4 ms·

https://www.mediaite.com/online/pentagon-reportedly-feared-trumps-transgender-ban-tweet-was-announcement-of-north-korea-strike/ https://www.mediaite.com/online/

https://www.mediaite.com/online/pentagon-reportedly-feared-trumps-transgender-ban-tweet-was-announcement-of-north-korea-strike/ https://www.mediaite.com/online/pentagon-reportedly-feared-t... The official policy of the White House is that the President's tweets from @realDonaldTrump can be statements of the President in his official capacity, and therefore binding to the extent that any Presidential order or command can be. He has fired people, he has announced sweeping policy changes, made nominations, and so on through Twitter, which have then been acted on by the executive branch, Congress (which held appointment hearings for a SecDef before a formal nomination, but after a tweet), and the courts.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Of course that's the nod nod wink wink official policy - how could it be otherwise, and with any other president you would be wise to attach some weight to presidential tweets. But here's the only test you have to make: would you take real-life, consequential action based solely on a Trump tweet or would you look for verification elsewhere first? Because if it's the latter, it doesn't really matter if Trump's account gets hacked.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  I just gave examples: 1. of the executive branch by and through the US Department of Defense, among other examples 2. the legislative branch, by and through committee hearings and acceptance as fact of nominations not yet formally made, among other examples 3. and the judicial branch, by and through accepting as fact the arguments of the DOJ through the solicitor general that statements by the President via Twitter are "official statements of the President", among other examples That's not wink wink, nod nod. That's just fact. The federal government, in its three branches, accepts as fact that the President issues official edicts through Twitter.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    > The federal government, in its three branches, accepts as fact that the President issues official edicts through Twitter. Sure, but pretty much everybody in the world accepts as fact that he uses it to issue random nonsense as well. Surely you don't need examples of this. Which comes back to my question: would you take real-life, consequential action based solely on a Trump tweet or would you look for verification elsewhere first?

cookie_monsta 7y ago

Of course that's the nod nod wink wink official policy - how could it be otherwise, and with any other president you would be wise to attach some weight to presidential tweets. But here's the only test you have to make: would you take real-life, consequential action based solely on a Trump tweet or would you look for verification elsewhere first? Because if it's the latter, it doesn't really matter if Trump's account gets hacked.

AaronFriel 7y ago
I just gave examples: 1. of the executive branch by and through the US Department of Defense, among other examples 2. the legislative branch, by and through committee hearings and acceptance as fact of nominations not yet formally made, among other examples 3. and the judicial branch, by and through accepting as fact the arguments of the DOJ through the solicitor general that statements by the President via Twitter are "official statements of the President", among other examples That's not wink wink, nod nod. That's just fact. The federal government, in its three branches, accepts as fact that the President issues official edicts through Twitter.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  > The federal government, in its three branches, accepts as fact that the President issues official edicts through Twitter. Sure, but pretty much everybody in the world accepts as fact that he uses it to issue random nonsense as well. Surely you don't need examples of this. Which comes back to my question: would you take real-life, consequential action based solely on a Trump tweet or would you look for verification elsewhere first?