WASHINGTON — Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general fired by President Donald Trump after refusing to defend his controversial…
WASHINGTON — Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general fired by President Donald Trump after refusing to defend his controversial immigration ban, faced a barrage of questions Monday from skeptical Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn during a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
In a highly anticipated hearing before a Senate judiciary subcommittee, carried live on all major TV news networks, Yates testified that she had warned the White House about contacts between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russia that might make him vulnerable to blackmail. Former director of national intelligence James Clapper also testified about Russian efforts to interfere in the election.
But the Texas senators focused on the travel ban, forcing Yates to justify her decision to defy Trump’s instructions to defend the order in court to the Texas senators.
A federal appeals court held days after Yates’ firing that the Trump administration could not enforce the ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries while courts continue to consider the legality of the measure.
Cornyn honed in on Yates’ decision to overrule the assessment of the Office of Legal Counsel, asking why and with what authority she would dismiss the office’s finding that the executive order was legal.
“I voted for your confirmation because I believed that you had a distinguished career, but I have to tell you that I find it enormously disappointing that you somehow vetoed the decision of the Office of Legal Counsel, ” Cornyn said.
Yates explained that the Office of Legal Counsel has a “narrow function” to look exclusively at the order on its face, without considering statements made before or during the order’s drafting that could impact a court’s understand of the order’s intent.
Yates also reminded Cornyn that he and other senators had specifically asked her during her confirmation hearing whether she would reject a president’s request if she found it unlawful, unconstitutional or a poor reflection on the Justice Department.
“I looked at this, I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful, I also thought that it was inconsistent with the principles of the Department of Justice, and I said no, and that’s what I promised you I would do, ” Yates said.
Appearing to mishear Yates’ response, Cornyn said he could not understand how she could override an order that she described as “lawful.”
“No, ” Yates replied. “Senator, I did not say it was lawful. I said it was unlawful.”
A few minutes later, Cruz closely questioned Yates, citing a section of the U. S. code that gives the president broad authority to limit entry into the country.
Though Yates had another statutory clause at the ready that prevents the president from making those restrictions based on race, nationality or place of birth, she explained that it was irrelevant because her primary concern with the order was that it was unconstitutional.
Cruz replied that “partisan litigants” may make those arguments, but he pointed back to the Office of Legal Counsel’s determination and asked if she was aware of any attorney general in the history of the Justice Department who had chosen to defy such an assessment.
“I’ m not, ” Yates acknowledged. “But I’ m also not aware of a situation where the Office of Legal Counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over.”
Perhaps, Cruz intimated, she was not told because of concerns that she would be excessively partisan.
