"Don't Give up the Ship"

[wing2000]

Why would anyone expect the president to be as smart as the White House lawyers in crafting Executive Branch documentation?

....re Venezuela:

Many of the lawyers and other career officials at the White House National Security Council, Pentagon and Justice Department who had over the preceding months raised concerns about using lethal force against narcotraffickers had either left government or were reassigned or removed.

Proposed findings are typically reviewed by lawyers at the CIA and other agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Justice, State and Defense departments. Then an interagency review is conducted, usually overseen by the NSC’s legal adviser.

But by summer, the NSC’s entire full-time legal staff of about half a dozen was gone. Some left when their details ended and others — including the shop’s top lawyer, former Pentagon general counsel Paul Ney — were let go in a May staff shake-up, three former officials said. Ney had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes, the former officials said.

A senior administration official said that Ney left because “the original NSC legal versus White House Counsel’s Office structure never worked,” and praised the moves as achieving efficiency that gives the president “more visibility into his foreign policy agenda.”
......

The NSC legal adviser vacancy in particular is significant, said Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “The absence of a seasoned national security lawyer serving in that role means that the principals in the White House are not getting the best national security legal advice that they can.”
Meanwhile, career civilian lawyers at the Defense Department had largely been cut out of cartel strike discussions by the political leadership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/22/drug-boats-strikes-cia-legal-concerns/

IOW, the legal framework that normally reviews a President's propsective orders.....no longer exist.

 

[RDKirk]

....re Venezuela:

Many of the lawyers and other career officials at the White House National Security Council, Pentagon and Justice Department who had over the preceding months raised concerns about using lethal force against narcotraffickers had either left government or were reassigned or removed.

Proposed findings are typically reviewed by lawyers at the CIA and other agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Justice, State and Defense departments. Then an interagency review is conducted, usually overseen by the NSC’s legal adviser.

But by summer, the NSC’s entire full-time legal staff of about half a dozen was gone. Some left when their details ended and others — including the shop’s top lawyer, former Pentagon general counsel Paul Ney — were let go in a May staff shake-up, three former officials said. Ney had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes, the former officials said.

A senior administration official said that Ney left because “the original NSC legal versus White House Counsel’s Office structure never worked,” and praised the moves as achieving efficiency that gives the president “more visibility into his foreign policy agenda.”
......

The NSC legal adviser vacancy in particular is significant, said Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “The absence of a seasoned national security lawyer serving in that role means that the principals in the White House are not getting the best national security legal advice that they can.”
Meanwhile, career civilian lawyers at the Defense Department had largely been cut out of cartel strike discussions by the political leadership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/22/drug-boats-strikes-cia-legal-concerns/

IOW, the legal framework that normally reviews a President's propsective orders.....no longer exist.

He's still got his Saul Goodmans to write legalese better than he can, which is my point. Of course he has lawyers to put his intentions into the proper legal language...he's not doing it himself, and who seriously expects him to do it himself.

 

[wing2000]

He's still got his Saul Goodmans to write legalese better than he can.

That's a very low bar....

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You mean the media frequently criticizes THIS administration. We saw little of that with Obama and Biden.

This is not a competition; this is democracy. If the media refrained from publishing negative coverage about Obama, it does not mean they cannot report critically on President Trump. In a democracy, it is important to support the media's right to report as they see fit. Publishing unfavorable information about an administration is not undemocratic; rather, it is the act of attacking the media for such reporting that undermines democratic principles. Anyone who cares about democracy should support the media, even if they disagree with its coverage.

 

[RDKirk]

That's a very low bar....

My point is: We can't expect the military to save us from 20 years of bad voting choices. No element of the Executive Branch can stop Trump without destroying itself. Only the other branches of government have the Constitutional authority to check another.

 

[NxNW]

They were trying to say Trump has given illegal orders.
Its psy ops.

Never happened.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

That's a very low bar....

You got that right, six prime time Emmy nominations and no wins.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From Saturday night ALL CAPS SESSION.