To: bart13 who wrote (131063 ) 2/27/2017 9:27:20 AM From: bart13 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217574 I care also, as you do; and “Obama agent” is defensible and in my judgment appropriate as a descriptor for Ms. Yates. In fact I gave a source in the original article. Fired Acting AG Sally Yates now “a symbol of the anti-Trump resistance” legalinsurrection.com Why is Obama agent not appropriate? As a holdover from the Obama administration she was Acting Attorney General, a position she accepted; which made her chief attorney for the United States, and an acting cabinet member; and like any lawyer, she is supposed to serve the interests of her client, not of the regime that appointed her. When President Trump issued his executive order of immigration. It was her duty to advise him if she found it vague and therefore defective, and to hive her best opinion on how it ought to be modified. That is not quite what she did. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Tells Justice Department Not to Defend President Trump’s Immigration Ban time.com BREAKING: Acting Attorney General refuses to defend Trump executive order on refugees theblaze.com President Trump fired her, as indeed he should have done ten minutes after taking the Oath of Office; but she should have resigned anyway if she felt she could not approve the new President’s executive order. Instead she acted as if her client was Mr. Obama, not the United States. Obama agent is an entirely appropriate descriptor, and I doubt she would deny it with any vigor. She is not merely a Deep State official; she was an actual agent of the previous administration, and now has assumed the role advertently. Of course the President must beware the Deep State, which so far he has not done; he probably believes in the myth of the non-partisan Civil Service. He does so at his peril. Andrew Jackson, a founder of the Democratic Party (see Jefferson-Jackson celebrations) would have none of that: he fired most of the government employees and replaced them with people of his own choosing: his own agents. After all, the people who elected him held him responsible for carrying out his campaign promises. State within a state “Deep state” redirects here. en.wikipedia.org State within a state is a political situation in a country when an internal organ (“deep state”), such as the armed forces and civilian authorities ( intelligence agencies , police , administrative agencies and branches of governmental bureaucracy), does not respond to the civilian political leadership. Although the state within the state can be conspiratorial in nature, the Deep State can also take the form of entrenched unelected career civil servants acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests (e.g., job security, enhanced power and authority, pursuit of ideological goals and objectives, and the general growth of their agency) and in opposition to the policies of elected officials, by obstructing, resisting, and subverting the policies and directives of elected officials. Surely Ms. Yates can reasonably be described as an “Obama agent”?