January 30, 2017

The acting attorney general refused to defend Trump's immigration order... and Trump fired her.

I did not have time to blog about her refusal — I would have said it's up to Trump to fire her — before Trump fired her.
Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement. The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed....

The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which... Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”
ADDED: "went so far"? 

302 comments:

1 – 200 of 302   Newer›   Newest»
Jay Elink said...

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

YESSSS!!!

Clyde said...

"Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye!"

Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya, Sally!

Bad Lieutenant said...

So much winning! What would any of the Bushes have done? Be stupefied probably. O would have had her ass out on the street before the ink dried on that memo. The Clintons would have probably had her arrested. Right on Don!

Drago said...

It's not fair that Obama appointees have to leave!!!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+woman+screaming+no+at+trump+inaugural&view=detail&mid=58EDE80E92C5C94A4E8558EDE80E92C5C94A4E85&FORM=VIRE

Fabi said...

"Escalating crisis"? A swing and a miss.

The Drill SGT said...

When she said the order was legal, but not wise or just, she was acting against the express interest of her client. She must have known and wanted to be fired, thus setting herself up for the future...

Patrick said...

He won

deepelemblues said...

Hopefully just the first in a long line of partisan bureaucrats trump tells "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Mark said...

We've been seeing this at the state level in a lot of places, attorneys general refusing to defend the laws, which denies the public, in its duly elected government, to their right to counsel, totally defeats the adversarial process that our judicial system is built on, and ultimately obstructs the administration of justice.

They should all be fired. And they should all be disbarred.

Drago said...

She was out in a 2 days. This way she gets a permanent weekly slot on MSNBC in Primetime.

Real American said...

Later, traitor.

David Begley said...

Her statement said, in part, that she thought the orders were unjust and unethical. Who appointed her Queen of ethics?

This was a pure stunt.

She had to be fired. Absurd to think that the United States would be a defendant in court and have no lawyers defending it. I suspect many of the Saturday and Sunday cases were heard on the pleadings, with no notice to the US and with no defense lawyers.

sean said...

That seems very unethical, to refuse to defend a client on the grounds that his actions are not "wise or just." I would be ashamed to describe a client as unwise or unjust. The proper response, if you believe that your client is doing something you cannot in good conscience defend, is to resign quietly.

Michael K said...

She must have known and wanted to be fired, thus setting herself up for the future...

Yup. Job interview for left wing think tank or law firm.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Can any harm be done to this woman? I don't mean shooting her, I mean disbarment or something that will make her sorry that she did it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Is this guy that's replacing her going to be a problem? Does anyone know anything about him?

Freder Frederson said...

When she said the order was legal, but not wise or just, she was acting against the express interest of her client.

Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.

Sandy Co said...

"When she said the order was legal, but not wise or just, she was acting against the express interest of her client. She must have known and wanted to be fired, thus setting herself up for the future..."

She said she thought it may not be legal.

Sally Yates:
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.

NYT

Remorse said...

Is this guy that's replacing her going to be a problem? Does anyone know anything about him?

Heh. Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president"

LOL

Those would be the ones who elected President Trump.

Thanks for your input General.

readering said...

Not surprised he fired her. And I guess I'm not surprised his press secretary issued such a childish explanation. She's weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. But strong I guess on standing up to bullying men in the White House.

Drago said...

Sandy Co.: "She said she thought it may not be legal"

LOL

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Hagar said...

Client is the wrong term; the President is her employer and boss.

Drago said...

readering: "Not surprised he fired her. And I guess I'm not surprised his press secretary issued such a childish explanation."

That was spot on....

readering said...

Her replacement is also an Obama appointee. (There are no Trump appointees.) But sounds like he's happy to follow orders.

The Godfather said...

If she were an honorable lawyer (no, that's not an oxymoron) she'd have resigned.

Drago said...

readering: "Her replacement is also an Obama appointee. (There are no Trump appointees.) But sounds like he's happy to follow orders."

LOL

Yes, a fan of the Holder and Lynch Justice depts actually wrote that. Just now. Without irony.

Too funny.

Freder Frederson said...

the President is her employer and boss.

No, the people of the United States of America are her employer and boss. As are the people the President's employer and boss.

EMyrt said...

Michael K said...

She must have known and wanted to be fired, thus setting herself up for the future...

"Yup. Job interview for left wing think tank or law firm."

ACLU is already recruiting her on Twitter.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder doubles down!

Well played Generalissimo!

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "No, the people of the United States of America are her employer and boss"

In that case, allow me: Sally, this isn't working out. Hit the bricks.

n.n said...

Not viable.

Freder Frederson said...


Those would be the ones who elected President Trump.

So you are arguing, that a duly elected president can not do anything that is unlawful? Maybe you should move to Russia.

Drago said...

I think if Field Marshall Freder simply keeps asserting the same ridiculous thing over and over again it MUST become true.

But only if he clicks his heels while doing it....

Drago said...

FIeld Marshall Freder: "So you are arguing, that a duly elected president can not do anything that is unlawful?"

LOL

Nope.

I'm saying you are an idiot.

I hope that helps.

Carry on!

Drago said...

Maybe Field Marshall Freder can mobilize a few of his shock troops and execute a citizens arrest against our duly elected President.

A "real" Patriot would.

Get on it Field Marshall!

Sandy Co said...

Trump will end up like up just like the last President who fired his AG.

Drago said...

Sandy Co: "Trump will end up like up just like the last President who fired his AG."

Hope springs eternal in lunatic lefty land.

I believe lunatic lefty land is just past exit 5 on the Jersey Turnpike.

Mark said...

She wasn't Trump's AG. She was Obama's appointee who effectively attempted a coup.

Drago said...

Sandy Co., I think you should immediately get your friends out into the streets to show "The Man" he can't get away with this "outrage"!!

Make sure to bring your megaphone.

PB said...

The left has gone absolutely barking mad. They've been conditioned to think that their leaders can do nothing wrong, illegal, immoral, or unethical and therefore any opposition to them is wrong, illegal, immoral and/or unethical.

Drago said...

Mark: "She wasn't Trump's AG. She was Obama's appointee who effectively attempted a coup"

Yep.

JUST LIKE PUTIN!!

John said...

Question for the lawyers here:

You have a client who did something that may have been unlawful. Not clearly unlawful, they did not rob a bank, but something where the law is not clear and there is room for interpretation.

You, the lawyer, believe that the action may have been unlawful but are not 100% sure. Don't you still have an obligation to defend your client? Or perhaps resign?

John Henry

Fabi said...

If Yates had been wearing her Pussy Hat this wouldn't have happened!

Sandy Co said...

"She wasn't Trump's AG. She was Obama's appointee who effectively attempted a coup."

Trump asked her to stay on until there is an AG.

I bet Trump wishes he could fire those 6 Federal judges, lol.

Drago said...

If I might paraphrase Tom Wolfe:

In the US, the dark night of fascism is always descending on the right and yet only lands on the left.

Unexpectedly!

Hands Up Don't Shoot!

Original Mike said...

"Ms. Yates said her determination in deciding not to defend the order was broader, however, and included questions not only about the order’s lawfulness, but also whether it was a “wise or just” policy."

Strange, I don't remember voting for Ms. Yates.

Remorse said...

You have a client who did something that may have been unlawful. Not clearly unlawful, they did not rob a bank, but something where the law is not clear and there is room for interpretation.

I kind of see where your going with this and the analogy your reaching for. The President is not the Attorney General's client. The People of the United States are.

Drago said...

Sandy Co.: "Trump asked her to stay on until there is an AG."

Little did President Trump (its fun to write that, no?) know how much of a partisan hack she would be.

Well, no use crying over spilt liberal milk now.

Remorse said...

I guess it's probably not right to think of anyone as a "client" of the Attorney General. She serves the People.

Drago said...

Re: "The President is not the Attorney General's client. The People of the United States are."

And thank goodness our good President kicked this hack to the curb on our behalf!

Thank you President Trump!

Drago said...

Remorse: "I guess it's probably not right to think of anyone as a "client" of the Attorney General. She serves the People."

So, what now? A national plebiscite to validate the firing?

Drago said...

Goodbye Ms Yates. We hardly knew ye.

Christopher said...

So what district is she going to be running for Congress in?

exiledonmainstreet said...

I'm so glad we have a president who fights. Can anybody imagine Jeb! doing this? He'd collapse like a wet dishrag.

Now let's get Sessions in there. And for Chrissake, go after Soros. He's the one behind these idiot rent-a-mobs.

Drago said...

I'm pretty sure Chuck Schumer is tearing up....

Remorse said...

Memories of the Saturday Night Massacre.



Gahrie said...

So you are arguing, that a duly elected president can not do anything that is unlawful?

How is the President firing an Executive Branch employee who refuses to do her job unlawful?

Somebody should have reminded her about the air traffic controllers

Drago said...

exiledonmainstreet: "I'm so glad we have a president who fights. Can anybody imagine Jeb! doing this?"

Jeb, who could not get elected if he paid every single American voter directly, would have handed over half the Cabinet slots to Democrats.

You know, just cut out the middleman.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Remorse: "I guess it's probably not right to think of anyone as a "client" of the Attorney General. She serves the People."

Just like those great Public Servants Holder and Lynch, I suppose.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Let me help you out, Ms. Yates

U.S. Code § 1182(f)

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

And I'm not even a lawyer.

Original Mike said...

"Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president."

The president represents the people. That's what the election we just had was all about.

Drago said...

Remorse: "Memories of the Saturday Night Massacre."

No no no. Get it right.

The lefty meme is this is just like the "Night of Long Knives"!

Remember, the lefty theme is "Everything Godwin, 24/7"

Carry on!

Mark said...

Don't you still have an obligation to defend your client? Or perhaps resign?

As a former court-appointed criminal defense attorney, I will tell you that an attorney has a fundamental ethical duty to represent even unpopular clients that you disagree with. Ninety-five percent of my clients did break the law. They still had a right to counsel. They still had a right of representation, someone to argue their case in court.

The executive branch generally and the office of the president specifically are also entitled to counsel to represent and defend their actions in court, whatever a government attorney might personally think about who held the office. If party-litigants did not each have a right to counsel, including the president with respect to his executive actions, then our entire judicial system would fall apart.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Remorse: KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

BTW, I saw clips of the Soros mobs beating up people with MAGA hats on. That's because you're all about Love.

traditionalguy said...

Truman did MacCarthy. Those were the days when men were men.

Gahrie said...

How is the President firing an Executive Branch employee who refuses to do her job unlawful?

And if in some fucked up way (we are talking about the US government here) it is unlawful, then the next thing on Trump's list should be to get that changed.

Paul said...

She's fired. Fine with me. Now to the next-in-command.

If they give him the same shit... they will be fired to.

And so on down the line. Perfect!

Get rid of every liberal that way. Make them step on the liberal shrine. If they refuse to do so... FIRE THEM.

I bet that's his plan!

buster said...

@ Remorse:

The AG serves The People are the pleasure of the President.

buster said...

at, not are.

Mark said...

And, as a matter of historical fact, Nixon's firings were based not on the personnel in question refusing to do their job, but because they insisted on doing their job. Nixon wanted to delay and obstruct the administration of justice, unlike Trump who wants to see that the laws are executed.

Drago said...

Remember the day that Brenner/CNN/Buzzfeed collaborated on their "Russian Dossier" hit on Trump was the first day that paleo-Marxist Carl Bernstein first uttered aloud "Saturday Night Massacre" to his fevered followers.

So, let's see if we get this straight: an Acting AG refuses to defend lawful Executive Orders and gets canned and this is "Just Like Watergate"!

LOL

Yes, I really do believe that the lefties, after everything up to now, will actually try to ride this pony for a few days.

It's like a dream come true. Other than Hollande's Socialists in France (and possibly Merkel in Germany) we've never before seen a party decide it was going to cut all the way through it's own carotid after accidently nicking it.

Glorious.

Sandy Co said...

April 6, 1977: Nixon: ‘If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal’'

Wrong.

Remorse said...

"In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Part of Article 2 in the Articles of impeachment of President Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee.

We'll probably see a similar article against Trump before too long. Can't see him making it beyond 2019 at this rate.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Some political appointees seem never to have taken a course in government or in poli-sci.
We are a republic. Bureaucrats are not allowed to determine and enact public policy. I suppose that at some level democrats know this. You can't have a pro-life bureaucrat decide, on their own authority, not to use public funds to pay for abortions.

Drago said...

The trolls are out in limited force tonight!

I wonder if they are distracted due to Soro's problems with some European governments?
Let's face it, Brock doesn't have the old mojo going anymore. Not after the last election.

And what's up with that hair?

Mark said...

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, now acting AG, will not faithfully follow and apply the law?

No, there is not. So, as regards justice and the Constitution, the firing of the unethical former acting AG is moot.

Drago said...

Lewis Wetzel: "Some political appointees seem never to have taken a course in government or in poli-sci.
We are a republic. Bureaucrats are not allowed to determine and enact public policy. I suppose that at some level democrats know this. You can't have a pro-life bureaucrat decide, on their own authority, not to use public funds to pay for abortions"

I'm afraid your iron clad logic and reasoning will have zero penetration capability against the full force of the Lefty Death Star Logic Shields!

Remorse said...

Bureaucrats are not allowed to determine and enact public policy.

Where are you getting this language? She didn't try to "determine and enact public policy." She was refusing to follow an order that she thought might not be legal.

exiledonmainstreet said...

And what's up with that hair?

1/30/17, 9:33 PM

When I went to Drudge the other night and saw his picture on the front page, I didn't recognize him for a second. My first thought was "Who is that old lesbian?"

Drago said...

Re: "Where are you getting this language? She didn't try to "determine and enact public policy." She was refusing to follow an order that she thought might not be legal"

LOL

Just keep running with that one!

Mark said...

Part of Article 2 in the Articles of impeachment of President Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee sounds an awful like an indictment of Yates --

"In disregard of the rule of law, she knowingly misused the power of her office by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice, in violation of her duty as acting AG to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Drago said...

Poor lefties. When you've lost Dershowitz....

Not to worry. Raul Castro and Maduro are fully in your corner!

Carry on!

Jay Elink said...

Freder Frederson said...
When she said the order was legal, but not wise or just, she was acting against the express interest of her client.

Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.

**********************

You don't know shit about the Constitution.

Her BOSS is the President.

Drago said...

Mark: "Part of Article 2 in the Articles of impeachment of President Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee sounds an awful like an indictment of Yates --"

Indeed.

Watergate in REVERSE!

Trump is some sort of magician!

Drago said...

Standard Issue Lefty: (furiously googling Watergate era rulings and Media Matters for talking points)- Uh, uh, uh, blather, Watergate!, additional blather, primo blather, Watergate!, final blather.

Remorse said...

When she said the order was legal, but not wise or just

Fake news.

Sally Yates wrote: "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful."

grackle said...

Swamp critter Yates just ran out of deep water, natural casualty of much-needed and overdue drainage. She’ll end up as a popular Guest Whore on Morning Joe, mark my words.

AJ Lynch said...

Yates may become a bit famous for being the first of many govt bureaucrats to hear "You're Fired" from Trump.

And I say good for Trump - that is why we elected him.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
Bureaucrats are not allowed to determine and enact public policy.

Where are you getting this language? She didn't try to "determine and enact public policy." She was refusing to follow an order that she thought might not be legal.

****************************

Even Alan Dershowitz won't defend her, BECAUSE she acted NOT on a reasoned position on the law, but because she thought the law "might not" be legal.

At the AG level you don't get to "wing it".

Comanche Voter said...

This twit is a legend in her own mind; otoh she is now nicely set up to be a legend on MSNBC. That said, I hope she got kicked out the door hard enough that she didn't stop bouncing for thirty yards or so.

Original Mike said...

"Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department."

Good thing Reid got rid of the filibuster or the new administration might have a real problem on its hands.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
"In disregard of the rule of law,

********************

We can stop right there.

What "rule of law" did Trump disregard?

cubanbob said...

Remorse said...
"In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Part of Article 2 in the Articles of impeachment of President Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee.

We'll probably see a similar article against Trump before too long. Can't see him making it beyond 2019 at this rate."

You mind being a little more specific in which way Trump violated the law? Considering there is no mandate that the US allow anyone in who isn't a US national and the president can exclude anyone who isn't a US national from coming in for any reason of his choice what exactly did this Obama hack find that Trump acted illegally? Indeed Sessions when he takes office ought to file a bar complaint against her seeking disbarment.

Original Mike said...

"Where are you getting this language? She didn't try to "determine and enact public policy.""

Determining public policy is exactly what she sought to do.

Mark said...

For those who think it appropriate that a government attorney charged with defending duly enacted laws and administrative order should refuse to do that duty -- note that if they effectively side with the other side in litigation, then there is no actual "case or controversy," such that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and any challenge should be dismissed.

James Pawlak said...

Was her conduct a violation of the rules/cannons in the jurisdiction(s) which licensed her?

If yes, is it the duty of each and every lawyer in those places to request that formal discipline be imposed on her?

Drago said...

Remorse: "We'll probably see a similar article against Trump before too long. Can't see him making it beyond 2019 at this rate."

No Longer Operative Lefty Predictions
- Trump will never take office
- Trump will not last a week

In-Work Lefty Predictions
- Trump will not last 6 months...er...12 months...24 months...TBD

Bob Boyd said...

Yates had to have known she'd be fired. She must have decided she didn't want to stay on and this is the way she wanted to go out.
I expect her to run for office somewhere.

Drago said...

Bob Boyd: "She must have decided she didn't want to stay on and this is the way she wanted to go out."

Sessions was going to fire her pronto.

She knew it.

Mark said...

It is not for an attorney to be the judge of the merits of a case. That is for the court. It is for the attorney to make any good faith argument in favor.

mccullough said...

My only question for her is how is Obama's kill list lawful?

Larvell said...

If you're an agency head (especially a holdover) who feels like you can't carry out a presidential directive you disagree with, you resign -- you don't order everyone in your department to obstruct the directive. That's not principle, that's political.

Angel-Dyne said...

Drago:

The trolls are out in limited force tonight!

I wonder if they are distracted due to Soro's problems with some European governments?
Let's face it, Brock doesn't have the old mojo going anymore. Not after the last election.


Yeah, it's interesting. "Sandy Co" (aka "Sandy Coalfax" aka "Sandy Coldfax" aka "Sami" aka a number of "Unknowns" aka "Anonymous") is one of a number of multi-sockpuppet accounts that swarmed onto the Althouse blog last July, buzzed energetically, became quiescent, and then re-appeared this month. The currently active "Bill" ("WilliamHR", "QueenWili" and at least 5 other names), among others, is from the same hive.

Don't really know what a swarm of demoralized sockpuppets who always come across as being half an inch away from hysterical meltdown are supposed to be accomplishing here.

AJ Lynch said...

Do these liberals know crap like this is going to make it even easier for Trump to gut the fed bureaucracy. They won't know what hit them and the taxpayers won't notice when govt drones like Yates are kaput.

Mark said...

Under our system, government lawyers do not have the power of the veto. That is for the president. And they do not determine the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. That is emphatically the province of the judiciary. Con Law 101.

Remorse said...

What "rule of law" did Trump disregard?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. The ACLU apparently intends to sue because they argue it violates the establishment clause.

chickelit said...

This seems like a case where she should have simply resigned instead trying to lead a mutiny. Resignation would have been consistent with having principles. Her choice makes her look desperate -- as if her rice bowl were threatened.

Larvell said...

If I'm McConnell, I get everyone out of bed and vote on Sessions before midnight.

mockturtle said...

I agree that she clearly expected--and wanted--to be fired. She was just reinforcing her Prog-ram credentials.

With Trump there seems to be good news every day! :-)

Sonya Pandawarman said...

in my country we call "PRAMUKA".
math jokes

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Remorse said...

It is not for an attorney to be the judge of the merits of a case. That is for the court. It is for the attorney to make any good faith argument in favor.

What are you talking about? There may be some exception to this case, maybe some attorney can tell us, but attorneys general always judge the merits of their cases. In criminal cases they often decide whether to bring them before a grand jury or court, and they often don't.

Jack Wayne said...

I wonder if any of the shrieking media will bother to go talk to a Silicon Valley CEO and ask them if Trump has their attention now. He's a guy that likes loyalty and he's testing the bonds between them and Obama.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"That said, I hope she got kicked out the door hard enough that she didn't stop bouncing for thirty yards or so."

Trump didn't grab her pussy, he kicked her in the ass.

chickelit said...

Remorse said...The ACLU apparently intends to sue because they argue it violates the establishment clause.

It more certainly violates the establishment class.

Joe said...

Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.

Not by my reading. The AG represents the Government of the United States in legal matters.

28 U.S. Code § 516 - Conduct of litigation reserved to Department of Justice

Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, or is interested, and securing evidence therefor, is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.


Mark said...

There may be some exception to this case, maybe some attorney can tell us,

An attorney just did.

exiledonmainstreet said...

BREAKING: President Trump dismisses Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Daniel Ragsdale

Drain that swamp, Trump. Watch out though, some really nasty things live in it.

Seeing Red said...

I think it's unlawful.


But

We won't know until we run it thru the courts.

Talk about a catch-22.


OTOH

Obama the Constitutional law expert was reversed quite a few times.

Very unlawful.

They didn't have a problem the past 8 years.

In fact, Insty posted an article about US immigration attorneys last week.

Talk about unlawful.

Remorse said...

Remorse: Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.

Joe: Not by my reading. The AG represents the Government of the United States in legal matters.


"Of the people, by the people, for the people"

"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union"

Oh, I know. It's just spin.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Remorse seems to think Trump should take a poll before he fires anybody.

Did Obama ever do that?

Seeing Red said...

It's like The Apprentice has gone live!

Or

21st century The Truman Show.

MaxedOutMama said...

Among the least surprising news items I've ever encountered.

Seeing Red said...

What legal statute is that from, remorse?

moostache said...

Sounds to me like he doesn't enjoy anyone questioning ANYTHING he is doing — even from a legal matter on an executive order that will fail in court.

David Begley said...

CNN and MSNBC completely unhinged on this tonight. President Bannon. Constitutional crisis. Etc.

Seeing Red said...

You're welcome to try that explanation in court, remorse.

Good luck to you.

Jack Wayne said...

Exile, I can't think of anybody Obama fired. He was lazy and liked being surrounded by incompetent sycophants.

chuck said...

Is there an escalating crisis? I wasn't aware of one.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
It is not for an attorney to be the judge of the merits of a case. That is for the court. It is for the attorney to make any good faith argument in favor.

What are you talking about? There may be some exception to this case, maybe some attorney can tell us, but attorneys general always judge the merits of their cases. In criminal cases they often decide whether to bring them before a grand jury or court, and they often don't.

*****************
PROSECUTORIAL discretion is not the same as deciding not to DEFEND cases brought against the government.

That is an elementary principle.

It's happened before, when the Obama admin refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bilk Linton.

But---it's very rare, and in the DOM case, it was done with the APPROVAL of the Obama DOJ.


Get the difference? GET IT?

Remorse said...

What legal statute is that from, remorse?

That's a core bedrock principle of our country, Seeing Red. If you don't get that or you don't like it, then you have a problem with your citizenship. But that's not my business, it's yours.

Remorse said...

Get the difference? GET IT?

I get that.

Remorse said...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if this is a win for Trump. Or another nail in the coffin he's apparently building for his administration.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
Remorse: Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.

Joe: Not by my reading. The AG represents the Government of the United States in legal matters.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people"

"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union"

Oh, I know. It's just spin.

**********************

That's lame, lame, lame beyond words.

I suspect you've chosen "Remorse" as your nic because you regret never bothering to learn the basics of the Constitution, the law, and American history.

Joe said...

Can we put the following on a poster so even the densest "I'm not sure it's legal" person can understand:

U.S. Code § 1182(f)

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

In other words, despite everything stated in U.S. Code § 1182, the president can ban any class of alien he damn well pleases for any reason, including wearing shorts. The only real legal question is whether green card holders are a class of aliens. (I believe they are.)


Fabi said...

A Presidential speech doesn't have the force of law and neither does a preamble.

Joe said...

"Of the people, by the people, for the people"

"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union"


What part of the statute which specifically states in multiple places that the Attorney General and those he directs represent the actual government of the United States? Not the people. Not on behalf of the people. Just the government.

mockturtle said...

AG Loretta Lynch's 'boss' was President Obama. If 'we the people' had been authorized, we would have fired her for her little tarmac tête-à-tête with Bill.

Remorse said...

I'm certainly not qualified (and never said I was or made a judgement) to determine if Trump OR Sally Yates the Acting Attorney General have acted legally in fulfilling their parts in this American drama.

But given the behaviors of our incompetent President and his inner circle the presumption for me has to be that he's going to be held accountable for his actions and his executive orders. Yates will probably be feted as a defender of American principles who played her role honorably.

The losers will complain that history is written by the victors.

Seeing Red said...

well, if you want to argue it this way...

Ok


By the declaration of the Electoral College, because Trump won under the rules, of those oh, so wise slave-owning dead men, (or as my wise daddy said long ago, they lived it,) Trump is acting for "We, the People." Therefore, this is what his voters want. A minor delay.

She did not do her job. She deserved to be fired.

I understand why he fired her, but, I would have demoted her. Make her quit.

OTOH, I do seem to recall Lincoln went thru a lot of generals until he found one that was effective.

Jay Elink said...

Question for the lawyers here:

You have a client who did something that may have been unlawful. Not clearly unlawful, they did not rob a bank, but something where the law is not clear and there is room for interpretation.

You, the lawyer, believe that the action may have been unlawful but are not 100% sure. Don't you still have an obligation to defend your client? Or perhaps resign?

John Henry

****************************

Begin your analysis by telling us WHY what Trump did "may or may not" be unlawful.

Start with the statute: title 8 , Sec 1152 (a), which offers a prima facie case of LEGALITY to the President's actions.

What is unclear here? Where is the need for interpretation---especially when Jimmy Carter expelled Iranians under the same provision of the law?

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Oh and BTW: where did Baraka's authority to end the "dry foot" treatment of Cuban refugee's, except from another interpretation of that same statute?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Remorse said...
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if this is a win for Trump.

You do not have a reason or law behind you, so we get "we'll just have to wait and see . . ."

Michael Fitzgerald said...

DJT slicing like a fucking hammer!

Jay Elink said...

Face it, Remorse: your head was handed to you.

Now go, change your nic, and come back here so we can make the rubble bounce, once again.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"If you don't get that or you don't like it, then you have a problem with your citizenship."
The American Left -- first to complain that their patriotism is being questioned, first to question the patriotism of others.

Lyle said...

Trump may be good for purging the Federal government of some progressives. Yay!

Remorse said...

Jay Elink, what I was incorrect to say the People were the client of the Attorney General and not the President? Ho hum, I stand corrected.

IMO Trump is still the one who will be under fire come tomorrow, not Sally Yates. How many protesters are there in Louisville streets tonight?

openidname said...

Remorse: The linked article didn't contain the "wise or just" quote, but you can find it elsewhere.

Per the New York Times: "Ms. Yates said her determination in deciding not to defend the order was broader, however, and included questions not only about the order’s lawfulness, but also whether it was a 'wise or just' policy."

That was her workaround for the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel had (apparently) pronounced the order legal.

walter said...

chuck said...Is there an escalating crisis? I wasn't aware of one.
--
Why..it's all the rage these days Chuck..

Remorse said...

And Jay Elink, if you are still a Trump supporter after this first week and a half, then maybe you should get a new nick and come back. Well, of course this is kind of the place for Trump supporters to hang and feel like they have control of what is happening.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, of course this is kind of the place for Trump supporters to hang and feel like they have control of what is happening.

1/30/17, 10:43 PM

As compared to you, whose party lost the House, the Senate and the Presidency and whose bench looks like an old age home. Yeah, you're in control!

Jon Ericson said...

Pow

David said...

If a lawyer does not feel that she can represent the interests of her client without reservation, she must withdraw from the case. In most situations she also has an obligation to withdraw in a manner that does not prejudice her client. It may be argued that she has Fifth Amendment rights to make statements about the merits of the case as long as she does not violate client confidences. However, it seems to me that the right to disparage the position of her client requires her to withdraw not just from the particular matter, but from all representation of the client. Thus I think that there is a reasonable case that can be made that Ms. Yates violated her ethical duty by her manner of withdrawal.

Part of this depends on who her client is. I am not sure of the answer to that question, despite the spirited but unilluminating discussion of the issue by Freder and others above. I imagine there is an answer, but I do not know what it is.

In any event, technical legal ethics aside, it seems to me that Ms. Yates would have distinguished herself more had she resigned, rather than just issuing a press release and continuing to hope she would be paid her salary.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Leftists have collectively lost control of their sphincter muscles every damn day since Nov. 9.

Remorse said...

As compared to you, whose party lost the House, the Senate and the Presidency and whose bench looks like an old age home. Yeah, you're in control!

No, what's been concerning me is that events are slipping out of everyone's control. I have to say though, the more incompetent Trump becomes and the more support that he loses, the better off we'll all be, at least under most of the scenarios that I can think of.

Gk1 said...

Remorse how exactly is trump losing support? Have you seen the latest Rasmussen report? I clear majority is behind the temporary ban. He will lose support if he buckles and caves in to the rabble, that I could understand.

Seeing Red said...

Control?


Ahhh, the lust for power always comes out.


I have no hands on any levers of power, so exactly what am I supposed to be in control of?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Remorse, Trump is doing what he said he would do if he were elected. You seem to think that this means the people that voted for him will change their minds.
You are mistaken.
The Nerds at Slashdot are discussing rumored plans Trump has for making it more difficult to hire H1-B's. Like a lot of people, they understand the economics of immigration perfectly well when it affects their own employment situation, but get all weepy-eyed and sentimental about immigration when that immigration costs other people their livilihood.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/30/2346234/trumps-next-immigration-move-to-affect-h-1b-visas-require-tech-companies-to-try-to-hire-americans-first-bloomberg#comments

Remorse said...

In any event, technical legal ethics aside, it seems to me that Ms. Yates would have distinguished herself more had she resigned, rather than just issuing a press release and continuing to hope she would be paid her salary.

I'm pretty sure she didn't think she was going to continue to get her salary. But I don't know about the ethics of her decision for sure, it never occurred to me there would be a difference. But now I guess it will be interesting to see what the full story on that is and how it plays out.

Probably at best a pyrrhic victory for Trump if she did this wrong. The real story is the government seems to be in disarray over incompetent implementation of policy and communication.

Gk1 said...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Remorse said...

Rasmussen is the outlier of the polls right now. So meh.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Keeping your campaign promises is now "incompetence." If Obama was that incompetent, we'd all have free health care and Guantanamo would be prisoner-free.
Trump was supposed to f*ck with the tyrannical dreams of progressives, and make them cry and throw tantrums. That why he was elected president. Looks like it's working.
You can always move to Canada, Remorse. They are very welcoming to Americans -- especially doctors and nurses, and people with fat bank accounts to invest.

Seeing Red said...

I have no problem with President Pence.

That being said, since the bar was lowered or reset by the former rapist-in-chief, removing DJT from office would be overturning the election. That is a no-no (wagging finger).

Since the former rapist-in-chief did NOT vacate said office, why should the current occupant?

Gk1 said...

So.Much.Winning. Can you imagine an entire month like this? Can you imagine an entire year? Trump's biggest opponents so far sob and wear safety pins. I'm afraid President Pence would be a let down after all of this winning.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
Rasmussen is the outlier of the polls right now. So meh.

*************

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan30


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

YOu got better polls? Produce them. Otherwise you're full of it.,

Remorse said...

I don't think Trump will necessarily leave of his own volition. This is a guy with some pretty severe ego interests, don't you think?

Now you may disagree but I think everyone on all sides are wondering how soon before they impeach him. I don't think it's totally focused in their minds but a little more than the day he took office.

Seeing Red said...

If she was so sure she wasn't going to get her salary, then she should have resigned gracefully.

I know, it's just not done now.

She had ample opportunity to leave, since 11/9/16. This is no surprise.

Crass and unprofessional.


Insty had that great pic of the former!!! WH staff...when you spend 8 years weaponizing the Federal Gov't....heeeee


NOT BORING!

Lewis Wetzel said...

HARTFORD — A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week shows more American voters support President Trump‘s executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from several Middle Eastern and North African countries.

The poll showed American voters support 48 – 42 percent “suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions.”

A plurality of voters also said they would support requiring immigrants from Muslim-majority nations to register with American officials, 53-41 percent.


http://fox61.com/2017/01/30/qu-poll-almost-half-of-american-voters-support-trumps-immigration-order/

The numbers probably wouldn't be that good for Trump if so many Muslim refugees didn't go berserk and scream "Allahu Akbar" while killing innocent Americans.

Seeing Red said...

Please impeachment talk started 11/10/16.

Didn't need a crystal ball to see that.


And again, the bar was reset, so what?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"No, what's been concerning me is that events are slipping out of everyone's control."

And the screaming leftist mobs and the Dems and the hysterical media have nothing to do with that, I suppose? It's all Trump's fault. It's your people who are doing their best to delegitimize the election results because you can't accept Queen Hillary didn't win. Trump is fighting back.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Now you may disagree but I think everyone on all sides are wondering how soon before they impeach him.
Every sensible person would disagree with this statement.

Seeing Red said...

Ohhhh, 2 outliers.

I wonder if there will be 3?


Those Canucks had bad timing.

Remorse said...

Jay Elink:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Sorry too lazy to make a link. Enjoy.

Remorse said...

Every sensible person would disagree with this statement.

There's a good argument. Come on, you can do better. I know, it's late.

Remorse said...

And the screaming leftist mobs and the Dems and the hysterical media have nothing to do with that, I suppose? It's all Trump's fault. It's your people who are doing their best to delegitimize the election results because you can't accept Queen Hillary didn't win.

Whine whine whine. You can do better, too.

Seeing Red said...

Deplorable doesn't mean stupid, no matter how much you want it to.


Sometimes what you feel in your gut cannot be articulated. Or, depending on the audience, even if articulated, dismissed, because deplorable.

Lose-lose.

You didn't listen, got grabbed by your short-hairs.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said...
And Jay Elink, if you are still a Trump supporter after this first week and a half, then maybe you should get a new nick and come back. Well, of course this is kind of the place for Trump supporters to hang and feel like they have control of what is happening.

**************

You must be really, really new to this site, if you think the Blogmistress and the commenters are all Trump supporters.

YOUR PROBLEM IS, you can't make an argument "on the merits". Law professor Althouse and many of us here, including Trump detractors, understand what that phrase means. And how it distinguishes people trying to make serious arguments from those who just flail around flinging SNOT.

You obviously don't.

You should go back to Kos, or to Salon before they fold. It's the highest level you can attain.

bgates said...

You know, there is at least one significant way that today is like Watergate:

Hillary Clinton wasn't President then either.

Remorse said...

Deplorable doesn't mean stupid, no matter how much you want it to.

If this is to me I don't quite understand it, but I didn't call you stupid. But deplorable or not, wherever you stand on the issues or on Trump, if you show me respect I'll show you respect as well.

Seeing Red said...

Bwaaaaaa.

Better, didn't she get FIRED from an investigative committee?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The numbers probably wouldn't be that good for Trump if so many Muslim refugees didn't go berserk and scream "Allahu Akbar" while killing innocent Americans."

Which is why I am irritated by any reference to the Jewish refugees in the '30's (turned away by a Democrat president and Congress BTW). The Jews were law-abiding people. They were not blowing up anybody, or insisting that their host countries adopt Jewish law. The world-wide Jewish threat existed only in the mind of Nazis. No matter how many innocents get murdered by Islamic terrorists the Left continues to pretend that there is no risk in letting in unvetted refugees.

Jay Elink said...

Remorse said... "Sorry too lazy..."

Ipse dixit, ladies and gents...

Too lazy, his whole life............

Drago said...

Remorse: "I don't think Trump will necessarily leave of his own volition. This is a guy with some pretty severe ego interests, don't you think?"

Yeah, a politician with an ego.

Alert the media!

Where is Saint Obama now? A monastery?

Seeing Red said...

I was thinking desultory.

Remorse said...

YOUR PROBLEM IS, you can't make an argument "on the merits".

Too lazy, his whole life............


So I see this is pretty personal for you Jay Elink. So what argument did I fail to make? That the AG's client is the People and non the President? Fine, I gave in on that. Something else?

That the Rasmussen poll wasn't the final word on Trump's polling numbers? My evidence wasn't good enough for you? What? What is it you want from me?

Achilles said...

"Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president."

Even if that was right, and it is not, most of the people want this order enforced you halfitwit.

Jack Wayne said...

The thing that I like best about this immigration kerfuffle is that the lefty ninnies have ignored the EO that has really turned the government upside down. Immigration bans are a temporary pinprick. Ordering every branch of government to eliminate 2 regs for every new reg and also ordering that every new reg must be cost neutral is absolutely huge. The EPA is out of business as of today. Nearly every department will not be creating new regs anytime soon. So Trump has stopped the regulation boom in America. Once he gets the Congress to use the CRA, I expect that he will achieve his boast of a reduction of 75% of regs. That will be yuge. The best part is that the lefties are howling over the insult to Muslims which is a yawner to middle America.

Remorse said...

Fine, I gave in on that. No, that is too easy on me.

I.Was.Wrong. I was really, really wrong. Because I incorrectly made that argument you want to put me in my own basket of deplorables? Fine.

Fabi said...

Get a good night's sleep, lefties. Tomorrow brings Sessions' confirmation and Trump's SCOTUS nominee. If Sessions appoints Rudy as special prosecutor for a RICO investigation against Soros on Wednesday, you'll need all the rest you can get. Sweet dreams!

Remorse said...

Ipse dixit, ladies and gents...

Too lazy, his whole life............


I've been here a long time in an environment that's not very welcoming or conducive to my views of things. Yet I've shown a willingness to argue and stand my ground without resorting to name calling or snark, or personally attacking anyone. And I think I'm always willing to admit when someone shows that I'm wrong. I think I've kept pretty good grace.

So if you don't like it why doncha just shove off, eh?



Jon Ericson said...

https://youtu.be/1ytCEuuW2_A

Mark said...

So apparently Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame said that Yates was in the wrong and Trump in the right in firing her.

Mark said...

Another good point I've heard --

Under the Constitution, all executive power of the executive branch is vested in one person -- the president. All other officers serve as agents of that one executive, such that any power they have is delegated from him.

William said...

Just as a matter of theatrics she should have resigned. It would make her refusal look more principled and less like political tactic. Played right it might even have attracted more publicity.....Here's one scenario that could work. .She should have gone to the Women's Shelter and rented one of the babies and the mother. Put the mother in a hijab and have her stand alongside Yates. Yates holds the baby in her own arms. She says that she could not in good conscience send this baby back to Sudan and that she must, therefore, resign her position. Then a bunch of ICE agents in full dress uniform suddenly arrive and grab the baby out of her arms. They say that they're here on President Trump's orders to deport the baby to the Sudan. When the mother starts screaming, the agents club her and say that President Trump has ordered them to club all deportees who make a fuss......If such a scenario were enacted before a preselected MSNBC camera crew, I'm sure Ms Yates reputation would be enhanced and Trump's deportation orders would become unenforceable.

bgates said...

The real story is the government seems to be in disarray

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-trump-iowa-caucus-loss-20160203-story.html The Trump campaign tried to bar the media from observing its ground troops at work, but reports emerged nonetheless of an amateur field operation in disarray. - that was after the Iowa caucus, Feb 2, 2016.

www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-campaign-staff-disarray-221557 - April 2016

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/video/trump-camp-in-disarray-debate-a-disaster-775399491835 - that's from September

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/maybe-republicans-really-are-in-disarray/ - Oct 28, 2015

Crooked media and their dwindling number of readers call themselves independent thinkers, but keep using the same few words to lie about President Trump and his historically successful campaign. Sad!

Known Unknown said...

"The numbers probably wouldn't be that good for Trump if so many Muslim refugees didn't go berserk and scream "Allahu Akbar" while killing innocent Americans."


I think the European experiments in self-immolation have made the American electorate even more wary of open borders.

And it's not just terrorism. Look at fucking Rotheram. That's an abominable disgrace that should haunt the UK forever.

Joshua Barker said...

Blogger Sandy Co said...
April 6, 1977: Nixon: ‘If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal’'

Wrong.

1/30/17, 9:31 PM


I'd say that U.S. Code § 1182(f) is pretty rock-solid legal footing.

The left can't just continue to pick and choose which laws they think they get to follow. Obama was the most lawless administration in our history, and Trump is returning us back to the rule of law. If you don't like it, go pound sand...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Am I a total dummy, or has the NYT piece changed since Althosue pulled her quote from it?

Achilles said...

Remorse said...

"That the Rasmussen poll wasn't the final word on Trump's polling numbers? My evidence wasn't good enough for you? What? What is it you want from me?"

Don't change a thing.

Keep siding with people who believe in sharia law over the citizens of this country. Keep telling us we are racist because we don't support a religion. Your stupidity entertains us. When you argue that if we don't let more of them in they will radicalize and attack us that is the best.

Please keep meeting up in stupid little mobs and throwing bricks through Starbucks windows in metropolitan hubs. We love it when you shit in your own bed. If you leave your little bubbles and come out into the rest of the country where we live and work and pull that shit though we will crush you.

Keep marching around in pussy hats and listening to celebrities make idiots of themselves. Keep believing you will get to impeach trump. Shout it in your stupid little bubble. It makes sure the majority of us that support what he is doing larger.

Mostly though keep crying. Keep bitching and moaning. Your tears are mana.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 302   Newer› Newest»