37 ms·

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

424 points by davesque 10y ago

ivl 10y ago
If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If Trump thinks he can have something done, I worry he'll demand people below him do so, or replace them with someone properly spineless.
- ams6110 10y ago
  She's an interim AG, holdover from the prior administration. Wasn't going to be there long regardless.
  - davesque 10y ago
    As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.
    - mordant 10y ago
      >As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.
      - davexunit 10y ago
        Thanks for letting us know that you are a fascist.
        tptacek 10y ago
        You can't argue this way on HN, and since your side of this argument is so utterly in command of the high ground, I'm kind of baffled by why you'd think name calling was a good idea. You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.
        davexunit 10y ago
        That's like saying that one should debate creationists or flat earthers.
        tptacek 10y ago
        If you can't do better than name-calling with a flat-earther, I don't know what to tell you.
        davexunit 10y ago
        My point is that facts do nothing to those that are committed to fiction. Presenting facts or debating gives their position legitimacy. Better to just dismiss lunacy with a pejorative term and move along.
        tptacek 10y ago
        No, as you can see, that's just a way to get your own comments flagged. If someone writes something so bad you can't respond to it, that's what the "flag" button is for.
        tripzilch 10y ago
        > You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already. I agree it would have been educational for many here to include a few of the definitions of fascism[0] as a political/idealogical term, just to drive home the point of how closely Trump is skirting the edge already after only a week or so. [0] there's not a single generally agreed-upon definition, but you don't get extra points if you "only" hit a couple of them. However, to address your point that the term was used for name calling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist_as_insult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist... Now of course the word "bully" is a purposeful understatement (and of course saying "fascist" when you mean "bully" is no proper way of arguing on HN). And that would be that, if this were some other frivolous topic. But it's quite fair to argue that the situation is a lot closer to the various serious definitions of fascism than it is to the mere vague pejorative. The world is looking in horror, and we're all thinking it. Maybe another week of these "crazy antics" before we can say it without being downvoted? Don't wait too long though, or you might not be allowed to say it at all.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      Obama produced EO that were unenforceable and deemed overreaching (i.e. not legal to enforce). Yet, he was seen as acting in good faith during the DAPA[1] dispute, and no one in their right mind would propose that then President Obama should have been called out by his AG, and imprisioned for attempting tyrannical action. I think mostly its because Obama's acts were considered "compassionate" and right by some. Others with a more cynical view would say that issuing an EO that is entirely to the benefit of foreign nationals who are guilty of illegal acts against the United States is bordering on treason. [1] What was DAPA? It ensured that federal funding could be used to provide benefits such as healthcare and schooling to migrants who did not comply with immigration law.
- hueving 10y ago
  >The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.
  - ivl 10y ago
    I'm concerned we're going to see unprecedented levels of constitutional and legal violations from this particular executive branch. Checks and balances are great, but not when they happen after the fact. And no, the president is not elected dictator, there's a degree of insubordination allowed. It's not the first time an AG has said "we cannot fight this ruling, nor should we".
    - greenleafjacob 10y ago
      This has already been contemplated and intentionally decided - see Federalist 70.
  - ouid 10y ago
    "Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." -http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+General http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...
    - TenOhms 10y ago
      What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.
      - 10y ago
- bmh_ca 10y ago
  > If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. I kind of thought you must be joking, since revolving AGs were a hallmark of the Bush Jr era, to legalize torture, etc. But in case not, here is a decent place to start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_...
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Those were US attorneys.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I don't understand your point. Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional (there is a process for that, and Ms. Yates is not in a position to make that determination) nor to decide whether it is good policy (as she is neither a legislator nor the chief executive). Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed? Note this is not an instance of prosecutorial discretion. Ms. Yates is not refusing to prosecute people under the law; rather, she is instructing her subordinates to refrain from doing the necessary work that would allow the government fair representation during hearings on the law. If she is unwilling to fulfill her job duties for personal reasons (and likewise instructs her subordinates to stop fulfilling theirs), the appropriate course of action is to resign, is it not? If she's unwilling to do that and wishes to make a spectacle of herself, wouldn't a dismissal be the expected resolution? How is dismissing an acting AG who refuses to enforce the law "purely political" and not an expected, appropriate response to someone who has refused to execute the laws of the country they're supposed to represent? Does it make sense to allow an acting AG to remain in place after she intentionally and explicitly declines to recognize the president's authority to direct the executive branch?
  - davesque 10y ago
    According to her announcement, she seemed to believe that the order was unlawful. As she was the most important litigator in the land, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say.
    - TenOhms 10y ago
      But there was no case given, it smelled of politics from the beginning and her lack of presenting a compelling legal case doomed her, in my opinion.
      - pm90 10y ago
        She did give a case. You can read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-Letter-From-Sally-Yates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-L...
- rabboRubble 10y ago
  Comes as a surprise as she is the only person in the DOJ authorized to sign off on foreign security letters [0] How nice that Trump right out of the gate has kneecapped his administration in terms of intelligence gathering! At least until a puppet replacement is approved by the Senate. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra... [Edit: earlier in the day I read that the acting AG was the only Senate approved signatory. As somebody below me pointed out, that is no longer the current interpretation of who is able to sign these letters in the provided link. I'm keeping my post up as originally written because things moved so dang fast today.]
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    This is not true. The NYT article has been fixed.
    - rabboRubble 10y ago
      Ah! Thanks... things moved so quickly today. Mid afternoon I read she was the only approved signatory. You are indeed correct about the revision.
    - sp332 10y ago
      Heck it was basically rewritten multiple times. http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01...
- msrpotus 10y ago
  Arguably not the first time, if you count Nixon firing his Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General because they wouldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre Maybe not the best precedent.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments! Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or whoever it winds up being). She just decided to go out with some political grandstanding, which I'm sure will help her find a new job.
    - tzs 10y ago
      Speaking of Sessions, his belief is that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General should say "no" when asked to do something that they think is improper. When he questioned Yates during her confirmation hearing he specifically brought this up.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?
        rayiner 10y ago
        That's not really where the consequences stop flowing though. Yes, the President has a right to fire an AG that refuses to implement a President's policy. At the same time, the public may draw certain inferences from that decision. If a big oil company fired its top lawyer for refusing to do something she though violated environmental laws, very reasonable inferences could be made about the leadership. The US Attorney thing under Clinton is totally different. Nobody made a peep when Trump dismissed the previous AG. It is understood that these political appointees will be replaced as a matter of course. This criticism is in response to him dismissing Yates after asking her to stay on board as acting AG, in response to her exercising her legal judgment.
- sfifs 10y ago
  Can Sally Yates sue for wrongful termination?
  - mc32 10y ago
    I think those people tend to "serve at the pleasure of the president".
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      Yes. Appointees typically give a signed but undated letter of resignation to the President when they accept the position.
- robbiep 10y ago
  >The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
  - croon 10y ago
    > If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish. I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely: * That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job? or * That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition? > I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment The comment or validity thereof?
    - robbiep 10y ago
      I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act. Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't. great chat.
      - croon 10y ago
        So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.
- koheripbal 10y ago
  There's a difference between giving your boss honest feedback, and being obstructionist. Encouraging honesty is great, but at the end of the day, you still need to follow orders.
  - ako 10y ago
    "just following orders...."
  - altern8tif 10y ago
    What about whistleblowers? Should they have just "followed orders" instead?
    - true_religion 10y ago
      I think its about context. If you are a whistleblower, and you claim something is illegal then I don't expect you to accurately make a case that it is so. You may have just felt it was illegal, when it was not and I'll give certain leeway in making the wrong decision there. However if you are a lawyer, and not only that but the supreme prosecutor of the Federal government, you ought to be able to properly define why something is illegal not just publish a press release that essentially says "it's my gut-feeling this will fail". She is supposed to make the best case possible for the presidency and allow judges to decide if something is illegal, and someone is guilty or not guilty. Simply saying "he's guilty, I'm sure, but no I can't tell you why" is not a solid answer.
- hockeybias 10y ago
  I did not vote for Trump and do not like what he is doing, but the AG serves at the 'pleasure of the president' so to speak, correct?
- muninn_ 10y ago
  She didn't execute his orders as president and she acted unprofessionally. Politico had a sensible article about it.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  There is an expression that gained currency in Russia in recent years: negative selection. The Russian president nominates the worst possible people to the top jobs of government--people who take bribes, people who are incompetent and are known to have committed grave mistakes--because those are the people most likely to be loyal to him to the end. Any show of competence and independence leads to a summary dismissal.
  - alphadevx 10y ago
    I have worked with some managers that defensively promote others loyal to them around themselves in a similar fashion, but had not heard the term before "negative selection" but it explains it beautifully.
  - squarefoot 10y ago
