Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

by davesque • 9 years ago

424 448 9 years ago

ivl2• 9 years ago

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue.

As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what?

The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If Trump thinks he can have something done, I worry he'll demand people below him do so, or replace them with someone properly spineless.

ams6110• 9 years ago

She's an interim AG, holdover from the prior administration. Wasn't going to be there long regardless.

davesque7• 9 years ago

As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.

hueving• 9 years ago

The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.

This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.

ivl2• 9 years ago

I'm concerned we're going to see unprecedented levels of constitutional and legal violations from this particular executive branch. Checks and balances are great, but not when they happen after the fact. And no, the president is not elected dictator, there's a degree of insubordination allowed. It's not the first time an AG has said "we cannot fight this ruling, nor should we".

ouid3• 9 years ago

"Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch."

-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...

rayiner8• 9 years ago

Hierarchical leadership doesn't work like that with attorneys. If Yates couldn't come up with a good faith argument for the legality of the order, she wasn't allowed to go into court and defend it, regardless of what her boss said. She could have countermanded the order and accepted the consequences (which she did), or she could have resigned.

Whether the order rises to that level I'm not sure. I think there are definitely some instances in how the order was applied that wouldn't have been defensible if pursued further. For example, I haven't heard a single cogent argument that it's legal to exclude permanent residents without individualized process.

billjings2• 9 years ago

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

mwpmaybe5• 9 years ago

> The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.
It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.

You have DHS officials refusing to obey a court order[0] and the White House refusing to share information with Congress[1]. Where are the checks and balances?

0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord...

1. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317006-rubio-state-asked-...

pfooti3• 9 years ago

And of course the reason why CBP ignored the judiciary when federal judges issued orders about the EO. Conspiracy-theory wise, it is why the Trump White House page deleted the judicial branch from its sitemap (still has legislative).

And of course, keep in mind that 'following orders' is never a particularly good reason to break with your own morality.

thinkcontext• 9 years ago

Then you disagree with Jeff Sessions who said "the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper." Ironically he did this at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, he went on to praise John Ashcroft for resisting the Bush administration.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

bobwaycott6• 9 years ago

... it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants.

Except, for the health and continuing stability of the republic, one should not expect this in cases where the President is judged by legal experts to be outside the Constitution. On principle alone, we do not expect civil servants to simply "do whatever the President wants"—that way lies tyranny. We expect them to uphold and defend the Constitution, not executive agendas. That's the oath they take. Every President is rightly subjected to scrutiny and criticism when they fire people for disagreement. We created this system of government to avoid the abuses of unchecked power.

bmh_ca• 9 years ago

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons.

I kind of thought you must be joking, since revolving AGs were a hallmark of the Bush Jr era, to legalize torture, etc. But in case not, here is a decent place to start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_...

woofyman2• 9 years ago

Those were US attorneys.

cookiecaper45• 9 years ago

I don't understand your point. Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional (there is a process for that, and Ms. Yates is not in a position to make that determination) nor to decide whether it is good policy (as she is neither a legislator nor the chief executive). Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed?

Note this is not an instance of prosecutorial discretion. Ms. Yates is not refusing to prosecute people under the law; rather, she is instructing her subordinates to refrain from doing the necessary work that would allow the government fair representation during hearings on the law.

If she is unwilling to fulfill her job duties for personal reasons (and likewise instructs her subordinates to stop fulfilling theirs), the appropriate course of action is to resign, is it not? If she's unwilling to do that and wishes to make a spectacle of herself, wouldn't a dismissal be the expected resolution?

How is dismissing an acting AG who refuses to enforce the law "purely political" and not an expected, appropriate response to someone who has refused to execute the laws of the country they're supposed to represent? Does it make sense to allow an acting AG to remain in place after she intentionally and explicitly declines to recognize the president's authority to direct the executive branch?

davesque7• 9 years ago

According to her announcement, she seemed to believe that the order was unlawful. As she was the most important litigator in the land, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say.

dragonwriter8• 9 years ago

Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws.

An E.O. that conflicts with statute or the Constitution is not law, in fact, it a violation of the law.

As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional

Deciding whether the is a reasonable legal argument for an action before defending it and not defending it otherwise is absolutely her obligation, both as a officer of the court and a public officer with an oath to the Constitution.

Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed?

Democrats prime objection to Sessions involves recognizing that this job responsibility and being concerned that Sessions' past record indicates he would exercise it poorly, from their perspective.

rayiner8• 9 years ago

Executive officers have an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of orders they enforce. Indeed, they can be held personally liable for violating "clearly established law."

rabboRubble2• 9 years ago

Comes as a surprise as she is the only person in the DOJ authorized to sign off on foreign security letters [0]

How nice that Trump right out of the gate has kneecapped his administration in terms of intelligence gathering! At least until a puppet replacement is approved by the Senate.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra...

[Edit: earlier in the day I read that the acting AG was the only Senate approved signatory. As somebody below me pointed out, that is no longer the current interpretation of who is able to sign these letters in the provided link. I'm keeping my post up as originally written because things moved so dang fast today.]

willstrafach• 9 years ago

This is not true. The NYT article has been fixed.

msrpotus• 9 years ago

Arguably not the first time, if you count Nixon firing his Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General because they wouldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor.

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

Maybe not the best precedent.

Turing_Machine4• 9 years ago

It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments!

Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.

As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or whoever it winds up being). She just decided to go out with some political grandstanding, which I'm sure will help her find a new job.

sfifs• 9 years ago

Can Sally Yates sue for wrongful termination?

mc32• 9 years ago

I think those people tend to "serve at the pleasure of the president".

robbiep6• 9 years ago

The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.

If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

croon7• 9 years ago

If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well.

It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish.

I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely:

* That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job?

* That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition?

I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

The comment or validity thereof?

TheOtherHobbes• 9 years ago

The US has a Constitution. Being President/General/CEO doesn't mean you get to assume you're above the law.

koheripbal• 9 years ago

There's a difference between giving your boss honest feedback, and being obstructionist. Encouraging honesty is great, but at the end of the day, you still need to follow orders.

ako• 9 years ago

"just following orders...."

altern8tif2• 9 years ago

What about whistleblowers? Should they have just "followed orders" instead?

muninn_• 9 years ago

She didn't execute his orders as president and she acted unprofessionally. Politico had a sensible article about it.

KKKKkkkk1• 9 years ago

There is an expression that gained currency in Russia in recent years: negative selection. The Russian president nominates the worst possible people to the top jobs of government--people who take bribes, people who are incompetent and are known to have committed grave mistakes--because those are the people most likely to be loyal to him to the end. Any show of competence and independence leads to a summary dismissal.

alphadevx• 9 years ago

I have worked with some managers that defensively promote others loyal to them around themselves in a similar fashion, but had not heard the term before "negative selection" but it explains it beautifully.

squarefoot• 9 years ago

Over here there is an old say which roughly translates into "you can get an idea of a person by seeing the ones he/she chooses to have near or work with him/her". I have notice this behaviour in the corporate world as well, ie hiring incompetent but easy to herd yesmen, and usually is a sign of some sort of corruption.

MR4D2• 9 years ago

Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why:

#1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and even argues personally on behalf of administrations in front of the Supreme Court. Her duty is to defend the Administration's position (even if she personally disagrees with it). As wikipedia puts it (abbreviated for space here): "The United States Attorney General (A.G.) .... is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government." But I suggest reading here for a very good overview: https://www.justice.gov/about

#1a (to highlight this specifically: AGs determine whether to prosecute, not whether to defend.

#2 - The courtroom is the place to determine if the order is legal or not. From what I understand, Congress can also override this.

#3 - There is no (publicly known) communication between the AAG and the President regarding her stance. From what I can tell, she contradicted his order without informing him. Note that he has no legal requirement to inform her, but she does to inform him (being that the President is the superior to an AG).

#4 - Presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys without any reason. And they use it often. Every President in recent memory has done so.

#5 - The order affected non-citizens who are outside the country. The law and legal cases tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch on actions outside the country.

Again, I say this regardless of whether or not I like the order. I will say this - at a minimum, he should have consulted with someone to minimize some of the issues that this order faces. That fact that he apparently did not even do that is astonishing.

res0nat0r3• 9 years ago

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

That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.

celticninja2• 9 years ago

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

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

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

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

Shivetya• 9 years ago

She was fired properly and not for political reasons the EO was approved, determined legal, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Her reasoning reflected the fact she knew she had no legal basis to defend the EO. She should have resigned instead she made matters worse.

