In what critics are likening to former President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, President Trump acted quickly to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who had served as deputy attorney general under President Barack Obama, and replaced her with Dana J. Boente, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, saying that he would serve as attorney general until Congress acts to confirm Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
In 1973, President Nixon, in the middle of Watergate, fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general for refusing to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.
Ms. Yates announced on Monday she would not defend the President’s executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries. The president subsequently fired Ms. Yates, stating that she had “betrayed” the administration.
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” President Trump said in a press release. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”
The statement went on to say, “Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”
“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, acting attorney general.
Ms. Boente issued a statement of his own, “On January 30, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum barring Department of Justice Attorney’s from presenting arguments in defense of the President’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order entitled ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.’ At approximately 9:00 p.m., I was asked by the President to serve in the capacity of Acting Attorney General.”
He continued, “After having dedicated the last thirty-three years of my life to this Department, I am humbled and incredibly honored to serve as Acting Attorney General. Based upon the Office of Legal Counsel’s analysis, which found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted, I hereby rescind former Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates January 30, 2017, guidance and direct the men and women of the Department of Justice to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.”
Earlier in the day it was Ms. Yates who issued a stunning announcement when she refused to defend the president’s executive order blocking all refugees and certain foreign nationals.
“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 stated. “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.”
The Justice Department had said that the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ “had cleared the language” of President Trump’s executive order.
However, as Ms. Yates explained, “My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.”
She stated, “Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.”
She wrote that “my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, 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. 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.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t think anything more needs to be said.
Keith – You are right. It explains her integrity and why she didn’t last long in a Trump administration.
Not at all, it explains her bias. All of Obama’s DOJ’s were nothing but political hacks that did Obama’s bidding from meeting Bill Clinton on a plane shortly before Lynch knew that she would have to make a decision on whether to prosecute his wife to Fast and Furious and not prosecuting IRS employees who targeted conservatives . There’s a long list of scandals associated with Obama’s DOJ’s.
Keith
Wow ! Do you really want to open a conversation on unqualified political hacks ?
Steve Bannon – NSC
Rick Perry – Energy
DeVos – Education
Carson – HUD
I realize that this is getting off topic, but I do believe that the current administration needs to be held to account for its purely political appointments and policies. Every comment, every time.
Tia
The political Hacks did not bombs Syria with ten thousand of bombs and caused the massive exodus and suffering of millions These hacks don’t kill unborn babies either.
Sure there were some political hacks, but not every single one. But the left has managed to excoriate every pick he has made.
Obama appointed plenty of political hacks too. Do you want me to list them?
Did you hold Obama accountable for his purely political appointments and policies?
Keith
It was not me that introduced the topic of political hacks. I did not put all of the current presidents appointments on the list as you perhaps did not notice, but only those I consider inexperienced hacks. I recall often being chided for criticizing the previous administration when Obama was in office and I would make a comment about Bush. Well now it would seem to be your turn. Have you not yet realized that your candidate won the election ? Now it is his turn to accept responsibility for his actions. President Obama’s turn is over. I am not the “left”. I take responsibility for what I write and only what I write. So do you believe that this term which you chose to introduce does not apply to any of the names that I listed ?
So funny that we now have liberals/progressives telling us that we can’t bring up Obama when they and Obama himself were obsessed with Bush for the last eight years.
Ms. Yates put the constitution and justice over the edict of the current occupant of the White House. Shame on her. How dare she ?
Trump didn’t break any laws with his executive order.
Ms. Yates put her biased politics ahead of the constitution and justice just like all of Obama’s DOJ’s did for the last eight years.
And you know this how?
Eric
8 U.S. CODE § 1182
That doesn’t address the legal issue in question which is a due process issue
David
If you know better what than let everybody know about I read the title of this article ,and I thought that article is about Massacre in the Quebec, Canada Mosque. DV is not the Der Sturmer accusing Jews of committing atrocities . Try to be a journalist.
Tia… the quotes I’ve seen (several sources) have her citing ‘justice’ and what is ‘right’, and added the legality thing as an afterthought, and equivocated on that…
We can have the standard back and forth about this, but I think this analysis is pretty sober and balanced:
https://lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement
Joseph
I agree that the analysis is sober. Balanced, not so much so. For example:
“But an Attorney General does not typically (I cannot think of a counterexample offhand) refuse to defend an Executive Order in court because she disagrees with the policy basis for the EO.”
This is a straw man argument unworthy of the tone of the article. This is not what Ms. Yates states is her reasoning. She stated clearly that she doubted the legality of the edict as well as the just nature of the policy. While it is not her role to judge the “policy basis”, the legality is certainly within her purview. Whether she should have resigned rather than refusing to defend the order is debatable. Both courses of action seem reasonable to me.
If it would happen during the President Obama’ s watch than title would be “ Acting Attorney General Misconduct and Insubordination” or nothing would be reported .
The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States regardless if anybody agree or disagree with President Trump or hate the new President
Jerry
Your man is now the president. What difference does it make at this point in time who would or would not have been defending President Obama ? This is the reality that we have now. Why are we subjected to whining about what someone might or might not have said . You won. Time to man up and take responsibility for the actions of your man and stop whining over the past.
Tia
Where you see mi whining about President Obama ? . He was the best African -American President I ever had a liberty to enjoy for 8 years President Obama was a very well -manner person , not grumpy , good sense of humor , never chased young girls around Oval Office with the cigar in his mouths, always nice groomed with the perfect hair cut , good family man , church going Christian . He destroyed a few countries and dictators in the Middle East , killed Osama Bin Laden, killed many other terrorists with drones , deported 3 millions illegal immigrants , build many detention centers and prisons for criminals. Nothing negative about President Obama . He probably would win election if he could run for the third therm .
The firing of one person is a “massacre”? Really?
Bit dramatic this AM?
Think Yates decided to be a bit dramatic by making a “statement” reflecting ‘justice’ as much or more so than ‘law’, knowing that it would most likely result in a ‘firing’ … a ‘resignation by prez’ (political equivalent of, ‘suicide by cop’), if you will…
Howard
Der Sturmer
Actually he also fired the Acting Director of Imagration Enforcement.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-replaces-acting-director-immigration-enforcement-n714491?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
The Saturday night Massacre term was used to refer to 3 terminations in the Nixon administration. Here, although not mentioned specifically in the article, we are talking about at least 2.
See…
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=massacre
There was no massacre in the Nixon 70’s (except perhaps Kent State), none today… in the “Boston Massacre” 5-6 died, 11 wounded… in the 70’s and now, only “drama queens” would use the term ‘massacre’…
I still assert it was ‘resignation by prez’… dramatic exit, ‘stage right’ (or ‘stage left’, depending on your view)…
We are referencing something others have called the Saturday Night Massacre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
If you haven’t seen it yet, this linked video of Senator Sessions questioning Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing is well worth watching. While Sessions is awaiting confirmation to be Attorney General, Yates as acting Attorney General did exactly what he seemed to suggest she should do when a president signs extralegal executive orders.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/watch-jeff-sessions-grills-sally-yates-on-saying-no-to-the-president-when-she-was-obamas-nominee/
Colin
She slapped President because she did not care . She would be out anyway and President slapped her back . She perfectly knew what is going to happen and she did it to humiliate the new President by being smart a..s You no need to be a Political Scientist to figure out her move. Perfect opportunity .
If it would happen to new Appointed and confirmed Attorney General than it would be a different story . She will get a good pay job for her move.
I don’t entirely disagree, however it is important to note Yate’s consistency. She did exactly what she said she would do in her confirmation hearing. Exactly what Senator Sessions seemed to ask her to do.
Colin
This is a war against new President . Nothing else . Senator Sessions should not take this job and go through the confirmation process if he would or will do what she did . Political war games . I am not necessary in favor of the new President move in some part of because I am immigrant myself but policy is ” you do it ” and you complain later if you disagree . This is national security issue not just to like or not to like the new President. This is outrageous and treasonous what she did and she should be prosecuted . This was a sabotage what she did to create more chaos .
well, now your into the realm of hyperbole.
“She slapped President because she did not care “
It would seem that Jerry has a close relationship to Sally Yates and so is more aware of her motives than she is. She gave an explanation for her actions which is entirely consistent with confirmation hearing cited by Colin. Is it your position Jerry that she was prescient, knew that she would be faced with a president that she wanted to “humiliate”, as if he needs any help on that score so that she could give virtually the same explanation about her philosophy of how she would act in these circumstances ?
Tia
Sally stirred the pot quite good being perfectly aware of the consequences she would face aftermath . President never should ignore or underestimate his opponents or enemies . She taught him lesson of the Principles in the Public Employment and it does not matter how you look and interpret her move . The private enterprise employment law is quite different than public employment laws and regulations especially in the White House .
If you want to talk about a modern example of Der Strumer, here is a better example:
https://qz.com/894973/donald-trumps-administration-will-publish-a-weekly-list-of-crimes-committed-by-immigrants/
http://www.nationalmemo.com/breitbart-clauses-trumps-executive-orders/
Colin
Der Sturmer was left with a black color . The Der Vaguard is the lefty mirror of Der Sturmer. (sometimes ) If your preference is Soviet Pravda than even worse the Der Sturmer . Stalin murdered a lot more people than Hitler . They both were monsters .
Jaroslaw, I think Der Strumer can be applied to most of today’s mainstream media.
Keith
The Main Stream medias are akin more closely to the Soviet era main newspaper “Pravda” which was controlled by the Soviet Union Politburo (Pravda translation is ” True”) Der Vanguard is just a local crying, weepy lefty blogs with a few twerps reading it.
Jaroslaw , if that is realy how you feel, why do you waste your time?
Utter nonsense. In fact, your complaint about the media is that the government (Trump administration) isn’t able to control what the press says about it. Quite the opposite of Pravda.
Eric
How do you know .? I was forced to read Pravda in High School . You did not live in different political system and you are brainwashed by the mainstream medias and ACLU’s propaganda about liberty for all and especially for their lawyers . . Whey I read you and others than I am getting an impression that you are selling your own country piece by piece to foreigners which are your enemies and they would be glad to hang you or shoot you when they get here.
Colin
This is not fun to chat on blog where everybody are members of same club . Maybe you are a type person who likes only people which would bend over and agree with you unconditionally . I don’t. If would be like you than I would be live in Poland today instead of being deported in 1982. If you think that Trump is bad for the Country and the Motherland than this is your rights and privilege under the First Amendment to have an opinion even you lie and spreading fake news .
How do you know I didn’t? I’m afraid, since January 20th, we’re all living under a different political system–an authoritarian oligarchy of billionaires.
Eric
Than what is your point ? If you did live in Communists system country before and you missed tovarisch Lenin iso much that North Korea and the Communist Jurassic Park Cuba is still open for comrades. Not for long . I love billionaires and successful people . More rich people less poor people . Nobody invented yet better system than capitalism . Period . The Globalism is the the bad off spring from the capitalism and very dangerous for the America and the American people . The New World Order would eventually will destroy this great country.
Once a while I like to listen the leader of Nation of Islam Luis Farrkhann . He has some good explanations what is going on . Yesterday I watched interview with him ” Donald Trump and Vetting Refugees.
Interesting : https://www.noi.org/minister-farrakhan-alex-jones-interview/
“How do you know I didn’t? I’m afraid, since January 20th, we’re all living under a different political system–an authoritarian oligarchy of billionaires.”
Indeed, I have much more empathy with Palestinians than ever before.
John – I find these remarks to be highly inappropriate, particularly in light of recent events. As a monolingual English speaker I respect anyone who has bothered to learn one or more other languages. And, even though I disagree with the majority of Jerry’s comments, his right to express his opinions as a non-native born American is no less than anyone else’s.
Eric
That ok , mucho gracias, I don’t care . I forgot Polish and I did learn English as I should especially when I write fast and I don’t correct grammar sentences .DV chat is not the legal briefs and motions am writing for court
If John would read one of my legal brief or motion for the Court of Appeal than he would shut up and say nothing about my English . John is another Archie Bunker on DV
Jaroslaw, you do a good job. I wish I knew more languages than just English. I can speak a little Spanish but not enough to get by. They say Melania Trump can speak five languages. I had to laugh when Chelsea Handler mocked Melania’s English, how many languages can Handler speak?
As far as I can tell, John Hobbs did not make this quoted statement anytime in the comments for this article. Apparently, he did make it at another time in the comments section for another article. Is there any statute of limitations or will he forever be branded with the scarlet letter? Well, the vituperative tone has resurfaced under our own names (except for Keith O) so I guess this is proof that we don’t need to worry about the new policy cramping anyone’s style.
On the issue, I can respect an attorney who declines to defend someone they know to be guilty not because that person’s rights need to be defended as a matter of principle, but because the person has done something so beyond the pale that they cannot represent them and sleep at night. So, okay.
If enough people flag a comment as offensive, it automatically moves into the moderation queue. Evidently several people found the comment offensive. That kind of leaves the replies hanging. But perhaps people could either learn to self-moderate or make use of the Ignore feature that was so vigorously requested, and then this wouldn’t be an issue.
John
I am not ACLU member . Save you sermon ” So comrades come rally” .for your family and your friends
New Supreme Court Justice announcement coming soon.
We’re going to get a conservative judge to fill Scalia’s position.
This will end up going nuclear, thank you Harry Reid.
I guess this is where the ignore function is appropriate.
Sharla
I was kidding . I copied it from the Michelle Malkin’s tweet adding with my little Polish twist . I apologize .
On the issue, I can respect an attorney who declines to defend someone they know to be guilty not because that person’s rights need to be defended as a matter of principle, but because the person has done something so beyond the pale that they cannot represent them and sleep at night. So, okay, we have an acting attorney general with a conscience who decided the spirit of the law and its context was more important than the salary and title. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.