    Over here there is an old say which roughly translates into "you can get an idea of a person by seeing the ones he/she chooses to have near or work with him/her". I have notice this behaviour in the corporate world as well, ie hiring incompetent but easy to herd yesmen, and usually is a sign of some sort of corruption.
- ihaveahadron 10y ago
  He's the leader of the executive branch. He's leading.
- MR4D 10y ago
  Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why: #1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and even argues personally on behalf of administrations in front of the Supreme Court. Her duty is to defend the Administration's position (even if she personally disagrees with it). As wikipedia puts it (abbreviated for space here): "The United States Attorney General (A.G.) .... is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government." But I suggest reading here for a very good overview: https://www.justice.gov/about https://www.justice.gov/about #1a (to highlight this specifically: AGs determine whether to prosecute, not whether to defend. #2 - The courtroom is the place to determine if the order is legal or not. From what I understand, Congress can also override this. #3 - There is no (publicly known) communication between the AAG and the President regarding her stance. From what I can tell, she contradicted his order without informing him. Note that he has no legal requirement to inform her, but she does to inform him (being that the President is the superior to an AG). #4 - Presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys without any reason. And they use it often. Every President in recent memory has done so. #5 - The order affected non-citizens who are outside the country. The law and legal cases tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch on actions outside the country. Again, I say this regardless of whether or not I like the order. I will say this - at a minimum, he should have consulted with someone to minimize some of the issues that this order faces. That fact that he apparently did not even do that is astonishing.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    The AG enforces and defends the Constitution, not the whims of a POTUS. Trump is quickly trying to turn the USG into yes men. Sean Spicer just said minutes ago in his Press Conference that her firing is pretty much a warning shot that if you don't agree with his views, no matter how you think the law stands you should step up or ship out. That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.
    - MR4D 10y ago
      Well, upon that there is some disagreement. I'll take this quote from Jonathan Adler (who is Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University ): "To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.dae4ba1e5ff6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- Shivetya 10y ago
  She was fired properly and not for political reasons the EO was approved, determined legal, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Her reasoning reflected the fact she knew she had no legal basis to defend the EO. She should have resigned instead she made matters worse. The restriction is against seven countries. Presidents Obama and Carter both enacted immigration bans against Muslim dominant countries (Iraq and Iraq). This still leaves over fifty majority Muslim countries unaffected by the EO including the five most populated countries. It is not any more a Muslim ban than when past Presidents put restrictions on immigration from countries labeled as dangerous.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Trump literally asked for a "Muslim ban" https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/... The other countries aren't banned because he has business interests there: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/poli... "The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai."
fullshark 10y ago
His base will love this
- nemo 10y ago
  His opposition will love this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
  - avenoir 10y ago
    Care to explain how Nixon tapping someone who could fire Special Prosecutor Cox to prevent him from conducting investigation of the Watergate scandal has any relevance at all to the issue at hand here?
- nether 10y ago
  He could shit on a plate and they'd eat it up. "Masterful distraction! Wow! He's been planning this for weeks! MAGA"
  - mturmon 10y ago
    Crudely put, but accurate. It shows the emptiness of this seriously versus literally sophistry. The more norms he breaks, the more certain segments of his base eat it up, seriously, literally, or other.
joshmn 10y ago
The kick in the balls to Trump was real. I was so happy to read Sally Yates' thoughts on his immigration ban. Obviously, her days were numbers, so she had nothing to lose. Might as well go out like she did in an honorable fashion. :) Edit: fixed pronoun
- woofyman 10y ago
  He's a she.
- user2017 10y ago
  Boente is the replacement. Yates was the AG who was fired.
yeukhon 10y ago
Have I ever had a strong disagreement with my boss? Always. Every day. But did my boss fire me? No. But should my boss considered to fire me? Probably. Normally you don't fire someone from your cabinet even if you are just an acting member. You make the person to resign. I don't know the full story, but this goes to show Trump is truly an unique president. He doesn't care what people think of him. He's running the White House like a real business. Disclaimer, I like the idea of running government like it's a business (think Singapore, salary is on par with industry standard and subjected to yearly review). But I strongly disapprove Trump's ruthless dictatorship. He just doesn't understand that his business decision impacts nationwide. You need to actually think through before making any decisions or giving any public comments. Even Joe Biden learned to shut up (although he did make some dangerous comments in the past). It's okay to have a strong opinion (some people don't like compromise), but use reason and earn people's trust. He makes up stories and excuses, with little to no real proof for many of his past and current commentaries. No one really trust him except the people who voted him into the office. His cabinet members - trust me, none of them really trust him. I know that from my gut. I know my 9-month old niece can tell that as well. His mind is juggling and wandering all around the space. He's intellectually challenged, despite being a ruthless and tricky business man. He went broke but made so much from bankruptcy. I will give him the credit of being a smart asshole and a good salesman, but other than that, he's a terrible leader. Trust me, he would be the best Secretary of State of U.S. to the Martians, because he speaks nonsense.
- rayiner 10y ago
  While Yates is a hero, she didn't merely disagree. She actively countermanded a directive from her boss.
  - yeukhon 10y ago
    I do that if I know it isn't right. You may argue she should just resign. But perhaps, and I don't want to make any assumptions, somebody just want to give him a hard time and stand up for his/her belief against Trump for as long as possible. The old saying, you can't do anything unless you are in the position. You can resign and next person take over can kiss Trump's ass. Do something while you are in the position that can do something.
widforss 10y ago
If I understand the American system correctly, this is indeed something that Trump has mandate to do. However. I wonder whether I will ever stop to be surprised and horrified over the development in the US.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Trump and the GOP have a mandate to govern, ie. to conduct the normal affairs of the government in accordance with statute and internal policy. A "mandate" makes it sound like Trump, with a minority of the adult voting-age adult population of the United States has received the right to transform the country wholesale, which simply isn't true.
Spooky23 10y ago
I despise Trump, but I don't think it's it's acceptable for a civil servant to insert themselves into the news. If you're getting an unlawful or unethical order, you follow the process, suck it up or resign in protest. By going rogue and making yourself the story, you're attacking the office of the president. It's a bad idea, bad precedent and will have bad outcomes.
- hprotagonist 10y ago
  Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that. It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that nature.
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    Did Obama, Clinton, or Bush have an AG that willfully showed insubordination and encouraged it to their subordinates? I'm surprised her action didn't get more news coverage, well not really.
    - hprotagonist 10y ago
      Did any of the three of them dash off a quick little EO with no warning or legal counsel? And it's not insubordination to refuse to do something that you, the head lawyer for an entire nation, find to be illegal. It's doing your damn job.
    - mikelevins 10y ago
      In March of 2004 John Ashcroft's Justice Department determined that the Bush Administration's Stellar Wind surveillance program was illegal. While Ashcroft was in the hospital being treated for acute pancreatitis, President Bush sent White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to tell Ashcroft to sign a document overturning his department's ruling. He refused. He remained Attorney General until February 3rd, 2005, when he resigned the office.
jskell 10y ago
Shocking, and also politically/tactically very stupid. Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Which confirmation was all but assured; but now... I thought his campaign was brilliant, tactically; but this is amateur hour.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Because Sessions was already a shoe-in with the Republican Senate, but there are Republicans in the Senate opposed to the immigration order, and they've specifically, among other issues, cited the failure to legally vet the order. Making Sessions confirmation about Yates opposition to the order wouldn't make it smoother.
minimaxir 10y ago
From Sam Altman on Twitter: ".@SallyQYates, @ycombinator and many others would be delighted to give you a job and resources to continue your work defending American law." https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160 https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160
- nether 10y ago
  Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I want to work there?
  - mjmsmith 10y ago
    She'd get to hang out with Peter Thiel.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    It would be surprising if someone in such rarified political circles doesn't know one of the premier tech investment firms, especially considering that one of their partners has been hanging round the White House.
- lets-tryagain 10y ago
  He's grandstanding and its pathetic. No Sam, you are not that important.
- curiousgal 10y ago
  Why is Sam dragging Ycombinator into this?
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    Virtue signalling.
hprotagonist 10y ago
From 0 to Saturday Night Massacre, in 10 days. That's not really a record one ought to be proud of. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
- rtkwe 10y ago
  I feel like the comparisons to Nixon's actions are quite a bit strained. At the very least the magnitude of the actions is vastly different. Nixon was shopping around for a AG that would remove a special prosecutor investigating him.
  - pfooti 10y ago
    And what kind of message does this send, given the ongoing russia-related investigations underway? I mean, if he fires people and breaks the chain of succession to shop for a sock puppet over an executive order?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I haven't heard anything about Trump looking for someone other than Sessions, who's been his pick for a while now. Have you heard otherwise?
      - croon 10y ago
        Until Sessions is sworn in, the succession would fall to Suzanne Anton, but instead Boente was sworn in (supposedly, it wasn't public).
  - manicdee 10y ago
    Trimp is shopping around for an AG that won't investigate him.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard, Sessions was still his pick.
AlexandrB 10y ago
The fact that this is flagged is ridiculous. The USA is undergoing historic turmoil - history is literally being made; meanwhile on Hacker News: here's some JS tips for your next webapp!
- dang 10y ago
  You can't judge this accurately by a single post. HN has had a significant uptick in political stories lately. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 for more about this if you're interested. Edit: looks like a moderator unflagged this one. That's how the system is designed to work: upvotes, flags, and moderation all play a role.
  - couchand 10y ago
    We all appreciate the work you folks are doing keeping up with the moderation, I'm sure there's a lot of it. But I hope I don't detect a note of dismissal here. I think it's reasonable to question examples of flagging such as this one, which kept a trending story off the front page for a critical period that almost allowed a much inferior duplicate to take over. Considering these situations carefully will keep the community standards healthy.
- probably_wrong 10y ago
  HN has an international audience. Most of us are not allowed to post about our own countries' political turmoil, so we flag other countries' politics in return.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Of course, if you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, please do flag it. I would hope that you're not doing so out of spite, however. When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?
    - 10y ago
rphlx 10y ago
Anyone in the private sector would be fired under similar conditions, except probably without an article in the NY times.
- whyileft 10y ago
  Considering it is illegal for companies to do what Trump ordered[0], I'm not sure that would be the best analogy. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rphlx 10y ago
    She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it. [1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"
    - nikdaheratik 10y ago
      No, her job is to help follow the laws of the country, not to do whatever the President says. The President is not a dictator or a CEO.
      - Retra 10y ago
        The president is a CEO. He is quite literally the chief officer of the executive branch. Though he is a CEO of a public entity. Something I'm pretty sure he has no experience with.
danhak 10y ago
“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter Thiel, 2016 I guess to Thiel, a saner, more sensible immigration policy involves invoking 9/11 to ban people from 7 countries not involved in that attack from the U.S, including permanent residents on a legal path to citizenship and holders of valid visas. All done with zero warning via executive order and without conferring with DHS or DOJ.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  * The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump just took it a step further and temporarily halted immigration from these nations while his administration reviews the policies to ensure they're sufficient. * Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens. * It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave. * There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing. To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.
Daishiman 10y ago
Please, take two seconds to read the statement. There's third graders who literally have a better grasp of the English language than Trump.
- siidooloo 10y ago
  The language in the letter is frankly childish and immature. Talking about betrayls and such just makes it seem like he thinks its still a TV show.
  - VLM 10y ago
    The people who get politicians (re)elected, watch TV shows.
- probably_wrong 10y ago
  Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that Trump is stupid. He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House. And speaking of people who may be smarter than we think: http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House. No, he's like a smart person. (Trump in speech to the CIA).[1] Really, if this isn't proof that stupid people do make it into the White House I don't know what is. If Trump was really smart he would be in control of the situation and not headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later). The guy is a living trainwreck and he's taking America with him, that his main advisor has actually stated that his goal is to burn it all down[2] and does not seem to care if he destroys the civilized world as we know it as collateral damage doesn't help one bit. For every day that this passes it will take a year or more to undo the damage, assuming it can be rectified at all. A couple of months of this and it will have gathered momentum to the point where the divisions have become so enraged that a shooting war is a real possibility, which could be one of the goals, to purposefully lit the fuse so momentum will take over and they can enact even more ridiculous measures with the cover of an actual emergency situation. It's not like that trick didn't work countless times in the past. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+down https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+...
bonyt 10y ago
For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes: 1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG) 2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota 3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under the appointments clause) Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/04/executive-order-13557-order-succession-within-department-justice https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/1...
- disantlor 10y ago
  interestingly there seems to be a new executive order 13762, from the final days of the obama whitehouse, that changed the Justice Department order of succession, yet Trump seems to have followed the order that you mentioned/linked saw a tweet raising this point after having just read your comment. not sure what it means but thought your comment was very interesting, so... here's some more detail.
  - bonyt 10y ago
    That's really strange! I wonder if he may have followed the wrong order, or or if the vacancies reform act gives him some leeway here... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/13/executive-order-providing-order-succession-within-department-justice https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...
jbyers 10y ago
Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."
- zzleeper 10y ago
  From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 : >Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News? Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here. HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame that we are not allowed to a medium to read what the tech community feels about the current issues
  - jbyers 10y ago
    I'm happy to debate the intersection of technology and politics here. But not pure politics. This community has an identity and norms and topics that are and aren't in scope. An alternative would be to use the same software, same group of passionate people to start the discussion, and the backing of Y Combinator in a different forum with a different identity, norms, etc. I'm also happy to be wrong / downvoted. It's for the community to decide, but it has to be a choice.
    - zzleeper 10y ago
      I agree that ultimately the forum reflects the joint will of both YC the company and its users. For instance, a bird-watching forum might have a a strict ban on anything not related to birds, while the YC ban on politics is softer. What I don't like at all is people abusing flagging. You can flag any new article with ~4 votes, so less than a handful of active users can shape what we end up discussing.
  - sremani 10y ago
    This is one of many feeds of information for me, and I assume for most of us. Currently, all my other feeds are overly politicized. Yes, I have a political opinion and understand the need for discourse, but we are currently in a hyper-partisan political cycle and in which there is no winner. The gap is so wide, it is hard for one group to engage the other. So now all we get in these "political discussions" is hyper virtue signaling. I am talking about all sides. This is not the time for discussion, because in our minds the battle lines are drawn. I wish HN enforces a month of political moratorium. I will live and die on HN and will not make a single low info comment!
Proven 10y ago
It sounds incredible, but this may be the first case of a gov "worker" who gets fired for refusing to work. Good riddance!
- sctb 10y ago
  This account has been posting mostly uncivil or unsubstantive comments, and we have to ban accounts that carry on like this. Please take a moment to read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rohshall 10y ago
Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?
- diogenescynic 10y ago
  We've been this way since Reagan and it just seems to get worse every cycle.
- davesque 10y ago
  We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.
  - refurb 10y ago
    The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.
    - davesque 10y ago
      Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.
      - flamedoge 10y ago
        I think placing blame solely on electoral college system is detracting from the real problem, which is that there is a polarized division. Electoral college can be a fair system most of the time, and I hold benefit of the doubt that there was no systematic gerrymandering going on specifically for this election.
gcb0 10y ago
"Ms. Yates (new AG) was the only person at the Justice Department authorized to sign applications for foreign surveillance warrants. Administrations of both parties have interpreted surveillance laws as requiring foreign surveillance warrants be signed only by Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials. Mr. Boente was Senate-confirmed as United States attorney and, though the situation is unprecedented, the White House said he was authorized to sign the warrants."
SSLy 10y ago
is there an option like "i don't really care about politics, US especially" anywhere on this site?
- Gigablah 10y ago
  Yep, it's the back button.
- grzm 10y ago
  If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, you can flag it. Edit to add: Or hide it, an option that doesn't get a lot of attention.
- brandon272 10y ago
  There's no mandatory participation in any thread. You don't even need to click on it.
douche 10y ago
Remember when there was a ban on political topics for like three days? Remember how nice that was?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  At this point, I think we should just upvote all new incoming political threads. Either allow the angry people to get it out of their system, or clearly illustrate that this stuff doesn't belong on HN.
wtbob 10y ago
She had two legitimate options: execute the President's instructions if she thought they are legal and moral, or resign if she thought they are illegal or immoral. She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job. Ministers and government officials resign all the time when they believe that their government's position is in error. N.b.: I did not vote for Trump; I am not certain that everything in his immigration-related executive order is consistent with the law (but I am not certain that it's not, either: I am not a lawyer).
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  > She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job. Oh, yes she does. The head of the DOJ, acting or actual, should be relied upon to raise a notable fuss when an executive is determined to be stepping outside the bounds of legality. Same goes for every other official who takes the oath of office. They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not an executive's agenda. Resigning is not defending and upholding the Constitution. If, however, an order belived to be illegal and unconstitutional is challenged and subsequently upheld as legal and constitutional, and a person continues to object to carrying out their duties accordingly (based on moral or other grounds), then they should likely follow their conscience and resign. But not beforehand.
thewhitetulip 10y ago
If I am not wrong this sets the wrong precedent, although it is hardly surprising that he has done this. I get a sense of Hitler and the Nazi party idelogy from this, they killed their opponents, now it is just firing & shaming & blah blah that their trolls do. But these things start innocuously, nobody knew that Hitler would turn out that way, not even thise who were mesmerized by his charisma, they staunchly supported him and later woke up to the horrors too late when Berlin was bombed ( I recently watched Man in the high castle, hence Hitler Nazi)
- stillsut 10y ago
  Request for feature on HN: anytime you write 'Hitler', your comment starts out at -1 karma.
  - thewhitetulip 10y ago
    Do you get the irony?
darkhorn 10y ago
He acts like Erdoğan.
rc_bhg 10y ago
I'm outraged, but like .. this is not hacker news at all.
pc2g4d 10y ago
Imagine a world in which officers of the executive branch were completely free to defy the president. Would there not be chaos? It makes sense for a president to fire insubordinate subordinates. The AAG was likely trying to score political points by going out the way she did. I respect her acting according to conscience, but do think making a show of it like that dilutes the message a bit. Probably more effective for her to have made a statement outlining her objections to the EO and unwillingness to defend it, and then resigned.

424 points by davesque 10y ago

ivl 10y ago

If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. If the AG doesn't think it's likely they'll win a defense, that usually doesn't cause an issue. As an edit: it probably wouldn't have been reasonable for her to put up an intentionally weak case, but if the order isn't able to stand up in court, then what? The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If Trump thinks he can have something done, I worry he'll demand people below him do so, or replace them with someone properly spineless.

ams6110 10y ago
She's an interim AG, holdover from the prior administration. Wasn't going to be there long regardless.
- davesque 10y ago
  As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. If the attorney general claims that something may be illegal and unenforceable, people should listen. This comes off as purely political and makes it seem as though Trump will just fire anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to do so.
  - mordant 10y ago
    >As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      Thanks for letting us know that you are a fascist.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You can't argue this way on HN, and since your side of this argument is so utterly in command of the high ground, I'm kind of baffled by why you'd think name calling was a good idea. You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.
        davexunit 10y ago
        That's like saying that one should debate creationists or flat earthers.
        tptacek 10y ago
        If you can't do better than name-calling with a flat-earther, I don't know what to tell you.
        davexunit 10y ago
        My point is that facts do nothing to those that are committed to fiction. Presenting facts or debating gives their position legitimacy. Better to just dismiss lunacy with a pejorative term and move along.
        tptacek 10y ago
        No, as you can see, that's just a way to get your own comments flagged. If someone writes something so bad you can't respond to it, that's what the "flag" button is for.
        tripzilch 10y ago
        > You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already. I agree it would have been educational for many here to include a few of the definitions of fascism[0] as a political/idealogical term, just to drive home the point of how closely Trump is skirting the edge already after only a week or so. [0] there's not a single generally agreed-upon definition, but you don't get extra points if you "only" hit a couple of them. However, to address your point that the term was used for name calling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist_as_insult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascist... Now of course the word "bully" is a purposeful understatement (and of course saying "fascist" when you mean "bully" is no proper way of arguing on HN). And that would be that, if this were some other frivolous topic. But it's quite fair to argue that the situation is a lot closer to the various serious definitions of fascism than it is to the mere vague pejorative. The world is looking in horror, and we're all thinking it. Maybe another week of these "crazy antics" before we can say it without being downvoted? Don't wait too long though, or you might not be allowed to say it at all.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Obama produced EO that were unenforceable and deemed overreaching (i.e. not legal to enforce). Yet, he was seen as acting in good faith during the DAPA[1] dispute, and no one in their right mind would propose that then President Obama should have been called out by his AG, and imprisioned for attempting tyrannical action. I think mostly its because Obama's acts were considered "compassionate" and right by some. Others with a more cynical view would say that issuing an EO that is entirely to the benefit of foreign nationals who are guilty of illegal acts against the United States is bordering on treason. [1] What was DAPA? It ensured that federal funding could be used to provide benefits such as healthcare and schooling to migrants who did not comply with immigration law.
hueving 10y ago
>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. This shouldn't be surprising nor worrying. This is how hierarchical leadership works and it's fully expected that anyone under the President may be forced to do whatever the President wants. It's the entire reason there are 2 other branches of government.
- ivl 10y ago
  I'm concerned we're going to see unprecedented levels of constitutional and legal violations from this particular executive branch. Checks and balances are great, but not when they happen after the fact. And no, the president is not elected dictator, there's a degree of insubordination allowed. It's not the first time an AG has said "we cannot fight this ruling, nor should we".
  - greenleafjacob 10y ago
    This has already been contemplated and intentionally decided - see Federalist 70.
- ouid 10y ago
  "Although the attorney general advises the president, the basic authority of the office is derived from Congress and the functions of the office are subject to congressional control. In addition, the attorney general is a member of the bar and therefore an officer of the court subject to the directives of the judicial branch." -http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+General http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+Gener...
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    What I find worrying is she ordered that the DOJ not support the President without any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional, it smelled of an entirely politically motivated action not grounded in US law.
    - 10y ago
bmh_ca 10y ago
> If I understand it right this is the first time an AG has been relieved for purely political reasons. I kind of thought you must be joking, since revolving AGs were a hallmark of the Bush Jr era, to legalize torture, etc. But in case not, here is a decent place to start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_...
- woofyman 10y ago
  Those were US attorneys.
cookiecaper 10y ago
I don't understand your point. Trump has dismissed the acting AG for refusing to execute the laws. As far as I know, Ms. Yates's job as acting AG is to preside over the enforcement of the law, not to decide whether it is constitutional (there is a process for that, and Ms. Yates is not in a position to make that determination) nor to decide whether it is good policy (as she is neither a legislator nor the chief executive). Would Democrats be pleased to see the same latitude offered to Senator Sessions once he's installed? Note this is not an instance of prosecutorial discretion. Ms. Yates is not refusing to prosecute people under the law; rather, she is instructing her subordinates to refrain from doing the necessary work that would allow the government fair representation during hearings on the law. If she is unwilling to fulfill her job duties for personal reasons (and likewise instructs her subordinates to stop fulfilling theirs), the appropriate course of action is to resign, is it not? If she's unwilling to do that and wishes to make a spectacle of herself, wouldn't a dismissal be the expected resolution? How is dismissing an acting AG who refuses to enforce the law "purely political" and not an expected, appropriate response to someone who has refused to execute the laws of the country they're supposed to represent? Does it make sense to allow an acting AG to remain in place after she intentionally and explicitly declines to recognize the president's authority to direct the executive branch?
- davesque 10y ago
  According to her announcement, she seemed to believe that the order was unlawful. As she was the most important litigator in the land, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say.
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    But there was no case given, it smelled of politics from the beginning and her lack of presenting a compelling legal case doomed her, in my opinion.
    - pm90 10y ago
      She did give a case. You can read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-Letter-From-Sally-Yates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-L...
rabboRubble 10y ago
Comes as a surprise as she is the only person in the DOJ authorized to sign off on foreign security letters [0] How nice that Trump right out of the gate has kneecapped his administration in terms of intelligence gathering! At least until a puppet replacement is approved by the Senate. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra... [Edit: earlier in the day I read that the acting AG was the only Senate approved signatory. As somebody below me pointed out, that is no longer the current interpretation of who is able to sign these letters in the provided link. I'm keeping my post up as originally written because things moved so dang fast today.]
- willstrafach 10y ago
  This is not true. The NYT article has been fixed.
  - rabboRubble 10y ago
    Ah! Thanks... things moved so quickly today. Mid afternoon I read she was the only approved signatory. You are indeed correct about the revision.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Heck it was basically rewritten multiple times. http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2017/01...
msrpotus 10y ago
Arguably not the first time, if you count Nixon firing his Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General because they wouldn't fire the Watergate prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre Maybe not the best precedent.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  It is expected that a new President will replace the Attorney General, and not at all uncommon for a new President to replace large portion of the entire DoJ staff. These are political appointments! Clinton famously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. As a recent Obama appointee as Deputy, Yates was running on fumes anyway. There was no way she was going to survive past the confirmation of Sessions (or whoever it winds up being). She just decided to go out with some political grandstanding, which I'm sure will help her find a new job.
  - tzs 10y ago
    Speaking of Sessions, his belief is that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General should say "no" when asked to do something that they think is improper. When he questioned Yates during her confirmation hearing he specifically brought this up.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      Without reviewing the statements in question, I would guess that he also understands that the Attorney General would likely resign or be fired in such a situation. How else do you imagine that it could possibly work? Do you think that any President would do otherwise? Especially when the acting A.G. was a holdover from a previous administration who was going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway?
      - rayiner 10y ago
        That's not really where the consequences stop flowing though. Yes, the President has a right to fire an AG that refuses to implement a President's policy. At the same time, the public may draw certain inferences from that decision. If a big oil company fired its top lawyer for refusing to do something she though violated environmental laws, very reasonable inferences could be made about the leadership. The US Attorney thing under Clinton is totally different. Nobody made a peep when Trump dismissed the previous AG. It is understood that these political appointees will be replaced as a matter of course. This criticism is in response to him dismissing Yates after asking her to stay on board as acting AG, in response to her exercising her legal judgment.
sfifs 10y ago
Can Sally Yates sue for wrongful termination?
- mc32 10y ago
  I think those people tend to "serve at the pleasure of the president".
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Yes. Appointees typically give a signed but undated letter of resignation to the President when they accept the position.
robbiep 10y ago
>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
- croon 10y ago
  > If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish. I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely: * That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job? or * That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition? > I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment The comment or validity thereof?
  - robbiep 10y ago
    I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act. Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't. great chat.
    - croon 10y ago
      So if you ordered something of dubious legality, and your top corporate lawyer suggested it was unlikely to pass a trial, you would just sack them and ask the next one the same thing again? Like you said in the parent comment. This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.
koheripbal 10y ago
There's a difference between giving your boss honest feedback, and being obstructionist. Encouraging honesty is great, but at the end of the day, you still need to follow orders.
- ako 10y ago
  "just following orders...."
- altern8tif 10y ago
  What about whistleblowers? Should they have just "followed orders" instead?
  - true_religion 10y ago
    I think its about context. If you are a whistleblower, and you claim something is illegal then I don't expect you to accurately make a case that it is so. You may have just felt it was illegal, when it was not and I'll give certain leeway in making the wrong decision there. However if you are a lawyer, and not only that but the supreme prosecutor of the Federal government, you ought to be able to properly define why something is illegal not just publish a press release that essentially says "it's my gut-feeling this will fail". She is supposed to make the best case possible for the presidency and allow judges to decide if something is illegal, and someone is guilty or not guilty. Simply saying "he's guilty, I'm sure, but no I can't tell you why" is not a solid answer.
hockeybias 10y ago
I did not vote for Trump and do not like what he is doing, but the AG serves at the 'pleasure of the president' so to speak, correct?
muninn_ 10y ago
She didn't execute his orders as president and she acted unprofessionally. Politico had a sensible article about it.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
There is an expression that gained currency in Russia in recent years: negative selection. The Russian president nominates the worst possible people to the top jobs of government--people who take bribes, people who are incompetent and are known to have committed grave mistakes--because those are the people most likely to be loyal to him to the end. Any show of competence and independence leads to a summary dismissal.
- alphadevx 10y ago
  I have worked with some managers that defensively promote others loyal to them around themselves in a similar fashion, but had not heard the term before "negative selection" but it explains it beautifully.
- squarefoot 10y ago
  Over here there is an old say which roughly translates into "you can get an idea of a person by seeing the ones he/she chooses to have near or work with him/her". I have notice this behaviour in the corporate world as well, ie hiring incompetent but easy to herd yesmen, and usually is a sign of some sort of corruption.
ihaveahadron 10y ago
He's the leader of the executive branch. He's leading.
MR4D 10y ago
Ignoring whether I agree or not with the order, firing the AAG made sense. Here's why: #1 - The AG is THE person to defend the administration in court, and even argues personally on behalf of administrations in front of the Supreme Court. Her duty is to defend the Administration's position (even if she personally disagrees with it). As wikipedia puts it (abbreviated for space here): "The United States Attorney General (A.G.) .... is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government." But I suggest reading here for a very good overview: https://www.justice.gov/about https://www.justice.gov/about #1a (to highlight this specifically: AGs determine whether to prosecute, not whether to defend. #2 - The courtroom is the place to determine if the order is legal or not. From what I understand, Congress can also override this. #3 - There is no (publicly known) communication between the AAG and the President regarding her stance. From what I can tell, she contradicted his order without informing him. Note that he has no legal requirement to inform her, but she does to inform him (being that the President is the superior to an AG). #4 - Presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys without any reason. And they use it often. Every President in recent memory has done so. #5 - The order affected non-citizens who are outside the country. The law and legal cases tend to give wide latitude to the executive branch on actions outside the country. Again, I say this regardless of whether or not I like the order. I will say this - at a minimum, he should have consulted with someone to minimize some of the issues that this order faces. That fact that he apparently did not even do that is astonishing.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  The AG enforces and defends the Constitution, not the whims of a POTUS. Trump is quickly trying to turn the USG into yes men. Sean Spicer just said minutes ago in his Press Conference that her firing is pretty much a warning shot that if you don't agree with his views, no matter how you think the law stands you should step up or ship out. That's not how Democracy works and Trump is quickly trying to change that and it is a terrible thing.
  - MR4D 10y ago
    Well, upon that there is some disagreement. I'll take this quote from Jonathan Adler (who is Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University ): "To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not 'wise or just.' This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/?utm_term=.dae4ba1e5ff6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Shivetya 10y ago
She was fired properly and not for political reasons the EO was approved, determined legal, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Her reasoning reflected the fact she knew she had no legal basis to defend the EO. She should have resigned instead she made matters worse. The restriction is against seven countries. Presidents Obama and Carter both enacted immigration bans against Muslim dominant countries (Iraq and Iraq). This still leaves over fifty majority Muslim countries unaffected by the EO including the five most populated countries. It is not any more a Muslim ban than when past Presidents put restrictions on immigration from countries labeled as dangerous.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Trump literally asked for a "Muslim ban" https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/... The other countries aren't banned because he has business interests there: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/29/poli... "The list does not include Muslim-majority countries where the Trump Organization does business, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In financial disclosure forms during the presidential campaign, he listed two companies with dealings in Egypt and eight with business in Saudi Arabia. And in the UAE, the Trump Organization is partnering with a local billionaire to develop two golf courses in Dubai."

fullshark 10y ago

His base will love this

nemo 10y ago
His opposition will love this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
- avenoir 10y ago
  Care to explain how Nixon tapping someone who could fire Special Prosecutor Cox to prevent him from conducting investigation of the Watergate scandal has any relevance at all to the issue at hand here?
nether 10y ago
He could shit on a plate and they'd eat it up. "Masterful distraction! Wow! He's been planning this for weeks! MAGA"
- mturmon 10y ago
  Crudely put, but accurate. It shows the emptiness of this seriously versus literally sophistry. The more norms he breaks, the more certain segments of his base eat it up, seriously, literally, or other.

joshmn 10y ago

The kick in the balls to Trump was real. I was so happy to read Sally Yates' thoughts on his immigration ban. Obviously, her days were numbers, so she had nothing to lose. Might as well go out like she did in an honorable fashion. :) Edit: fixed pronoun

woofyman 10y ago
He's a she.
user2017 10y ago
Boente is the replacement. Yates was the AG who was fired.

yeukhon 10y ago

Have I ever had a strong disagreement with my boss? Always. Every day. But did my boss fire me? No. But should my boss considered to fire me? Probably. Normally you don't fire someone from your cabinet even if you are just an acting member. You make the person to resign. I don't know the full story, but this goes to show Trump is truly an unique president. He doesn't care what people think of him. He's running the White House like a real business. Disclaimer, I like the idea of running government like it's a business (think Singapore, salary is on par with industry standard and subjected to yearly review). But I strongly disapprove Trump's ruthless dictatorship. He just doesn't understand that his business decision impacts nationwide. You need to actually think through before making any decisions or giving any public comments. Even Joe Biden learned to shut up (although he did make some dangerous comments in the past). It's okay to have a strong opinion (some people don't like compromise), but use reason and earn people's trust. He makes up stories and excuses, with little to no real proof for many of his past and current commentaries. No one really trust him except the people who voted him into the office. His cabinet members - trust me, none of them really trust him. I know that from my gut. I know my 9-month old niece can tell that as well. His mind is juggling and wandering all around the space. He's intellectually challenged, despite being a ruthless and tricky business man. He went broke but made so much from bankruptcy. I will give him the credit of being a smart asshole and a good salesman, but other than that, he's a terrible leader. Trust me, he would be the best Secretary of State of U.S. to the Martians, because he speaks nonsense.

rayiner 10y ago
While Yates is a hero, she didn't merely disagree. She actively countermanded a directive from her boss.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  I do that if I know it isn't right. You may argue she should just resign. But perhaps, and I don't want to make any assumptions, somebody just want to give him a hard time and stand up for his/her belief against Trump for as long as possible. The old saying, you can't do anything unless you are in the position. You can resign and next person take over can kiss Trump's ass. Do something while you are in the position that can do something.

widforss 10y ago

If I understand the American system correctly, this is indeed something that Trump has mandate to do. However. I wonder whether I will ever stop to be surprised and horrified over the development in the US.

wavefunction 10y ago
Trump and the GOP have a mandate to govern, ie. to conduct the normal affairs of the government in accordance with statute and internal policy. A "mandate" makes it sound like Trump, with a minority of the adult voting-age adult population of the United States has received the right to transform the country wholesale, which simply isn't true.

Spooky23 10y ago

I despise Trump, but I don't think it's it's acceptable for a civil servant to insert themselves into the news. If you're getting an unlawful or unethical order, you follow the process, suck it up or resign in protest. By going rogue and making yourself the story, you're attacking the office of the president. It's a bad idea, bad precedent and will have bad outcomes.

hprotagonist 10y ago
Bollocks. Presidents are not above the law; most of them don't need to have their nose rubbed in the carpet in order to learn that. It is eminently clear that the muslim ban executive order was drafted, written, and released without any of the normal communication, forewarning, or legal reviews. The AG is 100% within their duties to the nation and the constitution to say that they will not enforce something of that nature.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  Did Obama, Clinton, or Bush have an AG that willfully showed insubordination and encouraged it to their subordinates? I'm surprised her action didn't get more news coverage, well not really.
  - hprotagonist 10y ago
    Did any of the three of them dash off a quick little EO with no warning or legal counsel? And it's not insubordination to refuse to do something that you, the head lawyer for an entire nation, find to be illegal. It's doing your damn job.
  - mikelevins 10y ago
    In March of 2004 John Ashcroft's Justice Department determined that the Bush Administration's Stellar Wind surveillance program was illegal. While Ashcroft was in the hospital being treated for acute pancreatitis, President Bush sent White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to tell Ashcroft to sign a document overturning his department's ruling. He refused. He remained Attorney General until February 3rd, 2005, when he resigned the office.

jskell 10y ago

Shocking, and also politically/tactically very stupid. Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Which confirmation was all but assured; but now... I thought his campaign was brilliant, tactically; but this is amateur hour.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Why not just use his base's newfound dislike of Yates (the fired AG) as leverage to get Sessions (his AG nominee) confirmed? Because Sessions was already a shoe-in with the Republican Senate, but there are Republicans in the Senate opposed to the immigration order, and they've specifically, among other issues, cited the failure to legally vet the order. Making Sessions confirmation about Yates opposition to the order wouldn't make it smoother.

minimaxir 10y ago

From Sam Altman on Twitter: ".@SallyQYates, @ycombinator and many others would be delighted to give you a job and resources to continue your work defending American law." https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160 https://twitter.com/sama/status/826262739202908160

nether 10y ago
Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I want to work there?
- mjmsmith 10y ago
  She'd get to hang out with Peter Thiel.
- true_religion 10y ago
  It would be surprising if someone in such rarified political circles doesn't know one of the premier tech investment firms, especially considering that one of their partners has been hanging round the White House.
lets-tryagain 10y ago
He's grandstanding and its pathetic. No Sam, you are not that important.
curiousgal 10y ago
Why is Sam dragging Ycombinator into this?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  Virtue signalling.

hprotagonist 10y ago

From 0 to Saturday Night Massacre, in 10 days. That's not really a record one ought to be proud of. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

rtkwe 10y ago
I feel like the comparisons to Nixon's actions are quite a bit strained. At the very least the magnitude of the actions is vastly different. Nixon was shopping around for a AG that would remove a special prosecutor investigating him.
- pfooti 10y ago
  And what kind of message does this send, given the ongoing russia-related investigations underway? I mean, if he fires people and breaks the chain of succession to shop for a sock puppet over an executive order?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I haven't heard anything about Trump looking for someone other than Sessions, who's been his pick for a while now. Have you heard otherwise?
    - croon 10y ago
      Until Sessions is sworn in, the succession would fall to Suzanne Anton, but instead Boente was sworn in (supposedly, it wasn't public).
- manicdee 10y ago
  Trimp is shopping around for an AG that won't investigate him.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard, Sessions was still his pick.

AlexandrB 10y ago

The fact that this is flagged is ridiculous. The USA is undergoing historic turmoil - history is literally being made; meanwhile on Hacker News: here's some JS tips for your next webapp!

dang 10y ago
You can't judge this accurately by a single post. HN has had a significant uptick in political stories lately. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 for more about this if you're interested. Edit: looks like a moderator unflagged this one. That's how the system is designed to work: upvotes, flags, and moderation all play a role.
- couchand 10y ago
  We all appreciate the work you folks are doing keeping up with the moderation, I'm sure there's a lot of it. But I hope I don't detect a note of dismissal here. I think it's reasonable to question examples of flagging such as this one, which kept a trending story off the front page for a critical period that almost allowed a much inferior duplicate to take over. Considering these situations carefully will keep the community standards healthy.
probably_wrong 10y ago
HN has an international audience. Most of us are not allowed to post about our own countries' political turmoil, so we flag other countries' politics in return.
- grzm 10y ago
  Of course, if you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, please do flag it. I would hope that you're not doing so out of spite, however. When you say that you're not "allowed to post", would you elaborate?
  - 10y ago

rphlx 10y ago

Anyone in the private sector would be fired under similar conditions, except probably without an article in the NY times.

whyileft 10y ago
Considering it is illegal for companies to do what Trump ordered[0], I'm not sure that would be the best analogy. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rphlx 10y ago
  She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it. [1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    No, her job is to help follow the laws of the country, not to do whatever the President says. The President is not a dictator or a CEO.
    - Retra 10y ago
      The president is a CEO. He is quite literally the chief officer of the executive branch. Though he is a CEO of a public entity. Something I'm pretty sure he has no experience with.

danhak 10y ago

“I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’" -Peter Thiel, 2016 I guess to Thiel, a saner, more sensible immigration policy involves invoking 9/11 to ban people from 7 countries not involved in that attack from the U.S, including permanent residents on a legal path to citizenship and holders of valid visas. All done with zero warning via executive order and without conferring with DHS or DOJ.

cookiecaper 10y ago
* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump just took it a step further and temporarily halted immigration from these nations while his administration reviews the policies to ensure they're sufficient. * Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens. * It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave. * There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing. To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.

