home

Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:21:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rudy Giuliani thinks he's the king of anti-terrorism. So reluctant is he to let anyone forget he was Mayor during 9/11, today he claimed Trump asked him to form a commission to come up with a way to legally ban Muslims from America.

He says he formed the commission with Republican U.S. congressman Peter King and one of Bush's many former Attorney Generals, Michael Mukasey. (Mukasey's son and Rudy Giuliani are law partners.)

Problem is, Peter King denies it and says Rudy is confused: [More...]

“Rudy is actually confusing dates. I was on a security task force that candidate Trump had with Rudy and Mike Mukasey and others and I think they had two meetings. I was only invited to the first one. That one was focused almost entirely on issues like domestic surveillance,” King told Politico.

< Trump Excludes Muslim Countries With Trump Org. Financial Ties From Ban | Donald Trump: Reinforcing ISIS, Hastening His Political Demise >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago ... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    ... begs to differ with the Rudymeister, in a rather withering lament that further serves as a moral call to arms for all Roman Catholics in the United States who believe in simple human decency and the dignity of man:

    "This weekend proved to be a dark moment in U.S. history. The executive order to turn away refugees and to close our nation to those, particularly Muslims, fleeing violence, oppression and persecution is contrary to both Catholic and American values. Have we not repeated the disastrous decisions of those in the past who turned away other people fleeing violence, leaving certain ethnicities and religions marginalized and excluded? We Catholics know that history well, for, like others, we have been on the other side of such decisions."

    What say you, professed Catholics Rudy and Newt? As His Holiness Pope Francis so recently admonished us, "The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us."

    Aloha.

    Maybe Rudy, et al., ought to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    ... more concerned with white-wing terrorism from the likes of Alexandre Bissonnette, a 27-year-old far-right crackpot who's been charged by Quebecois authorities with six counts of first degree murder and five counts of attempted murder, having allegedly shot up a mosque in Quebec, PQ last night during evening prayers.

    This, of course, was indeed an act of terrorism. But no doubt, it will be spun by right-wingers and their apologists as the insane act of a lone wolf, which is not reflective of an entire group of people -- in this particular case, white nationalists.

    I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the wingbats who've gone to great lengths to stir up anti-Muslim animus amongst their base followers. The blood of innocents is now on their hands.

    >:-[

    Breaking: Hours after she indicated that ... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:39:31 PM EST
    ... DOJ would not be defending Trump's immigration ban targeting select countries, Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates has been fired. Like AG Eliot Richardson 43 years ago, she exits the stage with her honor and integrity intact.

    Beautifully said (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:45:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Honestly, right now I just want to cry. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:54:23 PM EST
    We've been dragged to the precipice of a constitutional rabbit hole, and the people in Congress who have the power and authority to stop this a$$hole who put us there apparently aren't willing to do so.

    Parent
    I'm sorry Donald (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:06:07 PM EST
    I think nobody wanted to believe it was going to be this bad.

    I think McCain can get things done if he doesn't have a heart attack getting there. At least McCain and Graham have been calling him out.

    Parent

    Text of White House Press Statement: (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    "The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

    "Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

    "It's time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting of individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country."

    Fck this guy, and everyone who enables him.

    Parent

    Calling Ms. Yates "weak" is laughable (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:18:36 PM EST
    She was the prosecutor who put white Christian American terrorist Eric Rudolph away for life.

    Parent
    It's The Apprentice Fer Real (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:47:38 PM EST
    He has also fired the director of immigration and customs

    Parent
    Oh good lord (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    I tweeted to Brian Fallon for her to come back to Atlanta and run for office. We would love to have someone like her run for elected office.

    Parent
    John Dean, who knows a thing or two ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    ... about White House purges, posted this on Twitter just five minutes ago:

    "I've never read White House statement as nasty as Trump's attack on Acting AG Sally Yates. New low."

    LINK.

    Parent

    The firing of the AG (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 05:47:32 AM EST
    was valid and necessary. She refused to follow through on legal Administrative actions.

