Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Trump fired acting AG Yates

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,159
Of course he did. :rolleyes:
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
 

VRBeauty

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
10,189
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.
 

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,159
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.
And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
 

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,950
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

Exactly, she was not smart to openly defy him.


She should have known this would happen.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
 

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,950
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because she might have wanted to take a stand about an important issue. And make it known that she will stand up for what's right in spite of Cheeto.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
lovedogs|1485834193|4122151 said:
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because she might have wanted to take a stand about an important issue. And make it known that she will stand up for what's right in spite of Cheeto.
And when you resign you cannot accomplish the same thing?

Resign and say why you are doing so.
 

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,159
ruby59|1485834401|4122153 said:
lovedogs|1485834193|4122151 said:
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because she might have wanted to take a stand about an important issue. And make it known that she will stand up for what's right in spite of Cheeto.
And when you resign you cannot accomplish the same thing?

Resign and say why you are doing so.
Resigning in this instance would have been the easy way out. It was a much stronger message to tell Pvss Grab to fvck off in this way.
 

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,950
Dee*Jay|1485834561|4122154 said:
ruby59|1485834401|4122153 said:
lovedogs|1485834193|4122151 said:
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because she might have wanted to take a stand about an important issue. And make it known that she will stand up for what's right in spite of Cheeto.
And when you resign you cannot accomplish the same thing?
Resigning in this instance would have been the easy way out. It was a much stronger message to tell Pvss Grab to fvck off in this way.
Thank you.
 

VRBeauty

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
10,189
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because was concerned that his order was not legal and she works for the American People, not for the prezident (yes, even though in that position she serves at the pleasure of the president). Because she's sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution, not the administration. Apparently she felt ordering DOJ employees to enforce the EO (which was unvetted) would force the employees to violate the constitution or federal law. If so, memo was not just a question of stating her preferences, it was also one of ensuring that other, lower-level DOJ employees were not put in such a position.

Bear in mind that three or four courts have already issued emergency stays that invalidate, at least temporarily, various aspects of the EO.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
She was a political appointee who refused to do her job.

It's no different than the woman who refused to marry gay couples. When you work as a government employee, you enforce the law.

The Acting AG had a lawful order, she refused to defend it; she deserved to be fired - period.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
Here is why I take the stance I do: If she had an issue with the legality of the order, she had a duty to address that first with the WH before issuing a cease order to DOJ staff. There is no report that I can find where she did so. And the order was reported as having been approved by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.

Doing what she did also creates even more division & confusion among non-political staff in a department already riddled with controversy.
 

VRBeauty

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
10,189
JoCoJenn|1485835330|4122162 said:
She was a political appointee who refused to do her job.

It's no different than the woman who refused to marry gay couples. When you work as a government employee, you enforce the law.

The Acting AG had a lawful order, she refused to defend it; she deserved to be fired - period.
The difference is that Kim Davis was trying to uphold a distinction that the Supreme Court had already found to be unconstitutional.

At least four federal courts have found at least part of the order to be either unlawful or potentially unlawful and needing further review. Separation of powers and all that. The prez issuing an Executive Order doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal under the constitution.

An Attorney General serves at the will or the president and prezT is within his rights to fire Acting AG Gates. That doesn't mean his EO is legal or constitutional - that remains to be seen.
 

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,950
VRBeauty|1485839509|4122179 said:
JoCoJenn|1485835330|4122162 said:
She was a political appointee who refused to do her job.

It's no different than the woman who refused to marry gay couples. When you work as a government employee, you enforce the law.

The Acting AG had a lawful order, she refused to defend it; she deserved to be fired - period.
The difference is that Kim Davis was trying to uphold a distinction that the Supreme Court had already found to be unconstitutional.

At least four federal courts have found at least part of the order to be either unlawful or potentially unlawful and needing further review. Separation of powers and all that. The prez issuing an Executive Order doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal under the constitution.

An Attorney General serves at the will or the president and prezT is within his rights to fire Acting AG Gates. That doesn't mean his EO is legal or constitutional - that remains to be seen.
Right. Clearly this EO has issues (putting it mildly), and people have already determined that parts are unlawful. Just because it's an EO dorsnt make it lawful or constitutional. So yes, he's within his rights to fire her, but she's within hers to say that the order needs to be looked at because it seems unlawful/unconstitutional.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,750
JoCoJenn|1485835330|4122162 said:
She was a political appointee who refused to do her job.

It's no different than the woman who refused to marry gay couples. When you work as a government employee, you enforce the law.

The Acting AG had a lawful order, she refused to defend it; she deserved to be fired - period.
Jenn-

That is the part everyone is overlooking. She thought it was an illegal order. One has an obligation not to follow an illegal order. And comparing this to some silly clerk who would not follow the law as determined by The Supreme Court is beyond ridiculous.

AGBF
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,750
This is why Actng Attorney General Yates felt she had received an illegal order from Trump. Excerpted from an article in "The New York Times".

"Trump’s Talk About Muslims Led Acting Attorney General to Defy Ban"


By MATT APUZZOJAN. 31, 2017


Sally Q. Yates in 2015. Ms. Yates, who was deputy attorney general for the last year and a half of the Obama administration, was running the department temporarily until the Senate could confirm a replacement.

Repeated comments from President Trump and his advisers about barring Muslims from entering the United States were at the heart of the decision on Monday by the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, to refuse to defend the president’s executive order on immigration, senior officials involved said. Within hours of alerting Justice Department lawyers of her decision, the White House summarily fired her late Monday night.

The firing capped three days of internal deliberations at the Justice Department. Like many others in the government, Ms. Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, was caught by surprise Friday night by Mr. Trump’s executive order temporarily halting all refugees from entering the country and indefinitely blocking immigration or visits from seven Muslim countries.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed the order and signed off on its legality. But Ms. Yates and her staff lawyers believed that the department had to consider the intent of the order, which she said appeared designed to single out people based on religion.

Mr. Trump had campaigned on a promise to single out Muslims for immigration restrictions. One of his advisers, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, said in an interview that Mr. Trump wanted a Muslim ban but needed “the right way to do it legally.” Mr. Trump said in a later interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network that Christian refugees would be given priority for entry visas to the United States.

In meetings on Monday, some lawyers believed the department should defend the order, as it normally does. Others disagreed. Ms. Yates considered resigning, the officials said, but concluded that doing so would leave the decision to whomever succeeded her, even if in a temporary capacity.

So on Monday evening, she issued a stinging rebuke of the president and ordered government lawyers not to defend the ban in court, where it is being contested."

And that is where it will be decided. That is why there are checks and balances. Three branches of government.

AGBF
 

vc10um

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
6,006

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
There are three different issues here: 1) the "legality" & intent of the order, 2) AG/WH protocol, and 3) a comment Rudy Giuliani made on a tv show.

1) The order HAD been reviewed by the DOJ. It also contained language that allowed for interpretation & application by the impacted departments & agencies in accordance with applicable laws, and it was signed by the president.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
For these reasons, I used the term "lawful" order. There are a lot of other "unknowns" here that make this messy or complex. Did the DOJ reviewers float it up to Yates before signing off? If not, why? And that is an internal managerial matter.

With regard to intent: I (personally) do not agree with how it was rolled out in terms of implementation. Does it "target" Muslims? Yes, but why? My feelings on why I support "extreme vetting" are consistent with those I posted in the 'equality & religion/constitution thread. If there are religious beliefs that are not consistent with our laws and respect for people, I think those factors deserve due consideration in whether someone should be admitted to our country - be it temporarily or on a permanent basis. IF those individuals can respect & conform to our laws, fine. But the only way to find out is through thorough more thorough vetting. And that was what Chump based his intent on while campaigning. I do not believe - at heart - he thinks every Muslim is a bad person or wishes to do harm, and neither do I. And people can point all day long to where terrorists who commit acts on U.S. soil came from, but that's short-sighted considering the multiple attacks on our allies. There is evidence of these countries being hot beds for radicals, as noted by the recent incident in Yemen and countless others in the Middle East.

2) The AG should have addressed her concerns directly with the WH before issuing her directive to stand down defense activities. I have read nothing to indicate she did. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there would be differences in politics that would likely play into her decision. If my boss assigned me a project that had been through the rigor of being determined essential to business, and I went back to the project team and nixed the effort without first addressing my concerns up the chain, I would expect walking papers as well.

3) I saw the interview (live) where Rudy made the comments. And of course I think those who oppose Chump and/or this action are taking a one-sided view of those comments. I interpreted them to be consistent with how I noted above re: intent. He stated Chump said to ensure it was done in a manner consistent with the law. And given that I read where some Christians were also turned away/returned, I think there are cases where - while the order said "X" - those implementing it applied the law (as the order said) and turned Christians away as well.


First & foremost, I want our country safe, and I want every citizen to be & feel safe, including those who some radical terrorists believe to be 'less than worthy' of being treated equally. It's my understanding that the countries chosen were considered to be the highest risk of terrorist activity/origin. If we cannot ensure our own national security, we don't stand much chance in the long run of being able to also continue helping those who need safe haven from their oppressive governments or war. And I don't want to delve into a blame game, but these people did not need a "safe haven" because of Chump.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
vc10um|1485865851|4122208 said:
Sen. Jeff Sessions himself asked Ms. Yates during her confirmation hearing if she would defy a Presidential order that was unlawful. Sounds like he should be the first one coming to her support on this...

(I apologize for not having a more neutral link than Business Insider, but the video itself is what's important here.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-video-2015-confirmation-hearing-2017-1
And the first thing he noted (after lauding her experience) was that it's a highly political world at the top. And she said (paraphrasing) she wants the President behind her to make a controversial or questionable judgment, and would give her independent advice to the President & administration with impartial advice. It doesn't appear that she did that here; she told her staff to cease defense of the order.

She also went on to note that (related to Obama's immigration policies), her department WAS defending them in court.

Can't have it both ways.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,585
Hi,

IMO ,the high road and protocol is that she resign. The significant act on her part is to give up her job rather than comply with an ideological difference. It has been reported that Trump did seek legal council and they advised him this was legal and Constitutional. And he went to his Gov attorney for this decision. His problem was he never notified the important departments that would be affected.
This woman actually believed she would be allowed to carry on?

Annette
 

asscherisme

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
2,689
lovedogs|1485834620|4122155 said:
Dee*Jay|1485834561|4122154 said:
ruby59|1485834401|4122153 said:
lovedogs|1485834193|4122151 said:
ruby59|1485833644|4122147 said:
lovedogs|1485831986|4122137 said:
Dee*Jay|1485831612|4122135 said:
VRBeauty|1485831458|4122134 said:
ruby59|1485831229|4122130 said:
Agree with him or not, Trump was her boss.

How long would you last in your job if you did this?
We are her bosses - she had sworn to uphold the law and the constitution.

That said, and Acting AG is an appointed position and probably serves at the will of the Prezident, so she was no doubt aware that she'd probably be fired when she issued her memo.

And good for her for doing the right thing anyway. I have tremendous respect for that.
Agreed.
If she knew she could not comply with his orders, why not just resign?
Because she might have wanted to take a stand about an important issue. And make it known that she will stand up for what's right in spite of Cheeto.
And when you resign you cannot accomplish the same thing?
Resigning in this instance would have been the easy way out. It was a much stronger message to tell Pvss Grab to fvck off in this way.
Thank you.
She is going to land on her feet. And I have so much respect for her for standing up to him. She sent a very strong message that needed to be sent.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
556
I don't imagine she thought for a second that she would keep her job. I would imagine that she decided law and conscience transcended personal gain.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,750
smitcompton|1485881696|4122319 said:
IMO ,the high road and protocol is that she resign.

The important words here are "in my opinion". I certainly do not agree with you.

The significant act on her part is to give up her job rather than comply with an ideological difference. It has been reported that Trump did seek legal council and they advised him this was legal and Constitutional. And he went to his Gov attorney for this decision.

That does not mean that it was Constitutional. A despot allegedly consulted a lawyer (of what competence we know not)? So what? To hell with the despot and his alleged lawyer.


His problem was he never notified the important departments that would be affected.

His problem is that he is president. Actually that is our problem.


This woman actually believed she would be allowed to carry on?

What on earth makes you think she thought she would be "allowed to carry on"? Why would she want to?

Annette
 

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,950
jaaron|1485884626|4122352 said:
I don't imagine she thought for a second that she would keep her job. I would imagine that she decided law and conscience transcended personal gain.
There are times that good people need to stand up to something blatantly unconstitutional and wrong. And this is one of those times. I applaud her for that, as do many others.

This quote sums up my feelings nicely.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, praised Yates for standing up "on principle."
"In all my years as a member of Congress, which now is 21, I've met so many very principled people who truly believe in the Constitution and doing what is right," Cummings said. "There comes a time when people, no matter who may be their boss, they stand upon their principles, so at the end of the day they can look them selves in the mirror and say 'I synchronized my conduct with my conscience.' And Yates is such a person."
 

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,159
I just found out that my neighbor -- a green card holder married to an American citizen -- is stuck in Australia and can't get back home.

She and her husband went to Australia to visit with her siblings, and her parents (Iranian) also went there so the whole family was together. Her husband came home a week ago due to work but she stayed to visit with her family because she just learned that her father has cancer. So now she gets to make this choice: come back to the US not knowing if she will be able to visit her father in Iran before he dies, if she should stay in Australia, or go to Iran with her parents (not knowing if she'll EVER be able to come back here to her husband.

Good job Pvss Grab.
 

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,159
BTW, this is the face of terror in America.

:rolleyes:

:angryfire:

img_14768.jpg
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top