President Trump Official Shitpost Thread

[DCS]

She never stated it was unlawful, did she?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ally-Yates.pdf

I'd say she didn't stated the EO was unlawful but that, amongst other things, she was unsure of EO's lawfulness.

[Pship Destroyer]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ally-Yates.pdf

I'd say she didn't stated the EO was unlawful but that, amongst other things, she was unsure of EO's lawfullness.

Exactly, which is her job. Attorney Generals have told their Presidents "nope, we can't do that" before. USUALLY, when asked BEFORE the order. Remember, she's a lawyer...Trump isn't, and Trump didn't consult with the White House lawyers or the AG prior to the order, right? Great executive so far, leaves the lawyers out of the room. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.

So, he shouldn't have been surprised when the nation's top lawyer said "yeah, I don't think this is legal, so don't defend this"...that was basically code for "can't prosecute this case...get your own attorney, I'm outta here".

And she was. Clean as a whistle too, which is important because there are people calling for her to go to jail for treason now.

Sure...right after you can find the part of the USC code she violated. Nope...don't see any "do everything the President tells you" requirement. She is COUNSEL. He didn't like her counsel so he terminated her. People fire their lawyers all the time, it's not a big deal, especially for a lawyer only 10 days on the job.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...-II/chapter-31

[DCS]

Interesting philosophical question there. Can somebody be biased by facts? I'm going to side with no. Facts are facts.

Can anyone have all relevant facts?

[Omega Supreme]

Can anyone have all relevant facts?

*shrugs

[It is Fake]

So Obama removed the judicial branch link from the white house website??

LOL. The website is a giant template. You get that right? Each president has designers and programmers who set it up. Obama created an ENTIRELY new way to use Twitter, Facebook and the website during his Two Terms. When he left he took most, if not all, his information to an archive website. The White House announced they were going to do this 3-4 days before it happened. As usual, people were to busy blaming Russian Hackers and rioting to notice. The day it did occur, which was HILARIOUSLY well timed IMO, the angry people started screaming "OMG LBGT CIVIL RIGHTS blah blah blah blah blah was wiped by Trump, look at the Bigot." Then, of course, me first media ran with the story and all the crybabies were up in arms.

[Bneterasedmynam]

You're a fucking halfwit. Checks and balances were never meant to preclude people in power from having opinions that count, dumbass. The purpose is to limit power, not eliminate it.

You wanted to use content on a fucking website as evidence that our checks and balances have eroded. You attempted to make this leap of logic because you are unfortunately, dumb as a bag of hammers.

Except that I didn't make or even attempt to make that conclusion. In fact I didn't make either of your assumptions. If I'm a bag of hammers you're a bag of nails.

[Bneterasedmynam]

LOL. The website is a giant template. You get that right? Each president has designers and programmers who set it up. Obama created an ENTIRELY new way to use Twitter, Facebook and the website during his Two Terms. When he left he took most, if not all, his information to an archive website. The White House announced they were going to do this 3-4 days before it happened. As usual, people were to busy blaming Russian Hackers and rioting to notice. The day it did occur, which was HILARIOUSLY well timed IMO, the angry people started screaming "OMG LBGT CIVIL RIGHTS blah blah blah blah blah was wiped by Trump, look at the Bigot." Then, of course, me first media ran with the story and all the crybabies were up in arms.

Ok again though do you have a link that specifically shows that Obama removed the Judicial branch from the white house website?? I'm not arguing about, but with all the misinformation I would like at least some proof of concept.

[BackFistMonkey]

Except that I didn't make or even attempt to make that conclusion. In fact I didn't make either of your assumptions. If I'm a bag of hammers you're a bag of nails.

I wanna be a bag of dicks so people will eat me.

(this is a strange game)

[Devil]

Except that I didn't make or even attempt to make that conclusion. In fact I didn't make either of your assumptions. If I'm a bag of hammers you're a bag of nails.

Bitch, yes you did.

[Devil]

Ok again though do you have a link that specifically shows that Obama removed the Judicial branch from the white house website?? I'm not arguing about, but with all the misinformation I would like at least some proof of concept.

The misinformation originates at your grubby little Dorito stained fingertips.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Bitch, yes you did.

Cunt, no I didn't.

[Bneterasedmynam]

The misinformation originates at your grubby little Dorito stained fingertips.

But still no link of proof, sigh......













My fingers are sometimes grubby, but little?? Nah that's for your Dorito stained politician.

[Michael Tzadok]

That's Percisely Correct in theory and they don't have to break the law. I mean, Obama was giving those orders directly you can bet your bottom dollar and all the USA needs to legal perform legal military action is the president to say so but the principal stands.

"The mayor told me to and I am a fireman. I was just doing my job."

Huge difference. Just following orders when it involves direct action against an individual or groups of people that will or may lead to immediate bodily harm is not a defense and one has a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

However Ms Yates was not asked to take direct action against individuals. She and her department was asked to put the government's(in this case the Trump administrations) case before the court, to present the best possible defense for said case, and then to allow the court to decide whether Trump's order was indeed lawful. Her failure to do so, in fact strengthens Trump's case for appeal in the Federal Court system.

I would have far less of an issue with a customs agent/DHS/Immigration official refusing to turn away refugees because they believe that said order is unlawful as it may be a violation of human rights. That would be a valid objection to a possibly immoral order. However, we do not want to leave every minor official in every port of entry to have to make said moral choice. That is where the US Federal Court system comes in. The aggrieved individuals or others acting on their behalf(such as the ACLU) may petition the courts regarding such things. For this system to then properly work the US Attorney General and her staff are then responsible to present the best possible case for the Government.

Ms. Yates failure was not simply a failure of the duties and responsibilities of her office, she failed the American people. In my opinion by strengthening Trump's cause for appeal she also failed the refugees.

[Raycetpfl]

Can anyone have all relevant facts?

Is relevance an opinion or a fact?

[DCS]

An opinion.