    However the statement regarding her dismissal, was once again, amateur hour

    Parent

    Are you ever going (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:12:36 AM EST
    to quit being an apologist for Trump and stand up for what is right? Feh, I know the answer to that already. You've shown it to us time and again that you'll embrace the Neo Nazis before you'll actually stand up for people in this country.

    Parent
    "legal administrative actions"? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by mm on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:24:24 AM EST
    Or maybe she did what she swore an oath to do.

    From Yates' confirmation hearing:

    Sessions:  I guess my first question to follow up on is do you understand that in the political world, there will be people calling, demanding pushing, insisting on things that they do not know? What they're asking for could indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the respect of the Department of Justice has, could diminish the rule of law in the Unitied States? Are you aware of that?

    Yates: You're right. ... I care deeply about our mission and I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity that is the Department of Justice.  . . .

    Sessions:  Well, you have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things, you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? . . . But if the view as President wants to execute are unlawful, should the the Attorney General, Or Deputy Attorney General say no?

    Yates: Senator, I believe that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.

    Uphold the Constitution.

    Parent

    The law will pass (none / 0) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:48:48 AM EST
    Constitutional muster. It is legal.
    Yates duty was to represent the current Administration. If she didn't agree with the policy, then she could have resigned.

    O

    Parent

    There are questions (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:24:51 AM EST
    as to whether it is legal or not. That will be decided by the courts not Trump apologists.

    Either way it's a freaking PR disaster for your guy and a PR boon for ISIS.

    Parent

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#78)
    by mm on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:54:47 AM EST
    I suppose if President Obama had fired FBI Director Comey for turning a simple security referral into a year long witch hunt for the crime of the century you would have been fine with that.

    Parent
    You say that with such authority (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:17:37 PM EST
    The law will pass Constitutional muster. It is legal.

    As though it's a fact, rather than an uninformed, lay opinion.  Do you really think that makes it more convincing to those who know better?

    Parent

    Basing it on (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    All the articles and tv appearances I have read and seen.
    Not one said it was unconstitutional, and many said they disagreed with the law, but they all said it was legal

    Parent
    Is THAT supposed to ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    ... sound more convincing?

    It doesn't.

    BTW - The five federal judges who granted injunctions would not do so unless they believed those challenging the order had a probability of success on the merits.  I'll take them over whatever unidentified people you happen to remember watching and your subsequent declaration of alternative "fact".

    Parent

    Perhaps you ought to instead look to ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 01:29:39 AM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Basing it on All the articles and tv appearances I have read and seen."

    ... the four federal judges who examined Trump's executive order this weekend, found it wanting, and enjoined it from taking effect in all or in part. Because it's those four women, and not the TV pundits or newspaper columnists, whose opinions actually count for real here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Justice Department (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:50:31 AM EST
    Signed off on it

    The Justice Department Office of Legal Compliance had signed off on the measure.

    Parent

    There is no such office, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    RevorBolder: "The Justice Department signed off on it[.] The Justice Department Office of Legal Compliance had signed off on the measure."

    The U.S. Dept. of Justice has an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Although Trump's spokespersons insisted to Fox News and the New York Times on Sunday that the DOJ had cleared the executive order prior to release, according to CNN, neither the OLC nor any department heads were ever consulted on its final text.

    As of this writing, no confirmation of the White House's assertion has been forthcoming from the OLC itself. And given then-Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates' own reaction to the order, it's safe to say that she probably never signed off on its release, and she was head of DOJ.

    Officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) only saw the executive order's text shortly before it was released, and did not receive the list of the countries included in the order until 3:00 a.m. EST on Saturday morning.

    Further, White House policy diector Steve Bannon  and senior adviser Stephen Miller overruled the initial DHS interpretation of the order, and demanded that green card holders be subjected to screening, with their entry into the country to be determined on a case-by-case basis by CBP agents. Also on Saturday, the State Department announced that per the order, foreign dual citizens of the same seven states were also to be excluded from entering or re-entering the United States.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    UPDATE: DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    ... today released a copy of its memo approving Trump's executive order on immigration "with respect to form and legality," as signed by Curtis E. Gannon in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Attorney General.

