Department of Justice

UPDATED: Trump Fires Acting AG Who Refused to Defend Refugee Ban, Calls Her 'Weak' on Illegal Immigration

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote to DOJ lawyers that the department had to "always seek justice and stand for what is right."

|

DOJ

The Department of Justice announced today it would not defend the legality of Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugee entry and virtually all travel from seven countries of concern.

In a letter to DOJ lawyers, acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote that the department would not defend the executive order, saying that while the Office of Legal Counsel is charged with the "narrow question" of whether an executive order is "lawful on its face and properly drafted" and the DOJ's Civil Division is charged with "advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order," her role as head of the DOJ was "different and broader."

"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," she wrote. "In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."

Yates concluded that she was not convinced that defending this executive order was "consistent with these responsibilities" or lawful, and that as long as she is acting Attorney General the DOJ would not present legal arguments defending the EO until she was convinced it was appropriate.

Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, was asked by the Trump White House to take the position of acting Attorney General. Nevertheless, Trump took to Twitter earlier today to complain that he had an "Obama A.G." because of Democrat obstruction. CNN reports the White House could choose to dismiss Yates. A vote on Trump attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions is expected in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

At the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy Jonathan Adler writes that to his knowledge Yates' move is unprecedented, and points to a 2011 lecture by potential Supreme Court nominee William Pryor about when it's appropriate for an executive branch official to refuse to enforce and defend the law.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Sean Spicer has announced that Yates has been relieved and replaced by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dana Boente. A White House statement called Yates an "Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration" and that it was "time to get serious about protecting our country." According to The New York Times, Yates was the only Justice Department official authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants. Boente says he will enforce Trump's executive order. Reuters' surveillance reporter Dustin Volz reports that former intelligence lawyers tell him Boente will have authority to sign those warrants.

Advertisement

NEXT: Acting attorney general orders Justice Department attorneys not to defend immigration executive order [UPDATED]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Working on her MSNBC resume.

    1. Yes, her fellow travelers will surely hire her.

      1. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

        =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. So if I just decide to go against my boss’s order, I’m fired. Shouldn’t any of these rogue officers be fired too?

    Or does that only apply when it’s a Democrat President? (Which Trump is)

    1. He can let her go anytime he wants

      1. That’s actually fine, though. I think it’s good for people to stick up for the courage of their convictions. And when their convictions are stupid, they can get fired for it.

        Sometimes you’ve got to contradict the boss if you think he’s in the wrong. I can respect that.

        There’s nothing she can do about it, though, and she will fall on her sword. That’s OK. She already knew she was headed out.

        1. If this woman wants to show her convictions, she should resign. She knows as well as anyone there are good faith arguments to be made for this. She no doubt knows it is likely legal and to be upheld in court. If it wasn’t, she wouldn’t need to do this. She could just let the court invalidate it. She is doing this because she knows the government will win and that it is legal. But rather than resign if it offends her delicate conscience, she is instead obstructing the legal function of government. Fuck her.

          And this is especially galling when you realize she was part of the Holder and Lynch DOJ. Where was this bitch’s commitment to stand up for what was right then?

          1. Obviously you “wouldn’t.”
            This act will be a labelled a “courageous stand” by the progs when, in fact, we all know her annual earnings will double or triple in the private legal world or whatever ngo she lands with.

            1. She was no doubt quitting anyway. But now she gets to put on this little farce and get fired and be a progressive martyr. I guess it is good work if you have no integrity or shame. A girl has got to make a living I guess.

              1. Exactly. “Tonight, on ‘Self-Serving Political Theater’….”

              2. It was nothing but a virtue signaling grand stand to audition for her next job as a progressive sycophant elsewhere.

              3. And where is licking Obama’s ass getting her?

            2. This act will be a labelled a “courageous stand” by the progs

              Was bound to happen to some of them. John understands self-martyrdom though. He’s been at it in several incidents lately.

              1. Helping you look stupid is martyrdom? That is an interesting to term to use for it.

                1. Ah, the precious mewling from your sack as you’ve been taken to the river and drowned so many times in arguments ’round these parts. It’s music to my ears.

                  Aren’t you supposed to be nicer to unbelievers?

                  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

                  Romans 14:1

                  1. Mewling. That is a pretty impressive word for someone with a 75 IQ to use. I have to give you credit zero sum game, being on this board seems to have had a good effect on you. You profoundly ignorant and have virtually nonexistent reasoning skills but you do try. You never seem to succeed but you to try. I guess there is some nobility in that.

                    1. Now I’m just bored. You’re really going to have to step up your insult game if you want to keep me interested. This is totally weaksauce. You once tried to climb over a barbed-wire fence but were so clumsy that you caught your ballsack on it and lost the boys in the process, didn’t you? You’re not Christ-like enough to play the pacifist and your testosterone level has left you too beta to aggress after said fence episode.

                    2. It is not an insult. I meant it as a compliment. You really do try on here. I have to respect that all things considered. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. I am going to go out on a limb here and say people don’t generally say nice things about your mental abilities. Take your compliment and run.

                    3. And who taught you all of those bad words? They shouldn’t teach you words that you don’t understand how to use in a socially appropriate context.

                    4. Socially appropriate context… Reason’s comment section? You really do live in your own little world, don’t you John?

                      I’m trying to think of a place where I could go from reading a well-reasoned argument to a story about Huma Abedin arm-wrestling Hillary’s foot-long clit-dong in just a post or two.

                      Ain’t no steenkin’ PC here, and I show plenty of respect and decorum to those who are deserving. There’s plenty of stuff we’ve had in common, but your self-martyrdom is particularly tiresome. With the SJWs controlling most other Internet forums, it’s nice that Reason is usually a bastion from those tedious oppression Olympics (or is it special Olympics) runners. You’ve made a sorry showing lately, so you’ll be taking it on the chin for a bit. Only fair.

                    5. Well fair enough. Like I said, this board seems to be having a good effect on you.

                  2. John usually beats you in arguments.

              2. This post: Zero Sum Game|1.30.17 @ 9:48PM|#

                Was an unprovoked attack…borders on stalking…and I don’t really understand the issues between the two posters.

          2. If this woman wants to show her convictions, she should resign.

            Isn’t that what she just did in so many brazen words?

          3. It’s an illegal order, you bootlicking cunt.

            1. “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act states.

              And the constitution gives the federal government the power to determine immigration and naturalization. So Trump’s order is both legal and constitutional.

              1. In 1965 the law was changed prohibiting discrimination on a basis of national origin, country of residence, race and some other factors. Not specifically prohibited was discrimination on a basis of religion so if Trump had banned Muslims he had a better case.

                This will probably end up in the Supreme Court.

                1. So why no bed wetting when Obama did the same to Iraqis, or singled out Cubans for a change in policy?

                2. No, it won’t get there because it will expire first.

                3. Nope. There’s no amendment to this that I saw.

                  Got a cite showing this?

        2. There’s nothing she can do about it, though, and she will fall on her sword. That’s OK. She already knew she was headed out.

          She’ll be fine. There are plenty of progressive “think tanks” (haha) and lobbying firms that will be happy to give her a six-figure golden parachute.

          1. Would Trump’s expanded lobbying ban preclude her from any think tank jobs for 5 years?

            1. It would be awesome if she became unemployable.

        3. As John notes (correctly, for once; this should be a national holiday), resigning from office would be the dignified way to do it.

          One could argue though that if you think an administration is evil, it would be more useful to stay on and try to impede it. That’d be the less dignified, more utilitarian approach.

    2. I’m actually OK with this. Trump is still… potentially problematic. Some push back might help him do things better.
      I think I’m OK with his EO, in principle, but the way it was executed was an amateur cluster fuck. It could be a learning experience; although I suspect Trump will throw a fit, call her names on Twitter, and not learn a thing.
      But, it’s good it happened so early in his reign administration: maybe he can plan a little better next time.

      1. Shit, I wish more bureaucrats would tell the President to fuck off. Just imagine how much nonsense might have been avoided if a few people had the balls to do that with Obama.

        1. with Obama, they would have been dismissed as racist. No such worry with Trump.

    3. It’s an illegal order, you dumb fuckig cunt. Kill yourself.

      1. It’s perfectly legal under the 1952 immigration and naturalization act, moron.

        1. Why insult morons by comparing them to the Tronald?

      2. It’s totally legal.

  3. Meh, I’m sure they’ll manage to find somebody.

  4. He’s gonna drain the swamp, and there’s nothing this dumb bitch can do about it.

    1. If President Pud wants to drain the swamp HE can resign today!

      1. This isn’t Slate, or WaPo. You need to do a little better than that here.

    2. Many have tried. The swamp always wins.

      1. It’s not the swamp so much as The Blob.

  5. From Yates: “In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.

    1. You’ve got to fight, for what’s right, for your Party.

      /2017 Beastie Boys

  6. Wow.

  7. How is refugee ban illegal? If obama can take 110k why cant trump take 0?

    Perhaps just the green card and visa immigrant portion are not legal as amash had said

    1. Perhaps just the green card and visa immigrant portion are not legal as amash had said

      A progressive judge might be able to construct some argument why green card holders have a right to enter, but even that’s a stretch, and it’s pretty much moot anyway since the order doesn’t apply to green card holders anymore.

