Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

[zenkai]

There is only one thread on the AAG. The education system has truly failed you if you cannot count to 1.

There are multiple threads about the Refugee Ban, I am sorry you cannot count past 1.

[Belize]

There are multiple threads about the Refugee Ban, I am sorry you cannot count past 1.

Except this one is explicitely about the AAG, and the update of her being fired.

Next, you'll complain about Trump threads. They're all the same because they're linked to Trump right?? Not so Awake, are you.

[Caolela]

The media just loves their clickbait sensationalist headlines. Was talking to a buddy I have at CBS. He told me they're ROLLING in cash thanks to Trump.

After years of weak viewership the mainstream media is doing better then ever. Trump is their very guilty pleasure.

Which is precisely why the MSM ran every crazy thing Trump did or said during the campaign, even preempting normal programming sometimes, giving him faux credibility and millions of dollars of free air-time instead of exposing his record/history of crimes and corruption.

It's "bread & circuses" infotainment and pushing the horserace, not information and discussing the issues.

They're not going to stop their own gravy train when it's been running so well for them.

[Brubear]

I find this video highly relevant given what Yates was fired over.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ing-on-duty-to

[Slant]

Yep. And if the Trumpkins are expecting people to "get used to it" or it to simmer down, they out to consider it's the middle winter, the weather sucks and everybody knows that getting rid of Trump is going to take time.

If they think they've seen protests, wait till Spring and the weather to get nicer. Considering what we can extrapolate is going to be Trump's list of outrages by that point, they've seen nothing yet. This is the trailer for whats to come.

I'll do my part when he visits my city in July. You can start thinking up a slogan for my sign. :P

- - - Updated - - -

I can't recall - were you one of the folks that insisted that there was no way Trump would win? Honest question, I legitimately don't recall.

The idea that Skroe is constantly being proven right is pretty funny though. No one was more consistently wrong about actual outcomes in 2016 than Skroe was. Maybe all the wishcasting will turn out to have more predictive validity in 2017, but if so, it won't be because of a finely tuned sense for what's coming next.

You should know me well enough, My opinion of the American public is low enough that there doesn't seem to be any stupidity that they wouldn't try. So, "no way" isn't what I thought, but I said it's quite unthinkable that he would win. I still think it's outrageous. But, to be honest... as much fun it gives people to point out we were wrong. What they're paying now for the privilege to say "See, I told you so!" is so damn high, I'm not even fussed arguing the point really.

I'll just sit here, watch, eat popcorn and point out any idiocy that I see. So far, I can't even keep up with the shit he's doing. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you guys can't be serious.

You start with a premise that Trump is Hitler, then wrangle through some pretty impressive mental gymnastics in everything he does to confirm in your own echo chambers that, indeed, he is.

As I've said here before, I didn't vote for Trump (wrote in something), but I wish I did at this point. It's frankly getting embarrassing.

Nobody has said Trump was Hitler. This is you wishing we were that polemic. Trump's not thinking big enough to come near Hitler.

Be that as it may, you'll find something that you can be embarassed about, if only so your pretense that your opinion matters or your conviction that you're contributing to the discussion (hint: you're not) can be kept up.

[Puremallace]

There are multiple threads about the Refugee Ban, I am sorry you cannot count past 1.

Refugee ban is about refugees. This is about a constitutional crisis in American politics. There is a difference.

[Slant]

Agree great way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is that her duty is to the job, not the President. If she thought his EO was unconstitutional, instead of resigning, she should do her duty and advise and protect him from his own errors. In the end, she's also got the job of working within the constitutional limits. That is also part of her job. Simply resigning is an act of cowardice. Since when has that been part of US American job descriptions? To bug out whenever it gets difficult?

[Sargerasraider]

Nobody has said Trump was Hitler. This is you wishing we were that polemic. Trump's not thinking big enough to come near Hitler.

Be that as it may, you'll find something that you can be embarassed about, if only so your pretense that your opinion matters or your conviction that you're contributing to the discussion (hint: you're not) can be kept up.

Nobody? Look harder. This board is riddled with people saying that we're on the path to Nazi Germany.

[Slant]

Nobody? Look harder. This board is riddled with people saying that we're on the path to Nazi Germany.

I've probably seen more on this board than you. Saying the US is going to be the next Nazi Germany is not a common theme on here. I hope you're able to ignore the <50 post lunatics, they hardly represent what a discussion among regulars looks like.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you've missed the point about what Trump is about. I don't see him as an isolationist and I'm not some naive fool watching this on the sidelines with no interest: My country is literally on the front line with Russia. Moldova is ruled by a hardcore Russian supporting President.

Yeah... for someone who's not an isolationist, he's doing a pretty good job at isolating the US internationally. He can do that, because the average US citizen isn't aware of a world outside the borders of the North American continent, but they'll feel it eventually. What goes around, comes around.

[nacixems]

Another way of putting it is that her duty is to the job, not the President. If she thought his EO was unconstitutional, instead of resigning, she should do her duty and advise and protect him from his own errors. In the end, she's also got the job of working within the constitutional limits. That is also part of her job. Simply resigning is an act of cowardice. Since when has that been part of US American job descriptions? To bug out whenever it gets difficult?

do u actually know what she said, her words.?. she was unsure, and instead of discussing it, made a policy decision to not do her job and up hold the law, nor follow the constitution, .... stop spreading false fact, just because it fits your narrative.

[Slant]

do u actually know what she said, her words.?. she was unsure, and instead of discussing it, made a policy decision to not do her job and up hold the law, nor follow the constitution, .... stop spreading false fact, just because it fits your narrative.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a false fact. It's not a fact at all, to be honest. It's a speculation, a musing, a random chain of thoughts wondering if you're capable of seeing things differently than your very own narrow and predefined perspective.

[IIamaKing]

If it was questionable then the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel would have told the White House their Executive Order was illegal. That office is not partisan and they said it was legal.

This was her wanting to be politically fired.

With out a doubt, she was an Obama appointee, she was not going to be around for more than a week anyway. This way she gets to be a hero for the left on the way out.

[Edge-]

do u actually know what she said, her words.?. she was unsure, and instead of discussing it, made a policy decision to not do her job and up hold the law, nor follow the constitution, .... stop spreading false fact, just because it fits your narrative.

Actually, she did do her job by refusing to defend an EO that she felt was not legal. The AG's job isn't to do whatever they're told by the president regardless of what it is, dude.

[IIamaKing]

If this was questionable, state and federal judges/attorney generals would oppose it.

Oh...wait...yeah that happened about 16 times. Sorry, Yates, 17 times.

You mean a bunch of liberal judges put a hold on it that WILL be over turned in short order? It happens all the time. Remember the act 10 hubbub in WI a few years back? Yeh the left got all excited when the courts struck down Act 10, thinking they won something. All that happened was a short hold up before being ruled legal. Thats what will happen here.

[nacixems]

Actually, she did do her job by refusing to defend an EO that she felt was not legal. The AG's job isn't to do whatever they're told by the president regardless of what it is, dude.

No, she did not. Dude. regardless of your misguided understanding of the job and the EO. just like yall thought hillary was going to win. .and suddenly did not. u cant seem to lift the tin hat up past your eyes to actually see the truth. just sad! so sad.

[zenkai]

Except this one is explicitely about the AAG, and the update of her being fired.

Next, you'll complain about Trump threads. They're all the same because they're linked to Trump right?? Not so Awake, are you.

It's all the same subject, I am sorry you can't understand how things are categorized. I suggest you visit a Library from time to time.

[Edge-]

No, she did not. Dude. regardless of your misguided understanding of the job and the EO. just like yall thought hillary was going to win. .and suddenly did not. u cant seem to lift the tin hat up past your eyes to actually see the truth. just sad! so sad.

"You were wrong on one thing, YOU WILL LITERALLY NEVER BE RIGHT AGAIN!"

That's not how the world works : P

And again, yes she did. She felt, in her personal expertise as Deputy (and Acting) Attorney General that the EO was not legal and not defensible, and acted accordingly. It is not the first, and will not be the last time that an AG refuses to support a president on a matter. And that's fantastic, because that's the system working as intended.

[Stommped]

Hardly seems like a battle worth losing your job over, but whatever. She's successfully made herself a martyr and will be courted hard by NBC and CNN so I guess it's win/win for her.

[cubby]

Hardly seems like a battle worth losing your job over, but whatever. She's successfully made herself a martyr and will be courted hard by NBC and CNN so I guess it's win/win for her.

Yeah, her career will see a boost in both popularity and income. Standing up for what you think is right isn't the worst reason to lose your job, imo.

I thought there was an issue with FISA warrants where she couldn't be fired, but I guess that wasn't correct (or Trump didn't care, lol).

[Edge-]

Hardly seems like a battle worth losing your job over, but whatever. She's successfully made herself a martyr and will be courted hard by NBC and CNN so I guess it's win/win for her.

How dare she stand by her principles and beliefs! WHAT IS HER ANGLE?!