So maybe it's actually a point of principle that they disagree on, and it's not a question of "loyalty" to Trump? So maybe Trump just fired somebody because her legal opinion was not to his liking?
As I mentioned previously about disagreeing with each other....ways and means. The man did it with little input from the people qualified to give that input, especially the acting AG. He did it in such a way to create maximum chaos and inconvenience (not just to foreigners). He knowingly (I say that assuming he's smart enough to "get it") violated the right to due process (Denny can split hairs all he wants, due process was still violated). He made the USA look incredibly stupid and hostile to the rest of the world. And most telling, he left countries like Saudi Arabia (the worst of the worst) off the list. Which tells me the whole shit show is nothing more than passion play for the folks at home that needed to see a little sleight of hand in order to believe Trump really does have their best interests at heart. It's political theater using other peoples lives to create an illusion. Nothing different than most presidents have done, he just chose to use a bludgeon instead of a scalpel. And now you have a prime example of a screed. You're welcome......
So no doubt Trump will be firing James Comey for doing exactly the same thing before the election? And I guess Sessions was unclear about exactly how you should disobey the president here:
A Syrian Christian family, after 12 years, was turned away at the airport in Philadelphia due to the ban. Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/us/syrian-family-trump-travel-ban/ (I suppose you can pretend it's "fake news" since it came from CNN.)
If Comey openly defies the president, I expect he'd be fired, too. Trump can fire him right now if he wants.
Great input. I totally get where you're coming from. I think the only excuse, or reason I can think of from why he did it the way he did was to not telegraph the moves to the bad guys. Personally I think it could have been handled smoother, so we agree on that. I think he could have done more countries too, but I think sticking w/the 7 that Obama's state department listed was a good way to keep things centered around their findings until Trumps team can rehash it. screed.. lol the word cracks me up.
It's turning out that the administration did have this E.O. vetted by enough departments that should review it. The media line that it wasn't is proving to be yet another falsehood.
Probably. But IMO, it was a chicken shit move, basically saying, "Obama did it, so it must be okay. and if the shit hits the fan, it's his fault not mine". Trump's team should have rehashed it first before jumping in with both feet. I'm afraid his tenure is going to be filled with hasty, poorly thought out and executed decisions......
Gosh, you don't think those folks were worried about the cost of disagreeing with Trump whether he was right or wrong? It's not like D.C. Is awash in moral courage. At least Yates had a pair.....
I don't care if we tighten our borders or not that much, its not as big of an issue to me one way or the other. I had several big issues with this executive order not because of the 7 country's chosen but more to do with the fact this came out of the blue, if you are going to do something this big that is going to effect thousands of people that had flown out of state already then give a little warning. That this executive order hit Green Card holders, that move seems unprecedented. The biggest issue I had was the fact they were prioritizing those who could prove themselves Christian, we are not at war with Muslim and we are not a Christian country, we are supposed to be a country of all religions. I keep seeing posts on twitter/reddit ect of supposed former FBI agents and others who are trained in counter terrorism ect are talking about this as being ISIS and other extremists groups dream come true and that it will do more for recruiting then anything else done recently. Haven't seen any articles talking about it but i'll be interested to see more reasoning as to why this has been said. As for the AG. She was going to be fired anyday now anyways so good for her if she actually thinks this was unconstitutional. If she did this just to pretty much give Trump the middle finger then she got what she deserved.
It's not like they had time. Oh you mean they had two months to write this and this is the best they could come up with?
The Attorney General is not the president's servant. If he/she genuinely believes there is a question of legality, he/she is legally, morally, and professionally obligated to act accordingly. To hold, to investigate, not to be a sycophant. I was insubordinate once. Not, obviously, as publicly and not on something with international significance. My boss ordered me to falsify data by verifying something that was not there. I refused. He screamed, threatened, called me names, ordered me to do it, told me there would be "very severe consequences" if I continued to be insubordinate (his word). In alternate facts, he insisted the condition I was ordered to verify really DID exist, it just could not be observed. I said I would not document something that could not be observed because if it could not be observed I had no way of knowing if it existed, obviously. He did what Trump did, in small; ordered another person to do what I refused. The other person confided in me that he had documented what he did not observe out of fear. He had an H1B visa. I suggested an investigation, saying either the equipment was malfunctioning or the procedure was incorrect. I suggested a third person at the company might be able to resolve it as he had more knowledge of the equipment. The manager refused, said there was no problem, the problem was me. After the other employee was cowed into falsifying data, I talked to this third person myself. He told me the manager had gone to him and ordered him to tell me how I was wrong. He said I was not wrong and explained why we could not possibly have observed what the manager said he had observed. On my own I corrected the error in the procedure. For reason for change I said error in previous version. The manager said he would not sign the new version unless I changed that to "update". I refused. The manager quit shortly thereafter, he had gotten a better job by claiming my accomplishments as his. As soon as he was gone they hired a more qualified person and laid off both me and the guy who had resolved the error. And yeah, I fucking well would do it again. Because I was right and he was wrong.
