Jump to content

Talk:Sally Yates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oren0 (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 1 February 2017 (→‎Proposed merge with Monday Night Massacre: merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Fsn

[Acting] AG Fired by President

Has there ever been another AG fired by a POTUS? | MK17b | (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Senates would have confirmed the new one by now.. 67.80.53.85 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is not a place to discuss politics. The question was a simple one - has there been an AG fired by a POTUS before? | MK17b | (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes..Nixon fired his AG2600:100A:B01A:7295:30B7:ADA6:2DD3:D9E7 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon's AG's resigned. | MK17b | (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You answered your own bloody question, didn't you? --62.153.77.36 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. (Let's keep this civil) | MK17b | (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Higher-up government officials are almost never officially fired (this case was surprising enough that I wonder what really happened). They're instead "asked to resign" and they do, or in some cases they hand in an undated letter of resignation to their boss before they're even appointed. So if the boss wants to get rid of them they just pull out the letter and say the person resigned. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding reference to the author of the White House letter that informed her she had been fired: John DeStefano — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyondCulture (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing

Sally Yates may or may not be an "American hero," but it is definitely editorializing to include that on this page.

Obviously. | MK17b | (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry—didn't think I needed to point that out.[reply]
As was Elliot Richardson. But yes, editorializing. In a few days - or even tomorrow, we'll no doubt have third-party sources saying it.Carlo (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already a Facebook meme certifying she is a 'goddamned [sic] American hero'. Should this be included, it is noteworthy. MyTigers (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Not sure how this will change the article, but Steve Miller is on Fox News right now saying she isn't acting AG anymore. http://imgur.com/a/4wLQX 67.80.53.85 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was already added to the article. Knope7 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fired for cause

Can someone edit that she was fired for cause..obviously the attorney general can not tell all attorneys in doj not to represent President. In this situation people would respectfully resign. Joepayne1973 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. Joepayne1973 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with yourself? | MK17b | (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is their first time editing Wikipedia (with an account at least). Please don't Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, tho'! 104.169.17.29 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to bite. Just seemed like sockpuppetry. | MK17b | (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the OP: We will not say that unless reliable sources make such a statement. To date, they have not. Directors of federal agencies generally have wide latitude to direct the work of their employees, including in this case DOJ attorneys. I'm sure she was aware when she made the statement that as an Obama nominee and as acting AG at the behest of the current administration, she could be removed from her position at the President's direction, with or without cause. She apparently felt it was worth taking that risk. General Ization Talk 03:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whitehouse said: "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." This is the reason she was fired - and that's certainly "for cause"; from a reliable source - see official FB link on this page. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that already appears in the article; hence we do not and cannot speculate about what she had or didn't have the right to do and whether it was "for cause", nor does it matter. General Ization Talk 03:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"For cause" is a firing rationale invoked by one's boss - not some abstraction related to a "right". She surely was fired for cause; the cause being 'disloyalty'. That's an undeniable fact, supported by reliable sources. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump administration's rationale for dismissing Yates is already expressed in the article. That is the only rationale that belongs here. It doesn't really matter whether you or I think it was "for cause" or even justifiable. Our opinions do not belong in the article. Please review WP:NPOV. General Ization Talk 02:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's some video floating around of Yates during her Senate confirmation hearing under Obama. Jeff Sessions asked her if she would disobey the president if the president asked her to do something illegal. She said yes, she would follow the constitution, which was presumably what Sessions wanted to hear. I dunno know if there's enough secondary sourcing to make that worth putting in the article, but I could understand what was being implied. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Attorney General