The restriction is against seven countries. Presidents Obama and Carter both enacted immigration bans against Muslim dominant countries (Iraq and Iraq). This still leaves over fifty majority Muslim countries unaffected by the EO including the five most populated countries.

It is not any more a Muslim ban than when past Presidents put restrictions on immigration from countries labeled as dangerous.

seanp2k2• 9 years ago

Trump literally asked for a "Muslim ban" https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/...

The other countries aren't banned because he has business interests there: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/poli...

"The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai."

fullshark2• 9 years ago

His base will love this

nemo• 9 years ago

His opposition will love this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

avenoir• 9 years ago

Care to explain how Nixon tapping someone who could fire Special Prosecutor Cox to prevent him from conducting investigation of the Watergate scandal has any relevance at all to the issue at hand here?

nether2• 9 years ago

He could shit on a plate and they'd eat it up. "Masterful distraction! Wow! He's been planning this for weeks! MAGA"

mturmon• 9 years ago

Crudely put, but accurate. It shows the emptiness of this seriously versus literally sophistry. The more norms he breaks, the more certain segments of his base eat it up, seriously, literally, or other.

joshmn• 9 years ago

The kick in the balls to Trump was real. I was so happy to read Sally Yates' thoughts on his immigration ban. Obviously, her days were numbers, so she had nothing to lose. Might as well go out like she did in an honorable fashion. :)

Edit: fixed pronoun

woofyman2• 9 years ago

He's a she.

user2017• 9 years ago

Boente is the replacement. Yates was the AG who was fired.

yeukhon5• 9 years ago

Have I ever had a strong disagreement with my boss? Always. Every day. But did my boss fire me? No. But should my boss considered to fire me? Probably. Normally you don't fire someone from your cabinet even if you are just an acting member. You make the person to resign.

I don't know the full story, but this goes to show Trump is truly an unique president. He doesn't care what people think of him. He's running the White House like a real business. Disclaimer, I like the idea of running government like it's a business (think Singapore, salary is on par with industry standard and subjected to yearly review). But I strongly disapprove Trump's ruthless dictatorship. He just doesn't understand that his business decision impacts nationwide. You need to actually think through before making any decisions or giving any public comments. Even Joe Biden learned to shut up (although he did make some dangerous comments in the past). It's okay to have a strong opinion (some people don't like compromise), but use reason and earn people's trust. He makes up stories and excuses, with little to no real proof for many of his past and current commentaries. No one really trust him except the people who voted him into the office. His cabinet members - trust me, none of them really trust him. I know that from my gut. I know my 9-month old niece can tell that as well. His mind is juggling and wandering all around the space. He's intellectually challenged, despite being a ruthless and tricky business man. He went broke but made so much from bankruptcy. I will give him the credit of being a smart asshole and a good salesman, but other than that, he's a terrible leader.

Trust me, he would be the best Secretary of State of U.S. to the Martians, because he speaks nonsense.

rayiner8• 9 years ago

While Yates is a hero, she didn't merely disagree. She actively countermanded a directive from her boss.

yeukhon5• 9 years ago

I do that if I know it isn't right. You may argue she should just resign. But perhaps, and I don't want to make any assumptions, somebody just want to give him a hard time and stand up for his/her belief against Trump for as long as possible. The old saying, you can't do anything unless you are in the position. You can resign and next person take over can kiss Trump's ass. Do something while you are in the position that can do something.

Spooky236• 9 years ago

You serve at the pleasure of the political official. Forcing people to resign is more about saving the boss' face than the employee.

yeukhon5• 9 years ago

That was my point. You really don't fire someone in a political theater. You make people resign so both ends can walk away.

kristiandupont• 9 years ago

He doesn't care what people think of him.

I don't know about that..

yeukhon5• 9 years ago

I guess you are right, I guess he doesn't care what his workers (people he hired for the jobs) think of him. He just cares about HAVING his audiences and his followers. He really doesn't care if they love him or adore him. He just wants the attention.

lemming• 9 years ago

Hell, I could probably get him to respond on Twitter by saying that the size of his inauguration crowd was in proportion to his tiny hands.

widforss• 9 years ago

If I understand the American system correctly, this is indeed something that Trump has mandate to do. However.

