home
Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban | 106 comments (106 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"legal administrative actions"? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by mm on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:24:24 AM EST
Or maybe she did what she swore an oath to do.

From Yates' confirmation hearing:

Sessions:  I guess my first question to follow up on is do you understand that in the political world, there will be people calling, demanding pushing, insisting on things that they do not know? What they're asking for could indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the respect of the Department of Justice has, could diminish the rule of law in the Unitied States? Are you aware of that?

Yates: You're right. ... I care deeply about our mission and I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity that is the Department of Justice.  . . .

Sessions:  Well, you have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things, you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? . . . But if the view as President wants to execute are unlawful, should the the Attorney General, Or Deputy Attorney General say no?

Yates: Senator, I believe that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.

Uphold the Constitution.

Parent

The law will pass (none / 0) (#77)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:48:48 AM EST
Constitutional muster. It is legal.
Yates duty was to represent the current Administration. If she didn't agree with the policy, then she could have resigned.

O

Parent

There are questions (5.00 / 4) (#79)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:24:51 AM EST
as to whether it is legal or not. That will be decided by the courts not Trump apologists.

Either way it's a freaking PR disaster for your guy and a PR boon for ISIS.

Parent

I don't think so (none / 0) (#78)
by mm on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:54:47 AM EST
I suppose if President Obama had fired FBI Director Comey for turning a simple security referral into a year long witch hunt for the crime of the century you would have been fine with that.

Parent
You say that with such authority (none / 0) (#88)
by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:17:37 PM EST
The law will pass Constitutional muster. It is legal.

As though it's a fact, rather than an uninformed, lay opinion.  Do you really think that makes it more convincing to those who know better?

Parent

Basing it on (none / 0) (#89)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:58:32 PM EST
All the articles and tv appearances I have read and seen.
Not one said it was unconstitutional, and many said they disagreed with the law, but they all said it was legal

Parent
Is THAT supposed to ... (none / 0) (#90)
by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:46:05 PM EST
... sound more convincing?

It doesn't.

BTW - The five federal judges who granted injunctions would not do so unless they believed those challenging the order had a probability of success on the merits.  I'll take them over whatever unidentified people you happen to remember watching and your subsequent declaration of alternative "fact".

Parent

Perhaps you ought to instead look to ... (none / 0) (#91)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 01:29:39 AM EST
TrevorBolder: "Basing it on All the articles and tv appearances I have read and seen."

... the four federal judges who examined Trump's executive order this weekend, found it wanting, and enjoined it from taking effect in all or in part. Because it's those four women, and not the TV pundits or newspaper columnists, whose opinions actually count for real here.

Aloha.

Parent

The Justice Department (1.00 / 1) (#92)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:50:31 AM EST
Signed off on it

The Justice Department Office of Legal Compliance had signed off on the measure.

Parent

There is no such office, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:54:28 PM EST
RevorBolder: "The Justice Department signed off on it[.] The Justice Department Office of Legal Compliance had signed off on the measure."

The U.S. Dept. of Justice has an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Although Trump's spokespersons insisted to Fox News and the New York Times on Sunday that the DOJ had cleared the executive order prior to release, according to CNN, neither the OLC nor any department heads were ever consulted on its final text.

As of this writing, no confirmation of the White House's assertion has been forthcoming from the OLC itself. And given then-Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates' own reaction to the order, it's safe to say that she probably never signed off on its release, and she was head of DOJ.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only saw the executive order's text shortly before it was released, and did not receive the list of the countries included in the order until 3:00 a.m. EST on Saturday morning.

Further, White House policy diector Steve Bannon  and senior adviser Stephen Miller overruled the initial DHS interpretation of the order, and demanded that green card holders be subjected to screening, with their entry into the country to be determined on a case-by-case basis by CBP agents. Also on Saturday, the State Department announced that per the order, foreign dual citizens of the same seven states were also to be excluded from entering or re-entering the United States.

Aloha.

Parent

UPDATE: DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel ... (none / 0) (#105)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 05:03:05 PM EST
... today released a copy of its memo approving Trump's executive order on immigration "with respect to form and legality," as signed by Curtis E. Gannon in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Attorney General.

That said, I would note that this particular memo is comprised of merely a summary of the executive order itself and requisite signature of a DOJ official. Traditionally, such approvals constitute a narrow review for purposes of style and clarity, and aren't necessarily used to provide comprehensive legal analysis.

As such, this particular memo doesn't address the legal strengths or weaknesses of Trump's executive action, and doesn't offer any legal speculation as to whether or not such an order could withstand a constitutional challenge in court. Thus, OLC's approval in this instance is pro forma and perfunctory.

Aloha.

Parent

looks legitimate to me. (none / 0) (#106)
by linea on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 07:02:36 PM EST
The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

i dont know if verbosity is required.

Parent

All (none / 0) (#93)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:56:10 AM EST
the reporting has said otherwise.

Parent
And (none / 0) (#94)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:05:34 AM EST
The reporting is wrong...Once again

Parent
Say's (none / 0) (#95)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:50 AM EST
who? Mr. Alternate facts Spicer.

Parent
Who said (none / 0) (#96)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:19:07 AM EST
It didn't get reviewed?
Any one who knows?  Or just anonymous?

It was just another event where the press ran with their preferred narrative, to once again have it blow up.

Parent

Maybe (none / 0) (#101)
by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:26:39 AM EST
you are right, maybe the press got it wrong or maybe the administration is lying.

I have one question though, if it did get a proper review where the heck is the memo. It seems to me it should have surfaced by now.

You are asking the press the prove the negative, when the proof of the positive could be made in a heartbeat.

Maybe I am missing something, but I imagine that if such an approving report existed, it would already have released as justification by the administration.

Parent

Then it should be easy (none / 0) (#97)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:21:29 AM EST
To prove Alternative Facts wrong again....

But I haven't seen that

If Spicer is lying,I would have thought it would be real easy to prove it,

And the press is chomping at the bit to do so.

I haven't seen anything

Parent

Why can't (none / 0) (#102)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 08:01:35 AM EST
the alternative facts group release the memo? It seems easy enough to do. It certainly looks like Spicer is lying through his teeth once again.

Parent
That's nice (none / 0) (#98)
by Yman on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:41:40 AM EST
It's funny how Trump supporters suddenly think the opinion of the DOJ (well, one office of the DOJ) is dispositivery, after wanting to ignore it for years.

Parent
No, not at all (1.00 / 1) (#99)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:49:26 AM EST
It just shows that Yates disregarded the opinion of her own office.

Parent
It shows nothing of the sort (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by vicndabx on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:02:40 AM EST
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.

Link

An apt analogy would be, you going on about the electrical plans but the architect hasn't indicated the proposed changes to the building are sound.

Parent

And? (none / 0) (#100)
by Yman on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:01:12 AM EST
Bosses do that all the time.

Parent

Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban | 106 comments (106 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft