Trump FIRES acting AG for not defending Muslim Ban

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Liberals should imagine this scenario in January 2025. The liberal Democrats have taken power (much to the sorrow of authoritarians like JJC who hope for a lifetime of Trump).

The new Sanders president issues an executive order to reinstate DACA. The outgoing Republican acting attorney general refuses to defend the government against legal challenges to the president doing this.

Of course the blue avatars will be saying the exact same thing as the red avatars today but hey. The point is Yates is out of line.

I just realized that Yates was a Obama appointee (not that I disagree with her actions since I oppose the executive order myself)

Had it has been a Trump appointee that was fired, I'd be a lot more horrified right now.

Yates was a Bush appointee

Nope. She was hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney back in 1989, but that's a career position, not a political one. Her first political position was as U.S. Attorney for Northern Georgia to which she was appointed in 2010 by Obama. Her career until now was fairly apolitical, which is likely why she was left as the token holdover until there were some Trump appointees in place at the DoJ.

[MAINEiac4434]

Regardless of the legality or morality of this, (and for the record, I don't disagree that Drumpf had every legal right to do this, just as he did the original EO), Drumpf is seriously over-playing his hand here. He just doesn't have the political capital that FDR did when he did stuff like this. This just has the look of something Nixon would have done in his last few months, or when Alberto Gonzales tried to get Ashcroft to sign off Stellar Wind despite being critically ill and bedridden.

Donald Drumpf is like Boris Yeltsin putting on a bad Nixon impression.

I wish he was as competent as Yeltsin and as forgiving as Nixon.

[ApatheticAustrian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sounds really nixonian, eh?

[Crumpets]

Okay, I've come up with a better way of phrasing why I think this is bad for Trump: he clearly did this from a position of weakness, rather than one of power. Trump's whole shindig is that he's a master negotiator and is a strongman with the popular support of a democratic president. By firing an acting director whom nobody had heard one day (give or take) before she left office, it serves to legitimize this seemingly minor annoyance as a major threat to his ability to run the country and makes him appear weak by comparison.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Said it once and I'll say it again: Who cares that our democracy is unraveling and we are becoming a fascist state when Hillary's emails are still missing.

[Klartext89]

https://twitter.com/staffernews/status/826285057090453505

What a hypocrisy! She got fired rightfully!

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this order, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this order in designating an acting Attorney General."

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Anyone thinking she made a principled stand is spewing alternative facts.  A left over Obama appointee made a politically calculated move and she paid the price, not that she really cared.  The FBI should have hauled her away in irons.

"Muslim Ban" is also an alternative fact meme.

The new temp guy will be just fine.

[ApatheticAustrian]

plz don't be so PC....guiliani himself stated that trump asked him how to pull it off without looking like discrimination. .....it IS a MUSLIM BAN.

just like it is RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Liberals should imagine this scenario in January 2025. The liberal Democrats have taken power (much to the sorrow of authoritarians like JJC who hope for a lifetime of Trump).

The new Sanders president issues an executive order to reinstate DACA. The outgoing Republican acting attorney general refuses to defend the government against legal challenges to the president doing this.

Of course the blue avatars will be saying the exact same thing as the red avatars today but hey. The point is Yates is out of line.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/jeff-sessions-asked-former-acting-ag-if-she-would-say-no-to-president/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry though, I'm sure Sessions will turn out to be an unprincipled scumbag when placed in the same position.

[SteveRogers]

"Muslim Ban" is also an alternative fact meme.

You might have an argument there if Trump hadn't literally promised a Muslim ban on the campaign trail.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

"Muslim Ban" is also an alternative fact meme.

You might have an argument there if Trump hadn't literally promised a Muslim ban on the campaign trail.

He hasn't enacted one yet.

[ApatheticAustrian]

"Muslim Ban" is also an alternative fact meme.

You might have an argument there if Trump hadn't literally promised a Muslim ban on the campaign trail.

He hasn't enacted one yet.

because he couldn't.

this is the same concept but as far as he is able to go right now.

rudy confirmed it....why is this such a mystery to everyone else? are those really the same people who whined for years that obama didn't use the specific phrase "radical islamic terrorism" while bombing the shoot out of terrorists?