I wonder whether I will ever stop to be surprised and horrified over the development in the US.

wavefunction3• 9 years ago

Trump and the GOP have a mandate to govern, ie. to conduct the normal affairs of the government in accordance with statute and internal policy.

A "mandate" makes it sound like Trump, with a minority of the adult voting-age adult population of the United States has received the right to transform the country wholesale, which simply isn't true.

Spooky236• 9 years ago

I despise Trump, but I don't think it's it's acceptable for a civil servant to insert themselves into the news. If you're getting an unlawful or unethical order, you follow the process, suck it up or resign in protest.

By going rogue and making yourself the story, you're attacking the office of the president. It's a bad idea, bad precedent and will have bad outcomes.

hprotagonist3• 9 years ago

Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that.

It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that nature.

TenOhms3• 9 years ago

Did Obama, Clinton, or Bush have an AG that willfully showed insubordination and encouraged it to their subordinates? I'm surprised her action didn't get more news coverage, well not really.

Spooky236• 9 years ago

It's not your place as an appointed official in government to grandstand and get your picture in the news. You are not an elected official, you're there to represent the government. Unfortunately, the conversion of politics to reality tv has affected everyone.

You resign. That's ultimately a greater statement anyway.

cavisne• 9 years ago

Factually, it did have legal review, as she called out in her own letter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3dOVzFXAAIGOlW.jpg

It's obvious this was a stunt and she fully expected to be fired.

vixen99• 9 years ago

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...

'Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you'

ssalazar• 9 years ago

The Nuremberg defense. Classic.

Spooky236• 9 years ago

No. The Nuremberg defense is to sit there and do something unethical justifying your continued employment.

The ethical course is to resign.

mordant6• 9 years ago

Considering that the Nuremberg Trials were a clear-cut case of 'victor's justice', this holds no water with me.

jskell• 9 years ago

Shocking, and also politically/tactically very stupid. Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Which confirmation was all but assured; but now...

I thought his campaign was brilliant, tactically; but this is amateur hour.

dragonwriter8• 9 years ago

Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed?

Because Sessions was already a shoe-in with the Republican Senate, but there are Republicans in the Senate opposed to the immigration order, and they've specifically, among other issues, cited the failure to legally vet the order. Making Sessions confirmation about Yates opposition to the order wouldn't make it smoother.

minimaxir• 9 years ago

From Sam Altman on Twitter: ".@SallyQYates, @ycombinator and many others would be delighted to give you a job and resources to continue your work defending American law."

https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160

nether2• 9 years ago

Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I want to work there?

mjmsmith• 9 years ago

She'd get to hang out with Peter Thiel.

true_religion3• 9 years ago

It would be surprising if someone in such rarified political circles doesn't know one of the premier tech investment firms, especially considering that one of their partners has been hanging round the White House.

curiousgal• 9 years ago

Why is Sam dragging Ycombinator into this?

MrZongle24• 9 years ago

Virtue signalling.

hprotagonist3• 9 years ago

From 0 to Saturday Night Massacre, in 10 days. That's not really a record one ought to be proud of.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

rtkwe2• 9 years ago

I feel like the comparisons to Nixon's actions are quite a bit strained. At the very least the magnitude of the actions is vastly different. Nixon was shopping around for a AG that would remove a special prosecutor investigating him.

pfooti3• 9 years ago

And what kind of message does this send, given the ongoing russia-related investigations underway? I mean, if he fires people and breaks the chain of succession to shop for a sock puppet over an executive order?

manicdee• 9 years ago

Trimp is shopping around for an AG that won't investigate him.

AlexandrB• 9 years ago

The fact that this is flagged is ridiculous. The USA is undergoing historic turmoil - history is literally being made; meanwhile on Hacker News: here's some JS tips for your next webapp!

dang• 9 years ago

You can't judge this accurately by a single post. HN has had a significant uptick in political stories lately. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 for more about this if you're interested.

Edit: looks like a moderator unflagged this one. That's how the system is designed to work: upvotes, flags, and moderation all play a role.

couchand3• 9 years ago

We all appreciate the work you folks are doing keeping up with the moderation, I'm sure there's a lot of it.

But I hope I don't detect a note of dismissal here. I think it's reasonable to question examples of flagging such as this one, which kept a trending story off the front page for a critical period that almost allowed a much inferior duplicate to take over. Considering these situations carefully will keep the community standards healthy.

probably_wrong3• 9 years ago

HN has an international audience. Most of us are not allowed to post about our own countries' political turmoil, so we flag other countries' politics in return.

grzm9• 9 years ago

Of course, if you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, please do flag it. I would hope that you're not doing so out of spite, however.

