
Trump Fires Acting Attorney General - davesque
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html
======
ivl
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.

~~~
hueving
>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.

~~~
billjings
Would you write an app that stores important passwords in plaintext client
side if your boss demanded it?

~~~
OskarS
This is a great question, and one that should be asked of any engineer.

If you answer yes to this question, you should find another career. Engineers
have ethical responsibilities as well.

~~~
cdash
The vast majority of developers are not engineers even if they like calling
themselves Software Engineers.

------
minimaxir
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
Most likely response: who the fuck is Ycombinator, and why on earth would I
want to work there?

~~~
mjmsmith
She'd get to hang out with Peter Thiel.

------
bonyt
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/2010/1...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2010/11/04/executive-order-13557-order-succession-within-department-
justice)

~~~
disantlor
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
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/2017/0...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2017/01/13/executive-order-providing-order-succession-within-
department-justice)

------
danhak
“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
* 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.

~~~
mwpmaybe
_> President Obama signed a list of countries into law_

 _> using the exact list that President Obama signed into law_

Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions
placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions
may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0],
counterpoint[1]).

0\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-
immigratio...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-
ban-is-illegal.html)

1\. [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-
ex...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-
order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal)

~~~
cookiecaper
It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is
contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority
to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter
at hand is _not_ prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to
prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge
not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if
Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand?

No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's
inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily
disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The
countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious
actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a
significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such
high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.

~~~
matt4077
> It's a matter for the judiciary to determine

I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include
the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of
the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous,
especially considering how politicised that branch has become.

> It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such
> high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.

There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact
that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the
US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is
ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.)

The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically
– with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality
of removing people holding permanent residency permits.

The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the
Department of Homeland Security:

As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:

\- Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any
actions that would make you removable under immigration law

\- Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and
choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for
security reasons)

\- Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and
local jurisdictions

Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident

As a permanent resident, you are:

\- Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities

\- Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities \- Expected to support
the democratic form of government and not to change the government through
illegal means \- Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register
with the Selective Service

[https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-
granted/ri...](https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-
granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-
responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident)

~~~
cookiecaper
Nitpicks over specific laws do not justify invocation of the oath of office.
Despite what this thread is trying to pretend, it is not conventional for the
AG to play SCOTUS and pre-emptively declare the administration's position
indefensible.

Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing
to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive
branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling
constitutional cause.

In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the
implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such
plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing
even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential
collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle
that type of conflict.

~~~
matt4077
See above: Green Cards confer full protection of law, including entry, to the
extend of rights afforded to citizens. The exceptions are limited to people
committing crimes or leaving the US for prolonged times. That is an exhaustive
list (other laws include a generic clause like "and as deemed necessary by the
Department of...").

EO cannot break laws, only modify their implementation. There is no room for
interpretation. You could argue that the right of entry is not in the
constitution – but I'm pretty sure even Scalia would have found a way to argue
that US citizens have constitutional right to entry into the US (It's probably
not in the bill of rights because it's too obvious)

See also the Watergate precedent: the AG refused to fire the special
prosecutor investigating Nixon, in defiance of a direct order by the
President. His replacement also refused and was fired, only the third in line
complied. Those sacrifices went a long way to create the political climate in
which the (now universally recognised as such) crook Nixon had no choice but
to resign.

~~~
cookiecaper
You're going all over the place here. I understand your opinion that Mr.
Trump's EO is illegal. That's fine, but it's not relevant, unless you're a
federal judge who likes to post on HN in his free time? And even then, it's
irrelevant until this case comes before the bench and gets a fair hearing.

In the Saturday Night Massacre, the two AGs in question _did_ resign rather
than carry out Mr. Nixon's order. They didn't claim a fundamental
constitutional conflict that would justify defiance; rather, they claimed
personal reservations and recognized that those reservations made it
impossible to observe the established chain of command, so they stepped aside.

The issue here is whether it's appropriate for the acting AG to hijack the DoJ
based on their private opinion on matters of nuanced legal interpretation, of
which reasonable people can be on either side, and which have not yet been
given a fair hearing in a court of law. That is absolutely _not_ the
convention and the oath of office does not require it (and indeed, Ms. Yates
does not claim it does). Until such time as the constitutional violation
becomes blatant, the DoJ has a constitutional obligation to serve the people's
elected chief executive.

Ms. Yates was actively involved in blocking such fair hearings based on
nothing but her personal proclivities. Following the precedent of SNM, she
should've resigned over personal reservations. In this instance, there is no
justification for defiance.

Ms. Yates's behavior looks very questionable and unprofessional to me. She
stayed on board for Obama's EOs, which everyone knew were illegal at the time
of signing, and was happy to allow the judiciary to make its call there, but
is not willing to do so in Mr. Trump's case, where the legal justification
appears much more sound.

------
joshmn
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

~~~
user2017
Boente is the replacement. Yates was the AG who was fired.

------
hprotagonist
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
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.

~~~
manicdee
Trimp is shopping around for an AG that won't investigate him.

~~~
grzm
Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard, Sessions was still his
pick.

------
rohshall
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?

~~~
davesque
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.

~~~
mordant
> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes

i.e., he _won_ the popular vote, _except for California_.

~~~
benchaney
Is California not part of the United States?

------
widforss
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
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.

------
jskell
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
> 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.

------
thewhitetulip
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
Request for feature on HN: anytime you write 'Hitler', your comment starts out
at -1 karma.

~~~
thewhitetulip
Do you get the irony?

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

~~~
probably_wrong
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
> 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+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=bannon+wants+to+burn+it+all+down)

~~~
glandium
> headed for an impeachment (hopefully sooner than later).

Not a rethorical question, I just don't know. If there is impeachment and
Trump is removed from office, what's supposed to happen? VP replaces him? That
doesn't really sound like an improvement.

~~~
sangnoir
> That doesn't really sound like an improvement

Perhaps not to Americans, but to the rest of the world the VP seems like the
stabler choice. The administration's alignment would move from Chaotic to
Lawful. I happen to value predictability and forces that can be reasoned with.

~~~
jacquesm
I suspect this is part of someone's game plan. Get the disaster elected then
impeach him so someone else who would never in a lifetime manage to be elected
president on his own power can take over to then do a whole bunch of stuff
that would have never happened otherwise.

Trump was using the GOP just as much as the GOP was trying to use Trump, the
question now is how is the GOP going to control the problem they created
without ending up in the gutter themselves. They are all scared and probably
with good reason, any impeachment proceedings with Trump as the subject will
automatically include a horde of very angry and potentially dangerous people.
Right now they might be wondering if it is better to let things go to hell
under Trump than to risk the wrath of a good 30% of the population.

------
fullshark
His base will love this

~~~
nether
He could shit on a plate and they'd eat it up. "Masterful distraction! Wow!
He's been planning this for weeks! MAGA"

~~~
mturmon
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.

------
pc2g4d
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.

------
gcb0
"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."

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

------
darkhorn
He acts like Erdoğan.

------
AlexandrB
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
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
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.

------
jbyers
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
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
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
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.

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

~~~
grzm
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.

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

~~~
whyileft
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)

~~~
rphlx
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
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
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.

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

~~~
MrZongle2
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
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
> _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.

------
yeukhon
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
While Yates is a hero, she didn't merely disagree. She actively countermanded
a directive from her boss.

~~~
yeukhon
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.

------
Spooky23
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
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
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.

~~~
mikelevins
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.

~~~
yes_or_gnome
The Acting AG at that time? The current FBI director, James Comey. Truth is
stranger than fiction.