Anyone know if she is still the Deputy AG?—Fundude99talk to me 02:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not. Missvain (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain:, so just to confirm, the US currently does not have a Deputy AG?—Fundude99talk to me 03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dana J. Boente has been appointed and sworn in as acting AG. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I'm aware of Boente being appointed as acting AG, however I'm asking about the Deputy AG.—Fundude99talk to me 03:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy AGs are like bank vice presidents. There are as many Deputy AGs as there are DOJ programs and regions -- dozens of them. Click here for a selection of DOJ programs. If you are concerned that there is no one to replace Boente, you needn't be. General Ization Talk 03:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not concerned about it, just curious...—Fundude99talk to me 03:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those divisions are run by Assistant Attorney Generals actually; the United States Deputy Attorney General is essentially the chief operating officer of the United States Department of Justice. NW (Talk) 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I suppose you're right. Thanks for the clarification. General Ization Talk 03:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was DAG for a year. There is none currently. She briefly served as Acting Attorney General in the Trump Administration after serving as DAG.

Bias

The editing of this article is absurd and biased. It should start with a sentence that she served as U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Attorney of Georgia and the Deputy Attorney General. BEFORE a sentence on a 10-day tenure as Acting Attorney General and today's firing. Really disgusting. More senior editors of wikipedia or the company itself need to address this.

Note: The text that says she was asked to serve in the position by the Trump administration should be reviewed, as the source provided doesn't support it. What is supported is that she was appointed by the Obama administration, and was serving in the position until a Trump appointee could be confirmed by the Senate.

EDIT: Good. I see this has now been done. Pleased.

Please sign your comments using four consecutive "~" marks. Also, this article is going to change a lot in the next few hours and days. Feel free to point out ways you think it can be improved, but it helps to assume good faith. Knope7 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, nothing on her seminal Yates Memo as DAG that emphasized individual accountability in corporate fraud and sent shortwaves through the system (in a good way)? Well, there will be. She has just become a celebrity with tv interviews and magazine spreads to follow, and all her good work will be highlighted and make its way to this page.

We require reliable sources. There were not a lot of easily accessible reliable sources about Yates just a few days ago. I do expect major news organizations will publish more about her background in the upcoming days which will help us improve this article. Knope7 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  "~" from Brooksy465. Fair point on assuming good faith. Apologies. Here are some articles that discuss the Yates memo, which was issued in 2015: http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-4/issue-1/articles/corporate-compliance-programs-pretext-panacea.html  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/doj-emphasizes-importance-prompt-material-cooperation-justin-brooks  Sidley Austin and a number of large firms have wrote about it too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooksy465 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can something be seminal on the day it happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:325B:CEE0:C9C8:5074:38F2:B52E (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The memo referred to above wasn't issued today. That was the point; there is much about her DOJ career that is missing from this article. As another replied, there will be more raw material to work with now. General Ization Talk 04:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Whitehouse

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158573747555725 Jasperwillem (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was linked to in a ref. | MK17b | (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crap grammar /edit request

"She served as Acting United States Attorney General from January 20, 2017 until her dismissal by President Donald Trump on January 30, 2017, following she ordered the Justice Department not to defend Trump's immigration-related executive order in court."

I don't even know what this means.

Specifically the part that states, "following she ordered".

Please change it to readable English. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bradv 03:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - too many cooks in the kitchen :) | MK17b | (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want to up the protection

Pending changes, extended protection, sysop, whatever. Ping me if you need me ok? Thanks for your work. --- Missvain (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please correct the dates under "early life and education"

It states she was born in 1960. She couldn't have been an attorney at the age of 4!

excerpt;

Early life and education

Yates was born in Atlanta to J. Kelley Quillian, an attorney and judge who served as a judge on Georgia Court of Appeals between 1966 and 1984,

Thank you

Never mind, I misread it. The dates I questioned pertained to one of her parents not her.

76.16.181.138 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic party

A party affiliation was added into the infobox here. I reverted it, as there is no source for this information, and it isn't relevant as she is not elected. It was promptly added again, which necessitates a discussion on this page. Bradv 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I independently did a search to see if I could find a party affiliation for her. I could not find any Reliable Source one way or the other. I did find, and have added, a source saying that she has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. I agree with Brady that we should not list any party affiliation for her since we have no evidence to support one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This editor also inserted the same information into the article of her successor. This appears to be politically motivated, and not about sources at all. Thank you for checking this. Bradv 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Monday Night Massacre

"Massacre" of one person. The MNM article is silly in its overreach. Everything there can be easily merged into the Sally Yates article. Veggies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe name is in obvious reference to the Saturday Night Massacre and is well sourced and well used. Per WP:COMMONNAME it is what most journalists are calling it and it is a significant event in the use of the executive's branch power over an independent judicial check that is more notable than Yates herself. JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, which will leave a redirect from Monday Night Massacre to this article. I agree the so-called massacre is entirely about her, and is sufficiently described in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have started a merge discussion at the MNM article. Sally Yates is notable as deputy/acting AG, but MNM is an epithet only some sources are using, and even some strong Trump critics like Carl Bernstein are disagreeing with. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
* Here is my comment from that talk page: The current title is inappropriate WP:POVNAMING: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. " Saturday Night Massacre is an OK title for Nixon's firings because it is the common name used by RSs across the political spectrum for decades. Even the WashPo article that is being used as main support for this article says in the headline and body that only some media outlets are using it, and it is being criticised. It is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/monday-night-massacre-sure-is-a-catchy-name-the-media-isnt-sure-whether-to-use-it/ NPalgan2 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a time, maybe for 2 or 3 of weeks, if more people is ousted we could add them to the list. Its a recent event so we should wait some days to have a better picture of the consequences and other details.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Saturday Night Massacre was about three people (two were technically resignations). --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misreading of the SNM which was only about 1 person being fired, as this case was. The AG was ordered to fire someone, and resigned in protest. In this case the AG herself was fired. In both cases the President only ordered the firing of one person in the AG's office. JesseRafe (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. WashPo:"Thus, there is a split in the media over whether "Monday Night Massacre" is an apt moniker. The Huffington Post, Fortune and Salon applied it quickly. Politico published it when quoting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer... Still others argued against comparisons between Trump and Nixon. The Weekly Standard described Trump's action as "the Monday Night Massacre that wasn't." Reuters said it was "not exactly the Monday Night Massacre." Reports by CBS News, NPR, Fox News and Mother Jones did not mention a massacre on any day of the week. And, in perhaps the best example of the media's struggle to find the perfect characterization, CNN initially put "Monday Night Massacre" in a breaking news banner but then rephrased the graphic, as political commentator Carl Bernstein (of Watergate reporting fame) downplayed the similarity between Trump's action and Nixon's. The revised CNN graphic said "Trump fires acting AG for refusing to enforce travel ban." If there's an RS saying that it's being used by almost all media I'd like to see it. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I argued along similar lines last night for a rename. I've become convinced that there are enough sources to keep as is for now. These things change quickly, and this is the most common name at this time. In a few weeks it might not be, and in a few weeks it also might should be merged. We're not in a hurry here. Wikipedia is not time sensitive. It survived the now customary Trump-scandal-AfD (some of which I support.) Lets just let it play back and circle around in a few weeks when the dust settles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the attitude that it's OK for a wikipedia article to be NPOV during its maximum peak of public attention when it gets 95% of its pageviews because it can be fixed later once nobody cares anymore. A highly NPOV article title should only be used if it really, truly is the common name, and the only real RS (WashPo) discussing whether it is really is the commonname leans towards 'no'. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rename conversation and not a merge conversation now, so I'll follow up on the MNM talk page, since the argumentation has been gone over there already. Regardless of the name, there is no rush for Wikipedia to merge. The article is well sourced and generally written from a neutral point of view. It survived AfD with a decision that a merge discussion could be held at some point. I think holding it within the same 24 hours isn't exactly the best idea, because at best you are probably going to get no consensus to merge at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sally_Yates&oldid=763197681"