When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?

rphlx3• 9 years ago

Anyone in the private sector would be fired under similar conditions, except probably without an article in the NY times.

whyileft• 9 years ago

Considering it is illegal for companies to do what Trump ordered[0], I'm not sure that would be the best analogy.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

rphlx3• 9 years ago

She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it.

[1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"

rayiner8• 9 years ago

If a well known company fired a GC for not following a CEO order to do something illegal, the NYT would love to write about it.

hiddencost• 9 years ago

Nonsense. Any lawyer fired for obeying an illegal order would end up pretty much owning the company that fired them. The duty of lawyers is to the law first, and their employer second. An EO is not a law.

rphlx3• 9 years ago

This EO is certainly unpopular, but it is hardly clear (yet) that it's illegal. Even the NYT does not make that claim.

michaelchisari4• 9 years ago

Which is one of many reasons why we are not governed by the private sector.

danhak• 9 years ago

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’"

-Peter Thiel, 2016

I guess to Thiel, a saner, more sensible immigration policy involves invoking 9/11 to ban people from 7 countries not involved in that attack from the U.S, including permanent residents on a legal path to citizenship and holders of valid visas. All done with zero warning via executive order and without conferring with DHS or DOJ.

cookiecaper45• 9 years ago

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump just took it a step further and temporarily halted immigration from these nations while his administration reviews the policies to ensure they're sufficient.

* Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens.

* It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave.

* There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing.

To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.

disantlor3• 9 years ago

any what exactly does this EO accomplish?

just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward"

by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.

zzleeper3• 9 years ago

Do you really believe what you posted?

If tomorrow he says something to disprove one of your points, you will further twist your argument to somehow appears as if he is still doing the right thing.

I don't think anyone but yourself can convince you of what is really going on.

conistonwater• 9 years ago

The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.

As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test.

Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were.

This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. Later the administration seems to have reversed their stance on this. (Here is a later overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bann...)

jbae29• 9 years ago

Green card holders were initially included in the ban. DHS assumed they were not and the white house clarified that they were. Now green card holders are not included.

He is doing what he said he would do, as you pointed out. So to me, "seriously but not literally" is not holding up well.

mwpmaybe5• 9 years ago

President Obama signed a list of countries into law
using the exact list that President Obama signed into law

Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]).

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

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...

michaelchisari4• 9 years ago

has nothing to do with religion.

After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?

aub3bhat• 9 years ago

Peter Thiel will go down in history as Trump/Bannon's useful idiot. He might have come up in short term betting correctly on Trump but he is down on long. If he thinks that he is going to get a piece of the pie after Kushner/Tillerson/Preibus(establishment) have had their take, then he is in for a cake.

workerIbe• 9 years ago

What I think alot of Trump supporters are taking seriously is the phenomena that is the left feeding off It's own hyperbole, it's pretty disturbing.

danso2• 9 years ago

I think Thiel overall was right, in that Trump would still be liked by his base even if he didn't build a literal wall. By talking about the wall, Trump was signaling his priorities, and his base were just happy to have someone who they felt had the right priorities, whether or not a literal wall would get built.

I think Thiel just didn't think Trump would go through with it after winning, because he thinks Trump would see that the costs of the actual wall would outweigh the disapproval of voters, and that he could pursue a hard-line against immigration in less costly ways.

kelukelugames• 9 years ago

I think Thiel was right too, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing and that real people are not harmed.

avn2109• 9 years ago

The thing about the Mexican border wall is that it already exists. It's hundreds of miles long.

National Geographic shot some panoramas [0] but otherwise you don't hear too much about it in the news. I guess "lengthening a wall" doesn't fire up the base as much as "building a wall."

[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexic...

grey-area6• 9 years ago

I thought Thiel had cut to the heart of the matter with that statement before the election, but now think he is wrong, for exactly the reasons you state. His statement implies that we should not worry about Trump's crazier ideas, because he'll be tempered by advisors and feedback. The assumption there is that he listens and acts on advice, and that he chooses the right advisors.

The evidence so far points to this not being the case. Trump's statements past and present should be taken literally, at face value. What he says and has said is what you will get, and he is making a strenuous effort to deliver on every single one of his promises (even crazy ones), because he believes them to be correct. After this week I now firmly believe if he could ban all muslims tomorrow, he would do so, and damn the consequences. Rescinding green cards en-masse is incredibly destructive to the reputation of America, it is really quite reckless as well as cruel.

So it turns out Thiel was wrong - Trump has been and will continue to go through with his promises to the letter in many important areas. There are some areas (like healthcare or prosecuting Hilary Clinton) where Thiel was probably right in that he won't really bother with them, but only because Trump really doesn't care about them.

tzs2• 9 years ago

Matt Levine commented on how Thiel's observation has worked out so far [1]:

And what has happened so far? Immigration bans (with more to come), abandoned trade agreements, "alternative facts," unprompted promises to bring back torture. And what has not happened so far? Tax policy is a complete mystery, with an unclear and walked-back promise to impose a border tax. Health-care policy is even more mysterious. Trump has made vague promises to cut regulations by 75 percent, but his specific regulatory focus seems to be on increasing penalties on companies that move operations abroad. Everything Trump literally said is coming literally true; everything the serious people heard remains an unserious hope. Businesses may eventually get the tax and regulatory reform they wanted, but it's not a priority.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-30/immigrati...

redler2• 9 years ago

This glib literally/seriously trope will not be judged kindly by history.

Daishiman• 9 years ago

Please, take two seconds to read the statement. There's third graders who literally have a better grasp of the English language than Trump.

siidooloo3• 9 years ago

The language in the letter is frankly childish and immature. Talking about betrayls and such just makes it seem like he thinks its still a TV show.

VLM3• 9 years ago

The people who get politicians (re)elected, watch TV shows.

probably_wrong3• 9 years ago

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that Trump is stupid. He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House.

And speaking of people who may be smarter than we think: http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

jacquesm3• 9 years ago

He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House.

No, he's like a smart person. (Trump in speech to the CIA).[1]

Really, if this isn't proof that stupid people do make it into the White House I don't know what is. If Trump was really smart he would be in control of the situation and not headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later). The guy is a living trainwreck and he's taking America with him, that his main advisor has actually stated that his goal is to burn it all down[2] and does not seem to care if he destroys the civilized world as we know it as collateral damage doesn't help one bit. For every day that this passes it will take a year or more to undo the damage, assuming it can be rectified at all.

A couple of months of this and it will have gathered momentum to the point where the divisions have become so enraged that a shooting war is a real possibility, which could be one of the goals, to purposefully lit the fuse so momentum will take over and they can enact even more ridiculous measures with the cover of an actual emergency situation. It's not like that trick didn't work countless times in the past.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+...

joshbert• 9 years ago

Truly a riveting read. I had no idea Bush was like that behind closed doors.

ludicast• 9 years ago

I remember hearing on the Presidential podcast (from the WP), that after losing a congressional election, GWB promised to never be out-churched or out-countried again.

edblarney3• 9 years ago

He's inarticulate, boorish and crude - but he's not stupid.

erikpukinskis• 9 years ago

Public officials should speak at about a third grade level, because they need to communicate with all of their constituents. Above that level, you are basically saying "I don't care that 20% of people in my constituency can't understand me". https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/3/005/0b0/31d/1906029.jpg

A public official who speaks like a college professor is being an asshole, and not a good representative.

bonyt2• 9 years ago

For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes:

1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG)

2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota

3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona

Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under the appointments clause)

Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/1...

disantlor3• 9 years ago

interestingly there seems to be a new executive order 13762, from the final days of the obama whitehouse, that changed the Justice Department order of succession, yet Trump seems to have followed the order that you mentioned/linked

saw a tweet raising this point after having just read your comment. not sure what it means but thought your comment was very interesting, so... here's some more detail.

bonyt2• 9 years ago

That's really strange! I wonder if he may have followed the wrong order, or or if the vacancies reform act gives him some leeway here...

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...

jbyers3• 9 years ago

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404

I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

zzleeper3• 9 years ago

From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 :

Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News?

Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here.

HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame that we are not allowed to a medium to read what the tech community feels about the current issues

jbyers3• 9 years ago

I'm happy to debate the intersection of technology and politics here. But not pure politics. This community has an identity and norms and topics that are and aren't in scope.

An alternative would be to use the same software, same group of passionate people to start the discussion, and the backing of Y Combinator in a different forum with a different identity, norms, etc.

I'm also happy to be wrong / downvoted. It's for the community to decide, but it has to be a choice.

sremani2• 9 years ago

This is one of many feeds of information for me, and I assume for most of us. Currently, all my other feeds are overly politicized. Yes, I have a political opinion and understand the need for discourse, but we are currently in a hyper-partisan political cycle and in which there is no winner. The gap is so wide, it is hard for one group to engage the other. So now all we get in these "political discussions" is hyper virtue signaling. I am talking about all sides.

This is not the time for discussion, because in our minds the battle lines are drawn.

I wish HN enforces a month of political moratorium. I will live and die on HN and will not make a single low info comment!

rc_bhg2• 9 years ago

Sure, we can close our ears

Eh? I read new in plenty of other places. This is supposed to be news kept to tech topics.

mikekchar3• 9 years ago

I agree. It appears as though shocking political news stories are going to be the norm in the short to mid term. As interesting as they are and as useful as it is to discuss things with a sensible crowd like HN, I fear that the focus will inevitably be pulled away from the main topic at hand. There are lots of other venues to discuss these issue if one so wishes.

couchand3• 9 years ago

I'll respectfully disagree with both of you.

My understanding of current events would be significantly worsened if I didn't regularly get the thoughtful perspective of dragonwriter, tptacek, bluejekyll, throwaway8383495, and so many others.

Retra3• 9 years ago

Which venues would you suggest?

pfooti3• 9 years ago

Consider for a moment an unmoderated forum. HN isn't, but it is lightly moderated, so it is reasonable to consider. An HN where most users agreed with you would be an HN where political posts rapidly fell off the front page, and simply get ignored by most.

Like or not, it is quite difficult to disentangle politics from everything else. A desire to remain apolitical is pretty political in itself.

grzm9• 9 years ago

Flag submissions you consider inappropriate for HN. If you recall Political Detox Week, it was very chaotic and noisy. It's very difficult to find widespread agreement as to what's politics and what's not, and what's an exception because it's really really important.

'dang summarized the results of the detox week and has made some recent comments on it as well. I'll dig around for them and update this comment with links to them in a bit to provide more context.

Edit: Here are some, with some identifiable snippets only so it's not a list of links. I encourage you to read the comments themselves. They don't all directly address this, but I think they all shed some light on the topic.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

There's no satisfying anybody about this: not the readers who want more politics, not the readers who want less, and certainly not the partisans on an issue.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433

There's a lot more politics on HN right now than there usually is, which is appropriate since it reflects what's going on right now.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

When there's a deluge of political stories, as in the last couple days, users heavily flag most of them. But there have still been plenty of major threads spending plenty of time on the front page. That's the status quo for HN: most politics are off topic, but not all. It's a delicate balance and an important one. Letting politics overrun this site would kill it.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13463480

On downsides of the Political Detox Week experiment: there are two comments in the thread.

jbyers3• 9 years ago

I agree, and this has been my practice: flag what doesn't pass my internal bar and see if the algorithm / moderators / community agree.

For all this community has generated inspired commentary on the technology world, I maintain that we don't have the framework to manage net-positive political debate. My point is we should choose to address that deficiency or choose to avoid political debate.

We'll see where flagging and voting take us - maybe it's enough. So far I would summarize the karmic reaction to my first comment as: "meh."

mr_spothawk3• 9 years ago

While I agree that I don't want Hacker Political News to be "a thing", this is one of the very few places that I feel I can get reasoned discussion about immediately important (to me) news. I'm incredibly interested in the views of the rest of the community.

That said, I'm trying to keep the politics out of my own posts and comments...

devmunchies• 9 years ago

one of the very few places that I feel I can get reasoned discussion

you must run in some small circles. There are lots of communities out there.

diogenescynic2• 9 years ago

I disagree. This is a historic moment and immigration policy definitely affects technology.

sangnoir3• 9 years ago

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News

Perhaps you can maintain a personal detox by avoiding political topics. Preventing everyone from discussing 'politics' on HN would be shortsighted because technology and startups are, and continue to be impacted by politics. Startups and immigrants have a long history.

rohshall• 9 years ago

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

diogenescynic2• 9 years ago

We've been this way since Reagan and it just seems to get worse every cycle.

davesque7• 9 years ago

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

refurb6• 9 years ago

The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.

flukus3• 9 years ago

It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.

grzm9• 9 years ago

There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election:

- the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same

- the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate.

- the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president

What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness.

And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters".

Oh, there's a fourth thing as well:

It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.

mordant6• 9 years ago

He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes

i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.

wtbob6• 9 years ago

When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

Well, in 1996 we re-elected Clinton, despite demonstrable evidence that he was a terrible president and an execrable human being. In 2004 we re-elected Bush, despite him violating his oath to the constitution. In 2012 we re-elected Obama, a man whose mediocrity and incompetence make Carter look like a capable executive (and our other choice was a business executive who couldn't even get a simple get-out-the-vote programme to run correctly).

croon7• 9 years ago

Nice. You really nailed it there.

Let history be the judge, and I doubt it agrees with your comparisons.

fullshark2• 9 years ago

One of the great accomplishments of the internet age is allowing everyone to have a voice, therefore allowing society to realize that everyone is in fact stupid.

gcb0• 9 years ago

"Ms. Yates (new AG) was the only person at the Justice Department authorized to sign applications for foreign surveillance warrants. Administrations of both parties have interpreted surveillance laws as requiring foreign surveillance warrants be signed only by Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials. Mr. Boente was Senate-confirmed as United States attorney and, though the situation is unprecedented, the White House said he was authorized to sign the warrants."

SSLy• 9 years ago

is there an option like "i don't really care about politics, US especially" anywhere on this site?

grzm9• 9 years ago

If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, you can flag it. Edit to add: Or hide it, an option that doesn't get a lot of attention.

brandon272• 9 years ago

There's no mandatory participation in any thread. You don't even need to click on it.

douche• 9 years ago

Remember when there was a ban on political topics for like three days? Remember how nice that was?

MrZongle24• 9 years ago

At this point, I think we should just upvote all new incoming political threads. Either allow the angry people to get it out of their system, or clearly illustrate that this stuff doesn't belong on HN.

wtbob6• 9 years ago

She had two legitimate options: execute the President's instructions if she thought they are legal and moral, or resign if she thought they are illegal or immoral. She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job.

Ministers and government officials resign all the time when they believe that their government's position is in error.

N.b.: I did not vote for Trump; I am not certain that everything in his immigration-related executive order is consistent with the law (but I am not certain that it's not, either: I am not a lawyer).

bobwaycott6• 9 years ago

She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job.

Oh, yes she does. The head of the DOJ, acting or actual, should be relied upon to raise a notable fuss when an executive is determined to be stepping outside the bounds of legality. Same goes for every other official who takes the oath of office. They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not an executive's agenda. Resigning is not defending and upholding the Constitution. If, however, an order belived to be illegal and unconstitutional is challenged and subsequently upheld as legal and constitutional, and a person continues to object to carrying out their duties accordingly (based on moral or other grounds), then they should likely follow their conscience and resign. But not beforehand.

thewhitetulip2• 9 years ago

If I am not wrong this sets the wrong precedent, although it is hardly surprising that he has done this. I get a sense of Hitler and the Nazi party idelogy from this, they killed their opponents, now it is just firing & shaming & blah blah that their trolls do. But these things start innocuously, nobody knew that Hitler would turn out that way, not even thise who were mesmerized by his charisma, they staunchly supported him and later woke up to the horrors too late when Berlin was bombed ( I recently watched Man in the high castle, hence Hitler Nazi)

stillsut• 9 years ago

Request for feature on HN: anytime you write 'Hitler', your comment starts out at -1 karma.

thewhitetulip2• 9 years ago

Do you get the irony?

darkhorn• 9 years ago

He acts like Erdoğan.

rc_bhg2• 9 years ago

I'm outraged, but like .. this is not hacker news at all.

pc2g4d• 9 years ago

Imagine a world in which officers of the executive branch were completely free to defy the president. Would there not be chaos? It makes sense for a president to fire insubordinate subordinates.

The AAG was likely trying to score political points by going out the way she did. I respect her acting according to conscience, but do think making a show of it like that dilutes the message a bit. Probably more effective for her to have made a statement outlining her objections to the EO and unwillingness to defend it, and then resigned.

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

Related Stories