Daishiman 10y ago

Please, take two seconds to read the statement. There's third graders who literally have a better grasp of the English language than Trump.

siidooloo 10y ago
The language in the letter is frankly childish and immature. Talking about betrayls and such just makes it seem like he thinks its still a TV show.
- VLM 10y ago
  The people who get politicians (re)elected, watch TV shows.
probably_wrong 10y ago
Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that Trump is stupid. He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House. And speaking of people who may be smarter than we think: http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > He may be a lot of things, but stupid people don't make it into the White House. No, he's like a smart person. (Trump in speech to the CIA).[1] Really, if this isn't proof that stupid people do make it into the White House I don't know what is. If Trump was really smart he would be in control of the situation and not headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later). The guy is a living trainwreck and he's taking America with him, that his main advisor has actually stated that his goal is to burn it all down[2] and does not seem to care if he destroys the civilized world as we know it as collateral damage doesn't help one bit. For every day that this passes it will take a year or more to undo the damage, assuming it can be rectified at all. A couple of months of this and it will have gathered momentum to the point where the divisions have become so enraged that a shooting war is a real possibility, which could be one of the goals, to purposefully lit the fuse so momentum will take over and they can enact even more ridiculous measures with the cover of an actual emergency situation. It's not like that trick didn't work countless times in the past. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OG6itojBiI [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+down https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+...

bonyt 10y ago

For the curious, the line of succession for AG after deputy goes: 1. U.S. Atty for E. D. Virgina (Now the current acting AG) 2. U.S. Atty for D. Minnesota 3. U.S. Atty for D. Arizona Interestingly, this is set by executive order so it may be changeable - though limited to those eligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, I think. (And I guess we can argue all day over the constitutionality of that under the appointments clause) Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/04/executive-order-13557-order-succession-within-department-justice https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/1...

disantlor 10y ago
interestingly there seems to be a new executive order 13762, from the final days of the obama whitehouse, that changed the Justice Department order of succession, yet Trump seems to have followed the order that you mentioned/linked saw a tweet raising this point after having just read your comment. not sure what it means but thought your comment was very interesting, so... here's some more detail.
- bonyt 10y ago
  That's really strange! I wonder if he may have followed the wrong order, or or if the vacancies reform act gives him some leeway here... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/13/executive-order-providing-order-succession-within-department-justice https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...

jbyers 10y ago

Respectfully, can we maintain the political detox on Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 I'm personally as engaged in reading and debating politics as I ever have been, but elsewhere. As dang put it: "Political conflicts cause harm here."

zzleeper 10y ago
From news.istambulcombinator.com.tr , circa 2012 : >Respectfully, can we maintain the ban on political articles on Istambul Hacker News? Sure, we can close our ears, and also we can argue that here we only discuss tech all the time. But as long as the world we live in influences tech, and all of us, there should be a political discussion here. HN comments are one of the sharpest for online forums, and it is a shame that we are not allowed to a medium to read what the tech community feels about the current issues
- jbyers 10y ago
  I'm happy to debate the intersection of technology and politics here. But not pure politics. This community has an identity and norms and topics that are and aren't in scope. An alternative would be to use the same software, same group of passionate people to start the discussion, and the backing of Y Combinator in a different forum with a different identity, norms, etc. I'm also happy to be wrong / downvoted. It's for the community to decide, but it has to be a choice.
  - zzleeper 10y ago
    I agree that ultimately the forum reflects the joint will of both YC the company and its users. For instance, a bird-watching forum might have a a strict ban on anything not related to birds, while the YC ban on politics is softer. What I don't like at all is people abusing flagging. You can flag any new article with ~4 votes, so less than a handful of active users can shape what we end up discussing.
- sremani 10y ago
  This is one of many feeds of information for me, and I assume for most of us. Currently, all my other feeds are overly politicized. Yes, I have a political opinion and understand the need for discourse, but we are currently in a hyper-partisan political cycle and in which there is no winner. The gap is so wide, it is hard for one group to engage the other. So now all we get in these "political discussions" is hyper virtue signaling. I am talking about all sides. This is not the time for discussion, because in our minds the battle lines are drawn. I wish HN enforces a month of political moratorium. I will live and die on HN and will not make a single low info comment!

Proven 10y ago

It sounds incredible, but this may be the first case of a gov "worker" who gets fired for refusing to work. Good riddance!

sctb 10y ago
This account has been posting mostly uncivil or unsubstantive comments, and we have to ban accounts that carry on like this. Please take a moment to read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rohshall 10y ago

Almost my whole adult life, I looked up to America. Whatever I know and my life's value system is mostly because of the books I read by American authors. I couldn't belive the news when I heard that Americans chose Trump. When did America become so stupid to vote in these people?

diogenescynic 10y ago
We've been this way since Reagan and it just seems to get worse every cycle.
davesque 10y ago
We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.
- refurb 10y ago
  The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.
  - davesque 10y ago
    Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.
    - flamedoge 10y ago
      I think placing blame solely on electoral college system is detracting from the real problem, which is that there is a polarized division. Electoral college can be a fair system most of the time, and I hold benefit of the doubt that there was no systematic gerrymandering going on specifically for this election.

gcb0 10y ago

"Ms. Yates (new AG) was the only person at the Justice Department authorized to sign applications for foreign surveillance warrants. Administrations of both parties have interpreted surveillance laws as requiring foreign surveillance warrants be signed only by Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials. Mr. Boente was Senate-confirmed as United States attorney and, though the situation is unprecedented, the White House said he was authorized to sign the warrants."

SSLy 10y ago

is there an option like "i don't really care about politics, US especially" anywhere on this site?

Gigablah 10y ago
Yep, it's the back button.
grzm 10y ago
If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, you can flag it. Edit to add: Or hide it, an option that doesn't get a lot of attention.
brandon272 10y ago
There's no mandatory participation in any thread. You don't even need to click on it.

douche 10y ago

Remember when there was a ban on political topics for like three days? Remember how nice that was?

MrZongle2 10y ago
At this point, I think we should just upvote all new incoming political threads. Either allow the angry people to get it out of their system, or clearly illustrate that this stuff doesn't belong on HN.

wtbob 10y ago

She had two legitimate options: execute the President's instructions if she thought they are legal and moral, or resign if she thought they are illegal or immoral. She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job. Ministers and government officials resign all the time when they believe that their government's position is in error. N.b.: I did not vote for Trump; I am not certain that everything in his immigration-related executive order is consistent with the law (but I am not certain that it's not, either: I am not a lawyer).

bobwaycott 10y ago
> She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job. Oh, yes she does. The head of the DOJ, acting or actual, should be relied upon to raise a notable fuss when an executive is determined to be stepping outside the bounds of legality. Same goes for every other official who takes the oath of office. They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not an executive's agenda. Resigning is not defending and upholding the Constitution. If, however, an order belived to be illegal and unconstitutional is challenged and subsequently upheld as legal and constitutional, and a person continues to object to carrying out their duties accordingly (based on moral or other grounds), then they should likely follow their conscience and resign. But not beforehand.

thewhitetulip 10y ago

If I am not wrong this sets the wrong precedent, although it is hardly surprising that he has done this. I get a sense of Hitler and the Nazi party idelogy from this, they killed their opponents, now it is just firing & shaming & blah blah that their trolls do. But these things start innocuously, nobody knew that Hitler would turn out that way, not even thise who were mesmerized by his charisma, they staunchly supported him and later woke up to the horrors too late when Berlin was bombed ( I recently watched Man in the high castle, hence Hitler Nazi)

stillsut 10y ago
Request for feature on HN: anytime you write 'Hitler', your comment starts out at -1 karma.
- thewhitetulip 10y ago
  Do you get the irony?

darkhorn 10y ago

He acts like Erdoğan.

rc_bhg 10y ago

I'm outraged, but like .. this is not hacker news at all.

pc2g4d 10y ago

Imagine a world in which officers of the executive branch were completely free to defy the president. Would there not be chaos? It makes sense for a president to fire insubordinate subordinates. The AAG was likely trying to score political points by going out the way she did. I respect her acting according to conscience, but do think making a show of it like that dilutes the message a bit. Probably more effective for her to have made a statement outlining her objections to the EO and unwillingness to defend it, and then resigned.