43 ms·

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

by 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."

by ivl 10y ago

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."