6 ms·

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

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.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        The criticism also hinges on the rather unbelievably public statement of "betrayal", particularly as that dovetails with Spicer's statement that people should "get with the program or get out". This makes political purge a rather inevitable conclusion, and we aren't even 2 weeks in.
      - VLM 10y ago
        In that field very low level jobs are entirely professional and very high level jobs are entirely political, which makes the oil lawyer analogy invalid. There is no professional insight in a political act and vice versa. In this specific example she made a highly public political act containing no professional content, naturally that results in firing.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 10y ago
        Even low level federal officials have an independent duty not to violate peoples' constitutional rights. They can be held personally liable for violating clearly established constitutional law, and following administration policy is not a defense. Usually the "clearly established" part protects the low level folks, but here you could see CBP line agents being held personally liable for excluding green card holders. On top of that, the AG has additional obligations as an attorney. An attorney must sign her name to every legal argument she makes to the court. She may not permit a non-attorney to override her legal judgment. Here, the AG did not hold a press release discussing the politics of immigration. She told her subordinates not to make legal arguments defending the order--arguments she would have had to sign her name to. It is absolutely an exercise of professional judgment, not policymaking. Of course Trump can fire her for any reason. But the public is also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those actions.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      If they're going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway, why do anything?
  - mhurron 10y ago
    I wouldn't discount this as saying the right answer because you know it is what you should say. Trumps appointees and integrity don't exactly go together.
  - refurb 10y ago
    It's political grandstanding, nothing more. The DOJ reviewed the executive order and found it legal. Yates thought it would be better to go out with a bang than a whimper. I'm sure the DNC will find her a nice comfy job after this.
    - Certhas 10y ago
      Do you have a source for that claim? Because everything I read indicates that there was little to no legal review of the executive order. In fact, given that the Attorney General would sign of that review (my understanding at least), it seems extremely unlikely that there was one.
      - refurb 10y ago
        From the analyses i've read, it's inferred from this part of Yates' statement. She called out her role as different to explain why she doesn't agree with the OLC that it's legal. My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.
        Certhas 10y ago
        Right, so if I (and many reporters with much experience covering executive orders) read this correctly it was not vetted by the DOJ. It had the correct "formatting" of an executive order, but no check was performed by the OLC on whether it violates standing law. I mean the DHS and other involved departments were also not consulted, so the idea that the DOJ got to weigh in on the legality is pretty strange/implausble.
        refurb 10y ago
        Really? I read that as "in case you're wondering why I'm opposing it and the OLC didn't, this is..."
- CalChris 10y ago
  Clinton replaced the US Attorneys after an election on a staggered schedule as did Reagan. Bush fired many in 2007 for strictly tactical partisan reasons. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23
- khana 10y ago
  Perfect assessment.
- NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
  you were misimformed obviously Turing_Machine. You should try harder next time to feel the truth

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.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      The criticism also hinges on the rather unbelievably public statement of "betrayal", particularly as that dovetails with Spicer's statement that people should "get with the program or get out". This makes political purge a rather inevitable conclusion, and we aren't even 2 weeks in.
    - VLM 10y ago
      In that field very low level jobs are entirely professional and very high level jobs are entirely political, which makes the oil lawyer analogy invalid. There is no professional insight in a political act and vice versa. In this specific example she made a highly public political act containing no professional content, naturally that results in firing.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 10y ago
        Even low level federal officials have an independent duty not to violate peoples' constitutional rights. They can be held personally liable for violating clearly established constitutional law, and following administration policy is not a defense. Usually the "clearly established" part protects the low level folks, but here you could see CBP line agents being held personally liable for excluding green card holders. On top of that, the AG has additional obligations as an attorney. An attorney must sign her name to every legal argument she makes to the court. She may not permit a non-attorney to override her legal judgment. Here, the AG did not hold a press release discussing the politics of immigration. She told her subordinates not to make legal arguments defending the order--arguments she would have had to sign her name to. It is absolutely an exercise of professional judgment, not policymaking. Of course Trump can fire her for any reason. But the public is also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those actions.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    If they're going to be out the door in a couple of days anyway, why do anything?
- mhurron 10y ago
  I wouldn't discount this as saying the right answer because you know it is what you should say. Trumps appointees and integrity don't exactly go together.
- refurb 10y ago
  It's political grandstanding, nothing more. The DOJ reviewed the executive order and found it legal. Yates thought it would be better to go out with a bang than a whimper. I'm sure the DNC will find her a nice comfy job after this.
  - Certhas 10y ago
    Do you have a source for that claim? Because everything I read indicates that there was little to no legal review of the executive order. In fact, given that the Attorney General would sign of that review (my understanding at least), it seems extremely unlikely that there was one.
    - refurb 10y ago
      From the analyses i've read, it's inferred from this part of Yates' statement. She called out her role as different to explain why she doesn't agree with the OLC that it's legal. My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.
      - Certhas 10y ago
        Right, so if I (and many reporters with much experience covering executive orders) read this correctly it was not vetted by the DOJ. It had the correct "formatting" of an executive order, but no check was performed by the OLC on whether it violates standing law. I mean the DHS and other involved departments were also not consulted, so the idea that the DOJ got to weigh in on the legality is pretty strange/implausble.
        refurb 10y ago
        Really? I read that as "in case you're wondering why I'm opposing it and the OLC didn't, this is..."
CalChris 10y ago
Clinton replaced the US Attorneys after an election on a staggered schedule as did Reagan. Bush fired many in 2007 for strictly tactical partisan reasons. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23
khana 10y ago
Perfect assessment.
NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
you were misimformed obviously Turing_Machine. You should try harder next time to feel the truth