Monday Night Massacre

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 12:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I replied directly to you that they had different jobs.  Yates did hers.  See?

(01-31-2017, 12:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and Yates refused because of her beliefs. It's exactly the same, you just don't want it to be.

[GMDino]

Yates spoke on the law.  

You can willfully ignore the difference if you choose.

[djam]

Yates failed to do her job and deserved to be fired, but I wouldn't doubt if she knew it and did it on purpose. A ton of democrats have said they were going to quit instead of working with Trump. She obviously didnt want to serve during this administration. Its her choice. She will be fine.

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yates spoke on the law.  

You can willfully ignore the difference if you choose.

So did the Office of Legal Counsel and they determined it was both lawful on its face and properly drafted. Even yates did not say it was illeagal. Maybe yates just wanted to do some Extreme vetting of the EO

Both failed to execute their duties because of their beliefs and both should have resigned instead of grandstanding..


You can willfully ignore the similarity if you choose.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So did the Office of Legal Counsel and they determined it was both lawful on its face and properly drafted. Even yates did not say it was illeagal. Maybe yates just wanted to do some Extreme vetting of the EO

Both failed to execute their duties because of their beliefs and both should have resigned instead of grandstanding..


You can willfully ignore the similarity if you choose.

Yates did not say she would not enforce the EO because of her religion.

Do you anything of substance or do you want to keep using the word "beliefs" as if it means something?

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yates did not say she would not enforce the EO because of her religion.

Do you anything of substance or do you want to keep using the word "beliefs" as if it means something?

Both negelected their duties because they felt it was wrong.

I assume if Davis had said she will not issue license because she agrees with the Justices that stated it was unconstitutional, then you would have had her back. Because the OLC told Yates this EO was lawful, she just decided not to execute her duties.

As will all debates in the forum there comes that time when you realize you are playing chess with a piegeon. So consider me tipping my King.

[Millhouse]

Did Trump break any laws? nope

Did Trump fire an acting acting AG because of her political view that directly interfered with her job? yes

Did Trump replace said AG with one that was appointed by Obama over a year ago? yes

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Both negelected their duties because they felt it was wrong.

I assume if Davis had said she will not issue license because she agrees with the Justices that stated it was unconstitutional, then you would have had her back. Because the OLC told Yates this EO was lawful, she just decided not to execute her duties.

As will all debates in the forum there comes that time when you realize you are playing chess with a piegeon. So consider me tipping my King.

If the Justices that said it was unconstitutional had been the final word then she would not have had to issue the licences.

Yate's duty was to look beyond what the OLC said also.  I posted her statement.

Just clean up your mess when you're done.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: This follows up recent threads posted by Dino and Pat over the most current scandal/crisis of the not-yet-two-week- old Trump presidency. The firing of an acting attorney general amidst the general confusion of an unconstitutional Muslim ban deserves its own thread.  I am old enough to remember Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." This does not rise to that level--yet--but it is amazing, unprecedented and chaotic--the three words which journalists will be wearing out over the next few months as the extent of incompetence becomes plain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0
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 extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which the White House confronted an outpouring of dissent over Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on entry visas for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

Over the weekend, four federal judges temporarily blocked part of the executive order, prohibiting the government from sending people back to their home countries.


Looks like the all important dissent channel at State will be shut down as well. This after Trump has installed Bannon on the NSC and initially dumped the head of the CIA.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/susan-rice-steve-bannon/

President Donald Trump further reorganized the National Security Council on Monday after he came under sharp criticism for ousting the country's most senior intelligence and military officials as regular members of the Principals Committee -- and installing one of his top political advisers on the key panel.

Former acting CIA chief Michael Morell on Monday sharply criticized the move to add Bannon to the group while limiting the involvement of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and DNI, calling it "unprecedented" in an appearance on "CBS This Morning."

Dick Durbin mentioned the Saturday Night Massacre in the Sessions hearing today. It was like he was channeling you.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-31-2017, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If that's what you want out of the legal profession then I feel sorry for you.  The amount of damage that can be caused by mixing the two is enormous.

She was going to get canned in the coming days anyway.  She didn't think this little power move by daddy was legal and decided to make a bigger spectacle out of it than probably needed to be made.  

I've left jobs scorched earth style too, so can't blame her for it.  In all fairness, daddy doesn't need much help looking like a total POS, but I chuckle each time its illuminated.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:17 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: She was going to get canned in the coming days anyway.  She didn't think this little power move by daddy was legal and decided to make a bigger spectacle out of it than probably needed to be made.

First off, very true, which is why I find all the platitudes about her having "moral courage", completely fall flat.  The second bit is wrong though, as clear precedent demonstrates that the vast majority of the EO has a firm legal foundation.  Those parts that do not will likely be struck down, but that's a job for a judge.  

Quote:I've left jobs scorched earth style too, so can't blame her for it.  In all fairness, daddy doesn't need much help looking like a total POS, but I chuckle each time its illuminated.  

Nor are you alone in that regard.  I would counter that this isn't the type of job that such an action is either wise or productive.  Think of the damage a LEO, judge or prosecuting attorney could do if they indulged in such vindictiveness?  Their decisions have far reaching consequences, the scorched earth tactic for them should not be an option.  They definitely shouldn't be lauded for engaging in it.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First off, very true, which is why I find all the platitudes about her having "moral courage", completely fall flat.  The second bit is wrong though, as clear precedent demonstrates that the vast majority of the EO has a firm legal foundation.  Those parts that do not will likely be struck down, but that's a job for a judge.  


Nor are you alone in that regard.  I would counter that this isn't the type of job that such an action is either wise or productive.  Think of the damage a LEO, judge or prosecuting attorney could do if they indulged in such vindictiveness?  Their decisions have far reaching consequences, the scorched earth tactic for them should not be an option.  They definitely shouldn't be lauded for engaging in it.

Soooooo, a police officer that's only days away from retirement shouldn't shoot the South African ambassador even if the ambassador's engaging in illegal behaviors up to and including murder?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 03:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Soooooo, a police officer that's only days away from retirement shouldn't shoot the South African ambassador even if the ambassador's engaging in illegal behaviors up to and including murder?

No!  Diplomatic immunity!!!! Hahaha. 


This reference really dates us btw.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No!  Diplomatic immunity!!!! Hahaha. 


This reference really dates us btw.

Just means we're experienced. As I get older, I'm liking the term "seasoned citizen" over "senior citizen" more and more. 

[Dill]

(01-31-2017, 12:12 PM)djam Wrote: I never singled out democrats. I clearly said both sides do it, because they do lol. 

Both sides coordinate millions of illegal voters?  How do we know that ANY side actually does that?

[Dill]

(01-31-2017, 01:38 PM)djam Wrote: Yates failed to do her job and deserved to be fired, but I wouldn't doubt if she knew it and did it on purpose. A ton of democrats have said they were going to quit instead of working with Trump. She obviously didnt want to serve during this administration. Its her choice. She will be fine.

What was her Job?  Who does the AG represent?

[djam]

(01-31-2017, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Both sides coordinate millions of illegal voters?  How do we know that ANY side actually does that?

I dont know about millions, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that was actually true. I know there has been enough evidence and reports of it over the years that its pretty naive to just believe the politicians and their little sidekicks, the media when they act like it doesnt happen.... A real investigation would be a very good thing.

[Dill]

(01-31-2017, 09:33 PM)djam Wrote: I dont know about millions, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that was actually true. I know there has been enough evidence and reports of it over the years that its pretty naive to just believe the politicians and their little sidekicks, the media when they act like it doesnt happen.... A real investigation would be a very good thing.

I would be very surprised. Every state investigates voter fraud every year. E.g., Colorado has prosecuted 4 cases since 2012.

In 2012, Republican operative David Sproul created a scandal by organizing voting drives in five states and converting Democrat registrations to Republican or simply throwing away Democrat registrations, so people who thought they had registered would be surprised at the polls. This happened to my son, who signed a petition to legalize marijuana on the local college campus and learned he was a Republican when he went to vote.

George W. Bush ordered the Justice Dept. to initiate a national investigation of voter fraud in 2002. After 5 years and millions of dollars, the results were meager--86 convictions, many based upon misunderstandings.  Yet claims of massive fraud continue to recur.

I doubt another investigation will change that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.


Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.


In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

 
In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-31-2017, 10:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I would be very surprised. Every state investigates voter fraud every year. E.g., Colorado has prosecuted 4 cases since 2012.

In 2012, Republican operative David Sproul created a scandal by organizing voting drives in five states and converting Democrat registrations to Republican or simply throwing away Democrat registrations, so people who thought they had registered would be surprised at the polls. This happened to my son, who signed a petition to legalize marijuana on the local college campus and learned he was a Republican when he went to vote.

George W. Bush ordered the Justice Dept. to initiate a national investigation of voter fraud in 2002. After 5 years and millions of dollars, the results were meager--86 convictions, many based upon misunderstandings.  Yet claims of massive fraud continue to recur.

I doubt another investigation will change that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.


Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.


In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

 
In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Rumfeld's ruminations, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

Just because you don't have any evidence of Bigfoot doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist. There are millions of Bigfeet out there. They're just really good at covering their tracks. And they're undocumented I might add. Trump probably would have won they popular election by another 3-5 million if it weren't for all the undocumented, non-sandal wearing, liberal Bigfeet voting heavily in favor of Hillary. 

You don't hear about it because the liberal mainstream media turns a blind eye to this problem. 

[djam]

Well Dill, we both know the only real fix for it no matter how frequent or infrequent are voter ID laws. If I need ID to get a can of beer, cash a check and the very many other things you have to show ID for, then showing ID to vote just seems like a no-brainer. Tell me again why the left is sooooo against voter ID laws?