    That said, I would note that this particular memo is comprised of merely a summary of the executive order itself and requisite signature of a DOJ official. Traditionally, such approvals constitute a narrow review for purposes of style and clarity, and aren't necessarily used to provide comprehensive legal analysis.

    As such, this particular memo doesn't address the legal strengths or weaknesses of Trump's executive action, and doesn't offer any legal speculation as to whether or not such an order could withstand a constitutional challenge in court. Thus, OLC's approval in this instance is pro forma and perfunctory.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    looks legitimate to me. (none / 0) (#106)
    by linea on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

    i dont know if verbosity is required.

    Parent

    All (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:56:10 AM EST
    the reporting has said otherwise.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:05:34 AM EST
    The reporting is wrong...Once again

    Parent
    Say's (none / 0) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:11:50 AM EST
    who? Mr. Alternate facts Spicer.

    Parent
    Who said (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:19:07 AM EST
    It didn't get reviewed?
    Any one who knows?  Or just anonymous?

    It was just another event where the press ran with their preferred narrative, to once again have it blow up.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:26:39 AM EST
    you are right, maybe the press got it wrong or maybe the administration is lying.

    I have one question though, if it did get a proper review where the heck is the memo. It seems to me it should have surfaced by now.

    You are asking the press the prove the negative, when the proof of the positive could be made in a heartbeat.

    Maybe I am missing something, but I imagine that if such an approving report existed, it would already have released as justification by the administration.

    Parent

    Then it should be easy (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:21:29 AM EST
    To prove Alternative Facts wrong again....

    But I haven't seen that

    If Spicer is lying,I would have thought it would be real easy to prove it,

    And the press is chomping at the bit to do so.

    I haven't seen anything

    Parent

    Why can't (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 08:01:35 AM EST
    the alternative facts group release the memo? It seems easy enough to do. It certainly looks like Spicer is lying through his teeth once again.

    Parent
    That's nice (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:41:40 AM EST
    It's funny how Trump supporters suddenly think the opinion of the DOJ (well, one office of the DOJ) is dispositivery, after wanting to ignore it for years.

    Parent
    No, not at all (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 06:49:26 AM EST
    It just shows that Yates disregarded the opinion of her own office.

    Parent
    It shows nothing of the sort (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC's review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC's view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order's purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

    Link

    An apt analogy would be, you going on about the electrical plans but the architect hasn't indicated the proposed changes to the building are sound.

    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:01:12 AM EST
    Bosses do that all the time.

    Parent
    From Ms. Yates' confirmation hearing (Mar. 2015): (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:20:14 AM EST
    LINK:

    SEN. SESSIONS: "You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say 'no' about. Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, 'Well [Obama] appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?' But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?"

    SALLY YATES: "Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president."

    Sally Yates effectively assured Sen. Sessions that she would do what Sen. Sessions said would be required of her, were she to ever be confronted with what appeared by her to be an unlawful presidential directive. And that's exactly what she did yesterday as Acting Attorney General, by so publicly falling on her sword before the entire nation.

    Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Senate's Majority Caucus Room right now, given that today's previously scheduled floor vote to confirm Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as President* Trump's Attorney General will occur in the immediate wake of Trump's summary dismissal of Ms. Yates last night. Senate Democrats will likely be ready to hoist the AG nominee by his own petard, thanks to the timely re-emergence of that particular video.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    In YOUR opinion, counselor? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    She refused to follow through on legal Administrative actions.

    You have no idea if the order was "legal" or not.  I'll take her opinion and that of the four federal judges who have granted injunctions over yours any day of the week.

    Parent

    I wonder if John Dean (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    Has an unfit Trump situation reassessment.

    Parent
    LOL! Dean subsequently tweeted the following, ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:32:20 AM EST
    ... almost as though it was in direct response to your immediate query:

    "The way the Trump presidency is beginning it is safe to say it will end in calamity. It is almost a certainty. Even Republicans know this!"

    ;-D

    Parent

    Did not sleep great, so much going on (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    And it's all sort of shocking. Not unusual for a malignant narcissist, but I've never had one in this position in my life. Was supposed to take a nap, but no, running about reading everything. Charlie Pierce says Dems not attending the committees for some of the cabinet, no quorums. History is happening. Democrats must all use their spine. Can't say how this ends. I don't feel scared right now, I hope I don't find out that just meant I was blissfully stupid.

    Parent
    Trump already (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:18:37 PM EST
    has a Saturday Night Massacre.

    Just the first week.  The centrifugal force of this Trump crew can only accelerate.    

    Parent

    Not really analogous to Nixon's (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    "massacre," as those were his own appointees -- Republicans Richardson (AG) and Ruckleshaus (Depty AG) -- who resigned rather than do the crooked President's dirty work. Yates is a Democratic holdover. Not the same. Unlike the famous Saturday Night Massacre of 1973, I do not think this will be what leads to the impeachment.

    Parent
    Where are such honorable Republicans (none / 0) (#62)
    by Erehwon on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    now?

    Parent
    They don't (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    exist. This is why the country is completely screwed. We've got a bunch of Trevors running the country who don't care about anybody but themselves. Apparently they think this is all just going to "go away" if they ignore it.  

    Parent
    Yes, where are the honorable (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    Republicans.  Meet the new Republicans, same as the old.   True, Eliot Richardson resigned rather than follow Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox as Watergate Special Prosecutor.

     True, too, that William Ruckelshaus subsequently refused the order to fire Cox, and was, himself, fired by Nixon.

     But, Robert Bork, the Solicitor General, was quite willing to do the deed, and served for a while as acting Attorney General.  This was presidential life or death for Nixon. (not a question of a lawful executive order).

     The Saturday Night Massacre propelled Nixon to his resignation and the end of the "national nightmare," .--up until then.  But, not all Republicans were like Richardson and Ruckelshaus, considered by some party members to have betrayed Nixon (as Trump says about Yates).

     The then chair of the RNC, George HW Bush was always steadfastly is support of Nixon, and was among Nixon's very last defenders.  Until, the smoking gun made the defense inoperative even for Bush.

    Parent

    That's true. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    Until the "smoking gun" tape of June 23, 1972 was pried from President Nixon's clutches in late July 1974 and conclusively proved that he had indeed instigated a criminal conspiracy to cover up White House involvement in the Watergate break-in only six days after the crime occurred, most Republicans stood resolutely by Nixon, poll numbers be damned. That contents of that tape rendered their further support politically untenable.

    Parent
    Well, give me a little poetic license (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    No, not Impeachment, not from this.

    But being fired for not enforcing what one believes to be an illegal directive--same principle.

    I like Sally Yates for AG in next Dem Administration.  She also reportedly told Comey he was violating DOJ policy with his letter.

    She just made a name for herself.

    Parent

    Did you read John Dean's piece? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:09:32 PM EST
    Impeachment doesn't sound easy. Seems like it's a word thrown carelessly about too often. Removing him due to "health" issues sounded almost impossible.

    Parent
    Impeachment and removal from office ... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 02:56:28 AM EST
    ... should always be considered a last resort, as should be the recall from office of a public official at the state or local level. Unfortunately, we have a GOP which has over the last 20 years weaponized such tools for political purposes.

    Those of us old enough to have lived through the political trauma of the Watergate scandal ought to remember firsthand just how painful and difficult it was to dislodge Richard Nixon from the White House. While undoubtedly necessary, it was nevertheless a horrible business which divided and scarred the country. We're still paying a price for it.

    We should never be cavalier or trivial about such matters.

    Parent

    VP and half (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    of Cabinet can remove for health issues.

    How hard is that?

    Well, Sen. Corker is saying tonight that Trump needs to fix travel ban or Congress might have to step in.  Who knows.

    Parent

    John Dean says physical health (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    Very hard, because the President has access to incredible care. Mental health...is he nuts? Seems difficult to manage, it was in Michael Clayton :)

    Parent
    Talk to someone who lived (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    under Rudy in NY and they'll tell you they are not one bit surprised.