  8. “Reason Magazine” and the Libertarians are pro Islamic terror and eliminationist antisemites. They want the six million Jews of Israel dead. This will be a new holocaust which they can deny as the denied you you guys at Reason denied the last holocaust. You clowns are a real piece of work.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here”!

    1. Take your meds, addiction Myth.

      1. Sorry – another sock must’ve weigel’d out on me.

      2. Underzog is an old-school troll, not a puppet of other trolls. Welcome back you piece of shit!

        1. My mistake. Take your meds Underzog.

          1. Wait until he starts calling you a R?hmite.

    2. Welcome back, Underzog! We missed you, we thought you’d just R?hmed off.

      1. Oy gevalt.

        1. With Underzoggy, the word is mashugana.

      2. Nah I knew he wasn’t goering anywhere.

    3. GR8 B8, M8, I R8 8/8, but your H8 is too L8.

      Reason has already written articles about both of those supposed incidents that we’re supposed to lose our shit over.

    4. Oh Christ, now this guy’s back.

      1. I’m starting to think Reason needs to police their comments. This shit is getting damn near intolerable. Good faith arguments are fine but this is bullshit.

        1. Reasonable. I don’t actually use it, I find it’s actually pretty easy to just skip past anything with the standard troll names. Policing the comment’s a slippery slope that would ruin the Wild West vibe of this place.

        2. Man, you would have killed yourself in the pre-registration days.

          1. I remember those days. Sock puppets, sock puppets everywhere.

            1. As opposed to now, right?

            2. And people taking the entire comment thread and reposting it.

    5. So why do you continue to read it and comment on it?

      1. I get everyone’s point, it’s just a bit frustrating is all but you’re right.

    6. Underzog is a character…

      AM, amsoc, dajjal, buttplug et al. are actual trolls. They argue in bad faith. Hihn and underzog are just their own separate breeds. Hihn probably used to be sane, judging by his site? I guess he just slipped into senility. Underzog is just the most bizarre of the reason one-man-special-interest commenters. He’s like the anti-alt-right.

      1. I’ll go along with this. Hihn and Underzog are true bleevers?. Nothing you can say will make them change their minds. Nothing you can do will make them believe you’re acting in true faith. We’re all just ‘little Hitlers’ to them.

      2. I wonder when Hercules is going to show up again.

  9. Have to do what is right. That is why they did Holder and Lynch’s bidding for 8 years. Who are these people kidding?

    Moreover, this isn’t the President asking DOJ to cover up a crime or refuse to prosecute one of his cronies. You know like when Holder refused to prosecute Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress. This is DOJ refusing to do its job. DOJ doesn’t get a veto of every action the President wants to take by refusing to defend it in court. DOJ goes to court makes whatever good faith arguments are available, of which their are many for this, and leaves it to the courts to decide if the action was legal.

    This woman needs to be canned tomorrow. A guard waiting for her at the door to escort her up to clean out her office and out of the building for good. Reason thinks this is all fun and games when they are doing this for the benefit of the sacred Muslims. They won’t see it that way when they are doing this to ensure the regulatory state cannot be repealed or about a million other bad things this sets the precedent for them doing.

    1. “This woman needs to be canned tomorrow.”

      Didn’t make it that long long.

      1. Creech makes a good point above. Chances are she was quitting anyway and staged this little farce so she could claim martyrdom.

        1. Well, she certainly wasn’t going to be his AG. Now she has a chance in to be the Dem AG in 2020/2024.

          1. I wouldn’t bet on there being a dem AG anytime soon.

            1. Meh. Only the Republicans can make the Democrats look good and vice-versa. Trump is going to make milquetoast Julian Castro look like a fine idea. Or Joe Biden, bless his gropey hands, is going to run and win.

        2. but now she can’t use Trump as a reference.

    2. FUCK YOU, NAZI RETARDS

    3. Fuck that. Canned means guard is waiting to collect her (already deactivated) pass at the front door and she’s escorted off the premises. Her office is cleaned out for her and her personal possessions are sent to her home. That’s how you do a firing. You don’t let the firee back in to go through and decide what’s hers and what isn’t in her former office.

      1. I see you’ve also been a witness to the government employee using their computer to run their eBay business firing. Seriously, in 3 years at a state dept. of corrections job, 5 firings for eBay businesses, 2 for gambling, 1 for kiddie porn. That’s just computer violations. Also, 2 dudes and 1 chick for having sex with inmates (all male inmates, if they were in the office it means that they were minimum security).

  10. People in the government from top to bottom will be taking stands against their new boss. Some will be more outspoken than others, but they will do their duty. And they will leave the government if necessary. The best thing about it is that people will lose faith in government and realize that they can govern themselves and can laugh at the threat of ‘radical islamic terror’ gonna rape and kill them. It’s a libertarian’s dream. Welcome to New Somalia – make yourselves comfortable!

    1. Shut up Shreek. No one cares. No one is going to feed you.

      1. Don’t hate me because I’m not a fake libertarian like you. šŸ™‚

        1. We hate you Shreek because you are a psychotic. We shouldn’t hate you for that except that no one makes you stop taking your meds. That is your choice.

          1. “He refuses to provide his socks with their legally prescribed meds.” – Radical Trumpkinism Mantra #9

            1. Come shreek tell us how Trump can’t win? And did you stay up all night working on such a clever word like Trumpskin?

              How does it feel to not only be a homeless loser but to also be in the political wilderness? It is good that you still comment here. It is always good to remember that there are marginal political views that no longer mean anything or have have any power.

              1. “And then he gangs up on us with his sock puppets and makes us cry!” – Radical Trumpskin Mantra #15

              2. You know this is exactly what he wants, right?

                1. Jesus Christ people, stop feeding it. I don’t know why you have the constant urge to engage with an idiot screaming “PAY ATTENTION TO ME, WAAHHHH.” You are validating it.

                  Nothing you say will have any influence, nothing will be accomplished. You’re wasting precious moments of your life on a shitty, sick person.

                  1. If we’re not careful, the FBI may radicalize him.

                  2. Nothing you say will have any influence, nothing will be accomplished. You’re wasting precious moments of your life on a shitty, sick person.

                    Some people just like Free Society.

  11. I really wish I hadn’t read all those flailing Trump articles today. Trumpxhaustion is real, it took several paragraphs for me to realize Ed had genuine news to tell.

    Well done, Ed. Save it for when you need it. The Trump will always be there when you call.

    1. I really wish I hadn’t read all those flailing Trump articles today. Trumpxhaustion is real, it took several paragraphs for me to realize Ed had genuine news to tell.

      I completely agree.

      Its gotten to the point where i don’t bother to read the posts because i assume i’ve heard the same bullshit case already made 3 times the same day.

    2. Trumpxhaustion is real

      QFT. I’m sick of it. He’s probably going to suck in general, but nothing he’s done so far has near as been as bad as what the Lightbringer? did. Get over it, already. Inform the writers there are other topics, FFS.

  12. “He takes many forms to bedevil and torment us.” – Radical Trumpkinism Mantra #4

  13. some people don’t like the way, the way Sally walks

    Ed is here quoting Stetsasonic and not the OG Dyke & The Blazers break discernible by his use of 2 “the way’s

    we approve.

  14. “Trump fires employee 1 day early”

  15. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts, she wrote. “In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.”

    In so many words, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be personally associated with this shit”.

    In which case she should have never taken the job in the first place.

    1. *ah, she was a leftover from the Obama DoJ.

      Still, like everything else associated with this fuckup, ‘he should have known’.

  16. I read Sally Yates’ letter, expecting that I’d have to wade through several pages of legal analysis, heavy with citations to precedent and relevant statutory language.

    To my relief, I don’t have to do a lot of reading, it’s a one page letter without legal citation and with little in the form of argument.

    The closest she gets to an actual argument against the legality of the executive order is when she insinuates that the order may be valid on its face, but invalid because of “statements made by [the] administration or it [sic] surrogates close in time to the issuance of [the] Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.” Presumably, she means it’s unconstitutional because motivated by an illegal discriminatory intention, an Islamophobic intention I’m guessing.

    This is basically her chance to go out in a blaze of glory fighting for what’s just and right. But she was so pressed for time that she couldn’t even be bothered to give anything like an analysis of why an executive order issued by her boss is so obviously illegal that she can’t defend it.

    In her defense, if she actually undertook to defend the Executive Order she’d be treated nastily by her proggy associates. Now she’s their hero.

    1. I’m going to call new MSNBC legal analyst by the end of the week.

    2. Why would any statements made by the administration about this matter, regardless of when made or how germaine to the topic, have any bearing on the legal issue? SCOTUS already ruled that whatever Congress says about a law it passes is irrelevant. Only the language of the actual law and related legal issues matter (see NFIB v. Sebelius where the ACA penalty was ruled a tax). I would imagine the same would apply to Executive Branch EO’s.

  17. “He goes on Libertarian web sites to insist he did not ‘throw away’ his vote.” – Radical Trumpkinist Mantra #11

  18. Everyone says Trump just rushed into this all amateur style. I see that criticism.

    Trump could’ve (should’ve?) been all deliberate, hesitating, and calculated – like when Obama closed Gitmo.

