branch. It was (and is) continued after it was ruled illegal by the judicial branch.
There isn't any hyperbole here. This is facially fascist. Hopefully it marks a low point and they learn from it.
It's far worse than the election cycle. My own read on the situation is that a lot of folks have wrapped up their ego/identity in opposition.
I'm incredibly happy to see so many people participating & engaging with the government. It reminds me of the satisfying experience of watching the enormous online response to Collateral Damage / CISPA,CISA,etc... / PRISM / and all the rest.
We've seen that online protest isn't as effective as we would like. And I'm thrilled to have discussions with my friends in which they express their desire to participate in government in a direct way (trying to become elected, for instance).
I think it's a lot of "millennial" participation, too... which makes me wonder how similar this is to the Vietnam protests, I'm to young to know.
But yes... it's a nasty spin-cycle, and the news all seems to have a stench of fairness to it.
> And what has happened so far? Immigration bans (with more to come), abandoned trade agreements, "alternative facts," unprompted promises to bring back torture. And what has not happened so far? Tax policy is a complete mystery, with an unclear and walked-back promise to impose a border tax. Health-care policy is even more mysterious. Trump has made vague promises to cut regulations by 75 percent, but his specific regulatory focus seems to be on increasing penalties on companies that move operations abroad. Everything Trump literally said is coming literally true; everything the serious people heard remains an unserious hope. Businesses may eventually get the tax and regulatory reform they wanted, but it's not a priority.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-30/immigrati...
I think Thiel just didn't think Trump would go through with it after winning, because he thinks Trump would see that the costs of the actual wall would outweigh the disapproval of voters, and that he could pursue a hard-line against immigration in less costly ways.
The evidence so far points to this not being the case. Trump's statements past and present should be taken literally, at face value. What he says and has said is what you will get, and he is making a strenuous effort to deliver on every single one of his promises (even crazy ones), because he believes them to be correct. After this week I now firmly believe if he could ban all muslims tomorrow, he would do so, and damn the consequences. Rescinding green cards en-masse is incredibly destructive to the reputation of America, it is really quite reckless as well as cruel.
So it turns out Thiel was wrong - Trump has been and will continue to go through with his promises to the letter in many important areas. There are some areas (like healthcare or prosecuting Hilary Clinton) where Thiel was probably right in that he won't really bother with them, but only because Trump really doesn't care about them.
National Geographic shot some panoramas [0] but otherwise you don't hear too much about it in the news. I guess "lengthening a wall" doesn't fire up the base as much as "building a wall."
[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexic...
* Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens.
* It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave.
* There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing.
To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.
As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test.
> Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were.
This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. Later the administration seems to have reversed their stance on this. (Here is a later overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bann...)
From the article: "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
You're sending me an article that quotes Giuliani as explicitly stating "it's not about religion, it's about terrorists" as proof that it's about religion? Am I reading this right?
>This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders.
I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180
> “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
The story goes:
1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."
2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point:
> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.
I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant, not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but not literally".
>It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point
No, it doesn't contradict my original point at all. It is clear that Trump meant that he wanted to exclude terrorists, not Muslims. If the goal was to exclude as many Muslims as possible, they did a terrible job, because they completely missed the countries with the 5 biggest Muslim populations. The raw populations of the banned countries add up to about 140 million; even if we assume 100% of those people are Muslim, which they aren't, that still leaves more than 90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims potentially eligible for entrance to the United States. And the whole thing expires in 90 days. Not a very effective "Muslim ban".
This goes back to the same thing as the campaign. Seriously, but not literally. Trump said Muslim ban on the campaign trail, that is not in dispute. The issue now is whether he really meant a literal ban on Muslims, or whether he just meant a ban on the bad guys that are blowing us up.
Based on his EO, it appears that he meant the latter, but of course there will be people who refuse to let go of their narrative and assume the former because it makes it easier to justify their outrage.
> Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...
Bannon's views are quite available from the history of Breitbart reporting, and from his interviews (Asian CEOs.) Motives matter when the executive branch has as much power as it does now (and that power is so concentrated in figures like Bannon.)
Judicial interpretation generally takes the opposite tack, reading law according to its "plain meaning" rather than an imagined/assumed intent, to prevent just such bias and editorialization as you're displaying here (which, obviously, can be extremely damaging when mingled with governance).
Impute whatever intentions you wish on your favorite boogeymen, it doesn't change the text of the law under which Americans are governed.
When there are exceptions involving religious minorities in the EO, there is a lot about religion
> using the exact list that President Obama signed into law
Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]).
0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...
1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...
here is another article by the NY times which gives a much more neutral review of its legality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra...
With me, I'm noticing my lawyer friends in America seem split on the issue, some think it's legal others thing it is illegal but my reading suggests that it is legal. Yes it does violate laws of congress on the issue, but the constitution gives the president, not congress the power over foreign affairs.
No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous, especially considering how politicised that branch has become.
> It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.)
The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically – with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality of removing people holding permanent residency permits.
The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the Department of Homeland Security:
As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:
- Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
- Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
- Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions
Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident
As a permanent resident, you are:
- Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities
- Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities - Expected to support the democratic form of government and not to change the government through illegal means - Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register with the Selective Service
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ri...
Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling constitutional cause.
In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle that type of conflict.
That's more than a little hand-wavy and dismissive. In multiple places in this thread you quote various laws that seem to support the legality of the EO.
Along comes a law that seems to question it - and your response is to say "oh, well, we'll have to consider whether some obscure law may be contradicted".
But the consistent thread through all of my posts is that Ms. Yates' refusal to uphold her constitutional obligation to support the duly-elected chief executive based on her vague, non-specific claim that the order may be illegal and that the DoJ must "always seek justice" is improper. That's what this topic is about. I'm not a lawyer and I can't argue the intricacies or details of the legality of Mr. Trump's order and I make no attempt to do so.
The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously identified as terrorist hotspots by President Obama, which fully obviates the implication that Trump selected the countries due to their religious makeup, etc., because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin.
He is doing what he said he would do, as you pointed out. So to me, "seriously but not literally" is not holding up well.
just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward"
by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.
I mean, is there some mystery to this? The EO explicitly states its purpose in its text. It gives the Trump administration time to evaluate the procedures used to vet nationals from these hotbeds of terrorist activity. Are you concerned that it doesn't do this, or do you simply not agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do?
>by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.
It's not White House spin. Green card holders were never banned. The media falsely reported a statement from a DHS spokesperson, literally not even quoting a full sentence, to try to cause a panic (and they obviously succeeded). After a few hours, they were forced to fix their erroneous reporting when the White House began issuing corrections (that wouldn't have been needed if the media hadn't intentionally misconstrued the story in the first place).
There are many things wrong with the excuse of requiring more vetting:
1. The countries included in the ban have not been responsible for causing damage to the US. The countries with nationals that were involved in such acts were not included. Which makes it rather suspicious that "more vetting" or "preventing dangerous guys" from entering the country was the point of the EO.
2. There is ALREADY an extremely rigorous process to determining the suitability of people before they obtain a Visa/Asylum in the US. If there was anything specifically wrong with the procedure itself that the Trump administration had identified, it would make a lot more sense. They have given no details, and just like Trump's lies about having military plans to defeat ISIS, this seems like the same.
> It's not White House spin. Green card holders were never banned. The media falsely reported a statement from a DHS spokesperson, literally not even quoting a full sentence, to try to cause a panic (and they obviously succeeded). After a few hours, they were forced to fix their erroneous reporting when the White House began issuing corrections (that wouldn't have been needed if the media hadn't intentionally misconstrued the story in the first place).
This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later.
Bannon has no authority to make immigration policy. The reporting attributes actions to him based on anonymous sources ("American officials"), it's not going by the public record or citing public activity. Given their hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
Is that a smart thing to do or not? I don't know. Does my opinion on whether or not it's smart have anything to do with whether its sufficiently illegal to have the acting AG openly refuse to allow the DoJ to develop arguments in its favor? I don't think so.
If tomorrow he says something to disprove one of your points, you will further twist your argument to somehow appears as if he is still doing the right thing.
I don't think anyone but yourself can convince you of what is really going on.
If tomorrow he does literally fulfill some promises, that's probably fine, as surely some promises were literal (maybe the ones about government-paid child care?).
Seriously though, it matters because people are trying to pretend that there is some extraordinary abrogation of law, precedent, or process here, when indeed there hasn't been. There's just a bunch of malicious people with a megaphone trying to scare other people so that those people will be duped into doing their dirty work, which has a real potential to grow not just disorderly, but violent.
I really don't know much about whether President Obama's immigration orders were wise or not either, but I would've made equally self-indulgent arguments in his favor if people were also trying to incite mass panic over it.
After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?
0. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-b...
This is "seriously, but not literally". Trump seriously meant he wanted to halt immigration from terrorists hotspots (which, yes, at the moment, are predominantly Muslim -- but that doesn't mean Muslims are predominantly terrorists). He asked his people to take his loose statement of intent and make it into something serious, legal, and valid.
Giuliani indicates that in order to do that, the Trump admin avoided any conflation of terrorism with religion, and that this was both "totally sensible" and "totally legal". Do you disagree?
Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298
Let's put this in context
Donald Trump's quote: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
Or the wording on his website: https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/11...
We can let the viewers at home decide.
They did a pretty bad job then. The vast majority of Muslims don't live in those 7 countries.
Edit: fixed pronoun
- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same
- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.
- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president
What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.
And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".
Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:
It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.
When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan.
It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.
i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.
You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.
Well, in 1996 we re-elected Clinton, despite demonstrable evidence that he was a terrible president and an execrable human being. In 2004 we re-elected Bush, despite him violating his oath to the constitution. In 2012 we re-elected Obama, a man whose mediocrity and incompetence make Carter look like a capable executive (and our other choice was a business executive who couldn't even get a simple get-out-the-vote programme to run correctly).
Let history be the judge, and I doubt it agrees with your comparisons.
I wonder whether I will ever stop to be surprised and horrified over the development in the US.
A "mandate" makes it sound like Trump, with a minority of the adult voting-age adult population of the United States has received the right to transform the country wholesale, which simply isn't true.
I thought his campaign was brilliant, tactically; but this is amateur hour.
Because Sessions was already a shoe-in with the Republican Senate, but there are Republicans in the Senate opposed to the immigration order, and they've specifically, among other issues, cited the failure to legally vet the order. Making Sessions confirmation about Yates opposition to the order wouldn't make it smoother.
And speaking of people who may be smarter than we think: http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
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 taking America with him, that his main advisor has actually stated that his goal is to burn it all down[2] and does not seem to care if he destroys the civilized world as we know it as collateral damage doesn't help one bit. For every day that this passes it will take a year or more to undo the damage, assuming it can be rectified at all.
A couple of months of this and it will have gathered momentum to the point where the divisions have become so enraged that a shooting war is a real possibility, which could be one of the goals, to purposefully lit the fuse so momentum will take over and they can enact even more ridiculous measures with the cover of an actual emergency situation. It's not like that trick didn't work countless times in the past.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+...
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.
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.
A public official who speaks like a college professor is being an asshole, and not a good representative.
The AAG was likely trying to score political points by going out the way she did. I respect her acting according to conscience, but do think making a show of it like that dilutes the message a bit. Probably more effective for her to have made a statement outlining her objections to the EO and unwillingness to defend it, and then resigned.
Edit: looks like a moderator unflagged this one. That's how the system is designed to work: upvotes, flags, and moderation all play a role.
But I hope I don't detect a note of dismissal here. I think it's reasonable to question examples of flagging such as this one, which kept a trending story off the front page for a critical period that almost allowed a much inferior duplicate to take over. Considering these situations carefully will keep the community standards healthy.
When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?
Politics are explicitly forbidden by the guidelines (and also implicitly). Even this story was flagged, and only brought back to life by a moderator, but it's clearly against the rules.
Now, it could be argued that this article is noteworthy and therefore included in the exceptions, to which I'd reply: every single day there's a story here about Trump. The coup in Turkey, which is arguably much worse for the Turkish than this ban is for US citizens, only had three posts with anything resembling frontpage, including one about how it affects the US and one about which app was used[1]. In comparison, I feel that Trump's presence here is overrepresented.
So by "I'm not allowed to post", I mean "both by the guidelines who forbid it and by the community that doesn't come here to read about that". Which I'm okay with, btw.
[1] Based on search results for "Turkey Coup". Searching for "Turkey" yields more results, but the proportion tends to hold.
As for the guidelines, you rightly point out that they ask specifically to void political submissions, and you also point out that there's an argument that some exceptions should be made. The discussion of the appropriateness of politics on HN has come up numerous times just today. Here's a link to another one where I included a list of comments by 'dang that hopefully sheds more light on the mods' views on politics on HN.
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 ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News?
Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here.
HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame that we are not allowed to a medium to read what the tech community feels about the current issues
An alternative would be to use the same software, same group of passionate people to start the discussion, and the backing of Y Combinator in a different forum with a different identity, norms, etc.
I'm also happy to be wrong / downvoted. It's for the community to decide, but it has to be a choice.
What I don't like at all is people abusing flagging. You can flag any new article with ~4 votes, so less than a handful of active users can shape what we end up discussing.
This is not the time for discussion, because in our minds the battle lines are drawn.
I wish HN enforces a month of political moratorium. I will live and die on HN and will not make a single low info comment!
Yes, and discussion can make those battle lines disappear by finding common ground if possible and if not possible it will at least help assess how far the damage from all this bs can spread.
Sticking your head in the ground is not going to make the problem go away, in fact might make it fractionally worse.
On another note, in the US the choice has been made, but there are other places in the world where it is not too late and discussing this might throw up an argument or two that could be used to deflect disaster elsewhere.
> I wish HN enforces a month of political moratorium.
Because it's too much trouble to not click on links about subjects you wish were not discussed?
Eh? I read new in plenty of other places. This is supposed to be news kept to tech topics.
'dang summarized the results of the detox week and has made some recent comments on it as well. I'll dig around for them and update this comment with links to them in a bit to provide more context.
Edit: Here are some, with some identifiable snippets only so it's not a list of links. I encourage you to read the comments themselves. They don't all directly address this, but I think they all shed some light on the topic.
---
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969
There's no satisfying anybody about this: not the readers who want more politics, not the readers who want less, and certainly not the partisans on an issue.
---
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433
There's a lot more politics on HN right now than there usually is, which is appropriate since it reflects what's going on right now.
---
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969
When there's a deluge of political stories, as in the last couple days, users heavily flag most of them. But there have still been plenty of major threads spending plenty of time on the front page. That's the status quo for HN: most politics are off topic, but not all. It's a delicate balance and an important one. Letting politics overrun this site would kill it.
---
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13463480
On downsides of the Political Detox Week experiment: there are two comments in the thread.
For all this community has generated inspired commentary on the technology world, I maintain that we don't have the framework to manage net-positive political debate. My point is we should choose to address that deficiency or choose to avoid political debate.
We'll see where flagging and voting take us - maybe it's enough. So far I would summarize the karmic reaction to my first comment as: "meh."
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.
My understanding of current events would be significantly worsened if I didn't regularly get the thoughtful perspective of dragonwriter, tptacek, bluejekyll, throwaway8383495, and so many others.
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 kind of discussion going on there today. Beware.
Are you serious? Have you been to /r/worldnews?
I get more insight here than any reddit sub.
That said, I'm trying to keep the politics out of my own posts and comments...
you must run in some small circles. There are lots of communities out there.
Like or not, it is quite difficult to disentangle politics from everything else. A desire to remain apolitical is pretty political in itself.
[1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"
Though he is a CEO of a public entity. Something I'm pretty sure he has no experience with.
Ministers and government officials resign all the time when they believe that their government's position is in error.
N.b.: I did not vote for Trump; I am not certain that everything in his immigration-related executive order is consistent with the law (but I am not certain that it's not, either: I am not a lawyer).
Oh, yes she does. The head of the DOJ, acting or actual, should be relied upon to raise a notable fuss when an executive is determined to be stepping outside the bounds of legality. Same goes for every other official who takes the oath of office. They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not an executive's agenda. Resigning is not defending and upholding the Constitution. If, however, an order belived to be illegal and unconstitutional is challenged and subsequently upheld as legal and constitutional, and a person continues to object to carrying out their duties accordingly (based on moral or other grounds), then they should likely follow their conscience and resign. But not beforehand.
I don't know the full story, but this goes to show Trump is truly an unique president. He doesn't care what people think of him. He's running the White House like a real business. Disclaimer, I like the idea of running government like it's a business (think Singapore, salary is on par with industry standard and subjected to yearly review). But I strongly disapprove Trump's ruthless dictatorship. He just doesn't understand that his business decision impacts nationwide. You need to actually think through before making any decisions or giving any public comments. Even Joe Biden learned to shut up (although he did make some dangerous comments in the past). It's okay to have a strong opinion (some people don't like compromise), but use reason and earn people's trust. He makes up stories and excuses, with little to no real proof for many of his past and current commentaries. No one really trust him except the people who voted him into the office. His cabinet members - trust me, none of them really trust him. I know that from my gut. I know my 9-month old niece can tell that as well. His mind is juggling and wandering all around the space. He's intellectually challenged, despite being a ruthless and tricky business man. He went broke but made so much from bankruptcy. I will give him the credit of being a smart asshole and a good salesman, but other than that, he's a terrible leader.
Trust me, he would be the best Secretary of State of U.S. to the Martians, because he speaks nonsense.
I don't know about that..
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.
It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that nature.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3dOVzFXAAIGOlW.jpg
It's obvious this was a stunt and she fully expected to be fired.
'Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you'
He remained Attorney General until February 3rd, 2005, when he resigned the office.
And it's not insubordination to refuse to do something that you, the head lawyer for an entire nation, find to be illegal. It's doing your damn job.
You resign. That's ultimately a greater statement anyway.
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.
The ethical course is to resign.