Oh. And the fact that Trump's actions are indistinguishable from a moron's.
That's a pretty short shrift subtitle to a fairly interesting article. The real argument made is that the unilateral moves from a strong administration and the unilateral moves from a weak administration are both unilateral, but without knowing the health of the administration you don't know if they're acting from weakness or strength. That reads like a Sarah Palin Facebook post, not an official statement from the White House. Yet it is the latter. So while unilateral actions do not allow you to judge the health of the administration, there are nonetheless indicators."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. 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. Tonight President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons."
> Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak And was specifically asked to stay on by Trump. > betrayed the Department of Justice The oath she took was to uphold the Constitution. Her loyalty should not be to the DOJ or the POTUS. By characterizing this as a betrayal of an institution or administration completely ignores Constitutional fundamentals. DT fires her for not obeying his whim; that is his prerogative. She was making a major statement with full understanding of the consequences and got what she wanted. She seems principled. The first major official to simply tell him to fuck off. DT seems (understandably) vindictive and unconcerned about the Constitution. Assuming he thought this through, that his his basic message. I do not see that he had any alternative to immediately firing her. I also shows that he did not get buy in from his AG to the extent she went incredibly public with her displeasure. That is a weak administration. IMO I am not sure if the completely foreseeable consequences of the EO were unanticipated or were intentional. Either scenario is really shitty.
Three days before her replacement was to take office. So yes, DT is being a petty tyrant by firing her. She did her job. She did it well. And he could have let it sit until the weekend, but our Chief Twitterer was unable to abstain from a childish tantrum. In a REAL Presidential administration, the order would have been passed by the heads of the different offices to get their feedback and help them plan for implementation and execution of the order. Trump (cough, cough BANNON) ignored that process, went around the people he knew would nix the order, and just issued it anyway. ... to highly predictable results. DT fires her for not obeying his whim ...
Did you mean to quote: > I do not see that he had any alternative to immediately firing her. Of course he did but that would be inconsistent with his persona of being knee-jerk impulsive, petty and vindictive. Despite the fact that came at the cost of giving her a badge of honor.