|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:01 Paljas wrote:On May 09 2017 00:18 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 00:13 Paljas wrote:
Kwark, the reason why we believe in experts in precisly because they can prove their claims and have the knowledge to correctly use and gauge the data and information. If you would ask a biologist to prove that evolution exists, he would have plenty of data to proof that evolution is real. And if you ask a historian to prove the existence of a person (e.g. Napoleon), they would again be able to provide historical documents etc. to support and proof their claims.
From this, i think its pretty obvious what i mean when i say "actual proof": reliable data and information which confirm and assure the assumptions and claims. No such data was provided in this case. Of course, you may claim that i am overly skeptic and distrustful, but the considering what can happend (iraq and libya) i believe that my distrust is justified.
What would you accept as actual proof of Napoleon that could not have been falsified by a conspiracy of experts working to deceive you? I'm not sure there is anything I could accept, every route just leads me to more experts. Dating primary sources needs me to trust concepts like nuclear decay and so forth, it's not feasible that I ever do it all by myself. All I can do is trust that the conspiracy would collapse if it existed. And oddly enough the intelligence community was publicly divided on the case for Iraq, exactly as we would want to see if there was something unreliable. Experts were speaking out against the politician's misrepresentation of facts. The intelligence services of other nations were speaking up and saying that this report isn't right. The Chilcott Report in the UK concludes that there was sufficient information at the time for the politicians to have made the correct choice and that the incorrect decision was deliberately made despite the intelligence for political reasons. Whether or not the data and information is fabricated is indeed something i might not be able to decide for myself. In such a case, i must belief the experts in this field and if something is fishy, there might indeed be a dispute between experts which shows me that something is up. However, in the case at hand, I am even unable to check the data and information and ask an expert about it, exactly because no such thing was provided. and if i look data that is public, i can see that the experts can not draw safe conclusions from it. this is clearly different from the historian who tries to persuade me that napoleon is real. (its even different from the alleged wmd in iraq case, as data was provided. its just that the data was fabricated.) The point which i wanted to make with my first post on this topic wasnt that there wasnt any russian involvement in the hacks. However, i wanted to point out how strange it is to mock people that dont believe in involvement when there is also zero conclusive proof that confirms the involvement. The people who fell for the regular cargo cult can, in a dialectical twist, start to mock the people who believe in the reverse cargo cult. They just should remember that their own airstrip still yields no cargo But the system actually worked in the case of Iraq. Iraq was a political adventure, not an intelligence one. The intelligence community was far from united behind the claims the politicians were making and had it not been for Blair having a fetish for supporting America and the American population assuming that "we want to attack them after 9/11 so they must have been involved because why else would we be doing that" it wouldn't have happened.
Yeah. Lets look at Iraq!
JOHN NIXON (CIA Interrogator who interrogated Saddam Hussein): Well, sure. It’s what I call the cult of current intelligence. And current intelligence are these sort of short, pithy memos that get produced every day and tell a story about a certain important topic. And it becomes like—the policymakers become very addicted to this, because they want to know the latest and the greatest as they go into every meeting. But the thing is, in the analytic cadre at CIA, it creates a mentality of being so focused on the here and now that you can’t see the larger picture. And you don’t have time to study the larger picture, because you’re constantly churning out these sort of—and over time, you go back and you look at these current intelligence pieces, and, A, they’re overtaken by events, so they’re not really useful; B, some areas, they’re just wrong; and, C, it’s sort of like having—being thirsty and—being thirsty for a Coke, and then, all of a sudden, three months later, you go back for the Coke, and you drink it, and it’s flat, and you don’t want it.
Source
Maybe it's possible there's a lot of political pressure from the Democrats to blame the Russians for their loss? That seems to be the main focus of their opposition so far - and always warhawks like McCain are also pushing for this kind of thing which makes it a bipartisan effort on the part of the policymakers. On top of that, maybe the FBI/CIA/NSA are feeling like they fell short in preventing any potential damage done by the hacks, or Comey feeling guilty about his own interference, which causes them to cycle their cult of intelligence memos about this internally? Then you get people from the FBI and so forth verbally leaking parts of their own internal memos as 'unnamed officials' in press, and so the media circus ensues, which pushes the politicians to do more, who then put more pressure on the intelligence community, which... and so on.
I think it's definitely exaggerated in terms of influence (although not any more, because people are doubting Trump is a legitimate president because of this, so good job Russia, you did it!). Almost anything that appears in the media for such a long time can turn into its own circle of propaganda in this way. Of course, the hacking was almost entirely certain to be Russia, and I can take for granted that they indirectly gave the data to Wikileaks). This seems to be quite legitimate because of many factors.
|
On May 09 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:
This was the natural progression of the internet on an international scale. As it took its place alongside established media, finance and communication instructions, it was going to come under the same pressures. Of course state actors are going to test the limits of what they can do with the internet and find out what the response will be. Governments and the tech industry need to put aside the petty infighting about encryption and have a real discussion about how to deal with these problems. Even if that means making a separate, more secure internet for things like elections, medical records and finance.
why does every post of yours just reek of lukewarm complacent fatalism? you always make these simpleminded reductionist proclamations that are contradicted by further proclamations before you even finish your paragraph.
what exactly is "natural" about the evolution of the internet??? a separate more secure internet what are you talkjng about?
|
On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address.
In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense.
And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people.
|
United States43598 Posts
On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people.
It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him.
|
On May 09 2017 01:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him.
It's not overselling it to make a comparison between him and those who serve at his leisure, wouldn't you say? If we're talking government or the people, this distinction comes sharply into contrast. You must have read too quickly and mistakenly thought I was talking about bigger things than lawyer-clients and president-civil service.
|
On May 09 2017 01:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:36 Plansix wrote:
This was the natural progression of the internet on an international scale. As it took its place alongside established media, finance and communication instructions, it was going to come under the same pressures. Of course state actors are going to test the limits of what they can do with the internet and find out what the response will be. Governments and the tech industry need to put aside the petty infighting about encryption and have a real discussion about how to deal with these problems. Even if that means making a separate, more secure internet for things like elections, medical records and finance. why does every post of yours just reek of lukewarm complacent fatalism? you always make these simpleminded reductionist proclamations that are contradicted by further proclamations before you even finish your paragraph. what exactly is "natural" about the evolution of the internet??? a separate more secure internet what are you talkjng about?
Because things change. The internet wasn't going to be a bunch of scrappy upstarts nipping at the heels of traditional media and retail forever. At some point Amazon becomes Walmart in the eyes of the public. Netflix and Youtube become just like network TV to advertisers. At some point the solution to security is to have data transferred over a system that isn't accessible to the entire world at all times. Or that using an open facing communication media invented in the 1990s might be outdated.
I was also continuing an ongoing discussion I have had with a_flayer about the internet and how governments may respond if political parties keep getting hacked. I should have quoted his post.
|
On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people.
This last statement works perfectly for you, since "your team" won. But had the shoe been on the other foot...
|
On May 09 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. This last statement works perfectly for you, since "your team" won. But had the shoe been on the other foot...
No, he's right. Civil servants should generally be non-partisan no matter how much they like or don't like the current administration, and the willingness of the losing party to accept that is troubling. Partisanship has reached a fever pitch and it's really time that we step back and acknowledge that in a lot of ways we have all gone too far in pursuit of our policy goals.
|
United States43598 Posts
On May 09 2017 02:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:58 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him. It's not overselling it to make a comparison between him and those who serve at his leisure, wouldn't you say? If we're talking government or the people, this distinction comes sharply into contrast. You must have read too quickly and mistakenly thought I was talking about bigger things than lawyer-clients and president-civil service.
Certainly Sally Yates received fewer votes from the people than Trump but "voted in by the people" is not really a solid foundation for any defence of Trump, given that no candidate won an overall majority and Trump did not win a plurality.
I'm also not convinced that a refusal to defend a specific action is necessarily failing to do her job. If her employer attempts something that is not legally defensible then the best defence for her employer is to do everything possible to stop the employer from doing it, rather than allowing it to happen and then losing later on. If FDR had pushed for an American landing in France in 1941 he would have been far better served by generals who would rather be fired for refusal than generals who would attempt to execute it as best as possible without complaint. Saying "I'm not going to do what you asked, and nor am I going to fight you on it, I'll see what I can do to find you someone incompetent enough that they'll let you do it, and then I'll get out of the way" does nobody any favours.
Yates gave Trump the best possible legal advice she could and staked her career on him accepting it. Getting out of the way to allow him to get humiliated by the courts, as subsequently happened, is not serving him. On the contrary, Trump would have been better served if Dana Boente had done the exact same thing as Yates, telling him that the course he was taking could only end in humiliation and that he needed to rethink it.
|
Poor legal lord, got some folks going full Louise Mensch on em .
But yeah, taking US intelligence agencies word at face value would be at minimum imprudent.
Did Russia interfere in our election? Probably, not terribly dissimilar to how the US interferes with elections. If anything the hyper focus on their attempts to interfere and painting them as so devastating makes Russia look stronger than it actually is.
BTW I'm all for a real investigation into what happened, but that's not what we're getting at all.
|
On May 09 2017 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 02:01 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:58 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him. It's not overselling it to make a comparison between him and those who serve at his leisure, wouldn't you say? If we're talking government or the people, this distinction comes sharply into contrast. You must have read too quickly and mistakenly thought I was talking about bigger things than lawyer-clients and president-civil service. Certainly Sally Yates received fewer votes from the people than Trump but "voted in by the people" is not really a solid foundation for any defence of Trump, given that no candidate won an overall majority and Trump did not win a plurality. I'm also not convinced that a refusal to defend a specific action is necessarily failing to do her job. If her employer attempts something that is not legally defensible then the best defence for her employer is to do everything possible to stop the employer from doing it, rather than allowing it to happen and then losing later on. If FDR had pushed for an American landing in France in 1941 he would have been far better served by generals who would rather be fired for refusal than generals who would attempt to execute it as best as possible without complaint. Saying "I'm not going to do what you asked, and nor am I going to fight you on it, I'll see what I can do to find you someone incompetent enough that they'll let you do it, and then I'll get out of the way" does nobody any favours. Yates gave Trump the best possible legal advice she could and staked her career on him accepting it. Getting out of the way to allow him to get humiliated by the courts, as subsequently happened, is not serving him. On the contrary, Trump would have been better served if Dana Boente had done the exact same thing as Yates, telling him that the course he was taking could only end in humiliation and that he needed to rethink it.
First, the context was trying to use arguments about people vs government, where it's entirely germane to point out how nonsensical that line absolutely is. Particularly if you think going to the people supports your argument. Secondly, you're twisting yourself into pretzels to show she's actually doing her job by not doing her job. If she was unsure of what it meant to be a lawyer representing a very particulae client, she shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place, and that's talking about the Obama administration too. By your own arguments, I'm certain you're crossing into trollville alleging it was anything other than what it looked like on its face: making a parting political jab on her way out rather than preserving her professional dignity.
|
I think there's probably something unique about an AG (or acting AG)'s role, i.e. they're not simply a rubber stamp for the president (their supposed client). They are assigned some independence to carry out the laws as written etc. Whether she should have resigned in protest rather than do what she did is up for debate, but there's certainly an argument that she was rendering a legal opinion in the course of her duties.
|
United States43598 Posts
On May 09 2017 02:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 02:17 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 02:01 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:58 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him. It's not overselling it to make a comparison between him and those who serve at his leisure, wouldn't you say? If we're talking government or the people, this distinction comes sharply into contrast. You must have read too quickly and mistakenly thought I was talking about bigger things than lawyer-clients and president-civil service. Certainly Sally Yates received fewer votes from the people than Trump but "voted in by the people" is not really a solid foundation for any defence of Trump, given that no candidate won an overall majority and Trump did not win a plurality. I'm also not convinced that a refusal to defend a specific action is necessarily failing to do her job. If her employer attempts something that is not legally defensible then the best defence for her employer is to do everything possible to stop the employer from doing it, rather than allowing it to happen and then losing later on. If FDR had pushed for an American landing in France in 1941 he would have been far better served by generals who would rather be fired for refusal than generals who would attempt to execute it as best as possible without complaint. Saying "I'm not going to do what you asked, and nor am I going to fight you on it, I'll see what I can do to find you someone incompetent enough that they'll let you do it, and then I'll get out of the way" does nobody any favours. Yates gave Trump the best possible legal advice she could and staked her career on him accepting it. Getting out of the way to allow him to get humiliated by the courts, as subsequently happened, is not serving him. On the contrary, Trump would have been better served if Dana Boente had done the exact same thing as Yates, telling him that the course he was taking could only end in humiliation and that he needed to rethink it. First, the context was trying to use arguments about people vs government, where it's entirely germane to point out how nonsensical that line absolutely is. Particularly if you think going to the people supports your argument. Secondly, you're twisting yourself into pretzels to show she's actually doing her job by not doing her job. If she was unsure of what it meant to be a lawyer representing a very particulae client, she shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place, and that's talking about the Obama administration too. By your own arguments, I'm certain you're crossing into trollville alleging it was anything other than what it looked like on its face: making a parting political jab on her way out rather than preserving her professional dignity.
The way I see it there are three options.
A) Expert says "You're the boss" and let's their client fuck themselves over in a way the expert knew was coming.
B) Expert says "I'm unwilling to do what you ask because letting you fuck this up is contrary to my duty to you so I'll get out of the way and let you find someone less expert than me who will let you fuck this up".
C) Expert says "My primary duty to help you overrides this request for specific help in this situation because you're making a mistake. It would be a disservice for me to do anything other than insist you that you not do it for as long as you're employing me to help you."
I don't see a huge problem with C. For as long as she was employed by Trump she acted in his direct interests by advising him against the course of action that resulted in him being humiliated. After he fires her for it she's allowed to talk about her idiot client who wouldn't fucking listen to advice. I also don't see any problem with Trump firing her for not doing what he wanted. The two just didn't see eye to eye about the situation, Yates thought Trump was best served by reframing the executive order to avoid humiliation and Trump thought Trump was best served by doing whatever Trump wants whenever Trump wants it.
If I ask myself what someone trying their very hardest to avoid the Trump administration getting humiliated by having their EO immediately dismissed as unconstitutional looks like I find it looking an awful lot like Yates. There's an argument to be made that A would amount to malicious compliance.
|
Not even the Bush Admin was this amateurish.
|
On May 09 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. This last statement works perfectly for you, since "your team" won. But had the shoe been on the other foot... No, he's right. Civil servants should generally be non-partisan no matter how much they like or don't like the current administration, and the willingness of the losing party to accept that is troubling. Partisanship has reached a fever pitch and it's really time that we step back and acknowledge that in a lot of ways we have all gone too far in pursuit of our policy goals.
Except she didn’t do it publically. She sent a letter to the DOJ ordering them not to defend the travel ban because she didn’t believe it was lawful. She didn’t go to the paper or yell it from the roof top. She was then fired after sending that letter. Also it was later determined that the first travel ban was drafted without consulting several key agencies that would normally provide their opinions on the subject, including the DOJ. If she resigned in protest as opposed to sending the letter, people would still say she was acting as an operative for the democrats.
|
Hence man child's Twitter tantrum this morning.
|
On May 09 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. This last statement works perfectly for you, since "your team" won. But had the shoe been on the other foot... No, he's right. Civil servants should generally be non-partisan no matter how much they like or don't like the current administration, and the willingness of the losing party to accept that is troubling. Partisanship has reached a fever pitch and it's really time that we step back and acknowledge that in a lot of ways we have all gone too far in pursuit of our policy goals. Except she didn’t do it publically. She sent a letter to the DOJ ordering them not to defend the travel ban because she didn’t believe it was lawful. She didn’t go to the paper or yell it from the roof top. She was then fired after sending that letter. Also it was later determined that the first travel ban was drafted without consulting several key agencies that would normally provide their opinions on the subject, including the DOJ. If she resigned in protest as opposed to sending the letter, people would still say she was acting as an operative for the democrats.
Didn't she send out a stupid tweet before she got fired? I don't disagree with Kwark in his assessment, but the tweet was unprofessional at best.
|
On May 09 2017 02:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 02:32 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 02:17 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 02:01 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:58 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. It might be wise not to oversell the degree to which the current President is an expression of democracy and the will of the people. He was the outcome of the electoral process but there's less of a case for the people choosing him. It's not overselling it to make a comparison between him and those who serve at his leisure, wouldn't you say? If we're talking government or the people, this distinction comes sharply into contrast. You must have read too quickly and mistakenly thought I was talking about bigger things than lawyer-clients and president-civil service. Certainly Sally Yates received fewer votes from the people than Trump but "voted in by the people" is not really a solid foundation for any defence of Trump, given that no candidate won an overall majority and Trump did not win a plurality. I'm also not convinced that a refusal to defend a specific action is necessarily failing to do her job. If her employer attempts something that is not legally defensible then the best defence for her employer is to do everything possible to stop the employer from doing it, rather than allowing it to happen and then losing later on. If FDR had pushed for an American landing in France in 1941 he would have been far better served by generals who would rather be fired for refusal than generals who would attempt to execute it as best as possible without complaint. Saying "I'm not going to do what you asked, and nor am I going to fight you on it, I'll see what I can do to find you someone incompetent enough that they'll let you do it, and then I'll get out of the way" does nobody any favours. Yates gave Trump the best possible legal advice she could and staked her career on him accepting it. Getting out of the way to allow him to get humiliated by the courts, as subsequently happened, is not serving him. On the contrary, Trump would have been better served if Dana Boente had done the exact same thing as Yates, telling him that the course he was taking could only end in humiliation and that he needed to rethink it. First, the context was trying to use arguments about people vs government, where it's entirely germane to point out how nonsensical that line absolutely is. Particularly if you think going to the people supports your argument. Secondly, you're twisting yourself into pretzels to show she's actually doing her job by not doing her job. If she was unsure of what it meant to be a lawyer representing a very particulae client, she shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place, and that's talking about the Obama administration too. By your own arguments, I'm certain you're crossing into trollville alleging it was anything other than what it looked like on its face: making a parting political jab on her way out rather than preserving her professional dignity. The way I see it there are three options. A) Expert says "You're the boss" and let's their client fuck themselves over in a way the expert knew was coming. B) Expert says "I'm unwilling to do what you ask because letting you fuck this up is contrary to my duty to you so I'll get out of the way and let you find someone less expert than me who will let you fuck this up". C) Expert says "My primary duty to help you overrides this request for specific help in this situation because you're making a mistake. It would be a disservice for me to do anything other than insist you that you not do it for as long as you're employing me to help you." I don't see a huge problem with C. For as long as she was employed by Trump she acted in his direct interests by advising him against the course of action that resulted in him being humiliated. After he fires her for it she's allowed to talk about her idiot client who wouldn't fucking listen to advice. I also don't see any problem with Trump firing her for not doing what he wanted. The two just didn't see eye to eye about the situation, Yates thought Trump was best served by reframing the executive order to avoid humiliation and Trump thought Trump was best served by doing whatever Trump wants whenever Trump wants it. If I ask myself what someone trying their very hardest to avoid the Trump administration getting humiliated by having their EO immediately dismissed as unconstitutional looks like I find it looking an awful lot like Yates. There's an argument to be made that A would amount to malicious compliance.
A & B are options. C is an invention and frankly is fairy tale land from someone who has no idea about lawyers. She chose none of the above: my desire to #Resist and debase my office and my professional duties is overriding, so here's my political statement delivered with a raspberry. She got all the favorable press she duly expected, and she provided one more example of why Trump was sent to the Oval Office in the first place. He is the backlash against this sort of politically petty behavior and those that lie to excuse it. And argue as you may against his suitability to achieve results, you don't always get the best figurehead, people always seem to mistake one for another.
|
On May 09 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 01:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People. The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address. In law, you have lawyers representing both sides. Government's lawyers have cause to come from government. If a lawyer had problems representing you in court, he or she should step aside to let you hire a new one. Not make a big show of standing for ethics and make out like he or she was unjustly fired. It's political theatre and I'm surprised and disappointed people hate Trump too much to criticize him while keeping their good sense. And if our electorate was better educated and less partisan, they, and you, might have more qualms about how unelected civil servants exercising civil disobedience are more 'We the people' than the duly elected President who was just voted in by the people. This last statement works perfectly for you, since "your team" won. But had the shoe been on the other foot...
Had Hillary won, asked the deputy AG to stay on a little, and she had acted in this manner, I would also have called her way out of line. It probably wouldn't have even been controversial: a silly person engaged in high school drama on the big stage, oh well. But this is Trump, so toss out the old rules, the left's antics are justified because he's literally a fascist (or whatever the going line is these days).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
