Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[DanEFC92]

@caught's is better.

No contest.

 

[sd_1992]

I like the way she states how she is responsible but then continues by saying she is not convinced it is lawful. Well, is it lawful or is it not. If she is not convinced then she should state quite categorically that it is not lawful and spell out why. To take the wish washy 'I am not convinced' route is an abrogation of her position, precisely who does she want to convince her ? I agree that she should have resigned her post if she could not follow the EO and I also agree with the administration in firing her. Had she been in the forces she would now be going to prison......the politics between left and right has now become poisonous.......

It is not the Attorney Generals job to take orders from the president. It is their job to advise the executive on the legality of actions and every candidate for Attorney general is asked at their confirmation hearing whether they will go against the president if his actions are unlawful. They are not congress, they can never institute rules that are against the constitution and to say that she should have done something she considered illegal is partisan bullcrap.

 

[Clint Planet]

This is back? Ok.

Will say one thing, all the English people protesting Trump? What a waste of time, silly silly people.

What's the point? What difference will it make? He isn't our president and will have zero impact on proceeding by protesting him.

It puts political pressure on Theresa the Appeaser to stop meekly going along with Trump's fascism, you silly, silly person.

 

[Ashtonian]

It puts political pressure on Theresa the Appeaser to stop meekly going along with Trump's fascism, you silly, silly person.

What about Teresa's political pressure eh?

I forgot, she wasn't in the apprentice and it's not fashionable to protest against her government cutting spending on the national health service, or local councils, or homeless, or cutting disabled benefits , or providing proper focus on feeding the people who rely on food banks, or to even have a plan on leaving team European union. all to name a few.

That all ok is it? No?

Then protest something that damn well matters and not something that doesn't.

 

[Clint Planet]

What about Teresa's political pressure eh?

I forgot, she wasn't in the apprentice and it's not fashionable to protest against her government cutting spending on the national health service, or local councils, or homeless, or cutting disabled benefits , or providing proper focus on feeding the people who rely on food banks, or to even have a plan on leaving team European union. all to name a few.

That all ok is it? No?

Then protest something that damn well matters and not something that doesn't.

I've been on protests about NHS cuts, Education cuts, Austerity, Iraq etc, lad.

 

[Ashtonian]

I've been on protests about NHS cuts, Education cuts, Austerity, Iraq etc, lad.

Where was the mass country protest for them though?

What if instead if a load of British people protesting the American president they mass protested thst more is done about their nhs? Or whilst they were surrounded by them, the homeless?

This is my point. If mass protest is seen as making your voice heard then why don't people of this country use it like that against their own UNELECTED leader to help issues that affect us all? Oh people can't go to America if they are Muslim? Means nothing to the fella on the streets or the mother who can't feed her kids. Who fights for them?

 

[Clint Planet]

Where was the mass country protest for them though?

Not that long ago.

Oh people can't go to America if they are Muslim? Means nothing to the fella on the streets or the mother who can't feed her kids. Who fights for them?

We do. And we fight for the rights of Muslim brothers and sisters, too. It's possible to do both. It's important to, in fact.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Or, as one banner at the protest said last night:

First they came for the Muslims and we said, "Not this time, Motherf*****"

 

[Deleted member 28206]

If you want to know what fake news looks like, its this.

 

[LinekersLegs]

It is not the Attorney Generals job to take orders from the president. It is their job to advise the executive on the legality of actions and every candidate for Attorney general is asked at their confirmation hearing whether they will go against the president if his actions are unlawful. They are not congress, they can never institute rules that are against the constitution and to say that she should have done something she considered illegal is partisan bullcrap.

Unfortunately she didn't say that she thought it was illegal, it was a far more mild "I am not convinced this is legal".
Agree with the below interpretation of her actions and I say this as someone who thinks the EO is dreadful.

https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/31/desperation-for-a-hero/
She was absolutely right to stand up and articulate what she believed. If she believed the Executive Order was unjust, she was right to do something about it. The question is what. Resigning rather than being a part of implementation of an unjust order would be completely appropriate and admirable. Refusing to implement an unconstitutional order and waiting to be fired would be completely appropriate and admirable. But that's not what she did. She refused to follow an order — and in fact directed subordinates not to follow it — because she thought it was unjust and unwise. That's different than thinking it was unlawful. She has an obligation to refuse to do unlawful things, but she has no right to refuse to follow orders because she disagrees with the policy behind them. She publicly asserted that the order might be unconstitutional, but didn't explain how or suggest a method or schedule to resolve the question. She didn't use clarity to promote and defend the rule of law. She was right to stand up for justice, but wrong to confuse and obscure the role of the Attorney General.

 

[Clint Planet]

 

[Deleted member 28206]

What does that even mean?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What does that even mean?

Think it's suggesting that what they are doing goes against what their faith teaches them.

 

[Groucho]

 

[peteblue]

It is not the Attorney Generals job to take orders from the president. It is their job to advise the executive on the legality of actions and every candidate for Attorney general is asked at their confirmation hearing whether they will go against the president if his actions are unlawful. They are not congress, they can never institute rules that are against the constitution and to say that she should have done something she considered illegal is partisan bullcrap.

So what did she advise......she did not say it was illegal....she hedged her opinion and should have been sacked for not doing her job.......

 

[RAFUH]

Quite extraordinary letters. Yates doesn't seem fully convinced that the EO was not lawful, might have been better resigning in protest.

Best to make him fire you. Trump comes out too clean if she resigns.
This shows him ignoring (again, since she didn't see it before he signed it) folks that he should using to vet his EOs