The unremarkable firing of Sally Yates
Donald Trump fired acting AG Sally Yates after she refused to defend his recent executive order on immigration. Why do I call the firing “unremarkable,” when it’s the news du jour? Because any president in his position would have done so.
Trump is famous for saying, “You’re fired!” to people on a well-known TV reality show. But this is no reality show; it’s reality. And in real life an AG advises a president on the law, but if that AG refuses to enforce an order that has been “approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel,” then any president would fire him or her.
The proper remedy, if Yates simply could not in good conscience enforce that order, would have been to resign. But Yates apparently wanted to force the issue and get herself fired, and my suspicion is that she knew the visuals would be better that way and she’d be more likely to become a hero to the liberal/left. Most people had never heard of Yates before. But nearly everyone has heard of her now, and she will be feted for quite a while by Democrats for this action.
The Times reports Yates’ motivation this way:
Ms. Yates, like other senior government officials, was caught by surprise by the executive order and agonized over the weekend about how to respond, two Justice Department officials involved in the weekend deliberations said. Ms. Yates considered resigning but she told colleagues she did not want to leave it to her successor to face the same dilemma.
The Times has a certain amount of contempt for its readers if it thinks they will buy that, because it makes no sense on the face of it. Surely Ms. Yates knew she’d be fired as a result of this action; it’s merely common sense. And surely she understood that her successor would almost certainly face the same dilemma as she, whether she resigned or was fired.
Speaking of our friends at the Times, I am often in awe of the delicate nuances of their writing, designed to sway the reader without the reader understanding the mechanisms by which that’s happening. Consider, for example, the very first paragraph of their Yates-firing story:
President Trump fired his acting attorney general on Monday night, removing her as the nation’s top law enforcement officer after she defiantly refused to defend his executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries.
Sounds rather straightforward, doesn’t it, if you’re just reading it and taking it in passively. But let’s take it phrase by phrase. It’s only a single sentence, and not an especially long one at that, but there’s a lot packed into it.
“his acting attorney general”—This is certainly technically true, if “his” means “acting under him.” But Yates is an Obama appointee, acting as AG only until Jeff Sessions is confirmed, and hearings on that very confirmation are going on even as I write this. In other words, Obama-appointee Yates only became acting AG on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated. She is being fired 10 days later, shortly before her more permanent successor is appointed, a person you can really say is “his” (i.e. Trump’s) AG. However, you can read that entire lengthy Times article without learning from them that Yates is an Obama appointee until the very last paragraph [CORRECTION: I just noticed that the Times does mention early on that Yates “served under Obama”]. Touché, NY Times!
“she defiantly refused”—This is certainly true as well. It’s an interesting phrase, though, because it is both unnecessary (of course it was defiant) and can be interpreted in several ways. “Defiance” can be considered insubordination by those who disagree with it, but the liberal/left will certainly consider Yates’ defiance not only laudable but the proper position they all should take, a sort of guide to future defiant action in the name of righteousness (or self-righteousness).
“his executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries”—The purposely misleading nature of that statement is obvious. Any “closing” of the borders is temporary, a fact unmentioned in the article. Even more importantly, Trump’s immigration EO’s temporary “closing” does not apply to many many “refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries.” In fact, it does not apply to the countries with the largest number of Muslims—Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Turkey—as well as many other countries with very large Muslim populations.
Yes, the countries targeted by the Trump EO are indeed “predominantly Muslim.” But their predominantly Muslim nature is not the reason they were chosen, since far larger numbers of Muslims are being allowed in as long as they are from countries not presently designated as being at high risk for terror. The countries involved in the EO were chosen (by the Obama administration, I might add, although the Times leaves that fact out as well) because terrorism is very active in them, and because the current vetting system for people from those countries is being evaluated and fine-tuned.
But the Times is very effective in misinforming its readers in the manner it thinks is best for them. In fact, I have already had conversations with friends who seem to lack any real notion of what the Trump EO is and what it does, except that they are convinced that it is a step along the road to Hitlerian awfulness.
One more thing—the Times reports that its two DOJ informants say that Yates and others at the DOJ were “caught by surprise by the executive order.” I grant that they may have been surprised by its speed, but if they were surprised by the order itself, than they are either stupid or have not been paying attention.
Nice job of dissecting the rhetoric, Neo. Unfortunately, once a word or phrase gets into the public consciousness, it seems to take on characteristics of immortality.
I objected to a blogger, whom I greatly respect, twice repeating, “majority Muslim countries” without qualification. Sure, it is technically accurate, but, it is also grossly misleading when used as a stand-alone characterization.
The one who controls the language, shapes the narrative. I wish that more conservatives would push back hard on corrupted or misleading language at every opportunity.
Tell a Big Lie long enough… demonize Trump to nueter him, to regain the Senate and the Presidency in 2020…
Has Sally set herself up for a big law job or is she planning to run for office?
I’m sure it’s a smart move on Yates’s part in terms of self-interest. She no doubt has guaranteed a bright future somewhere in the liberal machine.
It still amazes me how many radical left/black power criminals went on to fine careers in academia (Bill Ayers, Angela Davis), law (Bernardine Dohrn) and even pension funds (Jane Alpert).
I don’t worry much about Bradley Manning’s future either — though he may be too screwed-up make good use of his opportunities as a hero to the anti-American left.
Agree with your analysis. “Defiantly” sounds noble.
When I first saw headlines and articles on the Yates issue, the writing made me think she was a Trump appointee. That omg, even Trump’s own appointee thinks he’s an illegal unconstitutional menace!!!
Turns out nope, she’s an Obama appointee, the order was ‘legal,’ and she should have resigned if she couldn’t do her job.
But maybe since the entire leftosphere thinks America is Nazi Germany now, “just doing your job,” is a “war crime.”
no place else to put this but its important like the media matters founders memo on taking down trump…
Obstruction of Justice: An Overview
of Some of the Federal Statutes That
Prohibit Interference with Judicial,
Executive, or Legislative Activities
Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
April 17, 2014
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf
basically, if you look, there are a TON of laws and things that the administration coudl have always used to stop the kinds of things going on!! but chose not to, in violation of the laws they chose not to
i brought up the document in terms of the games california says it will play, like being sanctuary (illegal under lots of different angles), not cooperating with president (lots of conspiracy and federal statues including rico versions against such obstruction), and tons more
this is the problem with laws left but chosen not to be enforced (and the laws i said that were passed and never enforced so that they cant be removed, which lie in wait for a future), as you stop thinking of them when you think to do things
there is no promise of a custom that will not use tools htat are available that dems decided were neutered by voluntary inaction (which inaction itself would be covered under obstruction).
i wonder what would happen if the full flower of the laws that are on the books are followed – it will show that all of this could have been prevented if and only if the public knew what to hold their representatives to and not forget they are not rulers.
sorry about the distraction, but if i dont, i will forget and it wont make it up.. (especially the media matters leak i gave you all that isnt even in the news and might not be)
Well Yates has certainly made the most of her very short appointment as acting AG, hasn’t she? She was only keeping the seat warm until Sessions was confirmed, but she saw an opportunity to instantly become a SJW-martyr. Now everyone knows the name Sally Yates.
Bravo, Ms. Yates. In awe of your “brave stand.” You shouldn’t have any trouble landing your next gig.
The NYT is just acting in its capacity as the Democratic Party’s Ministry of Truth. Nothing new here.
There’s a question practically screaming to be asked of Yates, though I’m confident that no journalist will do so. “Why didn’t you react in a similar fashion to Obama’s nearly identical executive order?”
Can’t wait to see where she lands on her feet: Professor at Harvard? Yale? Partner at large public interest firm? Keep us apprised.
junior:
Could you provide a link to this “nearly identical” order? If you mean the one that mentioned the seven countries, it certainly wasn’t “nearly identical.” It was far milder.
This is a wild guess on my part, but I can’t help wonder whether the coming fall of Mosul may have helped put this issue on the front burner. The ISIS leaders must have been planning what to do when they are kicked out. We also know that they are able to produce false documents and passports that would allow them to sneak into other countries as refugees and continue to recruit and cause other troubles in refugee camps. Iraq obviously hasn’t been able to vet any of the Mosul people, although they probably have some informers.
Alan W: That would be FULL Professor at a big-name Leftist law school. I suspect Georgetown and Stanford are in the running.
Neo: so what did the far milder Obama EO say about the seven countries? Don’t make us all do the homework you have already done.
Ah, “friends who seem to lack any real notion.”
My friends’ lack of any real notion is driving me nuts. Just yesterday, here in sunny California, a friend and his thirtyish daughter expressed their fear that Trump’s nominee(s) to the Supreme Court would make abortion illegal. They were shocked, and remain disbelieving, when I explained that no matter what SCOTUS did, abortion would be illegal in California only to the extent that its legislature (or perhaps voters pursuant to a proposition process) made it so.
Wonderful example in the quote of mainstream media weaseling on the facts.
These countries are “predominantly Muslim”, or “majority Muslim” as NPR put it, in the same way Nazi Germany was “majority National Socialist”, or the USSR, significantly communist.
Other than in the case of Syria, Islam is the official religion of the polity. Though in the case of Sudan, you might wish to stipulate that it is merely that Sharia law predominates.
And if you are disturbed by the suspicion that I have as much contempt for Islam and its prophet as for Karl Marx or Alfred Rosenberg, you would be right.
As somebody who used to work for the British civil service, I found Yates’ behaviour to be execrable. I was under no illusions that if I was asked to do something with which I disagreed on political or moral grounds, there were only three courses of action open to me:
1. Resign.
2. Ask to have somebody else do it (not a good path to follow) which would probably lead to 1. above in Yates’ case.
3. Carry out the job for which I was employed.
Yates should have done the same.
My impression isn’t that Yates “defiantly refused”, but instead silently refused, and when it was discovered by the White House that she had refused, only then did she speak up with her reasons.
She should actually be facing, at best disciplinary actions from her bar, and should be disbarred for allowing her client, the executive branch, to go unrepresented in a court case.
Just before Trump was inaugurated, I mentioned that he should fire every single Obama appointee with the very first EO and have them out the door within an hour. It was utterly predictable that Obama’s appointees would take every opportunity to stab Trump in the back.
What Yancey Ward just said.
.
Yates 15 minutes of fame may not overcome prospective law firms wondering just what kind of team player she will be. Even law schools need to consider the merits of denying legal representation when it was her duty to provide same. My guess is that George Soros will fund a senior fellow position at the Anita Hill Center for Principled Distortion and Disloyalty.
Waging social justice on national Muslims has produced catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and a trail of tears for those refugees abandoned by the peace-mongers. Survivors, welcome.
It was utterly predictable that Obama’s appointees would take every opportunity to stab Trump in the back.
That’s just Trum acting stupid, and his advisers not realizing the hell pit that is DC. Nor did his supporters get much of a say in it, since they aren’t in on the counsel.
Ymarsakar, if there is a point; would please amplify ofr me?
Trump acting stupid? I had no idea that anyone dared say that at this point; other than, of course, those who who earlier said that Trump was too stupid to be President, and now need to double down. I disregard them; because they obviously do not know what is in Trump’s mind, nor exactly what his strategy is. I now assume that there is always strategic thinking behind whatever he does. I think at this point, it is wise to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on all actions until some outcome is apparent.
Personally, I sometimes wish islam as an ideology was rubbed out as one would rub out a deadly bacteria. In such moments I calm down and admit many muslims are not violent sharia supporting jihadists. My problem with islam is that a majority of muslims do not actively shun the death cultists.
Sally Yates will never have to buy another white wine spritzer in her life.
What the magic 7 Muslim nations all have in common ?
A sea of counterfeit passports, Syria being the worst.
How can you vet them ?
Gotta love NYT’ choice of words. Defies. How, er, noble – courageous, no, “progressive.”
blert,
And it’s only going to get worse as ISIS gets squeezed.
Remember that Bill Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys when he took office. Don’t remember the NYT complaining about that.
Neo, thank you for using ‘visuals’, rather than the annoying ‘optics’. I appreciate your doing so.