So something has been nagging at the back of my brain about the Thursday Night Massacre, and I finally figured out why it just didn't sit right. Why did they resign? Why not just refuse and make DOJ fire them, then sue their asses for improper termination? - ThreadSky

nationalsecuritylaw.org • 52 days ago

So something has been nagging at the back of my brain about the Thursday Night Massacre, and I finally figured out why it just didn't sit right.

Why did they resign? Why not just refuse and make DOJ fire them, then sue their asses for improper termination?

Comments

ampersine.bsky.social•52 days ago

Do they lose whatever pension they've accrued if they get fired?

parisdog.bsky.social•52 days ago

aidnos.bsky.social•52 days ago

It's part of civil service culture to resign in protest rather than engage in insubordination because in normal times, insubordination against a democratically elected government would be undemocratic. Times aren't normal but the cultural norms don't vanish overnight.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

Yeah I think this is it. It's yet another example of people being way too slow to adapt to the current reality.

thatac.bsky.social•52 days ago

This still holds

Honey, the door was left open on the barn, the animals fled, it burned to the ground, and they are building a ChickFilet on the site now.

Please tell us more about that new lock for the door of the barn.

I hope the dems show up before I'm in a camp for to very long.

zibilith.bsky.social•52 days ago

It sends a stronger message in the DOJ tradition. Plus, the letters are priceless.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

I think that "DOJ tradition" thing is part of it. But I think it's a crap tradition. Just write the letters anyway and take out the line about resigning and say this is why I'm not obeying this illegal order please control your minion.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

Don't make some grandiloquent speech about how your honor demands that you part ways with such a dishonorable rapscallion. Say this is a fucking joke and I will not comply and I will continue to do my fucking job until you drag me out of here and then I will own your ass.

zibilith.bsky.social•51 days ago

Our convo here is echoed by @asharangappa.bsky.social and @renatomariotti.bsky.social on this episode of “it’s complicated.”

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/its-complicated/id1434320092?i=1000693120973

zibilith.bsky.social•52 days ago

I mean, that *is* what the letters said. It was just the lawyer talk version. It’s not pointless either—the language sends clear signals to the judge overseeing the case.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

Right but you can write practically the same exact letter without resigning. It's not like DOJ lawyers don't write all sorts of unnecessary letters for everything anyway. There's not some magical quality that makes resignation letters more permanent, or more important, or more anything.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

So write the letter, take out the sentence about resigning, and literally nothing changes except that you then get fired for refusing to follow an illegal order. The letter still gets read by the judge, the political reaction is still the same, and everything stays the same except that you then ...

francesregina.bsky.social•52 days ago

Would the letters not be internal memos then, and not public?

neuroid99.bsky.social•52 days ago

I have heard elsewhere that they lose access to (some?) retirement benefits if fired, but I haven't verified that.

parisdog.bsky.social•52 days ago

could be health insurance if they don't meet the retirement quals but other than that, no

joegofar.bsky.social•52 days ago

Resigning sends a louder message. This has always been true in any Administration.

johnmlatimer.bsky.social•51 days ago

Resignation is a form of protest in the face of a corrupt and unconstitutional order. They were leading by example.

xivsec3.bsky.social•52 days ago

Unilateral disarmament in the name of "norms."

casamuels.bsky.social•52 days ago

Tradition, I believe (same thing happened with the Saturday Night Massacre) and with resignations you get to write a resignation letter explaining your actions.

veraendert.bsky.social•51 days ago

Sacrifice

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

I can't imagine there are a whole lot of law firms who would say, well, we *would've* hired you if you'd resigned before following an illegal order, but now that you've been *fired* for not following an illegal order, well we can't have a fired person working for us.

wheystandard.bsky.social•52 days ago

I personally think there are more than a few law firms that would see it as someone who forced their prior employer to fire them and then sued that prior employer over a disagreement about the legality of an action, rather than resigning and moving on, and consider that person a potential liability.

wheystandard.bsky.social•52 days ago

I wouldn’t necessarily bank on every partner on the hiring committee or who has a say deciding to go through the merits of the issue.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

Fair point, but doesn't that kind of calculus diminish the whole thing? Like, if I'm ordered to do something patently illegal, and I make sure to resist in such a way that I don't suffer *any* ill effects, I'm not exactly a folk hero. I'm not saying they need to be thrown in Birmingham Jail but ...

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

there's a solid difference to me in striking a solid blow for justice and making the $%^&ers pay, and smacking them in the face just hard enough to get your point across but not so hard that you get 45 job offers instead of 50.

wheystandard.bsky.social•52 days ago

It’s less heroic, but I try to keep things in perspective. From the outside, sure, she’s a successful lawyer with a successful husband who will get plenty of offers regardless and be fine. From her perspective, she’s got a four year old, is facing an uncertain future, and has bills to pay.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

So why resign instead of just telling Bove to shove it?

#lawsky I'd love to hear any thoughts y'all have on this.

egplntparm.bsky.social•52 days ago

Resigning allows them to pen a letter outlining their legal reasons to refuse the action. A resignee has more power than the subject of firing. I’m proud of them all.

siamesecats.bsky.social•52 days ago

Peg is right. By resigning, they get to create a resignation letter which will provide excellent contemporaneous documentation of the crimes committed for future prosecution. They are setting up evidence for prosecution of crimes in the future.

blackdogtheseacat.bsky.social•51 days ago

Is that better than making a statement to the press when they refuse the illegal order, and then just continuing to work until fired?

laurenmpayne.bsky.social•51 days ago

no. no it's not. this is just nonsense "professionalism" standard being followed regardless of how off the rails things get.

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

"A resignee has more power than the subject of firing." How though?

egplntparm.bsky.social•52 days ago

The language in the letter sets a standard for other such attorneys who are asked to perform an inappropriate act. It also gives them power over how they chose to leave, on their own terms rather than because someone sent them an email saying, “you’re fired“ like a reality show.

egplntparm.bsky.social•52 days ago

I would add, if you’ve taken the time to author a letter to leave a position you know the difference. It gives you the upper hand in negotiations for what you want on your way out. Yes, I have done this so it’s from experience I speak.

youtackything.bsky.social•52 days ago

Social power, I guess? Because they seem more righteous?

nomnomnomdeplumb.bsky.social•52 days ago

They get to write a letter, I guess?

esquiring.bsky.social•51 days ago

I ... must add here that people who have been fired can still pen letters about their particular situation. I'd imagine they'd get at least the same level of press attention and social reach as resignation letters.

oregon-wonk.bsky.social•52 days ago

Preserving benefits, perhaps?

nchlebowski.bsky.social•52 days ago

I’ve been wondering this too. I’m a lawyer and I know that it is unlikely to matter in terms of future employment. Maybe it’s because they don’t really want to sue because they actually agree with the overall direction of, even if they don’t agree with the means, the admin is going/using.

5mweek2018.bsky.social•52 days ago

It’s an act of honor. It’s an act of protest. It’s also a warning and in times past this would have led to wall to wall coverage of the corruption it exposed.

crb1079.bsky.social•52 days ago

Is there some pension based reason in case you lose the lawsuit?

nationalsecuritylaw.org•52 days ago

A few people have suggested that and I'd like to know the answer too. I don't deal with retirements and pensions. @joshuaerlich.bsky.social are you aware of a distinction here?

crb1079.bsky.social•52 days ago

And my thought is not born of any specific federal knowledge but am slightly aware of such distinctions at the state level.

parisdog.bsky.social•52 days ago

generally you don't lose your vested benefits. if you leave sooner than you wanted pension is reduced but you still get a deferred annuity. if you're retirement eligible you can just file for retirement. certain criminal convictions are another matter

joshuaerlich.bsky.social•52 days ago

I don’t know a ton about FERS. I refer that stuff out.

marktl.bsky.social•52 days ago

Not involved but maybe they felt like nobody had their backs, It doesn't really seem like anybody was fighting for them.

jmbmn.bsky.social•52 days ago

It's the tradition begun by Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus in the original "massacre" (in 1974). It's why - when a certain Facebook friend became acting AG when Trump fired Sessions - I included a PDF of Richardson's resignation letter as an attachment to my message of congratulations.

smartchae.bsky.social•52 days ago

I like to think it was to send a message. During Trump 1.0, Trump fired many of his appointees—which is seen as a “strength” to his base.

To have a Trump appointee publicly quit for ethical reasons makes it harder for the MAGAverse to write them off as people who “couldn’t cut it” under Trump.

gmarie55.bsky.social•51 days ago

Their statements were that if everyone got fired, several serious cases would have been lost.. so 'protecting the dept' then there was the issue to let the older lawyer take the fall (who presumably has less to lose) I don't buy any of it.. they should have forced the DOJ's hand.. now its #FAFO.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply