Approval was issued after order was issued. CYA, nothing more.
I donāt think thereās anything known to man big enough to cover trumps fat ass.
one more timeā¦
The BuzzFeed article contains a rather significant caveat.
[A] DOJ spokesman said: āThe Office of Legal Counselās form-and-legality paperwork includes a short description of some of the provisions of the proposed executive order and memorializes the conclusion that the proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality. As is generally the case under the Officeās longstanding practice, however, it does not identify or contain substantive analysis of issues that were evaluated in the course of the review.ā
Yates, being an experienced Justice Department lawyer, believed the order could not withstand a legal challenge, a conclusion that has been supported by several federal courts.
And what do we actually know about Curtis Gannon, an acting assistant attorney general in charge of the OLC?
A transplant from Breibart? President Bannonsās nephew?
Yup. But thereās not enough evidence to investigate, much less prosecute. Or to shut it down.
I wonder whoās the new John Yoo?
N thatās how ācloud coverā is created.
Though i have a clue as to why, why would they even say yes to something like that?
That worked for W on a number of issues, but only temporarily. They tried to say that torture is legal too.
Just because some part of the DOJ signs off on something that doesnāt make it legal and if it is legal that doesnāt make it popular.
Dear TPM: Please, please, PLEASE follow-up on this story. This two-page letter is not a legal opinion memo. There is no legal analysis at all. None. The letter just re-states what the order says and then says the order is approved as to form and legality. You can find other OLC opinion memos online, and they look nothing like this letter. Think about it. This executive order raises constitutional questions and had significant implications for immigration statutes. So the office of the OLC produces a two-page letter (really only one page of text) that provides no analysis of any legal issues involved? As a former journalist and current lawyer, Iām asking you to follow up. BTW, if I had to guess the purpose of this letter, it will be used to bash Sally Yates. We have seen time and again (well documented on TPM) that Trump retaliates against those who upset him and he keeps after them. Yates declined to defend the order because it is unlawful, so now Trump and the White House produce this letter to try to tear her apart.
Tell that to the AGs of NY, MA, VA, and WA.
Did OLC review a version that blocked green card holders from the designated nations from returning to the US? I would be surprised to hear that that detail, which was rolled back, is legal.
Considering the assumption by other agencies was that it did not apply to those with green cards, and that Bannon and Miller had to intervene and say that yes, it did, I would guess not. But thatās another problem with this. Aside from a thorough review of the EOās legality, you would need to update it every time the order was (and Iām being extremely charitable here) āreinterpretedā.
[I do admit I was wrong in an earlier thread. I had assumed the OLC had not even seen the final draft of the EO before Trump signed it, but they did manage to fire off this memo. My fault.]
I told the AG of NY that it needed to be shut down. No official response yet.
You bad !
The OLC also told Bush that torture wasnāt torture unless the victim died or suffered major organ failure. The OLC exists to provide legal cover for the administration. They have no statutory or constitutional authority for creating or interpreting the law. The former is the purview of Congress and the latter is the function of the courts.
Yates explained that her review looked at surrounding circumstances including Trump and othersā public statements which made clear that the intent was to discriminate on the basis of religion. In her statement she explained the OLC review looked only at the text. I still think the text clearly discriminates since it talks about exceptions for minority religions. But it is not as explicit as it is when considering Trumpās public statements about a muslim ban.
Nope, heās career DOJ.