Just a nit but she doesn't enforce the EO, DHS does. Her choice was whether to defend it, resign or let him fire her. I like her choice but understand the Dershowitz argument.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It always comes down to which hill you are willing to die on.
Any future politician will be aware she is highly principled and cannot be trusted to follow orders. She will now have to directly run for office to get anywhere as high as her last job.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It's seems to me that defending it is enforcing it but it's all just semantics anyway and doesn't change my point.
While you make like her choice, as do many others, that's not good enough for me. I need to hear your arguments in support of liking her choice, and it can't be that the EO is bad policy, since we agree on that point. Otherwise, it seems to me that it is just an argument that the end justifies the means, which is a dangerous course to follow.
To me, the law is paramount. It is the only thing that binds left, right and centre. Sure, this may be just be one small brick in the foundation of the law, but once cracks start to form we are in trouble. We saw it with the Republicans flaunting the Constitution with Obama's pick to replace Scalia. For many on the right, that was fine, since the end justifies the means.
Where does it end?
I agree with Dershowitz's approach just not the exit strategy. In other words, had her letter been more nuanced such as calling out the specifics of the government's objection to not excluding green card and special entry visa holders from admission and the constitutional objections based on specific language in the EO that may violate protections under the first and fourteenth Amendments for example. Had her order not to defend these cases been limited to these sort of things it would have been clearer instructions for the U.S. Attorney's. Had the President ordered her to rescind that letter the right thing to do IMHO would be to maintain her integrity and say "no sir" which would end up with either Trump capitulating (you know that's not going to happen) or firing her. Same result in the end.
Maybe I did.. I definitely read in the news, from multiple sources (excluding Breitbart), that it was not vetted by Justice. For example, from Lawfare, "The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas, and largely avoided the traditional interagency process that would have allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, according to numerous officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday."
But just now in an OpEd in the WSJ (notwithstanding earlier criticism of this publication by other posters), I read that it was ruled legal by the Office of Legal Counsel. The OpEd argues that Yates should have been fired, but that Trump's team was arrogant and incompetent with how they created and rolled out the policy.. Not saying I agree with the article, just throwing more water on the idea that any news that doesn't agree with someone's views must either be biased or "fake."
Contrary to what I see from some posters here (does the shoe fit?), I'm fine to admit when I have wrong facts.
I still say the policy is wrong and await the judgment of the courts where it will be assessed against all the applicable laws.
If Spicer said they followed interagency process and had sign off from the AG, DHS, State, Security and Defense then he totally lied.
I think Spicer has a lot of potential. As @AudubonB would say, 100% potential. But are you saying that you agree with the things he came out and said at the first press briefing? The crowd thing, which by the way means nothing about a president? It's not a popularity contest. But to come out and defend it as if it were, that's a little weird. And it's a verifiable lie.
Bangor Bob
Member
The facts around who saw and contributed to the EO prior to it being signed seem to be, well, fluid.
Which reports from the NY Times? The ones naming sources? If so, then the sources are being misleading, not the reporter.
Which reports from the NY Times? The ones naming sources? If so, then the sources are being misleading, not the reporter.
It's the metric that wise decisions require.
She has no qualms about the POTUS deporting families without due process who have valid visas as of late December, many of whom have been living here for years. So her position is not based on concepts of social justice, it's simple politics.
Her staunch principles dictated that she must follow the party line even if it meant political suicide over a situation that would resolve itself with or without her.
Resigning would have been the pragmatic move.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
"unverified hearsay"? As opposed to "verified hearsay"? The only way to verify hearsay is by getting your information from the source. Then it's no longer hearsay. So there's no such thing as verified hearsay because then it's no longer hearsay.
Here is the verification. Yes it's The Washington Post, but their Pinocchio rating spears both parties. Besides you can judge for yourself.
Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size
So, proof point - Spicer lies. And if he would lie on something like this, why would he not lie on other stuff?
Drone Flyer
Active Member
People with Green cards with Canadian passports can get in no problem.
Folks who have dual Canadian citizenship with any of the banned countries can also get in.
Folks who have dual Canadian citizenship with any of the banned countries can also get in.
Also, just want to point out that the minute you start to trust the information coming from your government more than from the free press, you're instantly subscribing to propaganda. That's fine for some people, but I like living in our democracy with the first Amendment.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
To be fair to Spicer, (and I am no fan of his at all) it appeared to me that he read from a prepared statement. He could have read false information (now called "alternative facts") but that does make it "a verifiable lie" at least on Spicer's part, in my opinion. If he believed the false information he was reading, he was not lying, according to the definition of a lie: A lie is a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive. I think Spicer may have truly believed the BS being fed to him and then was embarrassed when he saw the pictures, and other information, and that's why he came out much more conciliatory on his next briefing.
In fact, Trump probably truly believes to this day, in his own mind, that he had a larger crowd than Obama during his inauguration -- and the press is lying and out to get him. So if he says that, he is not lying. He is delusional but not lying. This is how psychopaths easily pass polygraph tests.
Last edited:
Similar threads