    Confirming your "someone" ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Erehwon on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:37:58 PM EST
    I lived in NYC too, and Rudy was as much of a slime-ball as he is now. Actually he continues to scrape ever so closer toward the bottom of the abyss of the current GOP hideousness.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 05:39:59 AM EST
    Rudy just confirmed why he was left off the incoming Administration team.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:11:22 AM EST
    just maybe, Rudy is spilling the beans because he was left off the team. I would say yes.

    Parent
    Or, maybe it is just (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    that secrets burn a hole in Giuliani's pocket. Such as on Oct 26,2016, 13 days before the election, Rudy went on FOX to say "we've got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this around." And, sure enough, two days later, on Oct 28, 2016, Comey announced, once again, an investigation of the Clinton emails.

    Parent
    Possibly (none / 0) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    a little of both,  but his statement foreshadowing the letter was vague enough for plausible deniability. This one is very specific with times, names and motive clearly spelled out.

    Parent
    Since this is a legal blog (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:28:30 AM EST
    Putting aside what I personally, and as far as I can tell what Turley personally, thinks about this ban, he make a persuasive argument that this will ultimately not be stopped in the courts.

    the link is to the Daily Caller

    The video might be elsewhere I jus didn't look very hard.

    Hey (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:55:16 AM EST
    Howdy, welcome back. K. Drum's(layman's) take on it is interesting, agreeing that there is no violation of the "letter" of the law while showing there is overwhelming evidence that the "spirit" of the law has been broken.
    Legally, I doubt that this is enough. I Am Not A Lawyer<sup>TM</sup>, but I gather that courts don't generally take account of arguments that rely on evidence of hidden intent unless there's truly a smoking gun. The text of the executive order carries most of the weight, and the president has extremely broad authority in immigration law. Most likely, the bulk of Trump's order will remain in effect.
    but I sure hope he is correct here,
    In the court of public opinion, however, the evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump's order was, in fact, little more than a thinly disguised attempt to ban Muslims from the Middle East--except for those from a few favored allies. Pretzel-bending arguments aside, it's really pretty obvious what's going on here.


    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:01:39 AM EST
    I saw Turley in a different appearance than the link and that's basically what he said.  That the "letter" would matter in the courts.

    I join you in hoping this is not true.

    I also hope climate deniers will wake up and that I live to be 110 and die during lovemaking.


    Parent

    The courts will be (none / 0) (#13)
    by JanaM on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    interested in the rationale and any evidence to back that up. They will also be interested in why other Muslim countries have been omitted.

    That I am aware of, none of the other exclusionary laws, orders or regs were based on religion.

    This seems almost akin to pretextual arrests. If there is a legal and constitutional basis for the arrest then it doesn't matter if the real reason for the stop is that you suspect the three young black male occupants are driving a stolen car. The action must have a basis that doesn't offend the constitution.


    Parent

    Waivers (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has granted waivers to let 872 refugees into the country this week, despite President Donald Trump's executive order on Friday temporarily banning entry of refugees from any country, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security document seen by Reuters.

    A Homeland Security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the waivers, noting that the refugees were considered "in transit" and had already been cleared for resettlement before the ban took effect.

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:57:57 PM EST
    point being?

    Parent
    Yes, litigation may last (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    for a long time.  The Court orders, essentially, maintained the status quo.  However, they did not rule on whether Trump's executive order was lawful.

    The stay by the judge in Brooklyn gave a hint in that she wrote there was a strong likelihood that the two plaintiffs who were seeking to represent a class of refugees, visa holders and others, could establish that their removal would violate the due process and equal protection Constitutional guarantees.

    Also, the stay included the statement that "irreparable injury" would be caused. The judge's injunction barred removal, but did not order release. Other judicial stays were either broader (Boston) which barred removal and detention, or narrower, (Alexandria) which applied to permanent residents.

    The president does have broad power to control immigration, including suspension of aliens or a class of alien immigrants if detrimental to the US, but that power does not include discrimination on the basis of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.  

