Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: The ethical thing to do is to resign in protest. That's make a statement.
As for FISA warrants... tough gak. Wait till Sessions is confirmed.
You mean like James Comey, acting as AG when Ashcroft was in the hospital, refused to sign off on the NSA wiretapping? Or Ashcroft himself refusing to sign of on it? Oh wait, they didn't resign over it. They made a stink about its questionable constitutional legality. It's irrelevant anyway, Trump already fired her and found someone with less scruples to fill the role.
All of this will be water under the bridge tomorrow anyway when the live broadcast of The Apprentice: Supreme Court airs tomorrow night.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/31 03:01:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
Weird, you were not that upset when Congress refused to do their jobs in regards to the vacant supreme court seat.
I think she is just setting a precedent for future AGs.
whembly wrote: No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"Befehl ist Befehl."
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
This remains to be seen, given the fact that the order is currently being challenged in court.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: She wrote "I am not convinced" that EO is lawful. She did not conclude it was unlawful, nor did she write about its constitutionality.
Which is a polite way of saying " you Trump, stop doing this ". I don't think there was much genuine doubt about whether the order should happen.
You don't operation contrary to an Executive Order based on whether or not 'you're convinced'.
Sure you do. If the legality (and morality) of your actions is uncertain you refrain from acting until it can be established that you're doing the right thing.
No... It is explicitly the duty of the DOJ to defend lawsuits against the U.S. and its officers. It's. Their. Job. Description.
"I am not convinced" is not an appropriate basis for the acting AG to decide not to defend the law.
This pause of 90 days of those 7 countries are explicitly legal by the executive branch... powah granted by Congressional statutes.
The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason.
Weird, you were not that upset when Congress refused to do their jobs in regards to the vacant supreme court seat.
I think she is just setting a precedent for future AGs.
It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands. The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates—who was Barack Obama’s Deputy Attorney General and has been running DOJ until Jeff Sessions is confirmed—today sent a letter to top Justice Department officials announcing that she will “will not present arguments in defense of” President Trump’s controversial Immigration Executive Order “unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.” In response, President Trump just fired her.
I have not yet examined the EO with sufficient care to determine for myself its legality. The EO was obviously issued in haste, without the usual procedural or substantive review within the Executive branch, and without thinking through its consequences. At a minimum, and entirely independent of its legality, the issuance of the EO was deeply imprudent. I know that many people who find the Trump EO abhorrent are cheering wildly for Yates. Nonetheless, the reasons that Yates gave in her carefully worded letter for not defending the EO in court are extraordinarily weak, in my opinion.
If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.
PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
The Constitution vests the “executive Power” in the President, and states that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These are the main constitutional provisions from which the president’s authority over legal interpretation and legal superintendence of the Executive branch flow.
The Attorney General serves as the “head of the Department of Justice.” The Attorney General’s core responsibilities include supervising DOJ, providing legal advice to the rest of the Executive Branch, and “[r]epresent[ing] the United States in legal matters generally.” When the Attorney General’s office is vacant, as it currently is, “the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office.” For all relevant purposes, Yates is the Attorney General.
The Attorney General (and here that means the Acting Attorney General) has the clear authority to determine which presidential orders the Department will defend in court, and how, although her determinations are subject to presidential reversal. So unless and until Trump orders Yates to defend the EO or fires her for insubordination, this is Yates’ call to make. Yates is right, in other words, that “[a]s the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.” Yates is also right that in deciding whether and how to defend presidential action in court, her role is different from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which (as she correctly says) reviews EOs only for the narrow issue of whether the EO “is lawful on its face and properly drafted.”
So far so good. But the reasons that Yates then gives for deciding not to defend the EO in court are labored and, to me, unconvincing. Most importantly, Yates does not say that she has concluded that the EO is unlawful. Nor does she say that defending the EO in court would be unreasonable. Rather, she says:
[OLC’s] review does not take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Yes, in deciding whether and how to defend an EO in Court, the Attorney General’s responsibilities go beyond OLC’s “form and legality” review. Things get trickier when she says that her responsibilities are broader than the Civil Division's responsibility to “advanc[e] reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order.” Yates definitely gets the final call on whether the arguments in support of the EO are reasonable. But note that she does not here suggest that the arguments in support of the EO are unreasonable.