  19. “He refuses to work hard to pay for our life of running around the world shooting each other and giving our lives for him.” – Radical Trumpkinist Mantra #12

  20. “He won’t let us kill muslims, and he won’t let us round up illegals and hold them indefinitely in private prisons to fulfill our own sick sadistic fantasies.” – anarch0-Frankentrumpkenstein Mantra #9.

  21. “In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.”

    Incredible.

    The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice…

    Hey, you know, we don’t throw around excess Godwinning, and you make some effort not to sound like you’re calling someone about epaulets and advertising positions for public executioners. There are rules.

    1. Remember, she was the person who signed all the FISA warrants. Let that sink in for a while.

      1. Look, if there’s one thing the left and right can agree on, it’s that gutting the Fourth Amendment is the right thing to do. Yates knew that was just the American way.

        1. I guess so. It really is amazing. She sits there for 8 years running surveillance on God knows how many innocent people, but now she is all about standing up for the right thing.

      2. Fuck you, Straw Man Nazi Trumptard.

  22. It seems to me it just adds to the pile of evidence that Trump’s EO was very stupidly conceived and executed… and as Chas Cooke said earlier today, had he done it minus the very-very dumb components, there would probably have been very little to legally worry about.

    the problem is that critics see this, and instead of simply pointing out that Trump has made a legal & procedural blunder, and zoomed in on those specifics, have decided that he’s invaded his personal-Poland, because everyone knows refugees are awesome

    1. But her resignation letter made none of these points. Didn’t mention the constitutional rights of green-card holders or (another good argument) the argument that it’s illegal to discriminate against visa applicants from particular countries.

      Those are two plausible arguments against parts of the order, but they leave other parts of the order intact (specifically, the parts relating to applicants for non-immigrant visas if they’re not green-card holders).

      Yates is simply using (or insinuating) the “OMG Islamophobia!!” argument against the *entire* order.

      1. I said resignation letter, which it technically wasn’t, but that’s how it ended up, and probably how she predicted it would end up.

      2. illegal to discriminate against *immigration visa* applicants. Other kinds of visas aren’t covered.

    2. I’d like to point out that refugees are different legally to asylum seekers or just general migrants pretending to be asylum seekers. Refugees are vetted before they travel to a new country and then allowed to come. Asylum seekers show up and ask for asylum, already in the country (or an embassy). The people trekking up to Europe are not refugees but go up their and claim asylum (whether legitimately or not) and have no vetting before arriving.

      1. Get the fuck out of here with that nuance and context shit!

      2. So refugees are the ones going through the lengthy process and trying to follow the rules. A legit asylum seeker is in great danger but in my opinion these days are pretty rare compared to those exploiting the overly generous asylum system in Europe.

        1. Also, you’re expected to file for asylum in the first safe country you arrive at.

          If the applicant has passed through several countries before applying at their preferred country, then such forum shopping might be rejected and the application might be denied just for that reason.

          1. Yes, it is an entirely different legal system. The difference between the “asylum seekers” going up to Europe, including travelling through multiple countries and forum shopping and refugees is pretty similar to illegal immigrants and those who follow bureaucratic nightmare of legal immigration.

        2. So, is there any legal distinction between a refugee and an immigrant?

        1. I think it is an important distinction and when this whole things over I hope that people stop conflating the two. Maybe the vetting process can be upgraded a bit in certain countries but refugees are probably one of the most law abiding groups of immigrants.

          Lost in all the hoopla is that the EO cut refugee totals worldwide not just the temporary (and in the case of Syria indefinite) bans in these 7 countries.

          Maybe we could even work to have a private sponsorship program for refugees to address the government funding issue. Canada had one until recently.

          1. I think it is an important distinction

            Sure, but when the media is still talking about the EO as his “Immigration Order”, you’re barking up the wrong tree trying to nitpick w/ me.

            1. You mean a ‘Muslim ban.’

              1. Well, if they didn’t ban Muslims they’d just be putting them in concentration camps anyway, so I don’t see what all the furor is about.

          2. Refugee is a word that has a meaning which predates the United Nations and its assorted member states’ legal definitions.

            1. The legal definition is what is relevant when discussing an executive order and related policy.

          3. Lost in all the hoopla is that the EO cut refugee totals worldwide not just the temporary (and in the case of Syria indefinite) bans in these 7 countries.

            Actually it was not lost on me at all.

            What was “cut” was Obama’s projected target – which was itself far larger than the recent average intake of about 70K per year.

            Trump’s “Cut” is from an arbitrary ‘target’ of 100,000 to 50,000… a number which is actually far closer to the longer-term average, and by no means unusually low.

            As noted with other Trump proposals, a lot of the stuff he does is ‘stuff he knows has been done before’, so that if challenged on it, he can point and show that it is in keeping with past policies or behaviors which everyone found unobjectionable at the time.

            It would actually have forced his critics to argue why we need to INCREASE the intake of ME refugees, which is the gambit that Obama was trying to force on him.

      3. What if they go to an embassy and seek asylum? Is that the same as arriving in country?

        1. I guess, but you need to stay in the embassy, though.

      4. I’d like to point out that refugees are different legally to asylum seekers or just general migrants pretending to be asylum seekers.

        Why? It’s not like that difference is often respected here.

        1. Sorry, I see that this point was already well demonstrated and my post is superfluous. Have a nice night, Apatheist.

    3. Is there a legal blunder here, though? I mean, I haven’t seen the argument made in anything approaching an intelligent fashion.

      1. Look at Amash’s explanation (cited partially in the Gillespie article earlier). Denial of immigrant visas (including denial of entry to permanent residents without due process) on the basis of national origin is likely illegal. Denial of non-immigrant visas (including tourist and student among others) on any basis is legal.

  23. My FB page was unreadable before, now it’s insufferable. Everyone has just found the new GOAT Liberal Soldier whom to power thus spake her truth.

    I’m beginning to wonder when this guy is gonna get tired of these EO’s because the shrieking left is gonna wear itself out congratulating each other on how much power they are fighting.

    Of course if you’re in the sign making business, friend, business is a BOOMIN’.

    1. GOAT = Greatest of All Time?

      She’s probably packing her stuff in her car after being thrown out of the office, and all the way home she’s rehearsing her acceptance speech for the Profiles in Courage award.

      Another Elliot Richardson! A Daniel come to judgment!

    2. Everyone has just found the new GOAT Liberal Soldier whom to power thus spake her truth.

      her post DoJ career just got a huge boost.

      Brillant move, really. Getting fired by Trump is like getting a medal-of-freedom from Obama.

      1. It’s like being on the Nixon Enemies List, all the other progs will be *soooo* jealous of her.

        1. So far I’ve already seen a few “Warren/Yates 2020”. If that doesn’t fire you up how about Ellison as chair of the DNC?

          FEEL THE BERN UNTIL IT MAKES YOU GO TO THE HOSPITAL.

      2. Many many more people got Medals of Freedom from Obama. This is waaaaay more prestigious to certain groups.

    3. Did someone mention GOAT?

  24. i actually was very proud of her for taking the stand she did, even if it may have been as much politics as anything else. of course trump had every right to fire her as well, and if i were in his position, i almost certainly would’ve too. we’ll inevitably get the “saturday night massacre” comparisons once the hyperbole sets in on social media, but all this really represents is that the administration screwed up the execution, and they’re too arrogant to care…because apparently if they hadn’t done it all this way, terrorists would’ve killed us all. personally i think that explanation is ground for a 24 hour psych hold, but i doubt i’d get much support from libertarians on that idea.

    1. “if they hadn’t done it all this way, terrorists would’ve killed us all.”

      personally i think that explanation is ground for a 24 hour psych hold, but i doubt i’d get much support from libertarians on that idea.

      actually you were beaten to that same observation… sometime around this morning. and i think i made some version of the same point just above here.

      I don’t think anyone believes that failing to shut down intake of refugees would present any new and immediate danger. the fact that Obama already did the same thing in 2011 suggests that there were probably flaws that needed fixing. I think the only reason he did what he did was to “show he could”. It was delivering on campaign rhetoric, and has little/no basis in any real national security issue.

      That’s dumb enough by itself, but wouldn’t be so bad if only he’d bothered to avoid inserting the stupid travel bans and no green-card exceptions etc.

        1. Sorry, Gilmore, upon rereading I can see that’s not what you were saying. Mea culpa.

        2. Politifact declaring something “Mostly False” is effectively saying, “Its politically unpleasant to the left”

          1. I get that. I was actually hoping to get some of your analysis of it. I’ve been writing proposed orders all day and am feeling lazy.

            1. there was a thread last night where we picked over the bones of Obama’s 2011 policy.

              politifact is correct about most of the detail. they’re wrong that in total it was somehow fundamentally different.

              I think the most important similarity between both is that both what obama did and what Trump did was for political purposes. They pretend that “Like 9/11”, Obama’s action was in response to the (gasp) discovery that yes, actual ‘known jihadis’ had gotten into the US via the (much lauded by Apathiest above) refugee program.

              There are other precedents for temporary halts in immigration. … refugee admissions were also briefly suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack to review the security procedures, leading to an overhaul of the system. A special subset of refugee admissions for reuniting families was suspended in 2008 in certain locations in Africa after higher rates of fraud. … like Obama’s 2011 suspension, both the post-9/11 and African cases were in reaction to immediate issues….

              basically they’re saying, “Obama had an *excuse*” –

              which still amounts to = “i need to be seen **doing something** if i’m going to get re-elected in 2012″

              I’m not sure that’s fundamentally very different Trump’s reasoning.

              1. Politifact to the nonparisan:
                If they say something the Democrats did is false, its probably right, if they say something the Republicans did is true, its probably right. Other than that, it is useless.

    2. I don’t see how this broad resignign means they screwed up. She would have pulled this stunt no matter what they did. The order is legal. You know that because if it were not, she would have let a court invalidate it rather than writing a letter completely and conveniently free of legal analysis. Meanwhile 2/3rds of the country supports this. And it has left the Democrats and the media holding the position that Trump’s problem is he isn’t letting enough regugees from ISIS invested failed states into the country. I am sure that will play well in Peoria.

      1. Plus it brings up so many different examples of hypocrisy within the DOJ from the last 8 years over who and what they chose to hold to justice. I don’t see most people worrying that Trump is draining this particular swamp.

        Good times.

      2. I don’t see how this broad resigning(ftfy) means they screwed up

        I don’t think it means that the EO is facially unconstitutional, but it does open up Trump to a wide array of challenges that make the thing itself a questionable decision on Day 1.

        meaning it was stupid, even if not immediately and obviously illegal. or even if its not = it creates far more dislocation and unecessary disruption than it should have even if you believed that Refugees represented a clear and present danger.

        1. Questionable to whom? I can’t imagine any person who voted for Trump doesn’t support this. And the reality is no one gives a fuck about the sob stories of how grandma can’t go home to Yemen this Ramadan. Most of the country wants grandma’s sorry ass sent back to Yemen.

          It doesn’t open any questions. All it does is make the Democrats look like they support letting more Muslims and people from ISIS invested areas into the country. That is not a good position for them to be in.

          1. I can’t imagine any person who voted for Trump doesn’t support this.

            Do you really think nobody held their noses and voted for Trump because they hated Hillary or because they always vote straight ticket red? I know far more of these people than enthusiastic Trump voters.

            1. They held their noses and voted for him but this wasn’t what they were holding their noses about. Do you really think anyone who wakes up every day and thinks “you know, we need to be letting in more refugees from the middle east” voted for Trump? Even hesitantly? If anything, him doing this is a big part of the reason why the reluctant Trump voters held their nose.

              1. Please, people held their noses for all kinds of reasons. Saying things like “any person” is just too absolutist to not be easily refuted. Almost 63 million people voted him for fucks sake.

                I know for one that my parents voted solely because of taxes and support refugees.

                1. I think your parents are in the minority. Do you really think that there is going to be a political price to be paid for not letting more Muslims into the country? Really? Time will tell but I have a hard time believing that.

                  1. think your parents are in the minority.

                    Not in my experience, and you have nothing to refute my experience but you infamous mind reading skills.

                    I would suspect that most people are apathetic (rather than supportive) about it though.

                    1. I have the rasmussen poll that says 67% of the country supports this. I don’t see how I am going out on much of a limb saying that Trump voters don’t want more Islamic refugees. How can you think I am?

                    2. Care to link that poll? It seems a curious development since Trumo’s approval rating has dipped these last few days.

                    3. Perhaps “ambivalent” would be a better word.

          2. Most of the country wants grandma’s sorry ass sent back to Yemen.

            That’s pretty fucking callous of them, even if it is legal.

            1. I never said it wasn’t callous. People are generally callous. And they are especially callous towards those from an alien culture and those from a culture that is perceived to be an enemy. I am not saying it is right. I am just saying it is how people are.

              1. I know. It’s just one of the few things that the left can legitimately outraged about.

              2. And they are especially callous towards those from an alien culture and those from a culture that is perceived to be an enemy.

                The majority of members of that “alien culture” would like to see me dead for my religion and my sexual orientation. I don’t consider it either “callous” or “irrational” that I have reservations about a large influx of people from that culture.

                1. You and me both.

                2. Is that a majority in the same sense as the majority of Catholics that don’t use birth control and the majority of Jews that don’t eat pork?

              3. “I’m not saying that it is right.”
                Haha, come on man. That’s exactly what you’re saying.

          3. Questionable to whom? I can’t imagine any person who voted for Trump doesn’t support this.


            And even some who didn’t
            , I bet

            Still = it would be as if Obama tried to “ban fracking” all over the country by EO, and included lots of dumb petty shit (e.g. like what Trump did with people w/ Green Cards) which made it far more painful to “people caught in the middle” than it needed to be….

            sure, his supporters might still cheer, but the move was still executed in an incredibly clumsy, thoughtless manner which will cause all sorts of lawsuits and news headlines he could have otherwise avoided and still gotten his core-objective done.

            1. Banning Fracking would have been a wildly unpopular move. Banning refugees from the middle east is one of the things Trump got elected to do. Sorry but your analogy fails.

              1. Banning Fracking would have been a wildly unpopular move

                Not with Obama’s base – which is exactly the point you made above

                “” I can’t imagine any person who voted for Trump doesn’t Obama wouldn’t support this fracking-ban thing””

                besides, silly – its only a temporary ban (just like Trump’s order). Until he can be 100% sure its not going to, like, kill the planet

                1. Not with Obama’s base – which is exactly the point you made above

                  57% of likley US voters Gilmore
                  http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..ist_havens

                  Is it really your position that people want more Middle Eastern refugees? What the hell is the matter with you?

                  1. You’ll note i cited similar polls above (“some who didn’t”) showing historical disapproval with taking in refugees.

                    you’re just avoiding admitting it was poorly executed (or that poor execution matters). i don’t really care debating whether or not you believe that. opinion polls don’t make a poorly conceived EO into a brilliant political move.

            2. but the move was still executed in an incredibly clumsy, thoughtless manner

              Or was it? What if Trump is a n-th dimensional chess-playing evil genius? Seriously. If he really gave one solitary fuck about protecting the country from Islamic terrorism, the EO would have banned all immigration from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan indefinitely. Both countries are curiously absent from the list. What if the EO was crafted as inentional overreach, specifically designed to stimulate squealing from the liberal political class as a bread and circuses for the good citizens of Trumplandia?

              1. What if the EO was crafted as inentional overreach, specifically designed to stimulate squealing from the liberal political class as a bread and circuses for the good citizens of Trumplandia?

                It was designed to stimulate squealing and leave the Democrats in the position of supporting more immigration from the Middle East. And doing so very loudly. Does anyone think that is going to end well for the Democrats?

              2. If he really gave one solitary fuck about protecting the country from Islamic terrorism, the EO would have banned all immigration from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan indefinitely.

                i agree.

                What if the EO was crafted as inentional overreach, specifically designed to stimulate squealing from the liberal political class as a bread and circuses for the good citizens of Trumplandia?

                Its possible. I am not sure whether it matters.

                I think regardless of intent, he fucked up because no one, but no one, likes a fucking backed-up and crowded airport full of unhappy people. Because its bad enough when its the weather, or terrorists, but when it happens because The President did something? He’s a dick.

                1. The protesters are the ones who fucked up the airports. I know people who were stuck at JFK. They are not mad at Trump, they are mad at the protesters.

                  If the country wants more Muslims, why the hell isn’t Hillary President?

                  1. You seem to be once again forgetting that more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.

                    He won by the rules of the game, not disputing that. But it is not justifiable to say that his winning is evidence that most of the country is behind him.

              3. Most Americans (particularly the ones who favor the EO) don’t likely know enough geography or care enough to be concerned that the ‘wrong countries’ got named.

                Besides, much as such people like to bring up 9/11, its old news, while Syria and Iraq are fresh ones thanks to ISIS.

                This will definitely not hurt Trump among his more decided supporters. It may well hurt him among people closer to the middle. Obama’s healthcare reform efforts were broadly popular until after they were passed; and it wasnt because voters were deceived, they wanted someone who would ‘do something, anything ” much like now. Then after they saw what ‘something’ looked like decided they didn’t like it.

                Though all this outrage is probably wasted anyway. Really cultivating any outrage before 6 months before the election is pointless since voters have memories as long as those of gold fish.

        2. I don’t think it means that the EO is facially unconstitutional, but it does open up Trump to a wide array of challenges that make the thing itself a questionable decision on Day 1.

          I think the temporary ban was careless and a big callous. But if you’re an immigrant, shit happens.

          What I don’t see is why you think this is going to be bad for Trump. Voters have never cared about the plight or problems of immigrants or refugees before, why would they start now?

          1. why you think this is going to be bad for Trump

            Did i say it was going to be especially bad for him? I don’t think so. I think it still could have been done in a way that would have avoided some of the ‘dumb stuff’. As per the above-mentioned C.Cooke tweet

            Does doing dumb shit mean its politically damaging? not really. He’s got plenty of time to do all sorts of stuff.

            Voters have never cared about the plight or problems of immigrants or refugees before, why would they start now?

            I made this point earlier

            1. Does doing dumb shit mean its politically damaging?

              How is that “dumb shit”? His supporters want it, and large numbers of people think it’s a good idea.

    3. No, read upthread. I’m maybe not 100% doctrine re libertarianism (mostly due to open borders vs welfare state), but I’m pretty damn libertarian. This was totally amateur hour, and could have been handled very much better. So far, I’m happy (ish) with what Trump has been doing and most of his cabinet (minus Sessions), but this was totally handled wrong.
      It’s Trump’s first week: call this a learning experience.

      1. While I certainly don’t think Trump is some sort of super-genius, I certainly think so far he’s been a genius *compared to his opponents.* And like the joke says, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun *you.*”

        1. Yeah. Sigh. I guess it wasn’t Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders, it was Trump vs Hillary.

        2. This is fair. He’s definitely not the buffoonish clown the MSM depicted him as during the election.

    4. I’d been more impressed if she had done this if she had also prosecuted the Black Panther voter intimidation case that Obama had Holder throw in the trash in the first days of his administration.

  25. “He makes us pretend to love giving billions to Israel to subsidize their universal health care for their ultra-religious jews and their arabs even as we go without.” – Radical Trumpkinist Mantra #6

    1. Your trolling is way to cerebral for me. Could you make your trolls easier to understand, please?

  26. I, for one, miss the days when the executive branch wasn’t really a branch as much as a couple of old white dudes who sat around a round table in DC more worried about how to fuck with Indians and Canada.

  27. That’s what’s so insane about all this. As Eddie pointed out upthread, Yates didn’t make a valid argument about procedural mayhem and disorder, even though there was a valid argument to be made there, and more. Nor did Trump make a valid argument about pauses. Gilmore’s been making a strong case for them, so we know it can be done.

    No, it’s one side says code word “safety”, and the other side says code word “racism” and we’re all supposed to coalesce accordingly. The arguments for and against aren’t even trying. It’s shitty rhetoric and signalling all the way down!

    C’mon. There’s a valid argument both for and against. Both sides must be right somehow, but we’ll never get there so long as we ignore exploring the valid arguments in favor of screeching at each other.

    1. The EO is legal. Is it the right thing to do? I don’t know. I think it is absolutely right regarding non LPRs. As far as locking LPRs out of the country. That also locks them in the country as well. If you are an LPR from one of these places, you can’t leave the country now. The theory is that fucks with ISIS operations and ability to recruit and train sleeper cells. You can’t go back to homeland and get ISIS training now if you are an LPR. How much that helps is anyone’s guess. But it not impossible that it does.

    2. Gilmore’s been making a strong case for them, so we know it can be done.

      I’ve never argued what trump did now (or Obama in 2011) did was smart, good policy, or necessary for security, or anything of the like.

      I just pointed out that they were technically legal, and there was no “Global Outrage” (*today’s term du jour) when done previously. And if you want to measure (as john sort of stubbornly does above) the Political Point Scoring effect of Trump’s act….well, it was probably exactly what some of his voters wanted to see. And Obama did what he did in 2011 for probably the exact same reasons = so that during the 2012 election year no one could say, “You let in terrorists, and did nothing!!”

      In fact, as far as “refugee welcoming” data goes, the US are sort of weaksauce to begin with. If we let in 50,000, it will be close to our historical averages going back to the 1990s… if we let in 100,000, it would exceed Obama’s own annual intake.

      1. (*contd) But Europe took in ~1.3 m in 2015, and close to that in 2016. We don’t really contribute all that much. Maybe just enough to claim “we care”. We’d much rather bomb them, and then send aid.

        My general assessment of the whole thing is that the changes being made by the “pause” are really for political theater, and aren’t really all that significant in the long run. Freaking out about it seems dumb to me, but i will give the media credit – they finally got something quasi-real to freak out about rather than moaning about Russian Hacking and Frog Nazis.

        1. Yeah, that phrasing of mine did present a logical reading that you supported Trump’s EO. Allow me to rephrase.

          Gilmore’s been making a sensible case that Trump wasn’t an insane asshole doing illegal racist unconstitutional things, without bringing emotion or partisan issues as proof.

          However reluctant, your posts were the closest thing to a persuasive argument I saw presented. I think the best overall analysis we had was this morning’s commentariat, and everything went to mostly shitshow rhetoric after. It’s difficult to learn anything from that.

          1. Gilmore’s been making a sensible case that Trump wasn’t an insane asshole doing illegal racist unconstitutional things, without bringing emotion or partisan issues as proof.

            that is an excellent re-statement and i am flattered.

  28. This thread’s Agile:John ratio is 0, which it too low for my liking.

    1. See, now you just had to go and make me sad that not only is John dropping little nuggets of his “wisdom” about, but that I haven’t seen Agile for a while. šŸ™

      1. Things you don’t understand make you sad. This is why your life has been so hard and the world so confusing.,

        1. I see you are having some problems with your period.

          1. I’ve heard there’s a tax on tampons but not Rogaine. Maybe that was the triggering event?

    2. Turns out Agile was a Syrian refugee. He’s currently in a freight plane to Damascus with a bunch of deformed sheep Americans refused to eat.

  29. I just saw Nick’s shit show of an article on refugees not being responsible for terrorist attacks while ignoring Europe and that the only real difference is that we have the Atlantic on our Eastern border. That Nick – always the libertarian puritan. Welfare state and the government paying to import people from countries we’ve been bombing and fighting wars in? All just proof of the libertarian moment.

    Someone needs to inform Reason, as I said earlier, that there’s a distinction between immigration/open borders and a government sponsored program that brings people over and houses/feeds them on the taxpayer dime. I’d think that would be obvious, but apparently not.

    1. On Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays, our bombing those countries causes terrorism and blow back as the people in these areas become radicalized and seek revenge for our bombing. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and the weekend, we must let any refugee in who wants to come from these areas and only a racist pants shitter would think doing so creates any risk.

      And yes, Nick is a real Libertarian purist. His ideals are never negotiable, as long as they involve immigration and free trade.

      1. And yes, Nick is a real Libertarian purist. His ideals are never negotiable, as long as they involve immigration and free trade.

        Not entirely true. He and Welch were cheerleading really hard for Obama ending the wet foot/dry foot policy with Cuba and sending back escapees to almost certain death or political persuction. The restriction just has to be for the benefit of a murderous totalitarian communist regime and then it’s okay – just like every other accommodation for the Castros. Reason as an organization really is an embarrassing piece of shit. It’s too bad there’s nowhere else on the web with a libertarianish comment section (aside from Lew Rockwell, which is even more embarrassing).

        1. I missed that. Did they really cheer him doing that? That is fucking appalling. We must let refugees from Yemen into the country but fuck Cubans. They should consider themselves lucky to live in socialist paradise. Leftist fuckers.

          1. Yeah, you missed an article that doesn’t exist.

            https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..-scrambles

            1. I didn’t think they had. I would have remembered seeing something that bad. That is Richman bad.

            2. Yes, all you have to do is put on your SugarFree glasses that omit all the praise for the policy change as part of diplomatic normalization with the Castro regime which Reason has long supported, and hey presto.

              1. There is a basic fairness/equality rationale for Obama’s restriction that makes intuitive sense: At this point, why not treat migrating Cubans like Venezuelans? Particularly if you can find a way from shipping political dissidents back into the arms of their persecutor. But coupled with the incoming Trump administration’s planned crackdown on illegal border crossings, tightening of refugee screening, and reductions in legal immigration, the demise of Wet Foot/Dry Foot is likely to drive migrants into ever-more-dangerous black markets, and add massive stress on any section of U.S. immigration policy that looks like a loophole.

                The most favorable interpretation is that you have no idea what “cheerleading” means.

                Care to guess the unfavorable ones?

                1. The most charitable would be to assume that his reading comprehension when he tried to digest that particular article was hamstrung. Drunk or high, maybe? The article itself was kind of a slog, if we’re going to be honest about it. The alt text set the tone up front, but only if you check it.

                  An apology for misreading it is in order, Pat.

    2. The terrorist attacks in Europe have either been perpetrated by home grown terrorists or asylum seekers, not refugees. Please stop lying.

      1. Two of the airport and Metro attacks in Brussels last year had fought in Syria and gained entry back into Belgium.
        The German press has reported refugee knife and ax attacks on innocents.

        ISIS has claimed on multiple occasions the intent to infiltrate terrorists into the refugee flow,” said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army officer and terrorism analyst. “One can argue that the Tunisian who drove the truck into the Berlin Christmas market was an immigrant tagged as influenced by ISIS. Certainly ISIS will do whatever it can to infiltrate those coming to this country as well. Time will tell whether they are successful, and meanwhile we are vulnerable.”
        In August, the deputy head of Bavaria’s intelligence service told the BBC that the Islamic State has injected “hit squads” via migrants entering Germany.
        “We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany,” said Manfred Hauser, vice president of the Bavaria region’s intelligence-gathering agency, BayLfV

        http://www.washingtontimes.com…..s-into-re/

        1. Don’t feel bad, the Washington examiner conflated refugees and asylum seekers too. Hell the article even states that the biggest threat is people being smuggled in with the rest or camouflaged with the rest (so not even asylum seekers).

          1. I see the difference but it is one without distinction. A refugee is someone who hasn’t left their home country and is trying to get out. An asylum seeker is someone who managed to get out and is out your doorstep asking to stay. I see no reason why refugees would be any more or less dangerous or likely to become terrorists than asylum seekers. They are the same group of people just in different situations. So if Asylum seekers from these places have proven to be dangerous, and they have, refugees are likely just as dangerous.

            1. I would assume as a lawyer, even a government one, you would understand the importance of legal distinctions. And I would assume as someone who is a blowhard but not generally retarded you would understand the practical national security distinction between someone not in the country and someone already in the country.

              1. AS a lawyer I understand the importance of legal distinctions. I also understand the importance of context. That distinction is important if you are talking about the amount of due process it takes to deny a claim or send the person back where they came from. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how dangerous these groups are. And in that context whether they are Asylum seekers of refugees makes no difference. The Asylum seekers are here and can do real harm now. But so will the refugees after they are admitted.

                And even as a government lawyer, I passed two bars and graduated in the top five percent of my class. So spare me the petty insult, especially when you are trying to pretend an irrelevant distinction is important.

                1. If you cared about risk you wouldn’t care because deaths from terrorist attacks are a drop in the bucket. If you cared about relative risks then absolutely, massive waves of asylum seekers are far more dangerous than refugees.

                  1. It is not about risk. Terrorist attacks are designed to intimidate people into no longer doing things and thus taking our freedom. How many people have been murdered for drawing Muhammad? The dozen or so people at Charlie Hebdo are the only ones I can think of. Yet, no newspaper in America will publish a drawing of Muhammad. Why? Because it only takes shooting one person for the right reason to get everyone else to fall in line. That is how terrorism works. And that is why the “hey what are your chances” dismissals of terrorism are completely stupid.

            2. Actually, asylum seekers are people who suffer from official persecution in their home countries. Refugees may simply be leaving for economic or safety reasons.

              1. Actually, asylum seekers are people who suffer from official persecution in their home countries.

                If they were legitimate, sure. But the people who flooded Europe are likely just migrants taking advantage of numbers to get in (as well as bad actors using the numbers as cover).

                The situation in Europe is entirely different that the American refugee system.

              2. A refugee is not someone leaving a country for economic reasons, unless those economic reasons are they are starving to death. Someone who simply wants a higher standard of living or better employment prospects is not a refugee, but a migrant. And once you’ve escaped the immediate danger, you don’t, under international law, get to be a refugee as you shop for countries with most extravagant welfare state.

            3. Its a level of distinction. Asylum seekers are supposed to demonstrate that they are specifically targeted (usually by the ruling political group) in their country. We kind of created this sub-category of refugee after WWII to (a)make up for the shame of turning away European Jews and (b)have a stick to beat Soviet allied countries with. It was then extended because dry-foot Cubans were asylum seekers. As were people who helped us in Korea and Vietnam and got displaced.

              Think Scarface. The Muriel boatlift happens, they get to Miami, and they’re getting put in the camps and the dumb pretty boy says, “I told them I was in sanitation, just like you said.” And Scarface says, “Santarium. I tol’ you to say you were in a sanitarium as a politcal prisoner.” Those are asylum seekers. Refugees are just people leaving their bad situation that may or may not have been caused by persecution by other people.

              1. It can be a level of distinction, but in this case, it really isn’t. When you have massive hordes of people moving into Europe, most of whom haven’t been vetted or given any official status, the ‘asylum seeker’ label is the initial designation. You aren’t a refugee until a specific state acknowledges you as such.

                It’s a word game in this instance. People have committed terrorist attacks have slipped in among the large hordes of people coming from the Middle East in Europe.

                The ‘refugees’ we take in are not going to receive the level of screening suggested, though, yes, we’d have an advantage over the Europeans…one based on geography, though. We can select to some degree.

                1. Maybe in Europe. In American distinction, if you are fleeing a humanitarian crisis (the war in Syria bombed your town flat, famine in Haiti) you are a refugee. If you are fleeing persecution (ISIS took over your town and you are a Druse Christian, you worked for the Suharto government in Peru and everyone who worked in your section is being assassinated [happened to a guy while I was working in Costa Rica. He got assassinated, too]) you are seeking asylum.

                  1. There is also a distinction between people actually granted asylum (or who will be granted) and those seeking it. When hundreds of thousands of people show up at once, like the situation in Europe, that is a pretty important distinction.

      2. And while it may not be terrorism, I think the string of rapes and sexual assaults that refugees have been responsible is pretty significant. What is your defense of refugees? Hey they only commit rape and attack people with axes, but it is not like they are terrorists?

        1. Do you also believe in the campus rape crisis and the need to take desperate measures to solve that too?

          Statistics are good evidence; a series of anecdotes and newspaper clipping are only good for making paper mache.

          1. What happened in Colonge and the statistics in places like Sweden are not anecdotes.

      3. 1. Using the term refugee to refer to many of those entering Europe right is what’s dishonest. You aren’t a refugee when you are shopping for the country with the best welfare program or job opportunities. You are a migrant.
        2. European and American intelligence have repeatedly warned that ISIS has cells among the refugees.
        3. These guys weren’t refugees? You can call them whatever you want, frankly.

        You also did not address my main point that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – libertarian about supporting our government paying to bring people over here.

        1. 1. Using the term refugee to refer to many of those entering Europe right is what’s dishonest. You aren’t a refugee when you are shopping for the country with the best welfare program or job opportunities. You are a migrant.

          That’s entirely my point. It is an important legal distinction, the main thing relevant to the US is that refugees are vetted before coming not after.

          3. These guys weren’t refugees? You can call them whatever you want, frankly.

          You just got that it is different in your first comment. People who snuck into Greece and then through Europe are not refugees.

          You also did not address my main point that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – libertarian about supporting our government paying to bring people over here.

          Please read my above comment stating that easy solution to that is to have private sponsorship like Canada used to have.

          1. You just got that it is different in your first comment. People who snuck into Greece and then through Europe are not refugees.

            You keep saying that like a legal term of art and semantic distinction means anything. Why does actually showing up and trying to get Asylum make you more or less dangerous than asking for refugee status and staying were you are?

            1. Because as the articles you have pointed to show when a massive wave of people march into a country terrorists can sneak in with them, and when they get there they are free to roam about while their asylum claim is processed. Then they can already make mischief or disappear in the wind and have no practical difference from any other illegal immigrant.

              Refugees go through a vetting process that takes years, the entire time being stuck in the shit hole where they are, and then when they arrive go through various government programs. The government also knows where they all are.

              1. The legal distinction is pointless here as the libertarian principle being discussed is using other people’s money to pay for your empathy. Disregard entirely the fact that they are Muslims and that doesn’t change. And the criticism of Reason’s editorial position stands. No where do they even acknowledge that this is being funded by American taxpayers. The debate isn’t over who pays at all so what system for refugees we should have is entirely besides the point. We have our current system and its not changing.

                I also find your argument that any refugees we’d take from Europe (again, not refugees really regardless of what they end up being called) would be carefully screened rather ridiculous. Obama was going to bring in, what, 100,000 next year? You think our intelligence agencies have the capacity to actually screen all those people? Even though they’ve already admitted that they really can’t?

                This is a magazine that calls itself Reason. I expect its editorial position to demonstrate some of that while also adhering to the most basic libertarian principles.

              2. Refugees go through a vetting process that takes years,

                Some refugees. Not these refugees. How exactly do you vet someone from a failed state? Call the local sheriff’s office? Call ISIS and check their roles?

                Vetting is a joke, especially in countries like Syria or Libya. You know what vetting is? A 30 minute interview with some 20 something USCIS refugee officer who has likely never been the country before in their lives. We have no idea who these people are. And what the hell brand of crack are you smoking if you think the Obama administration did any vetting. That is the whole point of this ban. Remember it is temporary. They are stopping people from coming in until they can start to get a handle on who these people are, which is something the Obama administration never gave a fuck about.

                1. The Obama administration was acting on political pressure applied by allies in Europe. That’s it. They weren’t serving the American public in their refugee policy and any attempt to pretend otherwise is horseshit. Europe had too many people flowing in from Mid-East shit holes and demanded America take its fair share.

                2. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the vetting process so far has been a failure. There have been no lethal terrorist attacks in 35+ years and one recent non-lethal one to point to. There is no evidence that they commit other crimes at a greater rate than other immigrant or citizen demographics. Citation fucking needed.

                  1. That is because we were not taking huge numbers of Muslim refugees from the middle east. 35+ years of taking SE Asians and Latin Americans and African animists and Cubans doesn’t exactly set a precedent for taking 100,000 or more people from Syria. Come on.

                3. Vetting is a joke, especially in countries like Syria or Libya

                  Bingo. If you were born in Mosul in 1994, how in the fuck are we going to find someone to vouch for you. Much less getting a functionary of the Assad regime or whoever holds Aleppo right now to verify your birth certificate and criminal history. With Europe? No problem. In other places, the idea that positive vetting can be done is beggaring belief.

          2. The easy solution is to not take any of them.

    3. I just saw Nick’s shit show of an article on refugees not being responsible for terrorist attacks while ignoring Europe

      That has indeed been the theme of many MSM articles as well. Careful to couch it in “well, not in America” so that it’s true, but a very misleading sort of true.

      Rapes happening all over Europe. Violence. Large terror attacks. An arson over, I shit you not, running out of Nutella and Gummy bears. Trucks, guns, bombs, doesn’t matter, they got their hands on whatever they needed. Let’s not be Europe, please.

      I’m not against Muslims in general. Scrutinize individuals very carefully and let them apply if there’s nothing amiss. Just don’t take in large numbers or form enclaves here. That didn’t end well in Europe and it would especially not end well here.

      1. I think the heart of the matter is it’s impossible to vet someone from a failed state like Libya, or hostile one like Iran. In theory you could look for criminal records and information from many governments. In most of the places in the EO you probably can’t get their name or birthday.

        1. You’re right, but the same is also true with citizens. You can’t fully vet someone who was born here, and someone with no criminal record may go on to commit heinous crimes.

          Do I think it is good to be humanitarians? Surely. At unwilling taxpayers’ expense? No. Charity should suffice, and it looks to me like they might find a large pool of those willing to pay. Do I think we can find sufficiently good and peaceful people who seek freedom from oppression? Yeah, I think it’s not impossible. Might fuck up once in a rare while, but my concern isn’t one of fear. I don’t fear dying in a terrorist attack, and I don’t think anyone else should either, it’s just far too unlikely. I do not want enclaves that keep people from naturalizing to American values.

          I do not like Islamic values and absolutely do believe they are incompatible with western civilization. But I also believe in individuals, not groups. I do believe that there is nothing wrong for a person to yearn to be free. I do not doubt that there are those among them who realize how terrible their life is and that it’s an accident of birth to end up in such a hell. And I don’t think it’s wrong for anyone to try to find those people and help them escape it.

          Maybe we could work out some kind of exchange program whereby stable Islamic countries can have more visas for their citizens who are more easily vetted, and they take more refugees who have similar values to theirs.

          1. I’m sure you could theoretically build some imperfect sort of contraption and system to grow and harvest watermelons in Antarctica. Or you could grow them in a place habitable.

            You could build an imperfect system to identify the most liberty minded Yemen citizens, or you could quit searching for liberty minded citizens in the place you’re least likely to find them.

    4. “Someone needs to inform Reason, as I said earlier, that there’s a distinction between immigration/open borders and a government sponsored program that brings people over and houses/feeds them on the taxpayer dime.”

      Well, from a purely utilitarian point of view:

      Taxation diminishes the liberty of the taxpayers. Providing a safe haven for refugees increases the liberty of the refugees, *irrespective of whatever material welfare that they may get* (i.e., living under a government that respects freedom of religion, rather than tramples on it, is an increase in liberty). Again from a utilitarian point of view, does aggregate liberty go up or go down? I don’t think the answer is immediately “go down”. It could be, but it would require I think a more detailed argument than just “I don’t wanna pay for it”.

      1. Utilitarianism is not libertarianism. Utilitarian compromises might be necessary on occasion to advance towards the general direction of liberty, but to claim that we can perform some calculus to determine which people should lose liberty so others can gain it is absurd. I don’t have a machine that calculates net gains in liberty. Nor does the American public actually seem to support the policy in question.

        I could sit here and argue about the net gains in liberty that resulted from the Iraq War, but I doubt people here would be very receptive to it.

        An extension of that – the American government, funded by the American taxpayer, has zero obligation or to help people in other countries. The duty of the American government is to protect the rights of citizens and those within its jurisdiction. To argue that it can rightfully sacrifice the liberty of those it was constructed to protect to help people anywhere in the world doesn’t hold water.

      2. I also love the absurdity of arguing that we should basically dissolve key components of a nation, such as borders, while advancing policies that are only possible because of the existence of government. The entire argument is a symptom of what I’d call internalized progressivism.

        1. There’s a failed argument if there ever was one. Borders between cities and counties effectively not exist as barriers to movement. And yet cities and counties still have taxes and other policies.

          I’m not exactly an open borders enthusiast, but that’s just a terrible argument against them.

  30. I’m more disturbed by how common it has become with attorney generals that refuse to defend laws. Isn’t that their job? Isn’t the question of what is legal or constitutional a question for the courts to decide?

    I’m sorry if it’s super uncool and not woke for me to cling on to the separation of powers and such.

    1. One distinction is that this is an executive order not a law, so it’s an executive employee refusing to defend an executive policy – and losing her job as a result, which is as it should be.

      As for acts of Congress, some of these acts are such assaults on the constitution that the AG ought to attack rather than defend them. I’m thinking about drug prohibition laws which purport to override state laws.

      In such cases, when it’s Congress versus the states, there’s no reason the executive should simply assume Congress is right and the states are wrong.

  31. I think Ms. Yates had an ethical duty (as in legal ethics) to resign. Which is another issue here.

    1. Is it ethical to sign FISA warrants?

      1. Ethical from a lawyer’s ethical duties ethical but not morally ethical. An example where the distinction is pretty clear.

    2. I think Ms. Yates had an ethical duty (as in legal ethics) to resign. Which is another issue here.

      Me thinks spicing up the book advance/speaking tour/visiting professor gig(s) was a little more important than legal ethics here.

      1. AGENT: “Random House says the book is great, they just want us to tweak the title a little bit.”

        YATES: “Why, what’s wrong with *My Struggle Against Donald Trump*?”

    1. Following orders *from a judge.* That makes it OK.

      1. See also, Kim Davis, below, for the absolute necessity for public officials to follow judicial orders no matter how irrational.

  32. I’m sure many of the people proclaiming her as a modern day hero were outraged by Kim Davis’s refusal to do her job. Seems like a similar situation to me. You’re not being asked to do anything illegal, so either do your job, or resign. But I guess grandstanding is a whole lot more fun.

    1. That is one hell of a good point Fatty.

      1. Except the difference is that Kim Davis is a cunt.

        1. Except the difference is that it is okay when your side does it. That is all you are saying. And you think Davis is a cunt. Good for you. No everyone considers gays to be sacred the way reasonites do.

            1. I don’t think so. But if he was, my apologies CMW.

              1. Apology accepted.

                1. My sarcasm meter is worthless.

    2. Yates is no Kim Davis.

      Davis defended a constitutional provision adopted by the voters of Kentucky, a type of law which the Supreme Court once said was so obviously constitutional that it didn’t even present a substantial federal question.

      Davis’ “crime” was failing to follow the Court’s whipsaw-like change of line with sufficient zeal – and she risked prison because of her failure to blindly follow irrational orders.

      Whereas the only risk Yates took was leaving her job a little earlier and being feted as a hero in every prog enclave in the land, plus having a leg up in any law prof job she applies for.

      1. All good points. But Woodchiper will call her a cunt for that. Because God damn it, gays need to be able to force people to accept them.

    3. You’re right, this is Red Team / Blue Team bullshit. Stand up for our principles and you’re a hero. Stand up for their principles and you’re a scumbag.

  33. You know who else stood up for the courage of their convictions?

    1. Marcus Aurelius?

    2. People who denounce Republicans in their Oscar acceptance speeches?

    3. Hillary?

      Oh. Wait. Courage, yes. Conviction, no.

    4. Kim Davis?

  34. I long for the day when people are judged not by the color of their skin, or by their religion, or by their place of national origin, or by their funny sounding names, but by the content of their character…

    Didn’t someone famous say something along these lines?

    1. You’re not supposed to take those words literally, as you will discover if you discuss affirmative action with a progressive.

    2. Sure can you tell me the content of the character of everyone who wants to migrate? If not, then inspirational speeches may not equate to realistic policies.

      1. can you tell me the content of the character of everyone who wants to migrate?

        Yes; Obama’s 2011 overhaul of the refugee screening process added a “pinky swear” box on the application which affirms to the best of their knowledge that they are totally and absolutely pretty sure they are NOT Al Qaeda.

        *sadly at the time, ISIS were still JV so, you know, “loopholes”.

      2. Can’t tell the content of the character that f the people who were born here either, so there’s that.

    3. Judge and be prepared to be judged. Ayn Rand. She is correct about that.

    4. Why doesn’t your religion say something about your character?

      Good thing the actiul NAZIs weren’t smart enough to call their movement a religion instead of a political party because the federal government would apparently have been powerless to oppose them.

      1. In truth, National Socialism is a Lutheran religion. The enabling act speech to the Reichstag drips christianity, as does the NSDAP program of 1920 and the Republican platform Mein Kampf of 1924. Nobeliefs.com is packed with photos, mementoes and translations even the most mystical yokels can puzzle out and eventually grok.

  35. I ,for one, like the company of sturdy Anglo-Saxon men.

    1. You’re into Saxon violence?

    2. As does our very own jesse.in.mb!

      1. I have not sucked that many dicks.

        1. We believe in you, little buddy.

          1. Like Biiiy Budd, foretop man, in my lackluster defense.

        2. that many dicks-1, not impressive.

    1. I enjoy crushing the spirit of children of both sexes so I can’t relate to this.

    2. Is it normal to wear a cowboy hat while driving a car? seems … overkill. and please don’t give me this, “on a steel horse i ride” nonsense.

      1. Yes. It is very normal. Although my father has a little rack on the roof, he welded it in to hold his hat. It pulls down.

      2. When you look up “Texas” in the dictionary, it’s just a still from that video.

        1. You would say that, Dumb Glow Stick Mule Asshole.

          Am I doing it right?

          1. No. Get back into derp factory and don’t come out till an hour is up!

            1. [sigh]

              Here, have a virtue signalling tantrum.

              https://youtu.be/yyLqPUWamEQ?t=2m22s

              You can chase it with these Hayek haikus.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-PMiiygV04

              1. I could only make it for 15 seconds. You have found real treasure, comrade Derpetologist. Your quota has been fulfilled 120%! Stakhanovec!

                1. That virtue signaling tantrum goes on for 10 minutes. Watching it all is part of the Derpotologist’s Rite of Ascension.

                  https://youtu.be/t9L2NlSYJGM?t=2m20s

                  1. ‘derp bIQtIqDaq yIt jIH

            2. “I just want to go home to my family.”

              “This protest is more important than you.”

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yWNm4J_y8s

              1. Do they not see that this only makes us get more Trump?

                I seriously don’t think they get it at all, still.

                Keith Ellison is going to take over the DNC. A veritable voice of sanity amongst the rabble rousers!

                1. I suppose the first order of business for the progs is to activate the base, overcome their sense of despair.

                  Then appeal to moderates with a Good Cop / Bad Cop routine – “tsk, tsk, isn’t all this turbulence so upsetting, wouldn’t it be nice to have a President who unites us instead of dividing us?”

                  1. I mean, this *is* the plan, right? They *do* have a plan to appeal to the moderates, right?

              2. Sorry, I’m driving 5-10 mph through this. I’ll pay the lawyer later. I am definitely of the post-Reginald Denny school of people v. automobiles school of protest.

        2. I would fight you about this, but the guy I worked with from west Texas who now has a giant farm in Arkansas and a handlebar mustache, yes. He is basically an ugly version of that still. Protip: When your hair turns white, grow a ponytail and a handlebar mustache and dress like a shitkicker. I can’t count the number of places we went where a chick 1/3rd of his age gave him a shot.

      3. What are your thoughts on the red, white, and blue flannel?

    1. His teeth are burning my retina.

    2. “Daddy lied”

      i’m saving that line for future use.

      1. Ikr!!

        I had to stop the video, I was laughing too hard to hear him.

    3. I think we’ve found the next American ambassador to the U.N.

    4. Farrage? He’s not even Pat Condell!

    5. Chad is hilarious. Been watching for awhile.

  36. “The Department of Justice announced today it would not defend the legality of Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugee entry and virtually all travel from seven countries of concern.”

    No, “the department” is not capable of speech or writing; a person did so, and that person may or may not have acted appropriately.
    Ducked the TDS today, but:
    1. If Trump acted within the constitutional limits of the executive, then:
    A. The protestors are just whining that their hag didn’t win.
    B. Regarding the grandma story, tough shit. If there is ever to be a reduction in the power of the government, people will be made uncomfortable.
    C. The acting head of the DOJ can cram it up her butt; she works for someone.
    Haven’t seen any suggestion that his actions were beyond the constitutional bounds of the executive.

    I’m not a supporter of what he did; I don’t think it makes the US any safer than the TSA did, and there’s no reason to piss off a lot of people for no real gain.
    But I wasn’t a supporter of what Obo regularly did; tough shit.

  37. At the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy Jonathan Adler writes that to his knowledge Yates’ move is unprecedented,…

    Wait a minute, unprecedented treatment of this president where the previous presidents were given greater deference and respect? Such a change in behavior can only mean one thing of course: racism.

    Didn’t Obama fire some general for not being a team player, even though he said stuff about Afghanistan that was probably right also?

    1. #OrangepresidentsMatter

  38. I’m very, very pro immigration. The government’s role here should be to make a reasonable effort to verify that the immigrant isn’t a threat to others in the country, and then let them in.

    BUT

    If we’re going to have stupid, arbitrary rules about immigration, then I don’t see what the big deal is about this particular stupid, arbitrary rule. You need to apply for a tourist visa if you’re from X country, but if you’re from Y country you don’t. Students can come in and study and then work, but regular people can’t unless they jump through a ton of hoops.

    So, if you were okay with all the bullshit hoops people had to jump through before, why wouldn’t you be okay with the “if you’re from a country that is dangerous as fuck right now, you can’t come in”?

    True story – my wife is an immigrant. Her BROTHER couldn’t come to our wedding because his tourist visa was denied TWICE (cost ~$400 in non-refundable fees…thanks!). He brought our wedding invitation, pictures, etc. to his visa interviews. They said, “We believe you and trust that you’re not looking to overstay your visa. Unfortunately, young men with no dependents are a high risk group for overstaying their visas, so even though we believe you, we have to deny the visa.” So if you weren’t sticking up for my brother in law trying to attend his sister’s wedding, then cry me a river about banning people from countries that are dangerous as fuck right now.

    1. So if you weren’t sticking up for my brother in law trying to attend his sister’s wedding…

      This is why sobs stories don’t work, I think.

      We’ve all got one, and no one was there for us. So fuck you, yay individualism, I guess – maybe that’s where libertarianism came from. We handled our shit. Don’t hand us yours, princess.

      Good post. Thought-provoking.

    2. I’m on your side WRT open borders, but we have someone who, by the applicable laws, was elected POTUS:

      “If we’re going to have stupid, arbitrary rules about immigration, then I don’t see what the big deal is about this particular stupid, arbitrary rule.”

      And I disagree with the new, stupid, arbitrary rule, but to answer your question, the ‘big deal’ is that the hag lost. THAT’S the “big deal”.

  39. “At the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy Jonathan Adler writes that to his knowledge Yates’ move is unprecedented,…”

    So………….
    what?
    As mentioned above, if Trump is extra-legal here, he needs a slap-down, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that he is.
    And, as mentioned above, I don’t like what he’s done here.
    So………..
    what?
    If a libertarian is ever POTUS, there will be all sorts of ‘unprecedented’ moves and inconvenienced people.
    You can gripe (as I do) that I don’t like it, or you might make a constitutional objection, but other than that, STFU.
    If inconvenience is the deciding factor, then we can forget about reigning in the Fed gov’t.

    1. It can be unprecedented and also stupid.

      1. Yes it can, which misses my point entirely.

        1. I thought that was your point.

      2. Sorry, Tman; too quick on the keyboard.
        Yes it can, which is the point.
        My apology.

        1. Ha! No worries. I’m on my third scotch so I thought I read that wrong or something.

  40. Even if Sally Yates lives another half-century, then we know she will get a New York Times obit with this headline –

    SALLY YATES – A WOMAN OF CONVICTION WHO RESISTED DONALD TRUMP’S ANTI-MUSLIM POLICIES

    (this assumes there will still be a New York Times in 50 years)

    She will be so much fun at dinner parties –

    “did I ever tell you about the time when Donald Trump…”

    “Yes, you’ve told us.”

    1. I mean, she could go on to find a cure for cancer, and the NYT obit will read

      SALLY YATES – SHE COURAGEOUSLY STOOD UP TO DONALD TRUMP
      Also Worked in Medical Research

    2. Standing up to Trump isn’t exactly brain surgery. But she will get invited to all the right parties.

  41. If she wanted to set policy, she should have run for President.

    Instead, she’s acting Attorney General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.

    You can’t let a subordinate undermine your decisions like that. He had to fire her. It was the only competent thing to do.

    If she didn’t want to follow the President’s orders, she should have resigned. Can’t imagine why anyone would want to hire someone who publicly undermines her boss. She’s the proverbial cancer in the locker room now, and the whole world knows it.

    1. No, she’s the next St. Thomas More, refusing to knuckle under to the King’s unjust decrees – she’s Elliot Richardson refusing to yield to Richard Nixon’s demands during Watergate. She’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer resisting the Next Hitler.

      /sarc

    2. Nobody can be the whole world without me, and I’m part of the jury that’s still out. Anything that removes Saracen berserkers in suicide vests from my proximity I regard with sympathy, but empowering christian nationalsocialists was what got us into this mess in the first place. President Cleveland had a better approach.

  42. “Compare again the ferocious depredations of their insurgents with the order, the moderation and the almost self extinguishment of ours, and say finally whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people, enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve it, and it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

    Thought that seemed relevant. Probably just some old prog, though, no need to look it up.

  43. Another Republican teetotalitarian occupied the White House in 1929: President Hoover concentrated on redeeming his campaign pledges, starting with those “incapable and negligent officials.” After meeting with Senator Morris Sheppard and Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt, Hoover fired DeGroot in a 13-word letter dated May 1.
    Willebrandt, Mitchell and other officials had been pressing DeGroot to resign since January 25 (before Hoover’s inauguration), and DeGroot?United States Attorney for the Eastern Division of New York?had defied the Justice Department April 3 by publicly announcing he would do no such thing. DeGroot has manifested insufficient prohibitionist hatred and zeal in the War on the Demon Rum. –Le plus ?a change…

  44. Trump is weak on the constitution. Something he should read.

    1. The entire government is weak on the Constitution.

  45. “as long as she is acting Attorney General the DOJ”

    Which was about 5 minutes. Lol.

  46. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  47. “My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts,” she wrote. “In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.”
    ????? ???? 69
    ????? 69
    Yates concluded that she was not convinced that defending this executive order was “consistent with these responsibilities” or lawful, and that as long as she is acting Attorney General the DOJ would not present legal arguments defending the EO until she was convinced it was appropriate.

  48. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  49. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  50. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  51. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    ========================= http://www.cash-review.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.