    Carving out green card holders strengthens Trump's case; and there is the matter of standing--not favorable for foreigners outside the US, although states/businesses may attempt to claim damage. And, US citizen relatives of foreigners may have standing.  

    An issue of dispute will be claims of motivation. Establishment of religion issues may be pursued since the executive order appears to grant exceptions to minority religions--favoring Christians over Muslims. Although, it is not clear if this applies, also, to Alawites/Shia and Sunni. Trump will need to build a better case than he has done in the rush to portray his anti-immigration creds.

    In any event, it is likely to fall on the Courts to sort all of this out.  Clearly, the Trumpkins, Cabinet officers, and, in large measure, Republican officer holders are either missing in action, or busy nodding in agreement--whatever the law may be.

     Trump's announcement of a Supreme Court nominee earlier than previously indicated, may be geared to deflect attention, but the issue is so important both to American ideals and security, that it is not likely to go away.

    Parent

    Probably depends on (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    The size of the defelection

    Parent
    Anecdotal evidence also suggests that ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    ... Mexican nationals with valid visas are being detained at two airports at least, LAX and Chicago-O'Hare.

    And amid all the Sturm und Drang over this weekend's immigration order, let's please not lose sight of the fact that the Trump administration's National Security Advisor, among several other past and present Trump advisors (Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone), is under active federal investigation over his purported ties to the Russian government.

    Further, per the Moscow Times, Sergei Mikhailov, a senior cybersecurity specialist in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), was arrested on January 25 for allegedly leaking information to the U.S. intelligence community about Vladimir Fomenko and his server rental company "King Servers," which the American cybersecurity company ThreatConnect identified last September as "an information nexus" that was used by hackers suspected of working for Russian state security in cyberattacks.

    Mikhailov and Ruslan Stoyanov, the head of cyber-crime investigations at Russia's Kaspersky Labs who allegedly acted as go-between for Mikhailov and others, have been detained by the FSB and are reportedly likely to face charges of treason in a Moscow courtroom.

    If these bombshell allegations are true, it would mean that the CIA likely had an asset in place within the senior echelons of Russia's national defense infrastructure, whose identity was compromised sometime after Trump's election on November 8.

    Stay tuned also to these stories, as well the burgeoning story on the chaos caused by Trump's detention order. I've a sneaking suspicion that the order was issued in part to distract the public's attention from these other developments.

    Aloha.

    it is astounding to me (none / 0) (#14)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    that everyone is in a flap about the the Exec order to the point of ignoring what Trump did with the NSC.  A slap in the face to the Joint Chiefs, and, perhaps illegal. I have read elsewhere that the position to which Bannon was appointed  requires someone at the Secretary or Undersecretary or advice and consent of the Senate.  So why aren't the Dems up in arms about this?  

    Parent
    The Democrats are in fact up in arms. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:38:03 PM EST
    It's the media that's whiffing here, because the executive order is the shiny object in the room. But Trump's attempted tilt of the NSC protocols by marginalizing the respective roles of the Director of National Intelligence and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while adding White House Policy Advisor Steve Bannon, is drawing considerable public attention, as well it should.

    I mean, let's stop and consider this moment. Bannon, a mean-spirited jackwagon who first rose to public prominence by trafficking in baseless right-wing rumor and innuendo, is now on the NSC because his good friend Trump put him there.

    Bannon's qualifications for the post are nil. What he brings to the table is animus, bigotry, misinformation and perhaps a person desire to facilitate the coming of Armageddon. I fear we are rapidly approaching a critical moment in our nation's journey where a potential political cataclysm is a very real possibility. How we confront and handle it will dictate our country's course, likely for the remainder of our lifetimes.

    And that should alarm anyone with a brain and common sense.

    Parent

    But but but (none / 0) (#24)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    He was a Naval officer! (So was Ensign Parker.)

    Parent
    What a coincidence. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:45:08 PM EST
    So was Capt. Philip Francis Queeg. LOL!

    Parent
    Oh, it's being (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    reported on too not lost in the shuffle about the Muslim ban. The thing with Bannon is more of a call your reps type thing though. I can call mine again but I'm pretty much represented by people who are are more afraid of Neo Nazis than the other 2/3 of the country.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    people have been speaking out and CNN to their credit have been reporting it.

