Now that Donald Trump has Won


I asked some questions of my Aunt-in-law who was director of the Situation room, here is some of her responses to my questions, that should scare you.

Is this crazy? Can you explain what this means like isn’t this a big deal that his National security meetings are now don’t include the director of intelligence and the chairman of the JC’s but do include Steve Bannon?

to me
Yes. This is a VERY BIG deal, contrary to the assertion made by Priebus on Meet the Press this morning. The CJCS IS the President’s senior military advisor. Not having the ODNI there is also a BIG problem. Without the ODNI, there will be no intel to the President that has been adequately analyzed by the experts at Langley. To me, this is all very bad.

me, Why would someone do this?

to me
It is all about power. Controlling what information gets to the President and when he gets it. Someone doesn’t want CJCS and ODNI to have access to the President.

Trust me on this. Access is everything. Access is power.

Putting Bannon in and taking out the CJCS and ODNI preclude them from giving their version of intel to the President when he is sitting in his chair in the Sitroom. Just being in the Situation Room has power in itself, providing Bannon unfettered access to go into the Sitroom whenever he wants. There is an amazing amount of info to be found/learned in that space.

The mantra we have always used in my world – information is power. The person in the room to advise the President (the boss) is the person who holds the power.

Even though SecDef Mattis and DHS Kelly may be in the Sitroom with The President for NSC meetings, they do not have the information that CJCS and ODNI would have. This move is, as I said, VERY BAD.



jesus christ where do you even start this week.


If you don’t agree with Trump… even if you’re the Attorney General.


It is my understanding that he left Yates as acting attorney general (she is an Obama appointee) because of a need for her to sign off on some national security issues (without her there some things can not happen). When she came out against the president’s executive order stating the Justice Department would not defend it in court well… Political appointee played politics and lost.

It does reveal an interesting weakness and potential way to neuter the Trump administration but it is a very dangerous game to play. If Trump removes all of the Obama political appointees from executive branch agencies and his nominee’s are not confirmed, what happens?


Watch the administration start partying like it’s Saturday Night?

  1. Trump’s Immigration EO doesn’t appear to be explicitly unconstitutional. The first Amendment is about Congress, and there is a provision in the US Code giving the President the power to temporarily deny entry to classes of aliens. So now you have to look at legislative intent and the scope of Presidential powers. There is a 3-part case law test to determine if it is or not, which will have to be applied by a judge or judges. So yes, it is literally for the courts to decide.

  2. When you are the head of an executive agency, you serve at the pleasure of the President. Sometimes that job sucks, so you refuse to do it, and the President removes you. Trump’s gonna keep doing this. If his appointees aren’t confirmed, a lot of people will be suddenly moved to “Acting” Director positions. The only way this will be a serious issue (for him) is if he cranks through enough staff that his hiring freeze creates a lack of people available to step up.


If you read her argument as to why she wouldn’t defend the EO in court, it was due to public statements that Trump and others made that this would include a religious test and was a Muslim ban in everything but name. So those statements made by the people who drafted the rule would be used in court against the EO. So she thought there would be difficulty defending them. (from the reporting I’ve read).


I saw that too. Wouldn’t that count as hearsay?


Is it hearsay when the President says it in Public and is recorded?


I remember something along the lines of hearsay coming up in some of the recent ACA cases before SCOTUS. My memory is a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall SCOTUS choosing to interpret the law rather than base their decision on what Senators and Representatives said about the law at the time it was being crafted.


Using legislative history to determine a statute’s or law’s meaning has positives and negatives, like all methods of interpretation.

Benefits of legislative history: The people who write the law are themselves telling you what they wanted to do and we should defer to their goals. What better way to interpret the law than to go back and read what the legislators themselves were saying about it. You can interpret a law based on what was going on historically at that time.

Problems with Legislative history: Actual legislative intent is pretty much unknowable because just because a politician says something, that doesn’t mean that he or she actually believes that or means what he or she is saying. Voting for something may not indicate actual support. Statements may be strategic and may not represent the actual beliefs of the speaker, but may be designed to coax others to vote the way the speaker wants. Additionally, not all legislators speak about their intent behind a law and a statement by one legislator doesn’t represent the views of others. Speculation as to the intent of the legislator can be unreliable since voting itself can be strategic. “I don’t really care about this issue, but I’ll vote for your law if you vote for mine.”


Doesn’t the INA of 1965 override much of that provision in the US code, however?


FYI, you don’t need to limit your backup country choices to Italy. Since Italy is part of the EU, you could go just about anywhere you want in the EU. That’s how my sister was able to move to Ireland.


#Brexit sucks ass!


@hmtksteve If they stay and do as asked without opposing him, then they are no different then whomever he would appoint to replace them. Standing up to power when it is being abused is necessary. It isn’t like she will be imprisoned (though Trump’s statement denouncing her read like a dictator denouncing rebel opposition, not a US President, so who knows if he will try to have someone accused of treason for interfering in his plans).


I’ve always been enamored with the scenery and climate of the Nordic countries. I wonder how far Italian citizenship goes in Norway or Sweden. I’ve got some reading to do. Given the past 11 days, sooner would be better than later.


Yeah, Yates basically did a slightly more flashy resignation in protest, an old American tradition that hasn’t gotten much use in the last century.


It appears that Donald Trump’s travel ban has claimed the life of a green card holding woman who lived in the U.S. since 1995.


@Kate_Monster she was in a political position holding a seat for a few more days. Only kept on to sign national security letters. She risked nothing and based her arguments not on the law but on hearsay. If someone he nominates does this in the future then THAT will be a huge deal. Political appointee hold over from previous administration? Not so much.

@chaosof99 do you have a link that doesn’t take me to a default landing page? Do I need to turn off my ad blocker for that website to work?