Sally Yates admits the Office of Legal Counsel deemed Donald Trump’s travel ban lawful and overrode it by looking outside the Executive Order

  Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified in front of the Senate today about her decision not to enforce Donald Trump’s travel ban (this decision led to her being fired) and she admitted that the Office of Legal Counsel deemed it lawful but she decided to overrule the counsel.

  Here is some of the transcript:

Cornyn: Ms. Yates, this is the first time that you’ve appeared before Congress since you left the Department of Justice, and I just wanted to ask you a question about your decision to refuse to defend the president’s executive order. In the letter that you sent to Congress, you point out that the executive order itself was drafted in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel, and you point out that the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed it to determine whether, in its view, the proposed executive order was lawful on its face, and properly drafted. Is it true that the Office of Legal Counsel did conclude it was lawful on its face, and properly drafted?

Yates: Yes, they did. The Office of —

Cornyn: And you overruled them?

Yates: I did. The Office of Legal —

Cornyn: What is your authority to overrule the office of legal counsel whether it comes to a legal determination?

Yates: The Office of Legal Counsel has a narrow function and that is to look at the face of an executive order to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful.

  I stopped the transcript there because next she explains why she ruled the Office of Legal Counsel was wrong and I wanted to separate it:

And, importantly, they do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, at statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the E.O. that may bear on its intent and purpose. That office does not look at those factors. And in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in, and one that I did.

  In other words, the Office of Legal Counsel only looked at the Executive Order’s wording to see if it was legal, which of course is what they are supposed to do, while she went outside of what was written in the order and made her decision based on some of the rhetoric coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth during the campaign.

  There is no doubt Donald Trump made the right move in removing her from office. Her job is to enforce the laws that are on the books and not to interpret them for political reasons as she sees fit

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium