Patterico's Pontifications

1/30/2017

BREAKING: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Refused To Defend His Immigration Order

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:48 pm

streiff at RedState reported just a couple of hours ago that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, had announced that she had ordered the Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s immigration order in court.

Guess what? She is no longer the Acting Attorney General.

President Trump fired his acting attorney general on Monday after she defiantly refused to defend his immigration executive order, accusing the Democratic holdover of trying to obstruct his agenda for political reasons.

Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement.

The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed.

I have argued in recent days (see here and here, for example) that — while I agree with the thrust of Trump’s order on a policy level, and want to avoid seeing the United States fall into the trap that Europe has regarding Syrian refugees — Trump’s order, in my opinion, violates the law. I think he lacks the authority to make the changes he made on his own, and needed to work with Congress, which has Constitutional authority over matters of immigration and naturalization.

But that’s my opinion, and I am no immigration law expert. I have also noted that people I respect have disagreed with me, and I have acknowledged that I don’t know for sure how a court would rule. I don’t think the order is so patently illegal that a partisan DoJ official should refuse to defend it.

I think Trump did the right thing here.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

254 Responses to “BREAKING: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Refused To Defend His Immigration Order”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. I’ve seen it reported that (a) FISA warrants must be signed off on by a Senate-confirmed DOJ official, and (b) Ms. Yates was the last.

    If that’s true, then there is no legal process for obtaining a FISA warrant until Sen. Sessions is confirmed.

    Based on that, I think President Trump should have waited until after Sen. Sessions was confirmed and *then* fired her.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  3. BREAKING Trump fires deranged self-important DOJ pussyhatter who pathetically begged and pleaded for him to fire her

    but does she say thank you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Question: When does the Attorney for the United States get to tell the Executive, at whose pleasure s/he serves, that s/he will not follow an order, and THEN expect to keep his/her job?

    You would think that Trump was rounding up Muslims and putting them in camps to haar the fever pitch over in Blueland.

    She defied her boss, in public, and was fired for insubordination. I’ve signed employment contracts where such an open display would not only have got me fired but would have had options cancelled and the like.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. This was meant to be a message.

    To Putin. And China. And ISIS. And anybody else.

    Shades of Reagan firing the ATC strikers.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  6. Kevin M – oh, absolutely. I think it’s entirely reasonable for President Trump to fire her in response to her announcement that DOJ wouldn’t defend the EO.

    That said, I think it could have waited a couple of days. If FISA warrants are actually important to our national security, then leaving us with nobody in the administration who can procure one is a national security threat – and if it’s not a threat to our national security to have them be unobtainable, we should get rid of them entirely.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  7. It also was in violation of the provisions of the visa waiver revision of 2015

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. I would love to see a law that required AGs to defend the government’s actions, with their only recourse being resignation, and that failing to do so constituted a resignation. State3s could use this, too, particularly wrt initiatives which OFTEN are opposed by the state government.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. Kevin M – what do you consider to be your ethical responsibility to a client if (a) you are convinced that the course of action he wants to pursue is legally indefensible, and (b) he insists on pursuing it anyway?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  10. aphrael,

    He appointed someone else as Acting AG. Cannot say if he can do that, but he did. The other method is to fire people until you hear YES instead of NO, as Nixon did.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. Legally indefensible? Does that mean illegal, or “likely to lead to a poor result”?

    If illegal, resign. If the latter, probably resign. But I CANNOT claim to represent him while working against his wishes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. (assuming sanity, etc)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Aphrael, here is a discussion from elsewhere about the FISA issue you raised for what it’s worth.

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2017/01/i-smell-fake-news.html

    elissa (ceae36)

  14. Bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, O’Donnell takes the Nixon bait. Now it’s ‘The Monday Night Massacre’…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General:

    The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

    Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

    It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

    Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

    “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana
    Boente, Acting Attorney General.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. elissa,

    So reading that, Trump can appoint a US Attorney (who was confirmed by the Senate) to the AG job.

    5 U.S. Code § 3345 (a)(2)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. Thanks, ellissa.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  18. Thank you, Kevin M.

    Since he appointed a USAttorney, all is well.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. The really offensive part of what she did relates to the fact that the Admin. states that the EO was approved by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC folks are vets, and have a long-established reputation as bein non-ideological. Remember it was the OLC office that first called into question the “enhanced interrogation techniques” in a legal opinion, and later laid the groundwork for the debate over the re-authorization of the FISA project that led to the hospital room confrontation between Alberto Gonzalez and James Comey/Robert Mueller while Ashcroft was hospitalized.

    So, OLC says “Ok” to the EO, but Yates can’t decide if its legal????

    Sorry, it doesn’t work like that at DOJ. The AG doesn’t get to say OLC is wrong. They are the equivalent of the “Oracle” — that’s why various components of the government go to them to get opinions on questions of legality.

    shipwreckedcrew (de7608)

  20. But I CANNOT claim to represent him while working against his wishes.

    I can also not claim to represent him while I remain not a lawyer.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. Now Bernstein is having kittens.

    Meanwhile, in the Kremlin and in Beijing, message rec’d from President Trump.

    Loud and clear.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. Kevin M – my apologies! For some reason I thought you were one of the local lawyers. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  23. I guess a USA who was a recess appointment (AND had served for less than 90 days) wouldn’t qualify, but I don’t think that’s the case here.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. aphrael–

    No, I took a different path. I design IC logic. But a similar mindset, if less opportunity for BS (as nature has an amazing BS filter).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  25. Except scary Larry is confused The Saturday nigh officials resigned because they wouldn’t carry out an order.

    narciso (54b108)

  26. @25- They’re all doing it now… they all follow the simple, shiny object.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  27. That Sally Yates lady was certainly acting Attorney General because she didn’t seem like a real one. In fact, she was acting like a jerk.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  28. This is a boy Dana not a girl Dana for those trying to keep score at home.

    elissa (ceae36)

  29. @27. But suchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh a pretty smile. Wonder what office she has plans to run for in the future.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. > I guess a USA who was a recess appointment (AND had served for less than 90 days) wouldn’t qualify, but I don’t think that’s the case here.

    Nor will it be; recess appointments have effectively been written out of the Constitution.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  31. Yes I thought I had made the right point.

    narciso (54b108)

  32. 8 US Code §1182

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    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.

    Looks to me like President Trump acted within his authority as far as banning immigrants and refugees from the seven countries.

    As it turns out, homosexuality is punishable by death in six of the seven countries, though it’s by the Da’ish militia in two of them, Iraq and Syria. You’d think that the left would support the ban! Maybe if we pointed that out to the left, they wouldn’t be so apoplectic about the ban.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney. (1b79fa)

  33. That point, I guess it’s cheaper than therapy.

    narciso (54b108)

  34. CNN gnome Fareed Zakaria – “Most incompetent 10 days since Andrew Johnson.”

    Too funny.

    “So many echoes of the Saturday Night Massacre.” – CNN toadstool David Gergen.

    Even funnier.

    No wonder CNN is doing a ‘History of Comedy’ series.

    Spotlight off immigration policy, spotlight on personnel matter, tomorrow, spotlight moves to new SCOTUS nomination.

    Just brilliant.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. I would say senility on gergen and bernstein’s sake, I don’t know who zakaroa plagiarized the line from.

    narciso (54b108)

  36. #29 DCSCA, Sally Yates just needs to get some Wendy Davis pink sneakers, and then, she, too can turn her 5 minutes of fame into a wipeout when she runs for Governor of Texas! (LOL)
    (I have no idea what state she’s from, and I’m too lazy right now to look it up.)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  37. @35. LOLOLOL subtle but well played, sir.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. Jonathan Adler WAPO:

    Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. 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.

    Wow. Just Wow. Sounds like she went to the “Wise Latina” school of law.

    elissa (ceae36)

  39. @36- She’ll wear this and run for sure for something. Why else did she do this but to draw attention. If she looked like Helen Thomas, it would be another matter entirely.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. Obama and his minions don’t seem to understand that they are no longer in charge. Or maybe they are working for an Obama Restoration?

    So Trump is going to show them out. I guess that’s his right.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  41. As to the policy point I think the visa waiver revision covers enough for statutory fallback; but practically every paper has thrown it down the memory hole

    narciso (54b108)

  42. That’s why they call it… http://youtu.be/pAjrv9bdbHU !!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. Well if we can’t issue FISA’s then Senate better get working and take that vote.

    This dude is playing chess, ya’ll checkers.

    And I am no immigration lawyer either, but everyone I see on TV says it is legal. Even the kook Hispanic guy on Fox.

    Blah Blah (44eaa0)

  44. SWC at #19,
    I thought there was discussion of Trump making the decision and announcement without lawyer input, going along with the idea that what he did wasn’t legal.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  45. This Trump might not be Conservatives but boy he is doing a great job pushing us to the Right.

    Blah Blah (44eaa0)

  46. And he fired the head of customs, which he thinks probably bollixrf this up on purpose

    narciso (54b108)

  47. I don’t know md, were they all neutralized and didn’t see the vwr on the register

    narciso (54b108)

  48. She’ll wear this and run for sure for something. Why else did she do this but to draw attention.

    The Kennedy Family will toss her one of their “Profile in Courage” awards once one of them momentarily sobers up.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  49. Well it seems he was downgraded to asst dir and homan was,promoted to ragdale’ s post

    narciso (54b108)

  50. The insanity of the left is causing more and more people to get behind Trump and coalescing the right.

    Congrats.

    NJRob (43d957)

  51. What is not wise or just is to refuse to do your job and still expect a paycheck.

    This comment is brought to you by Gleem with the patented GL-70 formula.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Had Yates resigned, DJT would have lost big league in the optics of it all. Then, we would have had a plausible “Monday execution.” She would be seen as a principled hero.

    Happily, her ego and her evil demanded she play it as she did. We got wonderful clarity of what the Deep State is all about.

    I’m with Pat as to DJT over-stepping on the EO. However, I totally cop to loving how this is being played out.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  53. Patterico is so biased in favor of Trump, it’s sad.

    Dave (711345)

  54. Python reference, right nk,

    narciso (54b108)

  55. ==What is not wise or just is to refuse to do your job and still expect a paycheck.==

    This type of willful insubordination is another thing normal regular working class Americans struggling in a down economy cannot fathom.

    elissa (ceae36)

  56. A man would have told Trump privately: “I’m sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t want to do this. Dana across in Alexandria is a good guy. Get him to take my place.”

    nk (dbc370)

  57. This type of willful insubordination is another thing normal regular working class Americans struggling in a down economy cannot fathom.

    Right – no union member ever told his foreman to pound sand and got off scot-free…

    Dave (711345)

  58. By next week, Sally Yates will be on the cover of Time magazine.
    SHE STOOD UP TO TRUMP! HEAR HER ROAR!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. The puffington has dialed up to eleventh, this happens when you’re only listening to the voices on your head

    narciso (54b108)

  60. President Mr Donald could tweet out “Happy New Year!,” and the Puffington would freak out.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. “Car 54 Where Are You”, narciso.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. There is nothing that can be done with the outrage knob nailed to 11.

    They are making Trump bullet-proof.

    He’s going to get elected Holy Roman Emperor or Pope if they keep this up.

    I guess pointing and shrieking is the only weapon they have.

    Gabriel Hanna (e10de5)

  63. Gleem, so chaitred and frum are in agreement.

    narciso (54b108)

  64. I got two songs going through my head:

    City girls just seem to find our early,
    How to open doors with just a smile

    and
    Take this job and shove it.
    I ain’t working here no more.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. @60 ‘She didn’t make it after alllllllll.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. One of my besties and I just traded emails. We hate Macy’s after the Marshall Field’s debacle and wish ill for them. I wrote to ask her if she had heard that Macy’s was now selling off assets and had sold the Marshall Field’s Frango Mint brand, recipe and logo rights to another Chicago company. She responded,”yeah, it was on the 4,5, and 6 o’clock news—slow news day.”

    I have to laugh because it kinda reminds what freaks we are here, fretting, pouring over this stuff, and going through it all with a fine tooth comb, while the rest of America pretty much goes on about their business and lives.

    elissa (ceae36)

  67. It’s too cold to go sit on the rocks at Montrose Harbor and fish, elissa.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. I hope when ESPN asks President Mr Donald if he’ll fill out a March Madness bracket, he just tells them he’s too busy.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  69. 45 MD — I saw a good line earlier today from Spicer that fits your comment.

    In response to a similar question he said the report that there was no legal review came from CNN, their report was wrong, so anyone operating under that mis-conception should take their complaint to CNN.

    Yesterday it was reported that the WH obtained no legal advice from Dept. of Homeland Security — well, that’s because its not the role of the Dept. of Homeland Security to provide legal advice on policy. They deal with INTERNAL legal issues.

    On policy questions, DOJ Office of Legal Counsel and the WH Counsel’s Office provide legal advice.

    Its the job of the agencies to execute policy. Its the job of DOJ to defend policy from legal attacks.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  70. I wonder how the Harlem Globetrotters would feel if the Washington Generals started playing to win. Much like what I’m seeing now, I expect.

    Gabriel Hanna (e10de5)

  71. It’s must see TV!! I am still watching Spicer’s daily briefings every day live on Cspan while eating lunch or later (archived on Cspan) if I can’t watch live. I am addicted. The disconnect and contrast between what is shared, clarified, discussed and asked about –versus what actually gets printed and broadcast is even worse than I had imagined.

    elissa (ceae36)

  72. A thought just occurred to me: what if the 45th President is doing all of this simply as a way of goading the Democrats into selecting Keith Ellison as the new head of the DNC?

    JVW (6e49ce)

  73. What kind of man – an outgoing president – salts the earth and leaves Claymore mines behind for his successor to deal with?

    Barack Hussein Obama, that’s who…

    “TOM MAGUIRE: Fake News at the Times regarding former acting AG Sally Yates.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255995/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  74. The telegraph admits the statute link in the EU, but appArently beer’s characterization has crossefcthe pond

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. Disturbing news. Just found out via YouTube documentary that it’s really supposed to be pronounced “Cheengus Khan”.

    Even if it’s just that once, it floors me that Kerry got one thing right.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  76. Even if it’s just that once, it floors me that Kerry got one thing right.

    He’s a Yale man, don’cha know.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  77. #77

    Which sounds like something someone with 24 Modelos onboard would say

    steveg (5508fb)

  78. You know what I’ve been thinking about a lot today? In the last days of the presidential campaign it seemed that the Trump crew had a good handle on real world polling in a way nobody else seemed to even though they were keeping it pretty close to the vest. They knew which states to visit in those last days and hours and even which parts of those states to hit. Even the election desks of the alphabet networks commented on election night while the votes were still coming in that KellyAnne and others sounded crazily confident and even serene when they touched base with the Trump campaign. The newspeople were dumbfounded (although not as dumbfounded as they would be at the end of the evening).

    Whatever methods they perfected and were using to gauge opinion, create exuberance, and know what policies and messaging to focus on, it obviously worked, because he won. I imagine they are still using some of those engines and local polling avenues to track opinion state by state and get feedback on how what’s been going on in the 10 days of the new administration is playing. The bold and fast paced nature of the activity so far seems to suggest that they are being told “MOAR!!!” not less. They must have obtained from their own polling a feeling of assurance that they are not going too fast policy wise or going too far in pushing back firmly on the media and some of the activist looniness.

    elissa (ceae36)

  79. Yes, Melissa, and the curious thing is despite this rather modest measure, implement combined apptop from 2016, they are still reacting as if he was pushing a permanent worldwide ban, they have learned little this whole year

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. Oh no. I’m completely sober (can’t recall ever drinking Modelos, but anythings possible after Cheengus).

    Hey if we’re goingto be forced to accept Syrian, Sudanese, Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan, Yemeni, and Somali refugees, providing them clothing food and shelter free gratis on the tax payers dime, then those people should be housed in Los Angeles, Portland, Marin county, and any other local which presumes to hold higher morals then the rest of us.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  81. Especially Marin county.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  82. President Mr Donald is driving the correct people cray-cray.
    Yay!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  83. I had heard on the CBS Evening News that Sally Yates 9whom he had kept on – and this was always intended to be temporary – maybe just till Jeff Sessions was confirmed – had refused to defend his executive order in court.

    Did she make a big point of it? Or did she just simply say let someone else do this?

    Apparently, from thsi post, she had ordered all those under her to not defend it either.

    In such circumstances, obviously her resignation was required. Which may present a problem for President Trump, for from the people left over from the Obama Adminsitration, as he may have nobody willing to defend it in court, creatinga “Saturday Night Massacre” type f situation. Of course mass replacements happens at the start of any administration, but not necessarily mass vacancies.

    This almost has to be political. No person in the Justice department can be a Democrat in good standing if they defend this in court.

    Unless the purpose is stalling, if they have some hopes of getting this reversed or substantially changed soon.

    By the way, it would not be a good idea for a president to attempt to force people to defend the legality of something in court, as they may make a deliberately bad defense.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  84. @papertiger: it’s really supposed to be pronounced “Cheengus Khan”.

    Old books in English (eg Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire spelled it “Jengis”. In Mongolian it is “Chingis” and in Chinese it is “Cheng ji si han”.

    I have a Mongolian portrait of him on my wall, which my wife brought back for me from her last trip to Inner Mongolia.

    Gabriel Hanna (e10de5)

  85. 2. aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/30/2017 @ 6:51 pm

    I’ve seen it reported that (a) FISA warrants must be signed off on by a Senate-confirmed DOJ official, and (b) Ms. Yates was the last.

    If that’s true, then there is no legal process for obtaining a FISA warrant until Sen. Sessions is confirmed.

    If so, he really created trouble for himself, and for the country as a matter of fact, too, because some of these fISA warrants might be needed, and confirmation difficulties for Senator Sessions.

    But the law is not really quite that way. There seem to be a lot of U.S. Attorneys who could become Acting Attorney General

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/30/2017 @ 7:02 pm

    He appointed someone else as Acting AG. Cannot say if he can do that, but he did. The other method is to fire people until you hear YES instead of NO, as Nixon did.

    From the Just One Minute thread elissa linked to, he can, from a restricted list which is pretty long, and Obama issued an executive order a week before he left, extending the automatic line of succession.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  86. Re Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia:

    Trump could probably have found other people yet, but he chose someone who lived in the D.C. area.

    Trump’s rhetoric about getting serious about protecting our country, and calling what he wants “tougher” vetting is uncalled for. This is not, in any way, obviously good policy, nor is making vetting impossible for many good people the same thing as making it tougher. The “toughness” consists of requiring governments to report if they know if someone has terrorist connections, and the U.S. government relying on a no, absent any other information. It is not cross examining them or corroborating their life stories or getting references. In many instances their home country may not even be the right country to ask.

    The New York Times article says

    Monday’s events have transformed the confirmation of Mr. Sessions into a referendum on Mr. Trump’s immigration order. Action in the Senate could come as early as Tuesday.

    The nomination is anyway a little bit stalled.

    Now Senators McCain and Graham have some leverage, although it is very hard to use, unless Presdent Trump caves in, and he could change it again after Sessions is confirmed. This is not going to happen.

    The FISA warrant issue seems to be a phony issue (and we see a number of false legal claims like that being raised periodically) although in any case that probably wouldn’t begin to have any practical effect for a week or two, unless the timing was really bad.

    aphrael @2

    Based on that, I think President Trump should have waited until after Sen. Sessions was confirmed and *then* fired her.

    She was going to be fired or quit anyway.

    What he should have done, if that were true, or even if he wanted to avoid endangering things he was about to get, is postponed his executive order, which he could have because this was no emergency and he knew it (it actually was not required at all, and which he did anyway for a week, maybe whle the lawyers were working on it) but he, or Steve Bannon, didn’t understand what kind of opposition – at least legal opposition – it would arouse.

    Trump’s statement accused her of betrayal. Did she at first, acquiesce? And then when she saw the depth of the political and the amount of organized legal opposition, reverse herself? Even if she did, it looks more like he is accusing her of betrayal just for taking the position she did, maybe because the civil servants had okayed it. (The OLC probably modified the order)

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  87. I thought FISA warrants are issued by the FISA court. What makes you think this liberal ratbag was going to refer anything to the FISA court anyway?

    Davod (f3a711)

  88. papertiger (c8116c) — 1/30/2017 @ 10:26 pm

    Hey if we’re goingto be forced to accept Syrian, Sudanese, Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan, Yemeni, and Somali refugees, providing them clothing food and shelter free gratis on the tax payers dime, then those people should be housed in Los Angeles, Portland, Marin county, and any other local which presumes to hold higher morals then the rest of us.

    That’s a compromise most of the Democrats, and local elected officials, would be more than willing to accept, but Trump is unlikely to grant (how could he, if he says this is protecting the U.S. from terrorists?) and it would cost tghe federal government extra money.

    Of course some California counties don’t want people, but that’s ANY PEOPLE Who might use water and damage the environment.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  89. 89. Davod (f3a711) — 1/31/2017 @ 1:46 am

    I thought FISA warrants are issued by the FISA court. What makes you think this liberal ratbag was going to refer anything to the FISA court anyway?

    Unless the number issued has been zero for the last several years, there are some, even if less maybe than there should be. There is some controversy as to whether the standards the DOJ has required is too tough. they seem to aim, most of he time, for no rejections by a judge.

    In 2013, there were 1,588 requests submitted (it’s topped 1,000 since the year 2000, except for 2001, which had 932) and 1,588 were approved (not necessarily the dsame ones as some could have bene submitted at the end of 2012, and some submitted in late 2013 hadn’t bene ruled on by the end for 2013. None were denied in 2013 and 34 were modified.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

    The table in the artivle doesn’t go beyond 2013.

    One DSA warrant in the news was the FISA request that applied to Donald Trump or people associated woth him that was made in 2016 possibly connected with the informaiton obtained by Christopher Steele.

    It was rejected two times, in June and July, before a third request made before another judge was reportedly approved in October. (this is all unconfirmed, though)

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/guardian-fbi-asked-warrant-monitor-trump-aides

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170112/07393736469/did-fisa-court-finally-reject-fbis-advances.shtml

    1,588 34 0

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  90. * FISA warrant (not DSA – that’s a typo)

    By the way, the story about the State Department people who retired or resigned is as follows:

    They all had civil service positions they could have dropped back to, probably with lower salaries.

    Sometimes Civil Service people get promoted to higher level positions, and that especially happens in the State Department where many members of the Foreign Service become Ambassadors, and it looks like it happened also with administrative positions.

    Victoria Nuland may have taken some time to decide to retire, after not being to find aposition that was good for her.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  91. Sammy Finkelman (8a673f) Thanks for the FISA info. I should have been more specfic in my comments regarding Acting Attorney General Sally Yates not going to the FISA court. I should have included – At this particular time.

    Davod (f3a711)

  92. “I went online yesterday to learn more about Donald Trump blocking arrivals from Islamic nations – only to discover something shocking.

    The US president had been destroyed. Completely destroyed.

    And not just once but repeatedly. It was all there, as clear as day, in headline after headline:

    “JK Rowling destroys Trump in one sentence.” – Raw Story, December 8 2015

    “Sanders destroys Trump by 13 points.” – The Hill, December 22 2015

    “Donald Trump destroyed by Stephen Colbert.” – YouTube, January 30 2016

    “Rubio Destroys Trump at the Debate.” – bernardgoldberg.com, February 26 2016

    “With A Simple Story About His Parents, Congressman Destroys Trump.” – Thinkprogress.org, March 24, 2016

    “Republicans Tremble With Fear As Hillary Clinton Annihilates Trump.” – PoliticusUSA, April 17 2016

    “Chuck Todd destroys Trump.” – UK Progressive, May 26 2016…

    …“Hillary Clinton Destroys Trump.” – C-Span, June 2 2016

    “Clinton DESTROYS Trump.” – Oliverwillis.com, June 2 2016

    “OUCH. Watch as Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Trump Over Racist Smears.” – Redstate.com, June 3 2016

    “CNN Commentator Errol Lewis Destroys Trump.” – The Muslim Post, June 5 2016

    “Jim Jefferies destroys Trump and his fans in new comedy special.” – Deadstate.org, June 6 2016

    “Hillary Clinton Gets Obama’s Endorsement, Destroys Trump on Twitter.” – Celebuzz.com, June 9 2016

    “Hillary Destroys Trump With a Three-Word Tweet.” – Social News Daily, June 11 2016

    “Clinton destroys Trump in the electoral college.” – A Vanity Fair poll analysis below the headline: “Hillary Clinton could be headed for a landslide”, June 15 2016

    “Bloomberg destroys Trump on national TV!” – Bungie.net, June 28 2016…

    …“Saturday Night Live destroys Trump in one perfect sketch.” – Slate.com, November 13 2016

    “Woman destroys Trump as rant goes viral.” – news.com.au, December 6 2016

    “Obama Destroys Trump in Contest.” – New Century Times, December 28 2016

    “The Internet destroys Trump for continually tweeting.” – Raw Story, December 28, 2016

    “Irish rapper destroys Trump.” – YouTube, January 16 2017…

    Trump must be the most destroyed entity in global history. Even Australia’s car industry is in better shape. But there he was again on the weekend, impossibly signing executive orders and even speaking to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, presumably via ouija board.

    Forget living in a post-truth world. We’re living in a post-life world. All hail Trump, the first ghost president.”

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/trump-destroyed-destroyed-destroyed-and-destroyed-again/news-story/395b6f07e3f62bf2760cc9ed72ef09a8

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  93. Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! February 5th! Live in Madison Square Garden! See Godzilla Destroy Donald Trump!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  94. SWC,
    As always, thank you.
    So, an inaccurate msm report had something to do with it?
    It’s also January, and in temperate regions of the northern hemisphere,
    it is cold.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  95. To address the change at ICE, please understand that Daniel Ragsdale, who was replaced, only became the Director of ICE upon the resignation of the Obama-appointed Director on the day Pres. Trump was inaugurated. And, if my recollection of the proper titles is correct, he was not “Acting” Director, he was “Interim” Director.

    Prior to the Inauguration, Ragsdale was the Deputy Director of ICE. There is a process in the authorizing statute for each agency for replacing Presidentially appointed personnel. If the President appoints someone temporarily into a position that requires Senate confirmation, that person is called “Acting”. Alternatively, if someone is elevated into a position due to it becoming vacant, and their is a mechanism in its authorizing statute for any automatic “promotion” of someone into that position, that person is called the “interim”. By statute, the “Interim” designation has limited duration — usually 10 days or 30 days. Within that time period its expeceted that the Pres. will name someone as “Acting”, which is indefinite.

    What I believe happened yesterday with Ragsdale is that from his position as Dep. Dir. of ICE, he became the “Interim” Director upon the resignation of Obama’s appointee. Yesterday was 10 days after the inauguration, so the Trump WH had to name someone to be acting, and they chose another ICE official, Homen, to take that spot.

    Ragsdale wasn’t fired like Yates was, he simply resumed his role as Deputy Dir. of ICE, with Homen now becoming “Acting” Director of ICE. Homen might have been chosen because the WH intends to nominate him for the position. He’s a career ICE agent, his most recent position was head of “Enforcement and Removals”, and is a former NYC police officer.

    Ragsdale may or may not be replaced as Dep. Dir. at some point, but he was not fired yesterday.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  96. Colonel Haiku: “Forget living in a post-truth world. We’re living in a post-life world. All hail Trump, the first ghost president.”

    Now I understand the medias consternation at Christmas when the White House stated “The King has Risen”. All their hard work defeated.

    Davod (f3a711)

  97. There is no shortage of crazy these days, Davod. It has been commoditized.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  98. Axios story up today says while far left Dems with an eye on their base are likely to continue going after the EO, given that polling shows the EO to be supported by a majority of voters, Dems in Trump states facing re-election are likely to go silent on the issue starting today.

    Yesterday the thinking was that the Yates firing and the EO were going to be battled over in Sessions’ confirmation debate later this week, now it may not be such a huge issue except by those few Dems in safe seats and/or not up for re-election in 2018.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  99. shipwreckedcrew 1/31/2017 @ 5:43 am–

    I will be watching to see how this ICE topic is handled by Spicer today in his Daily Briefing (at 1:30 Eastern). He will probably just announce it and clarify it as part of his starting readout. But he may decide to wait and let some media toady embarrass himself/herself first.

    elissa (bd89db)

  100. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/31/2017 @ 4:46 am

    HAHAHA!! HA! Thanks, I needed that.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  101. And isn’t it great to have a President who actually calls out the opposition leader for fake histrionics??

    He flat called out Schumer for his tearing-up yesterday when talking about Yates’ firing, saying “I know him well, and he’s never struck me as a “crier”. Maybe there’s a 5% chance they were real, but I don’t think so.”

    Today he tweets out a complaint about not having his AG confirmed yet, and refers to him as “Fake Tears Schumer”.

    So now Schumer has a moniker that might stick for a while.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  102. Chuck the Weeper

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  103. One of the most amusing aspects of all these attempts to de-legitimize… er, de-normalize Donald Trump is that it’s done by all these abby normals. The more they try, the more they draw attention to their own abby normality.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  104. Col.@4:46 am. (AKA the “destroyed” post)

    I can’t stand talk radio of any type–particularly politics or sports– and do not listen to it. But this morning I saw a transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s show from yesterday and he seemed to be on the same or similar wavelength as your amusing post:

    At any rate, folks, I was telling people over the weekend who are alarmed at how often and how large these protests seem to be, how often they materialize, and I told everybody that asked me about it to calm down, that it is the strategy. This is the official policy of Trump opposition to simply resist everything because that’s all they can do. They can’t stop it unless the Republicans cave and join them. If the Republicans stay unified, House and Senate, and in support of the Trump agenda then there’s nothing the Democrats can do.
    Hence all these protests and all of these people. You know, the Drive-Bys are experts at making the things they believe seem like they represent the vast majority of thinking in the country. They’re very good at making it appear that everybody agrees with the take on all this that the Drive-Bys have. “The Drive-Bys are outraged by this. Civil libertarians are outraged! People cannot believe that Trump would be so inhumane and so callous.” And they report this in a way that makes you think everybody in America thinks the same thing!
    And I’m telling you, they don’t.

    Not even close. But that’s what the narrative becomes, and then the real threat that Trump faces is from traditional Republicans afraid and scared of this kind of thing ’cause they fall for the trick that this represents a majority of thinking. The Republicans have been in the minority for so long it’s hard to stop thinking of themselves that way.

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/01/30/republicans-are-the-choke-point-for-the-trump-agenda/

    elissa (bd89db)

  105. Thanks again, SWC.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  106. When you’re right, you’re right, elissa and felipe!

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  107. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. — Alinsky Rule No. 1

    nk (dbc370)

  108. He says or does what they think are crazy things and they go on to show themselves to be far crazier… so crazy… YUGELY crazy.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  109. I am wondering if Patterico has any archives re: Obama’s Iraqi pause in 2011 and his banning asylum for cuban refugees during the last days of his administration.

    Steve_in_SoCal (58e1f9)

  110. The lovely Miss Yates played this very well. She’s a looker, very telegenic, and she knows it. Normally, a subordinate who is unable to carry out the boss’ instructions resigns, but Miss Yates knew that if she got publicly fired, she’d embellish her lefty creds for her next job with MSNBC.

    CNN’s New Day spent at least 13 minutes on her this morning, starting at 0800, before I just had to turn off the sycophancy. A new progressive heroine is born!

    The Dana who can see (1b79fa)

  111. Re Obama’s prior actions — they all involved refugees and asylum seekers, not “immigrants.”

    There are legalities involved in those descriptions that are important, and too much “analysis” on this subject inaccurately conflates all those categories.

    The “pause” applies to all — immigrants and non-immigrants.

    “Immigrants” are foreigners who are seeking permission to move — not visit — to the US. They have to be sponsored, have prospects for employment, have a place to reside lined up, etc. They go through a background check and an interview. The two best examples of such “immigrants” are “mail order brides” coming from Eastern European countries, and “extended family” members coming in “chain migration.”

    Non-immigrants are visitors — they get a visa that is of limited duration, and they have to provide a particular purpose for their visit, and they are expected to return to their home country prior to the expiration of their visa. There is a massive problem with “visa overstays” of these visitors because there’s no real mechanism to determine when someone overstays, or to take any steps to have them removed when its discovered.

    Asylum seekers and refugees are two other classes, who can ultimately adjust their status to be the same as immigrants after they arrive in the US. Cubans until recently were deemed “asylum seekers”, so they were able to stay in the US legally after arriving, and work towards normalization of their status by becoming permanent resident aliens, and eventually naturalized citizens.

    Taking in refugees from various parts of the world has been a long-time and systematic practice. All countries of the world who signed the Geneva Conventions committed themselves to accepting resettlement of refugees from war-torn areas. Prior to Iraq and Syria, in you go back a decade the US took in a huge number of refugees from Sudan and Rwanda. A couple more decades back and you find tens of thousands of refugees taken in from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

    Just like all previous Administrations, Obama had ebbs and flows in its immigrant, non-immigrant, and refugee policies.

    Its simply a left-wing and media driven story to claim that Trump is doing anything different than that which has been done by every administration before him.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  112. She had no future in a Sessions DOJ anyway, sighted Dana. If life gives you an orange-colored lemon, make lemonade.

    nk (dbc370)

  113. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/31/2017 @ 5:43 am

    Ragsdale may or may not be replaced as Dep. Dir. at some point, but he was not fired yesterday.

    So who started the story or rumor that he was?

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  114. I don’t know what press outlet you watched/read, but you can blame them.

    I liked a similar answer to that when Spicer gave it yesterday during his press briefing. Someone asked about a CNN report, and he said “The reports wrong, and you can blame your misunderstanding on CNN.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  115. Re: Schumer 103. 104

    I wondered at that too. Is there some particular constituent case that got to him?

    on the CBS Evening news or some other news progam last night it was said taht Trump had said he would like to know who his acting coach was.

    “I’m going to ask him who is his acting coach.”

    Schumer was asked about that and was seen as saying “That doesn’t deserve a response.”

    It remains to be seen what this was.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  116. and many wonder why the full interagency review process wasn’t used before implementation

    The irony is Sally Yates might still have her job if she had expressed her legal and policy views on the EO to the WH rather than ordering DOJ to stand down without consulting the WH. She got the headlines and controversy she wanted but leadership of the resistance will fall to others inside the department.

    crazy (d3b449)

  117. Here is a report by the Washington Times that is a PERFECT example of inaccurate “reporting”:

    “On the same night the acting attorney general was fired for insubordination, the Trump administration named a new acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale was relieved of his temporary duties Monday night and replaced by Thomas Homan. Mr. Ragsdale will go back to previous job as deputy director.

    When I did a Google search that pulled up this article, the first entry in the Google search says:

    “Daniel Ragsdale, Acting Director of immigration enforcement, fired by Trump”

    I don’t know where that caption gets generated because the WaTimes article doesn’t mention “firing”.

    It may be that the first version of the article at that link said he was “fired”, and they later changed it to be accurate, but the Google caption remains.

    But is all just lazy or stupid reporting.

    Par for the course in my view.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  118. Brian Williams offered an explanation for Schumer’s tears — he said Schumer’s middle name is “Ellis”, and he was given that middle name after an uncle whose parent’s had immigrated through Ellis Island, and named their son (Schumer’s uncle) after Ellis Island.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  119. Headlines are put in by editors, not reporters. Besides making it better clickbait, The Democratic Party Daily nee Washington Post editors count on people just reading the headline and not the whole article.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. Audioboom has a good bachelor piece on the subject

    narciso (d1f714)

  121. crazy — there isn’t a formal “interagency review process”. But the EO was reviewed and approved by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, and that is the “Gold Standard” in DOJ on questions of legality.

    Its UNPRECEDENTED for an AG to question the legality of any government action that has been blessed by OLC. Before she said anything publicly, she should have asked to see the OLC opinion (maybe she did), and if she disagreed with it there is a process for her to go through the issue with OLC. This is what happened with the “enhanced interrogation techniques” issue when OLC first issued opinions saying they were legal, and later withdrew those same opinions and said they were likely illegal under international law and treaties.

    Yates should have gone through the process of having OLC re-examine their position on the EO, not simply announce that she disagreed with it and instruct the entire department to not defend them in court.

    That sowed the seeds for absolute chaos. Federal courts in multiple districts are awaiting briefing today or tomorrow on the issue of the EO’s legality. Yesterday her ORDER department wide was that no briefs in support of the EO shall be filed by Department lawyers, even though OLC told the WH it was legal.

    How can you operate a government like that??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  122. nk — it was a WaTimes article, not a WaPo article.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  123. Okay, so I just heard a public service announcement that informed me that the easiest way for thieves to steal my car is to leave the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  124. Senate Jud. Vote on Sessions a joke.

    Worth noting that Feinstein and senile Leahy are beclowning themselves by showing a complete ignorance with regard to their understanding of the Constitution. Both have made comments about being in a “constitutional crisis” over the firing of Yates, and that an AG has a duty to stand up to a President ordering illegal activity, and that the AG serves the people, not the Pres, blah, blah, blah.

    The office of AG is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The office of AG was established pursuant to authority vested in the Executive, and delegated to his appointee, the AG. The AG acts ONLY pursuant to the authority given to the office — in fact DOJ writ large — by the Executive.

    Donald Trump is the “Executive”. His title is “President”, but under the Constitution’s framework, he alone is the Executive Branch of the government. Every individual working in every agency — unless otherwise dictated by Congressional statute, does their job pursuant to authority delegated to them by the Executive.

    That’s why its called “insubordination” when a “subordinate” decides to take the trappings of power for themselves.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  125. SWC, How can you operate a government like that??

    Amen. Probably should have noted I was referring to Ari Fleischer’s comments this AM that the WH botched the rollout by coordinating with the affected departments and agencies through the usual process of interagency coordination. I assumed he meant this policy was not discussed with either the NSC principals or deputies committees as GWB would have done but instead by the WH council’s office and chosen few deliberately keeping the major stakeholders in the dark.

    For better or worse one major effect of this has been to force the most intransigent bureaucrats to the surface. Time will tell if this is by accident or design.

    crazy (d3b449)

  126. 125 — I grew up in the 70s and 80s in a suburban community outside a decent size city in California. We lived about 3 miles outside the suburb’s center, and in some measure you could say we were in the “country” — 1 acre lots with houses.

    There were 4 cars in the family. Every night we went to bed with the keys to those cars in the ignition and the front door to the house unlocked.

    I’m guessing that’s not very common any longer.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  127. Shouldn’t those have been tears of relief from Schumer?

    Dana (92de1d)

  128. Aargh… botched the rollout by not coordinating…

    crazy (d3b449)

  129. This is how false news sausage gets made and disseminated before breakfast and how the “troops” are called to action for the day’s next crusade. Disgusting.

    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/31/newsweeks-jonathan-alter-attempts-legal-analysis-on-steve-bannon-and-the-nsc-gets-nuked-by-laurence-tribe/

    elissa (bd89db)

  130. Chuck the Weeper for distance.
    With a trebuchet.

    Into the Hudson.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  131. “The office of AG is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The office of AG was established pursuant to authority vested in the Executive, and delegated to his appointee, the AG. The AG acts ONLY pursuant to the authority given to the office — in fact DOJ writ large — by the Executive.

    Donald Trump is the “Executive”. His title is “President”, but under the Constitution’s framework, he alone is the Executive Branch of the government. Every individual working in every agency — unless otherwise dictated by Congressional statute, does their job pursuant to authority delegated to them by the Executive.

    That’s why its called “insubordination” when a “subordinate” decides to take the trappings of power for themselves.

    – shipwreckedcrew

    “I [Sally Yates], 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.”

    – Sally Yates

    Leviticus (efada1)

  132. Now let’s dive headfirst into some ontological weeds about how “if the president does it, it’s not illegal (or unconstitutional)” or about how “he can’t be a domestic enemy of the Constitution – he’s the Executive!”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  133. 97. 113. 115. 116. Re: “fired” Director of ICE

    SWC: Ragsdale may or may not be replaced as Dep. Dir. at some point, but he was not fired yesterday.

    SF: So who started the story or rumor that he was?

    SWC: I don’t know what press outlet you watched/read, but you can blame them.

    I saw it first here on Patterico, in this thread. #47 and #52. (I am not sure they are talking about the same person.)

    narciso @47: And he fired the head of customs, which he thinks probably bollixrf this up on purpose

    (narciso @50 – is this about the same person as at #47?)

    elissa @52: Here’s the ICE replacement story.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-replaces-acting-director-immigration-enforcement-n714491

    I clicked on that, and I saw:

    Unlike the firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, the replacement of Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale came with no explanation. Ragsdale was replaced by Thomas Homan, ICE’s executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations since 2013.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  134. Re foreign born terrorists the federalist has a list.

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.

    Colonel Haiku (27c440)

  136. Why do you think its illegal, even if backed up by statute

    narciso (d1f714)

  137. Leviticus,

    she never claimed the act was illegal or unconstitutional. Please stop trying to create red herrings where none apply.

    She’s a leftist who thought she would get her 5 minutes of fame by trying to spit in the face of the President. Nothing more, nothing less.

    How would you have reacted to a Bush holdover doing the same to Obama? That’s what I thought.

    NJRob (43d957)

  138. “Worth noting that Feinstein and senile Leahy are beclowning themselves by showing a complete ignorance with regard to their understanding of the Constitution. Both have made comments about being in a “constitutional crisis” over the firing of Yates, and that an AG has a duty to stand up to a President ordering illegal activity, and that the AG serves the people, not the Pres, blah, blah, blah.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    In case my point wasn’t clear enough: Sally Yates took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to assist Donald Trump in throwing red meat to the minority of voters who supported his candidacy. Can he fire her? Sure! Doesn’t mean she did anything shameful or wrong. And the high-pitched Trumpkin squealing that greeted her insubordination and termination is a “doth protest too much” indicator of the awareness that Trump’s whole ugly charade will be resisted every step of the way.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  139. “She’s a leftist who thought she would get her 5 minutes of fame by trying to spit in the face of the President. Nothing more, nothing less.”

    – NJRob

    And her aim was true. Do you think it will bother Trump to know that by firing Sally Yates, he turned her into a figure more prominent than should would ever have otherwise become?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  140. i’m old enough to remember way back on january 11 when dictator barack single-handedly ended the wet foot, dry foot policy affecting cuban refugees
    the progressives got so angry that they protested in the streets and called barack an inhumane jerk

    i was just kidding — they didn’t really respond that way

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  141. 134. He can’t be an enemy of the constitution unless he’s violating his oath of office.

    http://constitutionus.com

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    I suppose someone could focus on the word “faithfully” and charge that Donald Trump doesn’t truly believe that the executive order he signed on Friday was warranted.

    Or maybe you’re going by the idea that he is exceeding his authority and attempting to override an Act of Congress.

    It turns out that even Defense Secretary Mattis doesn’t approve of some of the details. They don’t say what, but it might involve something like keeping the Iraqi general in charge of the offensive in Mosul out of the country (ho comes here to see his family, and to conxult with the U.s. Central command in Tampa) or the admisison of people who worked as interpreters for the United states whom Congress specially admitted but who were experiencing long delays in getting vetted even before this)

    Donald Trump did pull back, by the way, on his re-organization of the National Security Council and put the CIA back in. But this one is a campaign promise, or close to it.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  142. Just like Kamala Harris decided it wasn’t in the interests of the State of California for the AG to investigate Acorn sponsoring Guatemalan child prostitutes. Justice was better served with a broom and a rug.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  143. 141, yeah but where? At least she’s not a Carter or a Nunn, but what else she got?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  144. One possible proof that Donald Trump is not faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States could be that he’s not modifying any of the language of this order, as a truly faithful executive would.

    He did clarify at least that it did not apply to green card holders, but I don’t kw if anybody knows if it was or was not originally intended to.

    Of course many presidents have had dishonest motives in a lot of things.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  145. I’m thinking third world Somali Kat junkies who raid shipping for a living would fit right in Marin County.

    Seamless integration. Less of a culture shock for your average Somoli. They’re already used to being ruled arbitrarily by a faceless ruthless overlord – so that’s a bonus.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  146. I’m focusing on Sally Yates, Sammy, not Trump. Trump can believe his actions are constitutional, and Sally Yates can think they are unconstitutional, and that’s fine. Her oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not to assist Donald Trump in throwing red meat to the minority of voters who supported his candidacy. He can fire her. That’s fine too. She serves at his leisure.

    I’m trying to pull this conversation back from the ludicrous brinksmanship that A) suggests that there was anything “treasonous” about Yates’ conduct, and B) suggests that this is somehow a “constitutional crisis.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  147. @94 Colonel Haiku

    I have become Trump, destroyer of world’s.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  148. Way I read the bio Yates could run against the civil rights mediocrity John Lewis for Rep-from Atlanta, or she can shut her suck hole and go back to her knitting.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  149. I’m sure a reopening of the African slave trade will go over well with the Georgian electorate.

    Run Yates Run.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  150. Leviticus, I think not allowing this guy in is supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic even if Yates and you don’t. How about we remand him into Cryin’ Chuckie Schumer’s custody?

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jOb72fCsMqE/WJASN0ovO8I/AAAAAAABFOg/KKycZi-RW88ycF-f5-rIj5UUk9nGPysygCLcB/s640/1ninetymilese3TWc1sj3bumo1_500.jpg

    There are too many Americans who do not comprehend the goals of the enemy, refuse to recognize the enemy and in fact help the enemy. I only hope they are the enemy’s first victims.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  151. @109 nk

    “Power perceived is power achieved.”

    Ernie Hudson The Substitute

    Pinandpuller (e0512a)

  152. L.–

    Had Yates been the senate confirmed AG of the current administration and been fired by the chief executive before efforts had been made to work things out in other ways you might have a better story to tell. A temporary holdover from the previous admin, given the rare privilege of serving in an “acting” role and then overstepping her bounds while the senate Dems play games with the real AG nominee’s confirmation is not the sob story and constitutional crisis you imagine or seem to want to push. There is a difference in these two scenarios. Do you honestly not see why she was fired? She may look like a martyr to you but…..to others she shows herself to be a hostile, narcissistic, grandstanding political hack looking to pave the way for her next career.

    elissa (bd89db)

  153. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/31/2017 @ 7:29 am

    Yates should have gone through the process of having OLC re-examine their position on the EO, not simply announce that she disagreed with it and instruct the entire department to not defend them in court.

    There is aproblem here in taht, unlike the case with enhanced inetrrogation, it was going ahead, and even more so, they were being tasked to defend it.

    But what she did could only be justified if it was black letter law that the order was legally invalid, but that still would have been futile if it was meant to stop it. and if it ds black letter law, nobody has shown why.

    Now I could imagne anoehr scenario, legally identical, and maybe more absurd.

    A candidate who is a member of both the Sierra Club and Numbers USA gets elected president. On his eighth day in office he signs a declaration saying that, inasmuch as international air travel contributes to climate change, also that immigration to the United States results in greater greenhouse gas emissions, that it is detrimental to the United States that this continue on a large scale, and he is forthwith eliminating landing rights for all foreign airlines and, for the remainder of his term in office, cancelling all entry into the United States by all aliens except Canadians who cross a land or sea border, and those specially invited by the president of the United states or officials acting on his behalf.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  154. If I have unintentionally misinterpreted your theme, L, please correct me.

    elissa (bd89db)

  155. “A temporary holdover from the previous admin, given the rare privilege of serving in an “acting” role and then overstepping her bounds while the senate Dems play games with the real AG nominee’s confirmation is not the sob story and constitutional crisis you imagine or seem to want to push. There is a difference in these two scenarios. Do you honestly not see why she was fired? She may look like a martyr to you but…..to others she shows herself to be a hostile, narcissistic, grandstanding political hack looking to pave the way for her next career.”

    – elissa

    Did you even read my comments? I specifically called the idea that this is a constitutional crisis “ludicrous brinksmanship.” I specifically said that it was “fine” that Yates was fired – hardly implying that this is a “sob story” or that Yates is a “martyr.” And I am well aware of why she was fired, and have stated so at least twice. Calm down.

    My point (which I also stated plainly) was that there is nothing immoral or “treasonous” about Yates’ conduct. She took an oath to support and defend the Constitution; she saw a constitutional problem with Trump’s directive; she refused to obey Trump’s directive; Trump fired her and promoted an acting AG who shares his constitutional outlook.

    No problem, right? Except for all the lefties sobbing that this is a “constitutional crisis” and all the Trumpkins frothing at the mouth about how abhorrent and treasonous and awful Yates’ conduct was.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  156. Whoops – cross-posted, just saw your 156. Sorry for the tone in my 157, I would have adjusted it if I had seen your request for clarification.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  157. And her aim was true. Do you think it will bother Trump to know that by firing Sally Yates, he turned her into a figure more prominent than should would ever have otherwise become?

    Leviticus (efada1) — 1/31/2017 @ 8:47 am

    I don’t think Trump will care. He’s fired enough people who have tried to come back at him

    What would your reaction have been if a Bush holdover did the same to Obama? I expect we all know the answer. “RACIST!!!”

    NJRob (43d957)

  158. she saw a constitutional problem with Trump’s directive

    pussyhat sally didn’t even bother to explain what part of the constitution she felt Mr. Trump’s new safety rules were in conflict with

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  159. Hahaha “bother to explain” to who? You? “The American People”? Don’t pretend you care, feets – or that “the American People” care either. Unfortunately, we’re long past caring about the Constitution at a cultural level.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  160. I’m focusing on Sally Yates, Sammy, not Trump. Trump can believe his actions are constitutional, and Sally Yates can think they are unconstitutional, and that’s fine. Her oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not to assist Donald Trump in throwing red meat to the minority of voters who supported his candidacy. He can fire her. That’s fine too. She serves at his leisure.

    I’m trying to pull this conversation back from the ludicrous brinksmanship that A) suggests that there was anything “treasonous” about Yates’ conduct, and B) suggests that this is somehow a “constitutional crisis.”

    Leviticus (efada1) — 1/31/2017 @ 8:59 am

    Yet you are still lying. Yates did not say the EO was unconstitutional. She said it was lawful on its face. And still directed her subordinates to disregard it. A direct lawful order from the chief executive.

    And you applaud. Congrats.

    NJRob (43d957)

  161. I think it made Trump’s day firing Sally Yates. He’s looking forward to the next one, probably.
    How many more ambitious Obama lawyers can we get to prairie dog themselves out of government?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  162. There is a law, signed by Obama, if she doesn’t want to follow the law, she can step down like Kim davis

    narciso (d1f714)

  163. Thank you for clarifying, Leviticus. Not that it matters in the great scheme of things but I am still a little confused about whether you think Yates’ conduct as a temp was awful or not, or properly presented or not, since you also say you are aware why she was fired and are fine with it.

    elissa (bd89db)

  164. i’m also old enough to remember when barack’s friends eric and loretta told us that they didn’t have to enforce certain federal laws if they didn’t agree with the laws and progressives said ‘yay!’

    however i’m not old enough to remember when mr abe lincoln replaced mcclellan because george wouldn’t fight but i read about it in history books

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  165. The Democrat position is you can keep as many Africans on your plantation as you can sponsor – just as long as you call them refugees.

    I’d play that up in the campaign ad if I were the GOP challenger when/if Sally Yates runs for her next job.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  166. you’re right i don’t really care but mostly just cause things are moving so fast I don’t wanna get too invested in the day to day minutiae

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  167. plus i got to say pussyhat sally

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  168. There is such a thing as economic terrorism, is there not?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  169. Leviticus,

    From what SWC said, there was no claim by Yates that Trump’s actions were unconstitutional, and that if she did think so, there was a course of action much more appropriate than what she did?

    Was SWC wrong?

    Did you ever complain about Obama not fulfilling his oath of office? Maybe you did.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  170. Don’t fight over this lady, guys. She already has a husband.

    nk (dbc370)

  171. Who previously had run for congress and lost.

    narciso (d1f714)

  172. oh that’s interesting

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  173. “Not that it matters in the great scheme of things but I am still a little confused about whether you think Yates’ conduct as a temp was awful or not, or properly presented or not, since you also say you are aware why she was fired and are fine with it.”

    – elissa

    I do not think it was awful, or improperly presented. I think it was principled. Simultaneously, I am aware of why she was fired (insubordination), I think insubordination is a fireable offense, and I am fine with her firing.

    The whole battle is playing out in arena of constitutional gray-area. Reasonable minds may differ (not that I credit a reasonable mind to Trump, but there are plenty of precedents for his EO). The whole thing is political theater – the EO, Yates’ insubordination and termination, the manufactured outrage on both sides… get used to Trump smashing things up in the lobby to draw a crowd while his buddies and his flunkies sneak around picking your pockets and looking up your daughters’ skirts. That’s the America we live in, now.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  174. “Did you ever complain about Obama not fulfilling his oath of office? Maybe you did.”

    – MD in Philly

    I complained about him vastly overreaching his constitutional powers through use of executive orders and killing American citizens and their children with drone strikes. Does that count?

    I have not been a supporter of Obama’s, on this blog or any other. You are welcome to look through the archives to confirm that.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  175. Jeremy Carl:

    If Yates felt that what she were doing was fundamentally violative of the Constitution, then she should have explained why and resigned. Otherwise, her personal views are irrelevant. — she’s a functionary with a job to do. If she refuses to do the job, she should have the dignity to quit. Jonathan Adler, no particular fan of the original executive order, has an excellent takedown ​ at the Washington Post as does Jack Goldsmith (who was critical of the original order) at Lawfare. Even more damning, so does Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes, who had been absolutely excoriating in his criticism of Trump’s original order, but is just as tough on Yates, accusing her, correctly, of insubordination and arguing that her position “amply justified, indeed necessitated, her removal”.

    I will disagree with Wittes on one element of his critique. He argues that Yates had a bad hand and played it badly. I’d argue that from a leftist perspective she had a perfect hand– she was about to be out of a job imminently in any event and instead of sending in a resignation letter full of righteous indignation, and appearing to resign on principle, she showed a more reckless disregard for basic rule of law than anything done by this administration as judged by any remotely fair critic (assuming such a person exists these days). She was so confident in her own righteousness that, as Attorney General, she placed herself above the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, above the President of the United States, and above the most basic checks and balances in our system.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444421/youre-fired-sally-yates-embodies-lefts-loathsome-arroagance

    elissa (bd89db)

  176. I guess it was unfortunate that I added that, as the main point I was making has not been clarified.

    You stated:
    She took an oath to support and defend the Constitution; she saw a constitutional problem with Trump’s directive; she refused to obey Trump’s directive; Trump fired her and promoted an acting AG who shares his constitutional outlook.

    From what SWC said, which is from more than I know and probably more than you know about that field of law since he knows DOJ from the inside, there was no claim from her of it being unconstitutional,
    and even if she had that concern, there were intermediate steps that would have been appropriate to take other than what she did,

    so I do not see it an issue of upholding her oath at all.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  177. elissa points out that others agree with SWC, including people who are not Trump fans, just impartial enough to call Yates on it.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  178. @Leviticus:Now let’s dive headfirst into some ontological weeds about how “if the president does it, it’s not illegal (or unconstitutional)” or about how “he can’t be a domestic enemy of the Constitution – he’s the Executive!”

    Instead of doing that, I prefer to see you make the case that Donald Trump is an Enemy of the Constitution.

    Are you trying to make such a case?

    Or is just that you think Yates believes so?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  179. In case my point wasn’t clear enough: Sally Yates took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to assist Donald Trump in throwing red meat to the minority of voters who supported his candidacy.

    Which Constitution? The old musty, dead words, Constitution? Or the Living breathing relevant, and evolving Constitution?

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  180. i believe the constitution is a living breathing document” — al gore

    i believe that americans are killing the planet by having a large carbon footprint. i’m doing my part to reduce my personal carbon footprint by downsizing from a 10,000 square foot mansion to a 9,000 square foot mansion! and i vow to only drive my ferrari on weekends!” — al gore

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  181. Jeff Sessions confirmed as AG.

    Nobody except the screamers willing to report it yet.

    https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=site%3ahollywoodlife.com&ArticleSource=1&FORM=NWBCLM

    papertiger (c8116c)

  182. If Yates felt that what she were doing were fundamentally violative of the Constitution, then she should have explained why and resigned. Otherwise, her personal views are irrelevant. — she’s a functionary with a job to do.

    where were these fastidious national review monkeypoopers when loathsome hillbilly-bigot Kim Davis was picking and choosing the duties *she* wanted to perform

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  183. Yates’ statement in full:

    On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

    My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

    Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

    Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

    First, she said she was “not convinced,” not concluded nor certain that, but unconvinced. Then tell why you’re not, using clear language, and reasons and reference of Constitutionality. Present a concise and convincing truth. The onus was on her. She couldn’t. Apparently.

    But I like that Leviticus is making a larger, and important point, whether I agree or not.

    Dana (92de1d)

  184. … get used to Trump smashing things up in the lobby to draw a crowd while his buddies and his flunkies sneak around picking your pockets and looking up your daughters’ skirts.

    Wow. Who’s been tutoring you on making comments Leviticus, the Humanities Dept. at Harvard? You’re sounding like an Alinsky troll. That’s the kind of trash one reads at HuffPo.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  185. Actually, I’ve been thinking the same things. While we’re watching Trump harass a few dozen Middle Easterners and reprise Apprentice, his kids and Ben Carson are probably lining up all the HUD housing contracts for the next 30 years.

    nk (dbc370)

  186. As usual Yates did not read the memo, relied on Boer and Co, characterization, not frantzman or other source.

    narciso (d1f714)

  187. I think Paul Ryan is living in an alternate reality.

    He supports the refugee program, he’s confident the vetting will be improved (actually I think it will become absoluetly impossible to vet people from those countries, except maybe in the case of Iraq and refugees from Syria are absolutely excluded, except maybe for non-Moslems) there was some confusion on the rollout, and it wasn’t meant to apply to green card holders or those with special immigrant visas – that is ex-translators for the U.S. military (maybe that’s the case for the green card holders, although Steve Bannon tried too insist it did) but as far as I know it does apply to the interpreters.

    http://www.startjuno.com/player/article/nbc_news-nbc_news:paul_ryan_defends_trumps_travel_ban_notes_confusin-5min

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  188. Ben Carson is awesome he should have his own action figure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  189. And how’s Exxon Mobil trading?

    nk (dbc370)

  190. 183 — Sessions got a vote out of the Judiciary Comm, not a confirmation vote.

    The nomination now has to go to the full Senate.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  191. With Ken or with GI Joe?

    nk (dbc370)

  192. both!

    what’s a fiercely kick-ass and reform-minded hudsec without his posse of asskicking homeboys

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  193. Recorded originally on Stone tablet, then transferred to Super 8.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  194. Leviticus — it is not “manufactured outrage”, and she did trigger a form of “crisis”.

    Its Dems in the Judiciary Comm. who are claiming that Trump firing her last night is creating a “constitutional crisis”, and that’s nonsense.

    And I didn’t say it was “treason” — that has a precise legal definition in the law — I said her conduct was “tantamount to ‘treason.'”

    And here is why:

    Starting on Saturday night, federal judges (I think 3 now) began issuing emergency orders in response to petitions filed on behalf of travelers covered by the EO. Those orders are issued based on the presentation by the Plaintiffs alone, because the Plaintiffs claim that the risk of harm is so grave and so immediate that there isn’t time to allow the government to respond, and the court should act immediately to intervene. And the Courts did so. They don’t do those kinds of things lightly.

    But the process then provides that the government must file a pleading responsive to the emergency petitions, and a hearing is scheduled almost immediately upon the filing of the response — really just enough time for the Court to read the response, do its research/analysis, and form a view on the outcome.

    At that point in time, the Judicial Branch has told the Executive Branch, “You can’t do XYZ”. If the Judicial Branch later determines that what the Executive Branch was doing was perfectly legal, the Judicial Branch in its emergency order has interfered with the lawful operations of the Executive Branch, which is a very regrettable thing. So, when all they have is the pleadings of one side, and they issue an order, they want to other side — in this case the government — to get their papers filed quickly so that the court can make a further decision with both sides of the argument being taken into consideration.

    What Yates did was to instruct THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT that they were not to provide that briefing for the courts that had reviews pending. They were to leave the Courts in the position of extending their emergency orders — interfering with the operations of the Executive Branch — all without the benefit of knowing if/how the Executive Branch would justify its actions.

    She wasn’t the party — the Executive Branch was the party. She simply took a step that left the Executive Branch unrepresented in court.

    She might not agree with the EO’s characterization, but the EO stated this issue was a matter of national security, and the Pres. declared with his signature — which carries more authority than her’s — that it was in the national interest that the residents of those 7 countries not be allowed to enter the US for a period of 90 days.

    By refusing to EO, she substituted her judgment on ALL issues raised by the EO, including the issue about whether this was a question of national security or what was in the national interest.

    That, IMO, is active undermining of the duly elected President of the US.

    She had good reason to believe the EO was lawful and constitutional — her own Office of Legal Counsel said it was.

    She could have went through a review process to have the OLC memos reconsidered. She didn’t.

    Yes, it was a grandstand play.
    Yes, in the end it will be of little or no significance.

    But at the moment she sent out her letter to all components of DOJ stating that they were not to defend the EO in Court, she basically assumed for herself the authority of the President.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  195. Why HUD – so they could re-learn the hard way why Dad GTFO of that game in the first place?

    So is Coach K. a Polish version of a Sicilian?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  196. I found a book “Big Agenda” by David Horowitz that deals with trump’s campaign promises (it supports him)

    There’s nothing there about this thing, although I do remember no Syrian refugees and “extreme vetting,” and I knew what kind of vetting it was that the FBI was saying couldn’t be done.

    By the way Trump had proposed a “New Deal for African Americans”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/26/trump_proposes_new_deal_for_black_america_in_charlotte.html

    It deals with making inner cities “safe”, better education and high paying jobs (to be made possible by better education and getting rid of illegal immigrants – Trump genuinely seems to think that the economy is a zero sum game.)

    The better education is to accomplished by the Department of Education handing out $12,000 scholarships.

    The increse in safety is, I supppose, to be accomplished by jawboning cities. Maybe he”ll figure out something.

    Jobs will also be increased by tax holidays for businesses locating in blighted communities and tax incentives for investment that will target those areas in a way so that they will actually locate there.

    Trump’s idea (or Bannon’s idea?) is to get African Americans to switch on a mass scale from the Democratic Party to the Republican party just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt got them to switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party largely between 1932 and 1936 by improving their lives. He’ll let the Democrats take the Hispanics, while he will steal the blacks from them, just like he stole Reagan Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and ruin the Democratic Party.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  197. Why HUD – so they could re-learn the hard way why Dad GTFO of that game in the first place?

    For the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

    nk (dbc370)

  198. SWC,

    Could Yates have presented a convincing review or nuanced argument that would not have been insubordinate? Is there a mechanism for that in place.?

    Dana (92de1d)

  199. shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 1/31/2017 @ 11:14 am

    She could have went through a review process to have the OLC memos reconsidered. She didn’t.

    That she really couldn’t have doing because she wasn’t goingto around for more than a week.

    But what she was doing was guaranteeing that the government would lose. It’s like not appealing a court decision. Now loaing temporarily might make all the difference for some petitioners.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  200. “Starting on Saturday night, federal judges (I think 3 now) began issuing emergency orders in response to petitions filed on behalf of travelers covered by the EO. Those orders are issued based on the presentation by the Plaintiffs alone, because the Plaintiffs claim that the risk of harm is so grave and so immediate that there isn’t time to allow the government to respond, and the court should act immediately to intervene. And the Courts did so.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    You’re forgetting a couple of important elements, there. To obtain a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must prove four elements: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) that less harm will result to the defendant if the TRO issues than to the plaintiffs if the TRO does not issue; and (4) that the public interest, if any, weighs in favor of plaintiff.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  201. And what would that look like??

    Dana (92de1d)

  202. Two other issues in the news today, not sure they belong here, but what the heck. The only comments seem to be here.

    1. Composition of the NSC — someone posted on this above. The composition of the NSC is DICTATED by statute. There was a huge press meme yesterday about Bannon joining the NSC and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as Dir. of National Intelligence, being “removed.” There are only 2 problems with the meme — 1) Bannon didn’t join the NSC, and 2) the Chair of the JCOS and the DNI aren’t authorized by law to be members of the NSC, although they may be invited to attend and participate.

    More stooopid reporter work. ALL OF THIS IS RIGHT IN THE STATUTE — 50 USC 3021.

    The statue provides that the Chairman IS NOT part of the NSC as defined. There’s a reason for that — the NSC is a committee of CIVILIANS and/or heads of civilian agencies. The Chairman is not a civilian, and he leads the military. Keeping the Chairman off the NSC is part of the separation of civilian and military leadership.

    The Chairman is the principal MILITARY adviser to the President, and as a consequence he is the principal military adviser to the President’s NSC, which is chaired by the President.

    When Congress created the position of the “Director of National Intelligence”, that person was not added in the NSC statute as an authorized “member” of the NSC. Rather, Congress made the DNI pretty much the same as the Chair of the JCOS —

    “The Director of National Intelligence (or, in the Director’s absence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, in the performance of the Director’s duties under this chapter and subject to the direction of the President, attend and participate in meetings of the National Security Council.”

    Bannon is not a member of the NSC either — because the statute doesn’t allow him to be. But he’s invited to attend — as is the prerogative of any President since the NSC serves him, and he is the Chair.

    Now the statute does provide that the Pres. can add members to the NSC if those individuals are duly appointed by the Pres and confirmed by the Senate as Secretaries and Under Secretaries of Executive Agencies.

    I think the WH did point out yesterday that in announcing the composition of the NSC, they used the EXACT SAME composition that Obama used when he first took over. The Chairman and the DNI were not “members”, but were invited attendees on a regular basis.

    I think it also came out that Obama didn’t originally have the Dir. of CIA as a “member”, but changed that shortly after the original composition was announced, and the Dir. of the CIA was added.

    Yesterday the Trump WH did the same thing, announcing that Pompeo would be added to the NSC as a member.

    So, once again in an effort to find fault with everything the Trump Admin does, the press 1) exposes itself as not understanding how the NSC is constituted, and 2) not realizing Trump was following the path established by Obama before him.

    Journalistic malpractice.

    I liked Conway’s comment yesterday to the effect of “Why hasn’t anyone in the press gotten fired?” They’ve been shown to have gotten so many things wrong in their rush to condemn the Trump Admin to failure, but there’s simply no accountability in journalism for making grossly negligent errors on subjects that aren’t that hard to understand if you just take the time to do so.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  203. Leviticus — you want to take me on regarding these kinds of procedural issues?? Really??

    You got the standard right, yes. But as of Saturday night and Sunday afternoon, only one party to the disputes had put forth their position with regard to the 4 elements. Maybe you would have difficulty advocating on behalf of your client on those 4 elements when you’re unopposed, but most competent attorneys don’t find that too difficult.

    Sure, sometimes TRO’s have been turned down. But the fact of the matter is that the judges issued TROs here based on the one-sided applications which addressed those 4 parts of the test, and unless those were responded to — and Yates instructed the ENTIRE DEPARTMENT to not respond — then they were going to be extended into Prelim Injunctions this week prior to Sessions being confirmed.

    I think she had to understand that her letter was going to get her fired, and I don’t think she really believed that the WH would stand by while DOJ did nothing on her instructions.

    I will be very interesting in the next 36 hours or so to see what the Judges do with their emergency rulings. My guess is that Gov’t briefs are being filed today, and the hearings will be tomorrow.

    So stay tuned.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  204. Sammy,

    I think that is Trumps ideas, for it might conflict with the Steves and their fringe support. At this stage it is a reserve weapon in the event of a larger power-worshipper (Gabriel H’s term) defection from the R party. Some would say black passive defection already occured in the rust belt in this election, enough to imperil the holy 3 PA-MI-WI (perhaps OH as well).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  205. I see the artivle elissa linked to, linked to this:

    https://lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  206. 207. Imperil PA-MI-WI and perhaps Ohio for what party? In 2016 they were lost, not imperiled, by the Democratic Party candidate. I can’t quite follow you

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  207. So as not to muck up this thread I hope Pat or one of the guest bloggers can put up a short post on this statewide sanctuary effort for discussion:

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/calif-to-consider-enacting-statewide-sanctuary/

    I know we have a number of Californians who regularly read and comment here and it’d be great to get everyone’s thoughts/insights on the likelihood of this happening. Of course, the news reader is still calling it a “travel ban from mostly Muslim countries”. (And gawd does Mickey Kantor look terrible in the accompanying video).

    elissa (2211a2)

  208. 2nd issue of the day with an false press meme: DHS’s role in the EO.

    General Kelly gave a very informative press conference earlier today on the issuance and implementation of the EO. He said many things that directly contradict much of the press reporting over the last 48 hours about the EO — i.e., that it was drafted in secret by Bannon and Miller in the WH, that there wasn’t any legal input, that DHS was taken by surprise, that Kelly first learned about it while on a Coast Guard plane flying from one place to another; that there was chaos a airports when people arrived who were subject to the EO’s restrictions, blah blah blah.

    A few points from what I remember while listening on the radio.

    1. Kelly knew something like this would happen early in the Admin. Said anyone who paid attention to the campaign knew that Trump said he was going to do something in this area as early as mid-2015.

    2. On the day the EO was signed — late Friday — Kelly was in day 6 as Dir. of DHS, and had a lot of things he was trying to digest. But he had known for a few days that an EO on the travel ban was in the process of being drafted. In fact, he had seen a couple drafts earlier in the week. Because his legal staff was providing feedback to the drafters, he didn’t get personally involved — they were doing their jobs and he had other responsibilities needing his attention.

    3. He knew the general time frame for when the EO was going to be issued, and he knew all the significant legal points made in the EO. He just didn’t know the exact time that the signing was planned for. So, when it was reported that “he first learned about it in the plane”, while that’s literally true, the reality is that he was on the plane when it was signed, and he learned about its signing while on the plane. The timing was significant because he knew — which he had known for days — that the Counter Officers at various ports of entry would need guidance on what they needed to do to enforce the EO starting Saturday. That had already been planned for, the guidance was ready, and it was pushed out in the hours following the signing of the EO.

    4. The various ports of entry were ready on Saturday. For flights arriving from foreign airports, the DHS receives flight manifests from the airlines that lists all passengers on board when the flight departs. Various data is provided regarding each passenger as well, including passport/visa information, and additional information about passengers on the manifests is available to DHS through their TECS database system. About 2 hours before the time of a flight’s arrival, the Counter Officers receive the names of inbound passengers who will be automatically sent to secondary screening because of information in the TECS system. The Counter Officers can also use their discretion to send other arriving passengers to secondary screening. Kelly said that all inbound passengers who fell within the EO were scheduled for secondary screening, and it all went off as planned as the flights arrived. He said DHS had already considered the issue of green card holders, and determined that they would be subject to secondary screening and then put through the waiver process. There were a couple glitches in consistency of application with regard to green card holders, and that led to lawsuits being filed while the waiver process was underway. But it was all worked out by Sunday.

    5. When he inquired with various offices at airports around the country about the press reports of “chaos”, he was told the only chaos his Counter Officers were seeing was the Chaos outside the terminals with the protesters. There was no chaos in the processing of inbound passengers, including passengers who were subject to the EO.

    6. They anticipated that there would be some legal challenges filed, and he had the DHS legal staff standing by to respond to any court order that was issued. As soon as they received the first court order that barred any removals of arriving passengers with valid visas, they modified the guidance to the various ports of entry, and instructed that no inbound passenger who arrived at a port of entry was to be “removed” by being sent back to their point of departure.

    What was interesting about the part of the press conference that I listened to was that there wasn’t a single question about the EO itself — the only interest of the reporters was trying to pursue the meme of the “disasterous” nature of the rollout, and the “chaos” that ensued as enforcement began.

    Again, more journalistic malpractice, and Kelly just shredded them.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  209. 208 — Jack Goldsmith’s article is the best one I’ve seen out there. He’s the former OLC lawyer who withdrew the opinions that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques”, and then issued new opinions concluding that they likely violated international law under treaty obligations that the US had adopted.

    He’s pretty much the “Platinum Standard” in his analysis of internal DOJ workings.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  210. As about as likely as California is to seceded to Mexico. That would be my guess.

    But I’m all in favor of twisting the arms of Marin County residents to force them to accept Jihadis into their pacifist midst.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  211. swc and others–the entire Kelly presser from cspan can be accessed here:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?423262-1/homeland-security-secretary-kelly-says-knew-travel-ban-coming

    elissa (2211a2)

  212. Did The Supreme Court Pick Just Leak On Twitter?

    Pretty good choice if it did

    crazy (d3b449)

  213. Thanks again, SWC

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  214. IMO what’s at work here CLEARY is the deep state — embedded bureaucracy that opposes Trump — is giving false or misleading reports to the hyperventilating press that just can’t get enough “Trump Screws Up” information. They are simply insatiable.

    Kelly comes out today and says “I knew about it for a few days, saw a couple of early drafts, had our legal team consulting with the drafters…” We know the DOJ Off. of Legal Counsel reviewed it to determine if it was facially legal and in proper form, and approved.

    Yet we get a story just in the last couple of hours at Politico which says:

    The roll out of Trump’s order “was as chaotic on the inside as it looked on the outside,” one career official at the Department of Homeland Security told POLITICO, adding that “nobody knew anything” before the White House announced the policy Friday night.

    The official blamed much of the confusion on the order’s vague and imprecise language. “They just don’t seem to even know how to write a government policy,” said the official, adding that “even 12 hours worth of legal review” would have cleared up many of the problems.

    That’s all BS from the deep state. That’s just feeding more oxygen to a dying story that has been revealed to be wildly overblown and exaggerated.

    Reminds me of protests that went on outside the federal building where I worked in the weeks and months after the invasion of Iraq. The first day there were protests, maybe 500 people showed up. So naturally every television station and print media had a reporter there. Fine. Protest, picket, all perfectly within the rights of American citizens to make their views known.

    Most were back on day 2, and many were back on day 3.

    But by about the 3rd week, the protesters came only on Friday.

    After a couple months, the Friday protesters were down to only about 20 people.

    About six months later the Friday protesters were only 2-3 people, and it looked like they traded off weeks.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  215. Gotta wonder what the percentage of deep staters actually is inside the federal bureaucracies. On the other hand these “leakers” may be “career officials” who are not even in the Dept of Homeland Security any more.

    elissa (2211a2)

  216. “Leviticus — you want to take me on regarding these kinds of procedural issues?? Really??”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Should I be hesitant, for some reason? I’m just providing everybody with the legal standard that you partially omitted. An important part, too – three federal judges finding that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits?

    I get your grievance with Yates. She prevented DOJ from arguing against these plaintiffs. That’s not her place, and she was fired for insubordination. OK. Still nothing close to “tantamount to treason,” which you argued on this and the other thread.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  217. The Left keeps bringing up Nixon and the “Saturday Night Massacre”, where Nixon wanted his AG to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Feeling unable to follow this order, both AG Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruckleshaus resigned, and Robert Bork, Solicitor General and now Acting AG fired Cox.

    Note the difference though — neither man said that the order was unlawful, nor did they refuse it. Nor were they fired. They simply resigned as a matter of conscience.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  218. Meanwhile the we-can-all-get-along republicans in and out of government continue to underestimate how determined the deep-staters are to ostruct and sabotage everything

    crazy (d3b449)

  219. I mean, why would you use the word “treason,” knowing (as you do) that it has a specific legal definition that has nothing to do with Yates’ conduct?

    For dramatic effect?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  220. easier to spell that insubordination.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  221. Leviticus — no issue with you posting the standard. Good info for readers to have — I’ve internalized it after dealing with it several dozen times over the years, but most here have not.

    But don’t overstate what the 3 judges found. Remember the way this balancing works — the greater the likelihood of “irreparable injury” without the TRO, the less likelihood of success on the merits the applicant needs to show.

    Here the “irreparable injury” claim was the dominant factor. The first case filed in New York was on behalf of two detained Iraqi green card holders who were told they were going to be sent to Iraq — even though they hadn’t arrived in the US from Iraq. So, the “irreparable injury” to them without the TRO was enormous. I think one or both had worked with the US Military in Iraq, and that’s how they were allowed to immigrate and given green cards. So sending them back to Iraq might have put their very lives at risk.

    So, for them, the requirement of showing a “likelihood of success on the merits” was much much less.

    So, given the reality of how disruptive “removal” was going to be for the named plaintiffs in the NY case, it was really an easy call for the judge to say — for 72 hours on a TRO — she was going to bar DHS from “removing” arriving travelers with valid visas.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  222. If you have seen briefing that de-emphasizes likelihood of success on the merits in favor of emphasizing irreparable harm, I’d love to see it too. It’s possible to show both, and the plaintiffs may well have done so. And in any event, I don’t think arguing that this EO is extremely, irreparably harmful to green card holders is a strong argument in favor of the EO.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  223. Kevin M — the facts are even more starkly different than you mentioned.

    Elliot Richardson and William Ruckleshaus had testified before the Senate and pledged under oath that they would not fire Archibald Cox even if directed to do so by Nixon.

    So when Nixon ordered Richardson first, and then Ruckleshaus to fire Cox — and it was a lawful order by Nixon because Cox was appointed by the AG as a “special prosecutor”, he was not an “Independent Counsel” as that statute didn’t yet exist — Richardson and Ruckleshaus had to resign rather than follow Nixon’s order because that is what they told the Senate they would do.

    Bork was going to resign as well, but Richardson told Bork that Bork needed to fire Cox first. Bork had not made a pledge to the Senate, and Nixon’s order to fire Cox was not illegal. He told Bork he could resign after firing Cox, that was up to him, but if Bork didn’t fire Cox then the entire structure of management at DOJ would be at risk as any number of lower DOJ officials might follow his (Bork’s) lead and resign rather than fire Cox. The prospect of that was simply too damaging to DOJ as an institution, and would throw the work of DOJ into chaos.

    So the decision by them to resign was “orderly” and was intended to preserve the functions of the Department after their departure.

    Yates’ conduct threatened to create chaos in the functioning of the Dept.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  224. I used it because of her position — she undermined the operations of the entire Department, and seized for herself the power of the Presidency, in that she substituted her judgment for what was “right” and “just” for Pres. Trump’s judgment.

    If I had done something similar as a line prosecutor, I would have been fired for insubordination, and the US Attorney would have sent someone into Court the next day in my place to do what I had been instructed to do.

    The distinctions between the two situations are a matter of degree. I wouldn’t have been declaring a whole agency of the federal government to be a “Free Agent”, untethered from its institutional obligation to represent the Executive Branch in legal disputes in court.

    shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c)

  225. The possible “irreparable harm” related to the affected travelers who were already in transit-in air- at the moment the EO was signed was it not? The TRO prevented that specific class of travelers from being sent back.

    elissa (2211a2)

  226. SWC,
    One difference from the protester decline in the current scenario is,
    all of these media people and the people in bureaucracies that feed them are in jobs where they make professional salaries to do this stuff.

    I think this will continue, perhaps with increasing “rabidity” (is that a word?)

    Dennis Prager recently wrote a column about being in our second civil war.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  227. hello green card holder!

    welcome back to to your chosen land of america!

    here is cookie

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  228. to

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  229. A federal officer’s oath to support and defend the Constitution trumps any amorphous “institutional obligation.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  230. If Yates thought that defending this EO violated her oath to defend the Constitution, I agree that she should have stated as much.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  231. A federal officer’s oath to support and defend the Constitution trumps any amorphous “institutional obligation.”

    unless your last name is Holder or Lynch.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  232. @175 Leviticus

    So what you’re saying is, “L’etat c’est tw*t.”

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  233. I wonder if that Yates woman voiced an opinion of Barack’s January 11 end to the “wet foot, dry foot” policy.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  234. 150. papertiger (c8116c) — 1/31/2017 @ 9:03 am

    Way I read the bio Yates could run against the civil rights mediocrity John Lewis for Rep-from Atlanta..

    The 5th Congressional District around and in Atlanta, had its boundaries drawn by a federal court (in the 1980s?) so that it could be it could be counted to elect a black person, which, according to the Department of Justice meant it had to be 65% black.

    A previous district, which was majority white, elected Andrew Young, who was black, as a member of Congress. When he resigned to become Jimmy Carfter’s ambassador to the United Nations, Wyche Fowler, who was white, won the special election and soundly beat, John Lewis who came in second, and Paul Coverdell, the Republican. Fowler had been preident of tha Atlanta Council for several years, and reprsented many blacks. When it became majority black he still kept on getting re-elected. In 1982, not one black politcian filed to run against him. In 1984, he won the Democratic primary 64% to 28% against former civil rights leader Hosea Williams.

    In 1986, Wyche Fowler quit to run for the United States Senate (he was elected, but was defeated for re-election in 1992 by Paul Coverdell in a runoff, Wednesday November 11, although he had a plurality on November 3, 1992 – the difference was votes cast for Libertarian. Fowler went on to serve as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1996 till 2001. The much respected Paul Coverdell died in office on July 18, 2000 from a cerebral hemorrhage, age 61. He had been director of the Peace Corps under George Bush the Elder from 1989 to 1991. Cpvedell had been close to him since the day in 1978 when he knocked on his door in Maine and he built the Republican Party in Georgia)

    In 1981, John Lewis had won a seat on the Atlanta Council. In 1986, when Wyche Fowler quit his House seat to run for the Senate, John Lewis and Julian Bond (both the same age) were the principal candidates to succeed him in Congress.

    In the first primary, he lost to Julian Bond, 47% to 35%, with Bond collecting about 60% of the black vote. Lewis campaigned on the grounds that he was doer, not a showman (his slogan was: “Vote for he tugboat, not the showboat) and won the runoff on the basis of votes from affluent whites (and poor blacks)

    After that, he was THE INCUMBENT and re-elected every two years, often without any opposition.

    The 2006 Almanac of American Politics describes him as a strong partisan, who is (or was) he Democrats’s senior chief deputy whip with a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, and one of the most liberal voting records in the House. He defected from his party on the 1994 crime bill, citing opposition to capital punishment.

    The district was 55.7% black and 34.4% white in the 2002-2010 period,based on the 2000 Census.

    The only legislation he seems to have been interested in enacting, in all his time in Congress, is legislation commemorating various aspects of the Civil Rights movement.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  235. Sammy, I wasn’t going to wager anything on Sally winning, but thanks for the warning.

    I suppose it’s possible, hopped up on Modelo, I might drop a $20 on her.

    No chance now though.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  236. I was angling hard for Sally to return to her knitting.

    If only I could get someone to take the bet.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  237. 16 senators including leahy Durbin and Einstein voted for the bill, quelled surpruse

    narciso (d1f714)

  238. “Shades of Reagan firing the ATC strikers”

    I was too young then to remember, but was there a mass freakout like these days, DCSCA?

    I’m trying to guage the intensity of now with that of the past. As in, how close are we to bloodshed?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  239. Papertiger – do you know if John Lewis is running fro re-election?

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  240. The vote was 65/33 including those three senators

    narciso (d1f714)

  241. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/refugee-ban-policy-of-feelings-not-facts

    The refugee executive order is not a policy based in fact. The facts do not support it. The facts since 9/11 do not offer the hint of a suggestion that refugees who have already gone through a vetting process pose a terrorist threat, either here or (as yet) in Europe. The most horrifying recent acts, the ones that triggered Trump’s initial announcement he wanted a total ban on Muslim travel to the United States, involve radicalized homegrown native-born citizen terrorists. Omar Mateen of the Orlando massacre was born in New York. Tafsheen Malik of the San Bernardino slaughter was born in Chicago (his wife, who came into the country because she married a citizen, was from Pakistan, not any of the countries named in Trump’s executive order). The Bataclan killers in Paris were born and raised in Belgium, not in Syria. And so on. Only the Tsarnaev brothers, who committed the Boston Marathon bombings, count as refugees, but they came after securing political asylum from Russia —another country not on the list, obviously.

    So what does this tell us? It tells us this is a policy based on feelings. It is the very partial fulfillment of a wild and radical campaign promise made hurriedly after the San Bernardino killings to ban all Muslims from the United States. Given the very partial nature of it, the policy is simply an immigration-restrictionist version of the classic liberal approach to problems; just do something. And do it big.

    Theer are actually a few with some connections to those countries, like the Ohio state shooter who was a Somali citizen at Ohioo State – except taht he’d grown up in Pakistan.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  242. One American citizen said he was detained by CBP, but I think this is soemthing else. he probably is on the no fly list.

    https://twitter.com/filmguymo/status/825578665966764032

    . One of the officers had the audacity to tell me to change my name

    Like taht terrorist from Chicago, who changed his name to David headley.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  243. What bill?

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  244. == do you know if John Lewis is running fro re-election?==

    Oh, goodness yes. He’s only 76, a mere youngster amid the Dem congressional geriatric set.

    elissa (904156)

  245. like meghan’s coward daddy, the voices in his head tell him he has to die in office

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  246. @242- There was ‘surprise’ Reagan acted as decisively and swiftly, especially given it dealt w/t the ATC system affecting air travel across the country and their union had endorsed Reagan. People were concerned about losing experienced controllers and the chance of accidents to be sure. But it calmed in a week or two. They thought Reagan would make a deal– especially as he’d been a union boss himself years earlier (Screen Actors Guild.) The firm decisiveness got the attention of the Soviets. No doubt Putin and China got the message from this as well.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  247. Bow USSR Lewis was the subject of yet another ethics complaint, regarding him and his aides disbursements

    narciso (d1f714)

  248. If this was Britain, Pelosi, etc., would be ousted or forced to resign alog w/any other leadership posts after this trail of losing. Certainly Pelosi should go. As long as the current crop clings, they’re going to be at odds w/half the country. Pragmatist are in, ideologues on both sides are out.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  249. Tx, DC

    Patricia (5fc097)

  250. 166. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/31/2017 @ 9:32 am

    i’m also old enough to remember when barack’s friends eric and loretta told us that they didn’t have to enforce certain federal laws if they didn’t agree with the laws and progressives said ‘yay!’

    That was the Defense of Marriage Act – like this case, they wouldn’t defend it in court. The Supreme Court appointed a special counsel.

    I doon’t know if something like that could have been done here, but there seemed to be DOJ lawyers willing to do it.

    Now there were some other laws that Congress told the DOJ not to enforce, that is, not to spend any money doing so, and the Obama Justice Department said: Well, maybe just a little bit.

    Those were the anti-marijuana laws in cases where the activity was legal pursuant to state law. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/04/obama_s_medical_marijuana_prosecutions_probably_aren_t_legal.html

    …When he was running for president, Obama famously said he wouldn’t be using federal resources to “circumvent state laws on the issue” of medical marijuana. But not long after he got into office, his administration began a crackdown on growers and dispensers in states that had legalized it. By 2012, he had publically changed his tune from 2008, arguing that not to enforce federal anti-pot statutes in states where medical marijuana was legal would be to “nullify congressional law.”

    Since then, though, Congress passed a measure explicitly telling the Obama administration to cease spending funds to prevent medical marijuana providers from operating in states that have legalized it. Ironically, Obama has opted to ignore this particular legislation and continues to prosecute these cases, essentially nullifying congressional power. ..

    …To be sure, the DOJ allows most state dispensaries to operate without interference and has promulgated nonbinding guidelines limiting federal prosecutions. But the nebulous guidelines give the DEA and DOJ wide discretion for when to prosecute, and defendants have no redress when their cases fall outside of these advisory guidelines. The penalties are harsh. Most operations trigger a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence. Possession of a firearm adds another 5 years.

    Cruz supporter:

    however i’m not old enough to remember when mr abe lincoln replaced mcclellan because george wouldn’t fight but i read about it in history books

    And, in 1951, President Truman replaced General Douglas MacArthur because he wanted to fight too much, or more than he wanted to, anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7749 secs.