Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkcontext | Hacker News Reader

Then you disagree with Jeff Sessions who said "the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper." Ironically he did this at Sally Yates' confirmation hearing, he went on to praise John Ashcroft for resisting the Bush administration.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/677012/watch-jeff-sessions-urg...

View on HN

You're both right, but when it plays out in public, someone has to get fired.

I disagree. When the AG points out that an executive action is morally or legally dubious, it reflects more on the actions of the president than on the AG.

In this case, government cannot be compared to a business, where a subordinate publicly questioning a superior's decision is indicative of unruly management, leaving the superior in a position where he/she needs to reassure the public that he's/she's in charge. Government doesn't work like that.

Nobody "needs" to get fired. From where would the need come?

Hmm. You made me think about this differently. Trump comes from the business world, so it makes sense that he would treat his current role the same. Not that I agree with the mentality at all, but it does seem less inherently spiteful now.

It also isn't lost on me that he made his reality television name by saying "You're fired."

If you fire someone for being a professional, you're going to get unprofessional behavior.

So yeah, you can do it. But you'll get what you get.

Which assumes what he asked was improper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com