[Mr. Reactionary]

"Muslim Ban" is also an alternative fact meme.

You might have an argument there if Trump hadn't literally promised a Muslim ban on the campaign trail.

He hasn't enacted one yet.

No limits on immigrants from Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Saudi arabia, or Turkey = not a Muslim ban.

This is just a scary places ban which is still pretty ineffective but thats governing by executive order.

[ApatheticAustrian]

trying to ban muslims or at least make it look like in front of his base - while also not damaging his business ties - and achieving to ban muslims are ofc 2 different things.....but you shouldn't get praised for it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

trying to ban muslims or at least make it look like in front of his base - while also not damaging his business ties - and achieving to ban muslims are ofc 2 different things.....but you shouldn't get praised for it.

I wasn't praising Trump for this anymore than I was praising Obama when I pointed out that end of life counseling isn't a death panel. There's hyperbole and there's straight up misstatements of facts. If 85% of Muslims can still come here its not a Muslim ban. If bureaucrats dont strongarm you into euthansia or ration your healthcare its not a death panel.

[ApatheticAustrian]

you are ofc right technically.

this is btw a good time to praise the system of the US.....if you want to ban the average syrian sunnit, you also ban the average syrian catholic.

[Devout Centrist]

Liberals should imagine this scenario in January 2025. The liberal Democrats have taken power (much to the sorrow of authoritarians like JJC who hope for a lifetime of Trump).

The new Sanders president issues an executive order to reinstate DACA. The outgoing Republican acting attorney general refuses to defend the government against legal challenges to the president doing this.

Of course the blue avatars will be saying the exact same thing as the red avatars today but hey. The point is Yates is out of line.

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Liberals should imagine this scenario in January 2025. The liberal Democrats have taken power (much to the sorrow of authoritarians like JJC who hope for a lifetime of Trump).

The new Sanders president issues an executive order to reinstate DACA. The outgoing Republican acting attorney general refuses to defend the government against legal challenges to the president doing this.

Of course the blue avatars will be saying the exact same thing as the red avatars today but hey. The point is Yates is out of line.

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

I think thats precisely why she was fired. A nobody who wont even have her job in a week disobeys a direct presidential order. Normally if you found a direct superior order untenable you'd resign. She decided to martyr herself instead al a Kim Davis. Is anyone who does not automatically clutch their pearls whenever Trump opens his mouth supposed to care?

[Crumpets]

Love the blue avatars bowing down to their dear authoritarian leader when they wouldn't of taken any of this sh**t with Obama.

It's funny. I didn't know that your signature was the logo for the Justice Democrats until you added the other picture. I just assumed it was a stylized version of Trump's initials, DJT.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

I think thats precisely why she was fired. A nobody who wont even have her job in a week disobeys a direct presidential order. Normally if you found a direct superior order untenable you'd resign. She decided to martyr herself instead al a Kim Davis. Is anyone who does not automatically clutch their pearls whenever Trump opens his mouth supposed to care?

That depends, how much do you care about the prospect of the DOJ acting as a potential check against the excesses of a president with virtually no ethics to speak of? The manner in which he smeared her in typical Trump fashion and clamped down with such vigor is a portend of the type of treatment for those whom dare to disagree. Sure, it's within Trump's powers to sack her; Nixon also had the right to sack Cox. Was Archibald Cox politically martyring himself or acting in a manner he thought necessary to protect the integrity of the United States government?

I'm not saying that Sally Yates' situation is equivalent to Cox's, it isn't, but I do think the manner in which the Trump administration has degraded her is a model we can expect to see repeated. If Trump sparks a constitutional crisis a la Nixon---and let's be honest, that is not a far-fetched assumption at all---do you think Trump respects the healthy functioning of the federal agencies such as the Department of Justice enough to allow them to conduct whatever investigations are appropriate? Or do you think that instead he will give them the Yates treatment: sack them, besmirch them, label them betrayers, and replace them with yes men? Will you care then?

You come across as somebody that truly cherishes the values the United States was founded upon, somebody who truly believes that vigilance is the eternal price of liberty. Does this administration strike you as being particularly vigilant? Does it not concern you how this administration rewards subservient lapdogs above professional civil servants actually concerned with carrying out their constitutional duties? What about during a time of crisis when we really need independent individuals to carry out their constitutional duties regardless of what the president wants, or god forbid, if the president asks them to carry out orders that are wholly unconstitutional? Where will the accountability be in an administration that loathes accountability? Have you witnessed anything about this incoming administration that provides you with an impression other than a motley crew of kleptocrats who will endlessly jockey for greater influence in Trump's inner circle and corrode the integrity of the institutions they represent?


Those I think are far more pertinent question to be pondered in the light of the Yates incident, not a blithe "who cares?"

[Mr. Reactionary]

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

I think thats precisely why she was fired. A nobody who wont even have her job in a week disobeys a direct presidential order. Normally if you found a direct superior order untenable you'd resign. She decided to martyr herself instead al a Kim Davis. Is anyone who does not automatically clutch their pearls whenever Trump opens his mouth supposed to care?

That depends, how much do you care about the prospect of the DOJ acting as a potential check against the excesses of a president with virtually no ethics to speak of? The manner in which he smeared her in typical Trump fashion and clamped down with such vigor is a portend of the type of treatment for those whom dare to disagree. Sure, it's within Trump's powers to sack her; Nixon also had the right to sack Cox. Was Archibald Cox politically martyring himself or acting in a manner he thought necessary to protect the integrity of the United States government?

 I'm not saying that Sally Yates' situation is equivalent to Cox's, it isn't, but I do think the manner in which the Trump administration has degraded her is a model we can expect to see repeated. If Trump sparks a constitutional crisis a la Nixon---and let's be honest, that is not a far-fetched assumption at all---do you think Trump respects the healthy functioning of the federal agencies such as the Department of Justice enough to allow them to conduct whatever investigations are appropriate? Or do you think that instead he will give them the Yates treatment: sack them, besmirch them, label them betrayers, and replace them with yes men? Will you care then?

You come across as somebody that truly cherishes the values the United States was founded upon, somebody who truly believes that vigilance is the eternal price of liberty. Does this administration strike you as being particularly vigilant? Does it not concern you how this administration rewards subservient lapdogs above professional civil servants actually concerned with carrying out their constitutional duties? What about when we really need independent individuals to carry out their constitutional duties regardless of what the resident wants, or god forbid, if the president asks them to carry out orders that are wholly unconstitutional? Where will the accountability be in an administration that loathes accountability? Have you witnessed anything about this incoming administration that provides you with an impression other than a motley crew of kleptocrats who will endlessly jockey for greater influence in Trump's inner circle and corrode the integrity of the institutions they represent?


Those I think are far more pertinent question to be pondered in the light of the Yates incident, not a blithe "who cares?"

I'm always skeptical of unchecked power but when it comes to the bureaucracy I am a proponent of Scalias dissent in Morrison v Olson. The constitution vests ALL executive power in the President. He (or she) can delegate that power but ultimately it all subordinates to the President. And that makes sense. Ultimately someone has to decide. I do think the EO as drafted was illegal but I also thought that the Federal government's position in like half of the past decades worth of SCOTUS cases was wrong. That doesn't mean the position is indefensible ... I just wouldn't be able to enforce it. I dont think Andrew Johnson should have been forced to keep Stanton in his cabinet, I dont think Obama should have been forced to keep McCrystal as a General and I dont think Trump should be forced to keep this lady. Depending on the job I can see room for certain "for cause" protections for bureaucrats if the disagreement is over internal corruption. That would be your Archibald Coxs. But even independent counsels need to be reigned in from time to time  (ken starr).

I will also say Trump was very rude in saying she "betrayed" him and that such disrespect wouldn't make me inclined towards a cabinet post right now. But we already know that Trump is anything but a gentleman.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

I think thats precisely why she was fired. A nobody who wont even have her job in a week disobeys a direct presidential order. Normally if you found a direct superior order untenable you'd resign. She decided to martyr herself instead al a Kim Davis. Is anyone who does not automatically clutch their pearls whenever Trump opens his mouth supposed to care?

That depends, how much do you care about the prospect of the DOJ acting as a potential check against the excesses of a president with virtually no ethics to speak of? The manner in which he smeared her in typical Trump fashion and clamped down with such vigor is a portend of the type of treatment for those whom dare to disagree. Sure, it's within Trump's powers to sack her; Nixon also had the right to sack Cox. Was Archibald Cox politically martyring himself or acting in a manner he thought necessary to protect the integrity of the United States government?

 I'm not saying that Sally Yates' situation is equivalent to Cox's, it isn't, but I do think the manner in which the Trump administration has degraded her is a model we can expect to see repeated. If Trump sparks a constitutional crisis a la Nixon---and let's be honest, that is not a far-fetched assumption at all---do you think Trump respects the healthy functioning of the federal agencies such as the Department of Justice enough to allow them to conduct whatever investigations are appropriate? Or do you think that instead he will give them the Yates treatment: sack them, besmirch them, label them betrayers, and replace them with yes men? Will you care then?

You come across as somebody that truly cherishes the values the United States was founded upon, somebody who truly believes that vigilance is the eternal price of liberty. Does this administration strike you as being particularly vigilant? Does it not concern you how this administration rewards subservient lapdogs above professional civil servants actually concerned with carrying out their constitutional duties? What about when we really need independent individuals to carry out their constitutional duties regardless of what the resident wants, or god forbid, if the president asks them to carry out orders that are wholly unconstitutional? Where will the accountability be in an administration that loathes accountability? Have you witnessed anything about this incoming administration that provides you with an impression other than a motley crew of kleptocrats who will endlessly jockey for greater influence in Trump's inner circle and corrode the integrity of the institutions they represent?


Those I think are far more pertinent question to be pondered in the light of the Yates incident, not a blithe "who cares?"

I'm always skeptical of unchecked power but when it comes to the bureaucracy I am a proponent of Scalias dissent in Morrison v Olson. The constitution vests ALL executive power in the President. He (or she) can delegate that power but ultimately it all subordinates to the President. And that makes sense. Ultimately someone has to decide. I do think the EO as drafted was illegal but I also thought that the Federal government's position in like half of the past decades worth of SCOTUS cases was wrong. That doesn't mean the position is indefensible ... I just wouldn't be able to enforce it. I dont think Andrew Johnson should have been forced to keep Stanton in his cabinet, I dont think Obama should have been forced to keep McCrystal as a General and I dont think Trump should be forced to keep this lady. Depending on the job I can see room for certain "for cause" protections for bureaucrats if the disagreement is over internal corruption. That would be your Archibald Coxs. But even independent counsels need to be reigned in from time to time  (ken starr).

I will also say Trump was very rude in saying she "betrayed" him and that such disrespect wouldn't make me inclined towards a cabinet post right now. But we already know that Trump is anything but a gentleman.

All valid points. For what's it worth, I don't think he should have been forced to keep her on either, but the display he made about it is what makes it far more concerning in my eyes. I suppose you feel like you've been ringing the alarm for awhile now about irresponsible government and corruption of our values. My concern is that Trump will push things to the brink beyond any before him and that we as a people will continue to be too divided to effectively mount any restoration of our system's integrity.

And it's far more than just about being ungentlemanly, Trump is deliberately crafting a continuous narrative of any form of opposition or disagreement as an enemy that must be utterly crushed. That's dangerous in a republic which supposedly values criticism and debate as a means of keeping the system accountable to itself.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Why fire them? It's only going to be a few days until Jeff Sessions gets in there.

Besides, Trump could've done an act of political jiujitsu by making a statement that says the AG needs to uphold the law of the land and that he's disappointed in Yates's actions, but won't fire her. This could have helped to blunt opposition to his EO.

I think thats precisely why she was fired. A nobody who wont even have her job in a week disobeys a direct presidential order. Normally if you found a direct superior order untenable you'd resign. She decided to martyr herself instead al a Kim Davis. Is anyone who does not automatically clutch their pearls whenever Trump opens his mouth supposed to care?

That depends, how much do you care about the prospect of the DOJ acting as a potential check against the excesses of a president with virtually no ethics to speak of? The manner in which he smeared her in typical Trump fashion and clamped down with such vigor is a portend of the type of treatment for those whom dare to disagree. Sure, it's within Trump's powers to sack her; Nixon also had the right to sack Cox. Was Archibald Cox politically martyring himself or acting in a manner he thought necessary to protect the integrity of the United States government?

 I'm not saying that Sally Yates' situation is equivalent to Cox's, it isn't, but I do think the manner in which the Trump administration has degraded her is a model we can expect to see repeated. If Trump sparks a constitutional crisis a la Nixon---and let's be honest, that is not a far-fetched assumption at all---do you think Trump respects the healthy functioning of the federal agencies such as the Department of Justice enough to allow them to conduct whatever investigations are appropriate? Or do you think that instead he will give them the Yates treatment: sack them, besmirch them, label them betrayers, and replace them with yes men? Will you care then?

You come across as somebody that truly cherishes the values the United States was founded upon, somebody who truly believes that vigilance is the eternal price of liberty. Does this administration strike you as being particularly vigilant? Does it not concern you how this administration rewards subservient lapdogs above professional civil servants actually concerned with carrying out their constitutional duties? What about when we really need independent individuals to carry out their constitutional duties regardless of what the resident wants, or god forbid, if the president asks them to carry out orders that are wholly unconstitutional? Where will the accountability be in an administration that loathes accountability? Have you witnessed anything about this incoming administration that provides you with an impression other than a motley crew of kleptocrats who will endlessly jockey for greater influence in Trump's inner circle and corrode the integrity of the institutions they represent?


Those I think are far more pertinent question to be pondered in the light of the Yates incident, not a blithe "who cares?"

I'm always skeptical of unchecked power but when it comes to the bureaucracy I am a proponent of Scalias dissent in Morrison v Olson. The constitution vests ALL executive power in the President. He (or she) can delegate that power but ultimately it all subordinates to the President. And that makes sense. Ultimately someone has to decide. I do think the EO as drafted was illegal but I also thought that the Federal government's position in like half of the past decades worth of SCOTUS cases was wrong. That doesn't mean the position is indefensible ... I just wouldn't be able to enforce it. I dont think Andrew Johnson should have been forced to keep Stanton in his cabinet, I dont think Obama should have been forced to keep McCrystal as a General and I dont think Trump should be forced to keep this lady. Depending on the job I can see room for certain "for cause" protections for bureaucrats if the disagreement is over internal corruption. That would be your Archibald Coxs. But even independent counsels need to be reigned in from time to time  (ken starr).

I will also say Trump was very rude in saying she "betrayed" him and that such disrespect wouldn't make me inclined towards a cabinet post right now. But we already know that Trump is anything but a gentleman.

All valid points. For what's it worth, I don't think he should have been forced to keep her on either, but the display he made about it is what makes it far more concerning in my eyes. I suppose you feel like you've been ringing the alarm for awhile now about irresponsible government and corruption of our values. My concern is that Trump will push things to the brink beyond any before him and that we as a people will continue to be too divided to effectively mount any restoration of our system's integrity.

And it's far more than just about being ungentlemanly, Trump is deliberately crafting a continuous narrative of any form of opposition or disagreement as an enemy that must be utterly crushed. That's dangerous in a republic which supposedly values criticism and debate as a means of keeping the system accountable to itself.

You certainly wont hear me defend Trump's character, ethics, or demeanor. Other than that I don't think he is a racist Nazi bent on world domination. He was awful enough that I couldn't vote for him even with Hillarys plan to obliterate the 1st and 2nd amendments though.

[Meclazine for Israel]

SallyYates is the fastest trending twitter handle now

The responses are overwhelmingly pro Sally Yates

Unfortunately, the US political system is not run by Twitter.

Oh wait....let me rephrase......actually......