Instead, Yates gives four reasons for refusing to defend the EO. Here they are, with my quick reactions.
First, Yates says that OLC did not take into account “statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.” I assume Yates is referring here to statements such as the one by Rudy Giuliani, who recently claimed that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and sought “the right way to do it legally. I am sure OLC didn’t take such statements into account, since they would not be relevant to review for form and legality. I can imagine these and similar statements properly informing the Attorney General’s view of the legality of the EO, if she believed that these statements amounted to the EO being motivated by invidious discrimination (though even if she concluded that, the relevance of such discrimination in the context of the immigration issues here is tricky). But Yates does not say she has concluded that, and it is pretty clear from the context of her letter (see below) that she has not ruled out that there are reasonable arguments in support of the EO.
Second, she says that OLC did not “address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.” True, that is not OLC’s job. But nor is it the Attorney General’s—at least not if the President has decided that the policy choice is wise and just. The Attorney General can personally advise the President about an EO’s wisdom and justness. And the Attorney General can decide to resign if she thinks the President is pursuing a policy so unwise and unjust as to be morally indefensible. But an Attorney General does not typically (I cannot think of a counterexample offhand) refuse to defend an Executive Order in court because she disagrees with the policy basis for the EO.
Third, Yates says her “responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.” This is not the standard that the Attorney General and DOJ typically use in deciding whether to defend presidential action in court. (Some have suggested that this is the standard that OLC should use in deciding whether presidential action outside of judicial review is lawful, though that position is contested.) Rather, the longstanding DOJ view is that DOJ will defend a presidential action in court if there are reasonable arguments in its favor, regardless of whether DOJ has concluded that the arguments are persuasive, which is an issue ultimately for courts to decide. DOJ very often—typically—defends presidential action in court if there is a reasonable legal basis for the action, even if it is not supported by the “best view” of the law. Indeed, that happened a lot in the Obama administration, as it does in all administrations.
Fourth, Yates says she is responsible “for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.” This sounds like a restatement of the policy choice point above. The Attorney General has discretion to make some DOJ decisions based on what she thinks is just and right. But in the context of deciding whether to defend a presidential EO, the question for Yates is reasonable legality, not what is just and right. If Yates thought the EO, independent of its legality, had crossed a red line of justice and rightness—whatever those terms mean—she should have counseled the President on that point and resigned if he disagreed.
Yates states at the end of her letter that she is “not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.” This statement summarizes the two major points above. First, she believes the standard for defending the EO is “best view of the law,” not reasonable legality, and she is not convinced the EO is consistent with the best view of the law. But as noted above, the typical standard for the Attorney General to defend an EO of the President is not whether she is convinced of its legality. Rather, the standard is something closer to the idea that she should defend the EO unless she is convinced of its illegality--i.e. she defends if there is a reasonable argument for its legality. Second, Yates believes that defending the EO is inconsistent with her responsibilities to interject a policy analysis analysis about the wisdom and justness of the EO independent of the President. For reasons stated above, I do not believe that either of these arguments are persuasive given her role. Nor are they consistent with what I understand the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General to be.
Yates is obviously in an extraordinarily difficult position as Acting Attorney General for a President whose policy goals she does not share. She is clearly repulsed by the EO, and wants no part in its enforcement. (One of the many elements of poor governance by the Trump administration was to issue the controversial and poorly thought-through EO when Barack Obama’s Deputy Attorney General is serving as Acting Attorney General.) But if Yates feels this way, she should have resigned (though if Yates goes, there may be no statutory officer in DOJ who can approve FISA orders.) Instead, she wrote a letter that appears to depart sharply from the usual criteria that an Attorney General would apply in deciding whether to defend an EO in court. As such, the letter seems like an act of insubordination that invites the President to fire her. Which he did.
whembly wrote: It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
Declaring "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" may technically be legal, but you know perfectly well that it's against the intent of the system.
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands.
Apparently they do, because they just did.
The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
No, the right way is to obstruct an immoral act and also draw attention to it.
Sure... it'd argue it'll lose, as this isn't the first time this law was taken to court.
We will see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 04:04:39
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: It's fething clear that the Senate makes the rules on how to conduct it's Advise and Consent... you may not like it, they're fully within their rights to NOT take up Obama's SCoTUS pick.
Declaring "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" may technically be legal, but you know perfectly well that it's against the intent of the system.
A) "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" is flat-out a lie. They said the next President. B) It's up to Senate to operate their "Advise & Consent" as they see fit. JUST like Harry Reid saw fit to Nuke the filibuster.....
This AG doesn't have that same sort of agency to not enforce laws that the WH demands.
Apparently they do, because they just did.
Actually, they don't when it's a legal order. Hence... she was fired. That's not agency there boyo.
The right way, is to loudly and clear resign over such order.
No, the right way is to obstruct an immoral act and also draw attention to it.
No. The right way is to explain to the WH why it's illegal. Barring that, resign in protest. Otherwise, you lose your job.
Stop with the immoral act outrage...
What's immoral about it? You didn't have a conniption fit when Obama did it in 2011...
Sure... it'd argue it'll lose, as this isn't the first time this law was taken to court.
We will see.
Indeed we will...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/31 04:13:15
Oh BS whembly you know they were un-ironically praying for a R to be elected so they can elect some right wing nutjob who things abortion is equal with murder
d-usa wrote: So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.
Both sides are bad
"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.
If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.
All of those words are factually accurate, but they don't magically make the girl any less dead, nor the reasoning behind them any less repugnant.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
whembly wrote: A) "we will not consider any nomination until a republican is president" is flat-out a lie. They said the next President.
And if you believe that they would have dropped their obstructionism if Clinton had won then I have a bridge to sell you.
B) It's up to Senate to operate their "Advise & Consent" as they see fit.
And, again, whatever the technicality of the law may be it should be pretty obvious that "refuse to accept any nomination, period" is not what was intended.
Actually, the don't when it's a legal order. Hence... she was fired. That's not agency there boyo.
She still did it, even if she was fired later. Her successor will now have to choose what to do about it.
What's immoral about it? You didn't have a conniption fit when Obama did it in 2011...
First of all, could you cite my opinions on Obama's actions in 2011? I would be very interested to know how you're so confident that you know what I thought about it, given the fact that I wasn't a member on dakka until 2012.
Second, it's immoral because it's blatant racism and pandering to awful people. This goes beyond even Obama's actions by banning people who have already been vetted, people who are not a plausible threat. And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
First of all, could you cite my opinions on Obama's actions in 2011? I would be very interested to know how you're so confident that you know what I thought about it, given the fact that I wasn't a member on dakka until 2012.
Touche.
I'd be willing to bet good money that the 2011 "you" wouldn't have an issue with it as it's "your" guy in the WH.
Second, it's immoral because it's blatant racism and pandering to awful people. This goes beyond even Obama's actions by banning people who have already been vetted, people who are not a plausible threat. And it's a worrying separation of church and state issue when Trump says that Christians will not be subject to the same restrictions.
You mean bigotry... not racism.
Funny... the other 50 majority muslim nations are not impacted by this EO.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Seems to me that once admissions resume, members of minority religions may well go to the front of the line... that certainly means Christians and Yazidis... but, it can also mean shia muslims in Iraq fleeing isis or sunni muslims in Syria (I may have that backwards... but, you get the drift. )
whembly wrote: I'd be willing to bet good money that the 2011 "you" wouldn't have an issue with it as it's "your" guy in the WH.
Then you should stop betting, because you're just going to throw away your money. Obama isn't "my guy" and I've been critical of plenty of the things he has done.
You mean bigotry... not racism.
No, I mean what I said.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
A targeted ban which happens to miss Saudi Arabia, home of plenty of extremist Islamic ideology and the country of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists. Is their omission from the list because the US needs them for selfish reasons in the middle east, or because Trump's personal business interests in Saudi Arabia are more important than the supposed security issue?
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
We shouldn't be doing that.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Yes. And regardless of your attempt to spin it into something other than "Christians get priority" it completely destroys the idea that this ban is necessary for security reasons. If people can get preferential treatment by being a member of a religious minority then all that does is tell terrorist groups "pretend to be Christians and you can jump straight to the front of the line". The fact that this obvious flaw is being overlooked rather strongly suggests that the issue here is racism, not legitimate security concerns.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Erm... okay... for sake of the conversation, let's go with it.
This EO targets the 7 nations that are hotbeds of sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism). Therefore, it's more of a geographical targetted temporary ban... rather than a "dur, dur, let no muzzie in" order.
A targeted ban which happens to miss Saudi Arabia, home of plenty of extremist Islamic ideology and the country of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists. Is their omission from the list because the US needs them for selfish reasons in the middle east, or because Trump's personal business interests in Saudi Arabia are more important than the supposed security issue?
He can't target Saudia Arabia w/o Congressional input via legal statute. It was an Obama-era statute that identified those 7 nations... not Trumpesto.
Furthmore, as a refugee, green card holder or even temporary visa, we ask for the applicant's religion all.the.time.
We shouldn't be doing that.
We've been doing that forever dude.
As for priority to Christians? Are you talking about Trump’s directive to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” ????
Yes. And regardless of your attempt to spin it into something other than "Christians get priority" it completely destroys the idea that this ban is necessary for security reasons. If people can get preferential treatment by being a member of a religious minority then all that does is tell terrorist groups "pretend to be Christians and you can jump straight to the front of the line". The fact that this obvious flaw is being overlooked rather strongly suggests that the issue here is racism, not legitimate security concerns.
Not really... the vetting process is extremely thorough and it's not done with a 15 minute converstations. It takes days/weeks/months to go through this process.
Also... do you support Obama's decision to end the wet foot, dry foot policy?
whembly wrote: He can't target Saudia Arabia w/o Congressional input via legal statute. It was an Obama-era statute that identified those 7 nations... not Trumpesto.
Wait, what happened to this idea that the president has the power to stop immigration from anywhere they want? In your own words:
"The only real criticism over this EO is it's botched rollout and the initial inclusions of the green card holders.... but, outside of that, the President has legal authority to block anyone, for damn near any reason."
If the president can block anyone they want for damn near any reason then why do they need congressional approval to say "nobody comes in from Saudi Arabia until we have a new policy finished"?
We've been doing that forever dude.
That doesn't make it right. Religion should have nothing to do with immigration or border entry status. The US is a secular nation.
Not really... the vetting process is extremely thorough and it's not done with a 15 minute converstations. It takes days/weeks/months to go through this process.
Wait, I thought the reason we need all these restrictions on incoming refugees is the supposed difficulty in obtaining information on these people? What are you going to do, demand paperwork from a church saying "this person is a Christian"? Or do you simply think that all Islamic terrorists are too incompetent to successfully pretend to be Christians for more than 15 minutes?
Also... do you support Obama's decision to end the wet foot, dry foot policy?
What does that have to do with this discussion?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's a pivot move to refocus things away from Trump.
Taking demographic information on religion is standard stuff. Government needs that info to help identify religious discrimination. However it relies on the basis that people don't usually have a motive to lie about their religion.
tneva82 wrote: As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...
Yeah, definitely agree that it isn't a foregone conclusion. You'll notice the chance I gave was 10%, because a lot of things have to fall in to place to make people realise how dreadful Trump is within such a short time frame.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So is this another one of the cons? Make outrage by banning Muslims so they could slip Bannon in to the Security Council, which scares me a hell of a lot more than anyone escaping the Middle East?
you Trump, stop doing this 
3000
4000