MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-01-31 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] In other news, making America safe again
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
> I don't care about the supposed experts.
This will be inscribed on the tombstone of the President Manbaby
Administration, I do believe.
I just hope the gravesite doesn't end up being radioactive.
> I want the Government do what I want it to do
And _this_ will be inscribed on the tombstone of Donald 'King Joffrey'
Trump, the sleazy slumlord who thought he was picked to be dictator.
> Did you see he fired the AG.
Blaze of glory. Someone with guts stood up for the law.
> That was the best news in 2 months
#SpicerFacts . ;->
From: Rick Moen
To: skeptic-at-linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [skeptic] Let the beheadings commence!
Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Garrison Hilliard wrote:
> The editors sum it up:
I love _National Review_ for its consistent record of putting in one
deplorable basket all primary popular arguments for anything du jour
that is inexcusable. So:
> She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is
> illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question.
> She rested her decision, rather, on her disagreement with the justice
> of the order.
Well, no. Acting AG Sally Yates _did_ say 'At present, I am not
convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with
these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is
lawful.' That is not 'disagreement with the justice of the order'.
That _is_ grave doubts about its legality.
This is the -job- of the Attorney General. The grounds of her action
were extremely obvious, starting with five separate Federal judges
taking emergency action over a weekend to halt the effect of Trump's
(really Bannon's) badly drafted and deeply tainted order. Note:
Courts grant such injunctions only if a party has convinced the judge
that he or she will suffer immediate irreparable harm unless the order
is issued, and that the moving party is likely to succeed on the merits.
In my view, the only improvement that could have been made to Yates's
restrained and judicious wording would have been to staple printouts of
the five judges' opinions to the official copy, plus a statement that
she was summarily firing Mr. Trump as her boss (resigning), as she found
that he did not meet her needs for a sane and competent employer at this
time.
And speaking of insane, the official White House response to Yates's
memo (purportedly a #SpicerFact) was just bonkers, a reminder that
Trumplandia is increasingly, dangerously psychotic. This stands out
as an example:
Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on
borders and very weak on illegal immigration.
First, Yates is not an Obama partisan hack but rather a longtime
prosecutor from Atlanta who spent almost three decades serving all
adminstrations in the Justice Department. She has always been a tough
prosecutor overseeing thousands of criminal prosecutions. She lead the
Volkswagen diesel-emissions fraud prosecution, has been tough on
corporate crime generally, and had a huge number of responsibilities
almost entirely having to do with domestic matters. Which leads me to
my second point.
Calling Yates 'weak on borders' and 'very weak on illegal immigration'
is contrary to her 27-year history at the Justice Department and her
prior history as a prosecutor in Atlanta, that didn't even have anything
particularly to do with borders or immigration. This gratuitous
name-calling is just an invention out of pique, another Executive Branch
tantrum of the sort that is now routine now that the Presidency went
directly from gravitas to bathos the moment Trump's hand fell upon
taking the oath of office.
Taking wildly inaccurate personal shots _in official statements_ at a
career officer of the law who has refuses to implement an illegal order
would be beneath the dignity of the Presidency if it had any left, but
it has neither dignity nor shame nor judgement.
And calling Yates's refusal a 'betrayal' presupposes that Trump is a
mediaeval monarch owed personal fealty, rather than an a civil servant
who serves at the public's pleasure. Sorry, Donnie-Bob, you ain't a
king, and Yates wasn't your vassal, even _if_ fictional psychotic
teenager King Joffrey is your role model, and you covet the power to
chop off people's heads for no reason.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
