Connect with us

White House Doubles Down on Trump Transgender Military Ban: We Will ‘Make Sure We Fully Implement This Policy’

Published

on

‘Will Do So in a Lawful Manner’ White House Press Secretary Claims

In the face of apparent push back from the top brass in the armed forces the White House is doubling down. Just one day after President Donald Trump announced he is banning all transgender service members from the U.S. military, his top chiefs have made clear they know nothing about his plans and were not consulted. They also have said they will not implement it without specific direction from the Commander-in-Chief. 

Sarah Huckabee Sanders made clear the President will implement his ban, discharging approximately 15,000 active duty service members, simply because they are transgender. 

“The White House will work with the Dept. of Defense and all of the relevant parties” the Press Secretary said Thursday afternoon, “to make sure we fully implement this policy moving forward and will do so in a lawful manner.”

The addition of the reference to the law indicated the White House is learning the President cannot make policy on the fly and may not be able to discharge 15,000 service members via a tweet.

Huckabee Sanders did not respond to a question from a reporter about how President Trump’s ban will affect currently-serving troops who are transgender. 

After referring to Trump’s ban as “policy,” Huckabee Sanders was asked if the President realized “he can’t make policy via statements on Twitter.”

“I think he was making the announcement of the policy change,” she responded. 

Asked if the policy has yet to be formulated, Huckabee Sanders said “they will have to work out the details as to how that all moves forward to lawfully implement that policy change.”

On Wednesday morning, President Trump tweeted:

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

It appears clear Trump did not consult with his generals.

Huckabee Sanders did not refer to the purported medical costs of transgender service members who choose to transition, which has been exponentially exaggerated by anti-LGBT activists. Nor did she repeat the debunked claims she made Wednesday, that transgender service members interfere with “military readiness and cohesion.”

A White House official Wednesday told Axios’ Jonathan Swan the decision was purely political, saying itforces Democrats in rust belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue.”

RELATED:

REPORT: Heads of US Military ‘Had No Idea’ About Trump’s Transgender Ban, One Was Told by Staffer

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Says No Change to Transgender Service Members Policy Until Direction From Trump

One Day Before Trump Banned Trans Soldiers Log Cabin Republicans Called President a ‘Quiet Ally’ and a ‘Do No Harm Guy’

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Uses Debunked DADT Claims of ‘Military Readiness and Cohesion’ to Justify Trump Trans Military Ban

Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee on Trump’s Total Transgender Ban: Not So Fast

UPDATING: Pentagon Policy on Trump Total Ban of All Transgender Service Members: ‘Call the White House’

Trump Administration Official Admits Decision Banning All Transgender Service Members Is Purely Political

BREAKING: Trump Announces Total Ban on Transgender Service Members

 

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Donald Trump Guilty on All Counts in New York Criminal Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump has been found guilty by a jury in the State of New York’s criminal prosecution on all 34 charges of falsifying business records to cover-up a conspiracy to assist his election to the presidency of the United States by unlawful means. He is the first American president in history to have been criminally charged, and now is the first to have been convicted of crimes. The ex-president’s efforts to hide payments of “hush money” to two women, a Playboy model and an adult film actress, to prevent the voters from learning of his affairs was central to the scheme.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution alleged Trump had “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”

Democrat Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election’s popular vote by nearly three million votes but the reality TV star and real estate magnate, as he was best-known at the time, won the Electoral College vote.

Trump, soon to be 78, could be sentenced to up to four years in prison but, if convicted, is expected ask to have the verdict set aside, and to appeal.

READ MORE: Chief Justice Refuses to Meet With Senate Judiciary Chairman Over Alito Scandal

Continue Reading

News

Chief Justice Refuses to Meet With Senate Judiciary Chairman Over Alito Scandal

Published

on

Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over a court Democrats and government watchdogs say is riddled with corruption and ethics scandals, on Thursday once again refused to meet with the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and a Democratic Senator who for more than a decade has been working to reform the nation’s highest court.

Last week, after bombshell reports revealed Justice Samuel Alito, a Bush-43 appointee, had two insurrection-linked flags flying at two of his homes, Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent the chief justice a letter requesting a meeting to discuss their call for Justice Alito to recuse from cases involving the January 6, 2021 insurrection, the 2020 election, and any cases involving Donald Trump. They also asked to meet to discuss the ongoing ethics scandals plaguing the Roberts Court, and the need for congressionally-mandated reforms.

“By displaying the upside-down and ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags outside his homes, Justice Alito actively engaged in political activity, failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” the two Senate Democrats wrote. “He also created reasonable doubt about his impartiality and his ability to fairly discharge his duties in cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol. His recusal in these matters is both necessary and required.”

“Until the Court and the Judicial Conference take meaningful action to address this ongoing ethical crisis,” they warned, “we will continue our efforts to enact legislation to resolve this crisis.”

READ MORE: ‘Incompetently Bad’: Judge Cannon’s Latest Move ‘Approaching This Level of Stupid’

The Chief Justice cited the Court’s recently adopted code of ethics which some say merely codified existing behaviors without doing much to hold the Justices to the same standard every other judge who sits on the federal bench is required to observe.

“Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues,” Chief Justice Roberts said in his letter to Durbin and Whitehouse.

Roberts insisted he was obligated to refuse to meet.

“I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting. As noted in my letter to Chairman Durbin last April, apart from ceremonial events, only on rare occasions in our Nation’s history has a sitting Chief Justice met with legislators, even in a public setting (such as a Committee hearing) with members of both major political parties present. Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances.”

“Moreover,” he added, “the format proposed – a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court – simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal, pointing to the Roberts letter, remarked: “John Roberts, again, has already spoken about Alito’s ethical failures. And Roberts is IN FAVOR of the corruption, not against it.”

READ MORE: Alito’s Opinion in a 2022 Christian Flag Case Flies in the Face of His Recusal Refusal

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

‘Incompetently Bad’: Judge Cannon’s Latest Move ‘Approaching This Level of Stupid’

Published

on

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest move in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Espionage Act prosecution of Donald Trump appears to have at least one legal expert throwing up his hands in disbelief.

Back in February, Trump’s legal team claimed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful, as is the method of funding his office and his investigations.

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress have created the office of the ‘Special Counsel,'” Trump’s attorneys wrote, CBS News had reported, “arguing the attorney general did not have the proper authority to name Smith to the job.”

“The authority he attempts to employ as Special Counsel far exceeds the power exercisable by a non-superior officer, the authority that Congress has not cloaked him with,” they claimed. There are decades of precedence of Attorneys General appointing special counsels, special prosecutors, or independent counsels – possibly the most well-known being Ken Starr who investigated then-President Bill Clinton.

READ MORE: Alito’s Opinion in a 2022 Christian Flag Case Flies in the Face of His Recusal Refusal

CBS News also noted that “Garland cited numerous laws and regulations that he and other attorneys general have said confer necessary authority onto the selected prosecutors.”

Issuing her latest edict, Judge Cannon, who likely has already delayed the trial until after the 2024 election, responded to the Trump legal team’s challenge of Smith’s appointment on Thursday.

“Judge Cannon is giving Trump’s legal team and the government 12 days to tell her how the SCOTUS decision upholding the CFPB’s funding/appointment impacts Trump’s claim that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded…,” reports Reuters’ Sarah N. Lynch, who covers the Justice Dept.

The CFPB is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled the methods by which it is funded are constitutional, overturning a lower court’s ruling.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Know Most Basic Rule’: Conway Blasts Cannon Over ‘Perplexed’ Reaction

Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, mocking Judge Cannon’s order, wrote:

“Jack Smith,

You have 12 days to tell me how what Martha-Ann Alito ate for lunch on May 30, 2024 affects your appointment as special counsel.

Xoxo,

Judge Cannon”

He added, “We’re approaching this level of stupid,” and concluded, “Judge Cannon is incompetently bad.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.