• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Acting AG fired after she declines to defend Trump travel ban

haymarket said:
It took Nixon nearly five years to get to the point that Trump has arrived at in just ten days on the job. And that is chilling to the bone for any American not already sold his soul to the egomaniacal narcissist who sits in the White House and has the nation before him to throw into the flames.

This has the fingerprints of Bannon all over it ..... a man who wants to destroy the state and is hellbent on chaos and destablizing a system he loathes and hates.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really! He should have just kept her on, that wouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, why is he even getting rid of Lynch? He should just keep all Obama appointees in place, is that what you think he should do? Obama did that with Bush appointee's, didn't he?
 
poweRob said:
this is a quick review of what's happened in just a couple days...

Trump basically demotes the entire National Security Council and puts Steve Bannon on top of them. Trump takes his advice from Bannon and forced the NSC advisment to be only on call when he feels like hearing from them

The trump administration then told the state department to not talk to anyone in congress or congressmans' staff.

Now he just fired his main legal advisor in the AG for not subverting law and following orders instead.​

If you can't see the authoritarianism in this I don't know what to tell you. And in the future when he tries to act without solid advisement but rather lapdog rubber stamp advisement... the judicial system is going to knock him on his ass and he won't be able to do a thing about it.
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump it would be wise to trust some people, if not a lot, in Congress? How forthcoming was the last State Dept.? You guys are bitching about things that never bothered you.
 
poweRob said:
this is a quick review of what's happened in just a couple days...

Trump basically demotes the entire National Security Council and puts Steve Bannon on top of them. Trump takes his advice from Bannon and forced the NSC advisment to be only on call when he feels like hearing from them

The trump administration then told the state department to not talk to anyone in congress or congressmans' staff.

Now he just fired his main legal advisor in the AG for not subverting law and following orders instead.​

He's shutting down all advisment and channeling it all through Bannon. If you can't see the authoritarianism in this I don't know what to tell you. And in the future when he tries to act without solid advisement but rather lapdog rubber stamp advisement... the judicial system is going to knock him on his ass and he won't be able to do a thing about it.
Click to expand...

When did he, "demote the entire NSC"? General Mattis and General Flynn weren't demoted.
 
humbolt said:
According to the Trump administration, the legality of the EO was reviewed by the DOJ.
Click to expand...
Yes, and she disagreed with their assessment. That's her job.

And I hate to break it to you, but the DoJ doesn't get the final word on the Constitutionality or legality of an EO. That's up to the courts.


Yates refused to defend what her own department said was legal.
Click to expand...
She's acting AG. She was doing her job -- showing loyalty to the Constitution instead of an autocratic President.
 
Gina said:
We shall see how they rule. Their actions do put into question the legality of the EO. Or parts of it.
Click to expand...

its pretty much a done deal when it says this

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 deem to be appropriate.
 
coldjoint said:
Do you think Trump it would be wise to trust some people, if not a lot, in Congress? How forthcoming was the last State Dept.? You guys are bitching about things that never bothered you.
Click to expand...

I'm bitching about the consolidation of information and consolidation of power. That does concern me. quite a bit. trump is ridding himself of any view that isn't his. And that's scary.
 
TurtleDude said:
That has no relevance to this order compared to Nixon demanding someone fire the special prosecutor.
Click to expand...

I'll cede to you tomorrow night on the trump/Bannon/Miller choice for the USSC before I comment so make sure you're here.

Did you see that trump fired the head of immigration and customs a few moments ago ?
 
JackA said:
Her duty wasn't to Trump; it was to the law. And her defiance wasn't personal. She defied the pressure on her to defend an executive order she believes is legally indefensible. We'll see at the end of this saga if her judgment is correct. Here's betting it is.
Click to expand...
Yes we know, she was an idiot and was worng.
The law is clear.
Trumps actions were both legal and defensible.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, really! He should have just kept her on, that wouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, why is he even getting rid of Lynch? He should just keep all Obama appointees in place, is that what you think he should do? Obama did that with Bush appointee's, didn't he?
Click to expand...

