It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[Belsnickel]

(05-12-2017, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one is saying she had no right to act as she did.  That being said, actions have consequences, and if she felt strongly about the illegality of the EO she should have resigned.  Simply saying no to your boss is not sufficient.  Why has no one even attempted to address the example I gave above of the AG and his deputy resigning during the Nixon administration?  Because it's the perfect example of what Yates should have done if she felt strongly about her position.  My position is not based on ideology, it's based on integrity.  

I'm not bothering with the second part, because those aren't the waters I am wading into. You keep saying she should have resigned, holding up previous AG examples to bolster this and saying no one has brought forth an argument for that. I ask the question why you did not attempt to address the fact that the question posited to these appointed officials during their confirmation process every time, almost without fail, is if they are willing and able to say no to their boss. You say that saying no is not enough, but that seems to be what the Senate sees as an important role of the AG and their deputies.

Different people will approach these types of situations differently. I wouldn't have disagreed with her decision if she had opted to resign, that is a valid choice. But so is the route that she took. There is no should here. She had several options of action, and she chose the one she did likely knowing full well it would result in her firing. Trying to say what she should or should not have done in that situation is like armchair quarterbacking.