Douglas Caddy Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Sally Yates Has Been Nominated For JFK Profile In Courage Award The award celebrates officials who choose the public interest over partisanship, “who do what is right, rather than what is expedient.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sally-yates-has-been-nominated-for-jfk-profile-in-courage-award_us_5890ed77e4b0c90eff00a249 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Here is a thread that combines current political events with the legacy of JFK, thus refuting any allegation that what happened to JFK is old news and everyone should get just over it. Or has been remarked elsewhere: Hey parents who voted for trump: what parts of his character do you hope your kids will emulate? Edited February 1, 2017 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said: Sally Yates Has Been Nominated For JFK Profile In Courage Award The award celebrates officials who choose the public interest over partisanship, “who do what is right, rather than what is expedient.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sally-yates-has-been-nominated-for-jfk-profile-in-courage-award_us_5890ed77e4b0c90eff00a249 Baloney. This Trump stuff is becoming too much. This is a JFK assassination forum. And a "JFK Profile in Courage Award" for defying your boss has nothing to do with 11/22/63. Yates' own DOJ ruled that the executive order was legal. If she nevertheless didn't want to defend it on moral grounds or whatever, then she should have resigned, explaining exactly why, instead of not doing her job. It seems to me that she would have sent a stronger message by resigning and explaining why, instead of sending the message that it's okay to just not do your job (and to tell your subordinates not to do theirs either) if you don't like your boss or what he is doing. I had to get that off my chest. Now carry on about Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Ron I tend to agree with you in wondering what all this is doing on a JFK research forum but since you mentioned it and the threadis here, could you give me a citation on the DOJ reviewing and approving the immigration order? The AG is officially charged with providing advice on all Presidential directives and orders and that has been going on for decades - with Presidents sometimes proceeding against AG advice. The AG is also supposed to be available for consultation by Congress on the same matter since Justice does not simply serve Presidents - at one time Congress was actually thought have a role in national/strategic policies - a quaint notion perhaps. Anyway, if you could give me a citation it would be appreciated, from what I've seen the issues with the order were more due to its lack of vetting with agencies that could have helped shape it for implementation and hence avoided some of the trauma (which affected a great number of people other than those at airports that day including individuals working with our military) and I seem to have missed the DOJ review of it...thanks, Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Larry, here's a link. The order was ruled legal by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-doj-trump-executive-orders_us_588f8bfae4b0522c7d3c1006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Ron, I did see that - but here is the problem as far as I can tell - the Office of Legal Counsel approved the language and wording of the executive order but did not look at the impact or legal complications – nor consider defense of the order in the face of legal challenge (which was virtually certain). However the Department of Justice leadership including the Attorney General were not consulted nor asked for opinions on those points – and they were the people who would have to go to court to defend it. We have the same problem in Oklahoma, passing legislation the State AG evaluates as indefensible when challenged in court but being ignored and then spending lots of State money in legal defense because the legislators involved were only interested in political image. Approving the wording and approving the intent and legal defensibly are two different things (to my simply non-lawyer understanding). It looks to me like we are often caught in this sort of Catch 22. I can find numerous cases including some under GWB following 9/11 where the President has issued orders that were correctly worded but legally questionable. Standard practice was to ask the AG and Justice staff if the order would stand challenge. In some cases the order went out after AG objection, in other cases it did not. Presidents do what they want for their own reasons. But in a number of cases the orders do not stand the legal challenges after the fact - as most of GWB's did not. I think my point in raising the issue was not that an AG who offers objections would get let go but that it would be good practice to consult with them. Currently one of my biggest concerns is that Trump and his closest staff don't appear to want any real give and take so they are doing the most minimal consulting possible - as with taking the DNI out of the NSC - which is indeed stone cold stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said: they are doing the most minimal consulting possible - as with taking the DNI out of the NSC - which is indeed stone cold stupid... I know they are taking the JCS out of the NSC (but the Sec of Defense will be there), but I hadn't heard that the DNI was out too. I agree that it's stupid, though Trump has made it pretty clear that he doesn't put much trust in the intelligence community, maybe that's why he's doing it. The DNI who just left should have been tried for perjury, but like Chuck Schumer says you don't mess with the intelligence community. But you should logically listen to that community, as on the NSC, whether you believe what it says or not. Why you should "logically" listen instead to Bannon on the NSC is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was doing her constitutional duty when she declared that Trump's immigration ban was unconstitutional and that she could not lawfully defend it. The Attorney General does not represent the President. The president has his own counsel. Here is Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions grilling Yates on her duty to oppose unlawful orders of the president [Obama] when the issue arose in 2015 during her testimony on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary committee. (It should be noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee today voted to send Sessions' nomination to be the Attorney General to the full Senate where it will be vigorously opposed.) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-deputy-attorney-general-hearing/index.html Larry Hancock is correct. The Office of Legal Counsel only examines an Executive Order as to language and wording. The Attorney General makes the final decision. Acting Attorney General Yates had concluded the Executive Order was unlawful on its face for several reasons and that she had a legal obligation to so declare. This is evident in the question asked of her by Senator Sessions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yales also recognized that when the inevitable court hearing takes place on the issue of the constitutionality of Trump's immigration order it will also be shown to be unlawful because Trump characterized it as intended for Christians as a specific class. Rudy Giuliani stated in a CNN interview that he worked with others to cover up its real intent, which is to discriminate against those of the Moslem faith. As William A. Galston writes in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal titled, "Nothing Redeems Trump's Travel Ban": "The president's executive order may also violate the Establishment Clause. The White House insists that the order does not create a religious test for immigration but there are two indications to the contrary. Over the weekend Rudy Giuliani told Fox News that after Mr. Trump announced a 'muslim ban' during the campaign, the candidate came to him and said 'put a commission together to show me the right way to do it legally.' Unsurprising Mr. Giuliani produced a Muslim ban in drag. Moreover, the language of the executive order makes it clear that after the temporary suspension ends, non-Muslims will receive preferential treatment.....Setting aside constitutional issues, the executive order is of dubious legality." It is my opinion that the courts will strike down Trump immigration executive order as being unlawful and likely strike down most if not all of his other executive orders for the same reason. Sally Yates has been nominated for the JFK Profile in Courage Award and justly deserves it. It is appropriate that this forum recognize when someone has been nominated for this award and the person that ultimately receives the award. Edited February 1, 2017 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I don't see how the order is unconstitutional. As I see it, the purpose of the order is to prevent any terrorists from coming here from seven countries where terrorism is a problem. Those countries are predominately Muslim, and the terrorist threat we are dealing with is radical Islamic terrorism. If a terrorist does come here from one of those countries, it is 99.999999999 percent certain that he or she will be a Muslim. So it's unconstitutional to discriminate against terrorists because they're Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) It is a legal issue for the courts to decide just as the issue of the release of Nixon's Oval Office tapes was decided by court action. I would like to propose that the Moderators create a new specific topic in Controversial Issues of History devoted solely to "The Trump Presidency." For example, there is one already devoted there to The Death of Marilyn Monroe. So it would also be appropriate to create one of "The Trump's Presidency" because we live in momentous times, not only for our country but the world. The spectre of nuclear World War III is becoming more visible publicly. Doing this would mean no further Trump news would be posted in the JFK Assassination Debate Topic, no matter how directly or indirectly the Trump news item might be related. Edited February 1, 2017 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Douglas, I second that motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Thanks, Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I don't get this post. I posted what I thought was a genuine research thread last weekend. I wanted to hear what people thought and granted it's pure speculation but it got minimal replies and coverage and is long gone from the first page of EF. Yet, a "legacy" post about Profiles in Courage and Sally Yates comes up and it's still going with people arguing about things and then veering way off topic of an off topic thread. I come here to debate the assassination and I'm just seeing more and more of this stuff. Doug, can we try to stick to the assassination please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Michael: If you had bothered to read my posting above, I asked the moderators to move the Trump posts out of this forum into another. Why did you not read my posting about sounding off? Developments in the Trump presidency can be now found in the EF link below. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/forum/258-political-discussions/ Almost all of my EF posts will now be in the political discussions forum. The assassination of JFK was a turning point in history but it took place 55 years ago. What is happening to our country today can be traced back to the assassination because the country afterwards was never the same. Something Big Exceptional about America was lost forever. So my interest now is more in present time developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now