    Unfortunately there is only so much outrage that can be spread around and in any case the public probably does not give a flying fig about the NSC, however they can relate to people stuck in Kafkaesque airport hell.

    That being said, Bannon scares the hell out me and his power is growing stronger.

    Parent

    As was Axelrod (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:37:46 PM EST


    Parent
    That comparison is both noxious and dumb. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    Steve Bannon has long trafficked in racism, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and white nationalism, and is an unbridled far-right crackpot. While David Axelrod is not one of my favorite people, he's certainly done none of those things.

    Parent
    Axelrod sat in (1.00 / 3) (#20)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    the meetings all the time.
    No different than Bannon being there,
    Well, except for the transparency, this Administration is letting everyone know Bannon will be sitting in.
    Axelrod just sort of showed up, with no notification to the press

    Parent
    That is a falsehood (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    For a so-called non Trump supporter you sure have all the talking points down.

    I did not speak or participate. I sat on the sidelines as a silent observer with Gibbs because we would be called upon to publicly discuss the president's decision on that critical matter and the process by which he arrived at it.


    Parent
    Heh. Axelrod is an "alternative fact." (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:09:25 PM EST
    ;-D

    Parent
    Axlerod (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:15:09 PM EST
    was not a principal, plenty of aides and other functionaries sit in with little fanfare. Axlerod did not displace the DNI or the CJCS.

    Parent
    Military.Com (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/h8n9u6q

    Much ado about nothing

    Parent

    Ah yes the backtrack (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    you keep telling us that

    much ado about nothing

    sorry, we don't believe you. You keep calm and carry on though.

    Parent

    Oh, the White House (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    who lies about every little thing even unimportant things like crowd sizes denies it. You're such a Trump apologist. Is Putin paying you?

    Parent
    I would add (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    it's not surprising military would make statements indicating they don't expect to be sidelined out of a key role they play. Further, active military would not publicly second guess their commander in chief, which is why you heard from a former secretary and other security chiefs.

    Don't downplay things you would've been all up in arms about previously Mr. Email.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#30)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 07:57:09 PM EST
    Actually, everyone goes running around like chicken little, and then everything settles down when all the facts are known

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    it's fkng insane right from the get go. Why should Bannon, a purely political operator with zero relevant experience sit on the council? There is absolutely no logical reason to do so.

    What facts are yet to be known? The whole premise of this move is ignorant and dangerous at best, terrifyingly nefarious at worst.

    We know the facts Trevor, it is you running around trying to defend the insane actions of the man you don't support.

    Parent

    This is seriously FUNNY (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    the meetings all the time.
    No different than Bannon being there.

    Yeap - "no different" at all.  Well, except for the fact that all Axelrod did was observe the meetings to gain an understanding of the issues.  He didn't speak and was not a participant,  Oh, ... and the fact that he never even attended an NSC Principal's Committee meeting, let alone be named a member of the committee.

    But other than that, ... yeah.  "No different".

    Heh.

    FACT CHECK: Spin Aside, Trump's National Security Council Has A Very Big Change

    Parent

    This is just stupid Trevor (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    The difference between being a principal and sitting in are night and day. My spouse attends meetings where he is not a principal. You know what that means? Sit down, shut up. You are only there to be informed. You do not speak unless spoken to and asked to speak. My JCs aren't principals? They can sit there and shut up! Holy Phuck!!#! $@$!#! $

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 03:15:04 AM EST
    As senior legislative policy analyst for the Speaker of the State House, I sat in on numerous meetings with the governor and his / her staff, as well as House majority caucuses. My role was the same as your husband's, to listen and observe. I did not speak unless I was asked a question directly by one of the principals, or if my boss asked me to further explain a certain bill in more specific detail.

    We would have discussions afterward with my boss, obviously, where he allowed us to freely share our opinions about what we saw and heard. But as staff, we knew that we were not part of the decision making process. We had to respect our place accordingly, and further remember that whatever was said by the principals behind closed doors was expected to stay there.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I'm reading many of my friends (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    Afraid now of the military being used against them. This "break" serves to "break" the military away from the President. I'm glad, count me glad. The mil will all focus on Mattis and to a lesser degree Kelley. He can always fire  Mattis and Kelley, but he loses the soul of the troops.

    I hope he doesn't ever go there, but he's Donald Trump. He will probably go there at some point. Posse Commitatis has loopholes my spouse has long pointed out.

    Parent

    Saturday night massacre (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:35:24 PM EST
    already occurred. Acting Attorney general has been fired because she said she was going to obey the law.

    I just heard too (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    Many months ago we were all discussing gin. I was talking about how yummy Hendrick's is. Very expensive though. A couple of people talked about Boodles.

    I have searched high and low for Boodles. We even looked for it when we were in Europe for Christmas. Two days ago I found Boodles. I brought it home. It's very nice, but my husband raved about it. Boodles Boodles Boodles, he says Boodles is his. Fine, it's all yours. I just went to make him drink. Half the Boodles is gone, it's only the 3rd day that Boodles has lived here.

    We might drink ourselves to death surviving this.

    Parent

    When I visited (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    my friend in NC after the election she has a mixed drink every night while fixing supper. I think this might be a new habit I need to start. Seriously. We're all going to have the Bannon alcoholic nose before all of this is over with.

    Parent
    Just tell me they can fix it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    If all my capillaries break, they can laser it or something can't they? After this is all over?

    It's going to be an inferno. Bannon already wants to burn everything down. With Trump...he'll burn it down. If Trump tries to break with him? What then? What will he burn down then?

    Parent

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    Bannon seems to have plenty of money and yet he always looks like something the cat drug in.

    Parent
    He looks like hell (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    The grim reaper scratches on his door

    What is it There is a certain burn it down, unhealthy, defiler of norm, disheveled snake in every starter White House: Turd Blossom Rove, Larry Summers, Steve Bannon.

    Parent

    He looks like the guy in the bar ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    ... at closing time who'd turn down my offer to call him a cab, and to whom I'd eventually have to say, "C'mon, pal -- you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

    Parent
    Yesssss! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:55:38 AM EST


    Parent
    And Trump just fired the (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    Acting Attorney General

    How many days (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    in and we already have the Saturday night massacre? Good God.

    Parent
    It's contempt for basic democracy, it's war (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    Democrats go to the mattresses tonight. Bernie Sanders...that SOB, he will probably still want to work with Trump and his wife will tweet about our inappropriate behavior.

    You know I wasn't a Bernie hater. That is over for me now.

    Parent

    Please re-focus your ire where it needs to be, ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    ... which is upon the Yosemite Sam clone in the White House, and not Bernie and Jane Sanders. The last thing we need right now are circular firing squads.

    Parent
    Bernie needs to put a cork in it then (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    Donald. Go to the mattresses. He's supposed to be "Our Mad Dog". He ran on it. His supporters organized anti-Clinton protest votes on it. I want my Mad Dog! Believe me, I paid dearly for him.

    Parent
    oh please (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:03:46 PM EST
    if the chinese invaded nepal you would blame bernie.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:10:22 PM EST


    Parent
    senator bernie sanders of vermont (none / 0) (#59)
    by linea on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    https://www.sanders.senate.gov

    Sanders Condemns Trump's Order Barring Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries

    Demagogues survive politically by fostering hatred, especially against minorities. They try to divide people up by their religion, country of origin or the color of their skin. By temporarily barring all immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries and giving preference to Christian refugees, Trump is doubling down on the hateful rhetoric he used during his campaign. Further, he is breaking with the historic tradition of the U.S. and turning his back on those men, women and children fleeing violence, oppression, and starvation. Trump's latest executive action will not make us safer. In fact, his anti-Muslim actions play right into the hands of those anti-American fanatics who wish to do us harm. Love and compassion trumps hatred and intolerance.




    Parent
    Get out there Bernie! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    Really get out there. No statement like this then stroking Trump tomorrow.

    Parent
    Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment