Is Trump’s firing of the acting attorney general similar to Nixon’s actions? No.
By Tom Quiner
Sally Yates
Richard Nixon fired his attorney general because he wouldn’t collude with Nixon in obstructing a legal investigation in which Nixon was the target.
Donald Trump fired his acting attorney general, Sally Yates, because she refused to carry out the president’s orders.
Are the situations similar? No.
Peter Flaherty is president of the National Legal and Policy Center. He said:
“There’s no comparison at all. This Justice official was insubordinate and should have been fired … She may think she’s president, but she’s not.”
Andrew McCarthy concurs. He was the lead prosecutor on several high-profile terrorism cases in Manhattan:
“To my mind, she should have been escorted out of the building. It’s like comparing World War II to an exhibition baseball game. Apples and oranges doesn’t do justice to how different these two situations are.”
Carl Bernstein, who earned his fame as a Watergate investigative reporter, also sees no comparison:
“There’s a big difference, because the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ was really about firing the attorney general when Nixon was the target of an investigation and was actively obstructing justice. I think the president is within his rights here to fire the attorney general, that he has that ability.”
The fired acting attorney, Sally Yates, was a holdover from the Obama administration. In a letter describing her unwillingness to follow President Trump’s orders, she offered no legal analysis and cited no case law.
Had this happened under an Obama administration, the media’s response would have been much different.
The honorable thing for her to have done was to resign if she disagreed with her boss’s politics. That’s what this is all about.
Bingo! The liberals won’t get it. Their feelings get in their way.
You’re using facts man! WHAT do the left need w/ FACTS?
I do have readers who dislike Trump, but they have an appreciation for facts and logic. However, your point is well-taken.
I’m sure many conservative Republicans dislike him. It’s ok, as long as they only make it about his true faults and not the soup the MSM makes w/ lies and half truths. Facts is facts. The order was vetted through that woman’s own department. It may not have been been wise but it WAS legal. I still don’t understand liking or disliking a person one doesn’t know. It’s his actions one should be evaluating. Also if Sessions had been there, this may not have gone down this way. His most experienced person has been held up…3 days too long to possibly prevent the small problems. Possibly deliberate on the left? They probably figured he’d screw up a little if denied his most experienced cabinet member…and he did. A little like leaving a little kid alone too long w/ the family china. SOMETHING bad will happen eventually, even if just a nick in a cup.That’s what this was, not the total destruction of the set.