His administration specifically asked her to stay on and then, when they couldn't get her to play ball, took their ball and went home.
 
Anthony60 said:
She really should have resigned if she was unable to do her job.
Click to expand...

I have to believe that her loyalty is ultimately to the rule of law and following her oath of office. Not the office of the presidency. Trump saw it differently. She served at his request and she stood by her principles. She knew that it was likely she would be fired.
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
I'm bitching about the consolidation of information and consolidation of power. That does concern me. quite a bit. trump is ridding himself of any view that isn't his. And that's scary.
Click to expand...

And to act like a trumpistani defector, we all know how the alt-rightists would be screaming and threatening civil war if Clinton had pulled anything even close to this .
 
NIMBY said:
I'll cede to you tomorrow night on the trump/Bannon/Miller choice for the USSC before I comment so make sure you're here.

Did you see that trump fired the head of immigration and customs a few moments ago ?
Click to expand...

nah I haven't heard that other on this board. BTW I used to work with the new AAG. Dana Boente. He's a good guy-pure career DOJ attorney. straight shooter. HE used to rotate around various offices when he was with the Tax Division. I have no idea what his politics were or are. I wish him the best
 
apdst said:
The content is absolutely legal. The Executive Branch issues visas, therefore the Executive Branch can suspend visas. No court in the land can change that law.
Click to expand...

We shall see if the EO was constitutional. The judges are considering parts of it now.
 
JackA said:
Her duty wasn't to Trump; it was to the law. And her defiance wasn't personal. She defied the pressure on her to defend an executive order she believes is legally indefensible. We'll see at the end of this saga if her judgment is correct. Here's betting it is.
Click to expand...

Her defiance was political, pure and simple. Trump is right legally. He is not doing anything that has not been done before, not only does he have the legal right to temporarily stop immigration from countries that pose a threat, he has the obligation to protect the US and its citizens. He has said from the beginning that this is a temporary measure to protect the country while his administration has 3 months to develop a vetting program that will make the country safer.
 
I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance tothe same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

she did not do that
 
ajn678 said:
No it doesn't. The law is very clear. Trump has the authority to do this.
Click to expand...

And the judiciary has a right to review it. The president can't just write stuff up. It has to be legal under the constitution.
 
Gina said:
I have to believe that her loyalty is ultimately to the rule of law and following her oath of office. Not the office of the presidency. Trump saw it differently. She served at his request and she stood by her principles. She knew that it was likely she would be fired.
Click to expand...

She proved your belief in her to be misplaced.
 
TurtleDude said:
That has no relevance to this order compared to Nixon demanding someone fire the special prosecutor.
Click to expand...

They refused to do as the president ordered, just as she did. They were fired, and she was fired. They served at the pleasure of the president.
 
TurtleDude said:
nah I haven't heard that other on this board. BTW I used to work with the new AAG. Dana Boente. He's a good guy-pure career DOJ attorney. straight shooter. HE used to rotate around various offices when he was with the Tax Division. I have no idea what his politics were or are. I wish him the best
Click to expand...

I hope he does well. I sure hope he can bend Trumps ear on the constitutionality of what he wants to get done.
 
Gina said:
We shall see if the EO was constitutional. The judges are considering parts of it now.
Click to expand...

Actually, 3 judges have already issued restraining orders while the cases are being heard.
 
Gina said:
And the judiciary has a right to review it. The president can't just write stuff up. It has to be legal under the constitution.
Click to expand...

Sure, but to attempt to act like there's any legal controversy here is partisan at best or a straight up lie at worst.
 
nota bene said:
I'm going to be concerned too if Trump doesn't listen to contrarian view. It's too soon to tell.

Did Yates used the "Dissent Channel"?
Click to expand...
The Dissent Channel is a function of the State Department, not the DoJ.

He's not changing his behavior. He didn't change it when he was nominated, he didn't change it after he won, he hasn't changed after his inauguration. He has never been a big fan of dissent, he has never reacted calmly to dissent. He doubles down... and punches down.

I don't expect him to change. I don't see why anyone else would either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom